gehringer_2

I'd only been commuting to Toledo for a short time when the shipping traffic stopped and the bridge was pretty much always down - so watched the new bridge go up behind schedule, overbudget, and with a major construction collapse disaster with few worker deaths added in, I remember they built a cement/fab plant a bit to the east of the bridge site where they cast the sections. I don't remember what I use to have to go over there for, but if you got stuck behind one of the ~30 axle flatbeds they used for moving the sections to the river you might as well have your lunch.

exactly - but do we see any movement in that direction? RIght now it still looks like the plan most places is to try the climb out of the whole on the heap of all the other corpses......

the round settee looks like an '70 Cray supercomputer with the center hardware tower taken out. -

I like that. For me it just goes back the idea that I find it nonsensical for an above average defender at any position to be considered as having cost his team runs/wins. That part is only a matter of the semantics of what the unit is called. If you are going to call it Wins above replacement, than no above average D player at any position should be rated as costing his team wins, because they didn't in any reasonable sense. He may not field like a SS, but his contribution was not negative. So if you call it something else that goes away. 😉

actually, I'll answer my own question. There is one case where the voter bringing in an ID, particularly a machine readable one like an MDL, is if you have a precinct with 5 guys named Joe Smith. That's a case were the particular ID, tied to some other unique identifier like an MDL# serves a legitimate use in administering the election and insuring the Joe Smith #3 doesn't get to polls only to be told he has already voted because a poll worker entered Joe Smith #2 as having voted at Joe Smith #3. Now it that enough justify the burden on every voter? Obviously SCOTUS has said yes because they haven't overturned the requirement anywhere. Personally, I'd say you can get the same result if ID is optional and you advise people with really common names that they are the best served if they bring ID if they have it, without burdening everyone. In MI ID is requested but you can get a provisional ballot if you don't have it. That's not a terrible compromise.

well, you tell me. Since most states get by perfectly well without it and voter fraud is virtually non-existent in any state, who put it in place and why? Just a bunch of petty bureaucrats who think dotted i's need be dotted better? If so they need to get over themselves. If not that, any alternative explanation says something less attractive....

'Permanently' until the end of the season? /..sigh../ There are many adverbs that might describe "till the end of the season". One thing that is permanent is that permanently isn't one of them! 🙄

your point is valid that in the abstract, everyone needs to learn to be a responsible citizen regardless of their economic or racial circumstances. The question is whether constructing hurdles to voting that have no other factually supportable purpose than to be hurdles is even a remotely good or effective way to this.

yeah - that's just the thing - we want the rookie that doesn't suck - because that means he might be the kind of impact player they need so desperately. TBF - In the Yzerman era we have had a couple of rookies that didn't suck in Sieder, Raymond and maybe even count Edvinsson.

If you think about it, why would they? Nobody teaches anyone to drive at anything more than the minimum level. Driver's ed schools are far more interested in getting their students licensed a easily as possible than undertaking any of the cost or risk associated with actually teaching them to drive well. Unless you had a parent who demanded you learn to do more than the absolute minimum behind the wheel, or grew up in a teenage performance car sub cohort (increasingly rare) where you self taught some higher level of car handling, or even more rarely got sent to a higher level driving school by your employer, I don't know that one can fairly expect the average American driver to be better.

I think one thing that comes out of all this that if the adjustments reflect an underlying reality, team should be probably be looking at upgrading their fielding at a position like 1B. Maybe it's the next unexploited efficiency! I suppose a traditionalist might argue that if fielding were 'really' more important at 1B teams would have already discovered that, but considering the history of bunting, one should never underestimate the ability of the major leagues to get it wrong for decades on end.....

What is missing is the profit guarantee. I don't mean this facetiously. In the NFL, teams have a revenue base and a salary cap and know set of expenses and if they manage with even a half ounce of brains, the franchise is guaranteed a positive return. Right now there is nothing like that in College football. There seems to be no cap on costs, revenue distributions are all up in air - it's a mess.

And the big hope at forward is now here and not really creating any discernible presence on the ice. Not to mention the other big add this season, ASP, spent the game being manhandled like a rag doll by the Sabres.

