- I certainly admit that shit like this makes me wish everyone on earth would just draw Mohammed.
- I find Ezra’s lust for this slideshow disturbing.
- NFOTD
- Wherein Nevermoor attempts to ruin the Giants for MB
- All managers are the same, part XXXVI
- Stupid Pedantry, brought to you by the NYT (Short version: Sugar is bad. Calling it “high fructose corn syrup” reduces sales. Lets call it something friendlier to inform people.)
- Further to our argument about public sector compensation. I, of course, see stunning confirmation wrt my point about professionals taking a huge comp hit.
- Fillibusters are stupid, part MCMLXVII
- A trust exercise with Jesus
And finally,
The AL East since Showalter took over:
bal 26 15 0.634—-
bos 22 18 0.550 -3.5
tbr 22 18 0.550 -3.5
nyy 22 19 0.537 -4.0
tor 18 22 0.450 -7.5
Time to start plugging this guy again.
6: I see nothing wrong with that.
Making the industry-friendly change will increase sales -> be worse.
But it is true that it is the quantity of sugar, whether fructose or sucros, is what is bad for you, is it not?
Right, so why rebrand to increase sales.
But why allow the current branding to decrease sales for the wrong reasons?
Because the product is, in fact, high fructose corn syrup.
Or, the product is sugar sweetener. There was a big to-do about this many years ago, whether HFCS could be regulated as sugar or not, I forget the details. I’ll try to look it up tonight.
Cool, I’d be interested.
I see nothing wrong with them rebranding, but I do wish that the editorial would mention that the reason it’s “cheaper than sugar and there is a lot of it because it’s a byproduct of corn” is because corn is taxpayer-subsidized.
Fair.
Perhaps by making the Bobby Cox ma(i)ze, that farming Braves fan may save a life or two by introducing a marginal degree of scarcity.
7: Two questions come immediately to mind. First, does that chart include pension and health benefits? Second, the average may be hiding information within the distribution – pay in the public sector tends to have far less upside than pay in the private sector, with the tradeoff that there is usually less downside (vis a vis being laid off) with the public sector.
Reading through the comments, I see now that they supposedly included benefits, but the analysis does not include federal employees.
Right. I think I saw the pre-benefits chart somewhere and there were no brackets where public was higher.
9:
Must…not…make…Chappaquiddick…joke…
Heh. Go for it.
Lesson (one would hope) learned by
the GOPMary Jo Kopechne: when you hand the car keys to the unmedicated bi-polar alcoholic with the messianic complex, don’t be surprised if you end up driving off a bridge as a trust exercise with Jesus.Well, either way it makes for a good grill title.
I see
nothingeverything wrong with this.Yeah. Everyone knows the man plans the honeymoon.
(seriously, though, that’s appalling.
Two or three more links like that and I am going to end up like the Discovery Channel hostage-taker guy. Except it’ll be either E! or FOX where I make my stand. And I’ll be wearing a stolen ski mask. And I’m definitely singling you out for blame in my manifesto.
Who’s bringing the Free Mumia! signs?
Thienthe Thurthday:
In college, I played heavies, psycho-heavies
Irwin does good heavy. I still think his greatest film/tv role was as Cocky Eddie Collins in 8MO. I love the bit where he puts his gum on his cap and then smashes a double.
(Also: fellow Obie.)
Hot box:
Finally, a use for all those stems.
Uh …
So does, y’know, wood. (Yes, hemp is a more renewable — and, I presume, possibly less carbon-intensive crop to grow, harvest, process, and transport — resource than timber. But that’s the argument to be made there, not this co2-negative claim.)
Quit harshin’ my climate change mellow.
Dude you have no CO2!
I think the implied comparison is with cement or concrete.
There’s a joke about the designers being too high to level the roof.
There’s also a joke about the positives associated with the roof… the roof… the roof being on fire.
ARSON
(WARNING: Duncan Black link)
Who here is into wikipedia enough to edit stories of unfettered masculinity into democratic wikipages? We could totally blow Rush’s mind.
Myth: busted
Definitely a case of facts don’t fucking matter.
Vicar of Christ, what an asshole
POPE: JEWS ARE THE EMBODIMENT OF GOD ON EARTH
(I should be a headline writer)
Voinovich: not a pussy
I’ll defer judgment until there is an actual vote on something.
Exactly.
Since the only conceivable votes in the real world are a) extending all cuts for some period of time, or b) extending only the <$250K cuts, this is a totally cost-free stand he is taking. He's going to vote "no" just like the rest of his caucus while posing as the One True Fiscal Conservative. If he really was the One True Fiscal Conservative, he'd vote for the best of two bad options (b) instead of wanking, Feingold-style.
That’s the kind of thing Christine O’Donnell is running against.
Hey. Expressing independent thoughts is, for a member of today’s GOP, pretty good in and of itself.
Wait, are you one of the FKers who says the democrats need to express fewer independent thoughts and more borg-like cooperation in the passage of the party agenda?
I’m one of the FKers who thinks Democrats need to coalesce on the important things (like HCR / FinReg), but understands that to have a national party you have to have dissent.
I also think the Democrats need to have a better internal power system than pure seniority.
MY’s nerdiest moment in months:
Hott.
Baseball needs more contracts like this:
I’m working from no knowledge beyond “NFL = salary cap,” but is it really the case that this is a “rational” contract, as opposed to a “commit to overall X dollars and game out across salary-cap projections over Y years”?
Well, part of it is “first X years are guaranteed” so after those years the team can cut you if you’re overpaid. Of course, often you see things like 4/5/6/15/15/15 so players can say they signed a huge contract.
I’m just saying in principal that the concept of a 4/5/6/6/5/4 long term deal is appealing.
NFL contracts are generally not guaranteed. (I think for veterans, the current year becomes guaranteed once you make the team out of training camp.) So you can’t really back-load contracts, as that would give the team the option of cutting the player before the expensive years. In theory, you could front-load a contract, if the team happens to have extra salary cap space now but anticipates a crunch later, but I don’t think that happens much.
So generally the first couple years of a multi-year contract are “rational” and the later years may be rational, may be a way of gaming the salary cap, or may be a complete fiction designed to give the player an ego boost (e.g. a 10-year $100 million contract).
This is incredibly stupid: everyone knows that thimerosol was the cause.
Related
Your daily counter to baseball conventional wisdom: when not to rub dirt on it
So if I poke my eye out I should… go to the ER?
DO NOT remove any impaled objects
Huh. I had no idea they could re-attach teeth.
sal bait
pretty standard spray drying and deposition. no surprise that they can’t get the stink of solvent out; that stuff is going to stay entrained in the fibers forever. i assume there are pretty small pores in the final product, and the vapor pressure of the solvent will be pretty low in those pores – in other words, even if the solvent typically dries at room temperature, a small amount will be stick in the fabric and come out, slowly, over time. And that’s going to be stinky.
moreover, i’m curious to know what solvent they use, since exposure to aerosolized solvent on the bare skin might not be the best idea ever.
Are we ready to talk about the Top Chef finale yet?
I’m so sorry I’m still two episodes behind. But if you can isolate it to this thread, I’ll avoid it until after the weekend.