Kiyoat Husker

3 hours ago, MLB 51 said:

It seems fairly obvious that GMO's should be thought of as bad for you. Most foreign Governments have banned GMO's for that particular reason.

Why does it seem fairly obvious?  What are you basing that on?  

The reason most (not all) of Europe has banned growing GM crops has more to do with ideology than science.  General public opinion and wanting to appear "green" is driving the ban, not any research or scientific opinion.  So basically for political reasons.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/opinion/sunday/with-gmo-policies-europe-turns-against-science.html

Quote

 

Without a trace of embarrassment, a spokeswoman for Nicola Sturgeon, the leader of the Scottish National Party, admitted that the first minister’s science adviser had not been consulted because the decision “wasn’t based on scientific evidence.” Instead, the priority was to protect the “clean green image” of the country’s produce, according to the secretary for rural affairs, food and environment.

 

This decision of a majority of European countries to apparently ignore their own experts may undermine any claim to the moral high ground at the coming Paris talks on climate change. The worldwide scientific consensus on the safety of genetic engineering is as solid as that which underpins human-caused global warming. Yet this inconvenient truth on G.M.O.s — that they’re as safe as conventionally cultivated food — is ignored when ideological interests are threatened.

 

I should mention that I am actually against GM crop use, not because I think they are unsafe, but because I believe It allows indiscriminate and extensive pesticide use, which in the midwest is a major contributor to the decline of native prairie and wetland plants and habitats.  If there were a way to encourage more CRP land creation on marginal lands, I probably wouldn't be very opposed to GM crop use. 

10 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

I want to start out by saying that I do believe our climate is changing.  However...

 

Is it caused by humans?

 

Skeptical that there is global warming on Mars?

 

I do believe our climate is changing.  Are humans a (or the sole) cause?    

 

Chimi, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with your links.  The first one just talks about Mars, and doesn't even reference Earth.  The second link is a site that debunks the pseudo-science behind climate skepticism/denial.....  So you just debunked your own stance.  I was planning on providing a rebuttal, but you did that yourself. 

12 minutes ago, RedSavage said:

Same here.  There's usually a reason for not wanting more scrutiny, so outcry or not, that's what needs to be done.

I think you have the right idea, and I applaud you for it.  There COULD be some middle ground, where law-abiding responsible gun owners are not infringed upon, and law enforcement could go after the sources of funneling guns into the black market, implementing better tracking of owners and guns, etc.

BUT the first thing that would have to happen is the NRA would have to suddenly be willing to compromise,  or suddenly NOT be one of the most powerful lobbies on the Hill.  That just isn't going to happen, sadly.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-florida-shooting/shooter-at-large-after-gunfire-at-florida-high-school-police-idUSKCN1FY2WI

Unconfirmed: at least one dead, possibly 20 injured; shooter still at large...

Can we hire Sara Mitchell instead?  She has nice..... interviewing skills.

16 hours ago, ZRod said:

And why were they attacking a base where there were US troops?

Oil fields.  Same reason the Iraqi government and Shia militias pushed the Kurds out of Kirkuk.  There is a huge oil field under it.

One of the findings of this poll is the strange disconnect between the polled peoples' stated confidence in scientists to give them full and accurate information on those topics, and yet large numbers of Americans thought that there WASN'T a consensus on those conclusions.

I blame special interest propaganda.

And to be fair, I have seen other studies that indicate that Democrats harbor just as many science skeptics on GMO safety as Republicans, so I am not only pointing a finger at the Right.  I think special interest lobbying, and propaganda is a problem for both parties.

Just a fun poll to pass the time, and foment discussion....

This is similar to one of the questions on a recent Pew Research Foundation Poll on Public trust in science.  Here is a link to the article:

http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/12/08/mixed-messages-about-public-trust-in-science/

And in case you would like to know the actual level of consensus on these three topics.....

35 minutes ago, schriznoeder said:

Well, isn't that fun?

 

Well, .... I guess we can add USA Today to the growing list of liberal "Fake News".  I guess Soros's corrupt money got to them, too...

*sarcasm*

Seriously, though.  That IS disturbing.  Basically this new study suggests that previous models were too conservative on the rate of ice melt and sea-level rise.  This is based on new satellite data.  An average of two feet rise in 80 years means even higher in some locations.  Many Gulf Coast areas like Galveston, New Orleans, The Florida Keys, Clearwater, etc will be devastated.  Crappy.