I don't think what's going on is just an issue for MI though. I'm just not seeing where the revenue is going to come from for schools to increase spending to meet the demands now being placed on them. The majority of the money is media rights and the broadcast (or whatever you want to call it in its entireity) schedule is already saturated. There is a lot of speculation - and even investors who think the pot of money is somehow going to explode, but the NFL total seasonal revenue is a bit less than $20B (the salary cap is 279M, there are 32 team and the players get 48% of revenue - that totals a bit under $20B) and back of the envelop I'd guess the CFP teams are already committing past that number!

do you think they are going to be able to rebuild into a top 10 team again? To me it seems all those intangible recruiting advantages M use to have could disappear in a strict pay for play system. And now you have schools willing to deficit spend to keep buying players - where does it end? How does a responsible board of regents justify $20-$30M subsidies as far as the eye can see to run a football program that is supposed to supply support to other programs instead of sucking them dry? I'm just finding it too ironic that the schools are only people getting the short end of the stick when they are ones supplying all the value. Take all the athletes playing NCAA football and put them in a new fall league sub NFL football league and they'd be worth approximately ..... nothing - as has already be proven on multiple occasions. People only watch because of the imprimatur those players get by wearing those uniforms, yet it's the schools that now bleeding money. Go figure.

have you tried : about:config search for layout.css.scrollbar-width-thin.disabled set it to false and see if that makes any difference? (note: it doesn't seem to do anything here but I'm running Linux, so I can't say what it does in Windows or MacOS.)

and yet the pipeline of sycophants seems endless. Well not really endless, the quality of the people around him just keeps falling. The 1st Trump admin had a modicum of competent people, this one has pretty much none.

Same old Red Wings - unable to get clear their own end at even strength.

No doubt.

This observation is spot on. I person may be a nut but have more personal courage than a pilot fish like Mike Johnson.

Indeed. And further, observing this from within a University setting, I believe it is also true at AA tends to helps those who least need the help. For instance, If you are a minority that gained admission to UM, you very likely already had the advantages of a more stable family and a level of social capital there that simply isn't available to too many minority youth, and once there, any additional boost you get is largely superfluous. AA has been effective at normalizing the presence of minorities at higher success level in society, and that absolutely has value, but it has not done much to change conditions for the majority of the black underclass, because they still can't access the first rung. And before the rebuttal comes back that this is basically a class and not a race problem - while there is truth to that, it is also true that as a class, no white American cohort has had to bear the repeated concerted efforts to destroy their social capital that black Americans have. From Jim Crow, to Wilson destroying black civil service opportunities, to the interstate hwy system preferentially destroying stable black neighborhoods, to mortgage red lining, to the "War on Drugs" (read: "young black males"), to the misguided efforts to 'ensure' minority legislative legislative 'representation' that in reality effectively neuters minority voting influence, to the national abandonment of central cities in after 1970. It's a long and dismal list. It's actually cruel irony that as white Americans have as a general rule become less personally racist, they have become ever more blind to how institutionally racist their society has been and in too many places continues to be structured, and of course segregation is as deep as ever. In fact what you get today is the white reactionary who just gets mad when the whole issue is raised because they say "Don't accuse me, I'm nice to black people" as they go vote MAGA.

so you're saying that in 1957 no one thought to notice if Ted's head was getting bigger? 😉

As far as I have always been given to understand, increasing the probability of getting caught deters prohibited behavior much more effectively than increasing the severity of the penalty being caught. But I would guess there is another thing at work here - which is that within the MLB administrative law system, 'tampering' has a formal definition as well as a set of precedents on past rulings - i.e. it's part of a typical English system of jurisprudence. So GMs and agents know pretty well where the lines not to cross are, and there are still going to be many modes of communication available that don't formally cross those lines or that might but are too difficult to prosecute, but still get a lot of signaling done.

it's taking longer than it ever should have, but when you draw a lot of terrible people together around an even more terrible person, sooner or later they will start eating their own.

I think it could be fine. It gets rid of the brutal wall on Atwater that has almost no set back from the sidewalk. It may be less symmetrical in aerial shots but could be a lot nicer at ground level - of course assuming they do a better job than Portman did in the 1st place.