13 minutes ago, OldGuy said:

Not surprising with the proliferation of Non traditional game times like Tuesday, Wed, Thursday and Friday games for TV revenue.  Look at the stands for most of those games and they are usually very empty stadiums.  Also, almost all games are televised in some fashion and makes going to game less important.

 

Definitely.  There are other potential factors, too, like the lower participation in youth football, concussion concerns, anthem outrage, a less-compelling post-season (bowl attendance down, a very small playoff with a big layover), maybe soccer and MMA is starting to take a market share, maybe there was just a "bubble" for football popularity... who knows.  So many factors that it would be hard to parse it all out without academic research.

I think greed in general is hurting College Football, but that would be hard to prove.

Yeah, this could all just be a mis-reading of Chinander's quote.  Or a misunderstanding by him of the "original" vs. "Pelini" ways of handing out blackshirts.  A misunderstanding that will be corrected before Fall.  One would think that Barrett Ruud understands the Blackshirt traditions well.

I guess even if it was somewhat similar to the Pelini way, it could probably be handled more tactfully.  Maybe this will be the "Frost Way" of handing them out?

Compare these headlines at this moment in time:

Reuters: "Kremlin has no information about Russian mercenaries being killed..."

NY Times: "Dozens of Russians are Believed Killed...."

The Hill: "Several Russian Mercenaries killed..."

CNN: "Several Russians killed..."

FoxNews: "Russian news reports say at least several private Russian millitary contractors killed..."

Bloomberg: "Scores of Russia Fighters Killed..."

New York Post: "As many as 100 Russian Fighteres killed..."

haaretz.com: "Hundreds of pro-Assad mercenaries and Russian Troops Killed..."

The Daily Beast: "More than 200 Russian Fighters Killed..."

Daily Mail: "More than 640 Russian mercenary soldiers killed..."

The less respectible the source, the more wild sensationalism on the number.

11 minutes ago, yort2000 said:

 

Why does everyone want to come in and start pointing fingers?  The argument is if talent has slipped over the past 3 years (and by all metrics I can find it has), not who is responsible for it.

 

Nebfanatic made the argument that Bo's last two classes were the reason for the talent drop.  You made the argument that it was because of Riley not retaining top players.  I was simply pointing out that Bo also failed to retain many of his four-star players, which affects the validity of your argument.  

Here's one of the threads on class retention:

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/78382-class-retention/&tab=comments#comment-1668273

3 minutes ago, yort2000 said:

 

I also give you this article about blue chip ratio over the past 4 years.

 

https://www.sbnation.com/a/cfb-preview-2017/blue-chip-ratio

 

And this quote about Nebraska from that article:

 

"Nebraska’s gone from 30 percent in 2014 to just 19 in 2017, but seems to have real momentum in the 2018 class."

 

 

Your article only rates recruiting classes, not retention.  In fact, if you want to point the finger at Riley for not retaining all of his higher-ranked recruits, then you have to also acknowledge the large number of high-rated recruits that Pelini did not retain.  There have been multiple threads on this in the recruiting forum.  @Mavric did some research on this subject as well.  Riley's recruiting wasn't significantly better or worse than Pelini's overall.  Pelini's last two classes were a little below average, though.

14 minutes ago, huskerfan333157 said:

Nebraska made a big 12 championship several years before bo arrived.  Frost is inheriting a program that went 4-6 in 2 of the last three years.  You're comparing apples and oranges.  

2003 Solich 10-3 (5-3) Bowl

2004 Cally 5-6 (3-5)

2005 Cally 8-4 (4-4) Bowl

2006 Cally 9-5 (6-2) Div Champs/ Bowl

2007 Cally 5-7 (2-6)

2008 Pelini 9-4 (5-3) Bowl

vs.

2014 Pelini 9-4 (5-3) Bowl

2015 Riley 6-7 (3-5) Bowl

2016 Riley 9-4 (6-3) Bowl

2017 Riley 4-8 (3-6)

2018 Frost 

Just from a win-loss perspective, the Callahan and Riley eras look more similar than different to me.  Take out 2005 and they are just about identical.  As far as talent level on the roster, by many different measures we have seen it shown that the talent level has not drastically changed much over the last 15 years.  So I agree with those that think 6-6 is possible, but we should expect more than that in 2018.

9 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I read the other day that they are trying to impeach all of the judges.

So, door #6 it is; authoritarian government.

2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

... The Nebraska state senators gerrymandered but they kept the shapes "normal" looking. It was obvious what they were doing and why, though....

I just keep thinking about it like when you catch a kid in a lie, and rather than fessing up and taking his "medicine", he (she) just keeps trying to get out of it by lying more.  It doesn't work because now you are aware of the lie, and shining a big light on them.  They are just too dumb or inexperienced to realize the folly.  Or, maybe they are just so used to lying and cheating that they don't know how NOT to do it.

So I guess the question for me is: Are the members of the PA GOP dumb, inexperienced, pathological cheaters, or door #4: They are slow-playing the court, knowing that there is little time before the election.  Or door #5: They are calling the court's bluff on the court drawing up a map.  They might think they have a better chance of a legal challenge to that.

Either way, it's disappointing, and the bright light is shining on them....

https://www.salon.com/2018/02/12/pennsylvania-republicans-solution-to-gerrymandering-is-more-gerrymandering/

Really, Pennsylvania GOP?

I'm all for the defense playing better.  As far as the Blackshirt tradition, I'm with Moraine on this.  I mean, seriously.  Do NONE of you remember all the theatrics, and unnecessary crap surrounding Pelini's re-interpretation of the "when and why" to hand out Blackshirts?  Questions about the blackshirts at EVERY press conference?  There were seasons where he would withhold them for most of the season, then a handful of players would get them after a big game, then we would get smoked by Wisconsin and fans would call for them to give the shirts back, etc.  It was comical and distracting.

When Riley came here, he was likely told that we should go back to just handing them out to starters, and he obliged.  The defense sucked, but that had nothing to do with how the shirts were handed out.  Then you have all these Pelini-era players that assumed the Pelini way was the "traditional" way we got away from, because they didn't know any different.

Now it comes full circle, and most of us seem to have forgotten how much we had grown irritated with the "Pelini Way" of handing out blackshirts.

Just play better defense, and skip the sideshow IMO.

Frost once described his first year at UCF as "installing system and culture" and saying "we still had a couple pieces missing".  I assumed he meant players, at the time.  Recently he had a similar quote about Nebraska, saying there were a few pieces missing.  This time I got the feeling he was talking about more abstract "pieces" like S&C, toughness, buy-in, etc.

I don't think the roster is going to be a problem for HCSF.  He can install the offense a lot faster than some coaches.  The culture is the part that will take a couple seasons IMO.  Not to say that there is a broken culture, or broken lockerroom, or anything.  Just that it takes time for everyone to get on the same page.  The only thing we will know for sure about year one, is that year two will be better IMO.

13 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Admittedly, I didn't read the article, but is this anything other than just plain bad luck?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/10/couple-sells-everything-sailboat-sinks/326152002/

Here's another article on this from USA Today.  It has a local news video embedded.  They interviewed a local captain and he said that even experienced captains have hit sand bars in that location, because storms can shift the channel.  So I'd say bad luck played a part.  OTOH, without experience, I'd guess that it's just a matter of time before something bad was going to happen.

On 2/9/2018 at 12:31 PM, Moiraine said:

I think you'd want 4 divisions if we go to 16 teams or more. Playing 7 division games is a lot. You'd hardly ever get games with the other division.

4-team pods/divisions is the way to go in a 16-team conference, without question.  It would take 4 years to cycle through the other 8-team division, or 8 years if you do a home-and-home right away (rotate every 2 years).

In a 4-team set-up you would play your 3 divisional opponents every year, plus one-and-a-half other divisions (6 teams).  Then immediately switch to the other 6 teams the next year, or do a home-and-home and then switch (just like the old Big XII scheduling).

Anything more than 16, and I'd call it a "confederation" rather than a conference.  It would be more like two separate conferences that happen to play each other a lot.

Why is this not a poll?  Sounds like there are a lot of different takes.  I don't really have more to add, but the cream should rise to the top.

44 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

6. That smirky smile of his.  You know he always has that closed mouth half smile.  It just seems unnatural and like he is hiding something.

Let's just ask him:  "Hey Mike, are you hiding anything?"

28 minutes ago, Crazyhole said:

Speculative talks between parties that had no input into that article.   

 

I could say that the SEC thought about asking USC to join their conference but are you going to accept that as fact?   

 

Again, I would love to see Oklahoma and Kansas join the B1G but if it ever happens it won't be a first strike.  

So are you accusing Lee of completely fabricating the fact that a Big XII Athletic Director told him this information?  That's a pretty big leap.  Granted, there was no formal offer, but talks between AD's and school presidents are not the same thing as you making sh!t up.