text:
Arguably the biggest game of the year. If you win, you have an enormous leg up on the playoffs. A virtual lock. You're down in position where there should only be two possible options -- either a win, or overtime. And you lose the game. You simply cannot throw an interception there. You can't run any play where an interception is a possibility. What a bunch of morons. Even more incredible is what they were doing with the clock. Two time outs and two minutes left inside the 20, and they are just letting the clock run out of on them. For some unknowable reason, they let more than a minute run off the clock. Why would you ever do that? I can understand wanting to get it down to a minute once you're inside the ten to avoid leaving too much time if you need to kick a field goal. But they were not even close to that. They had first and goal on the seven, and they just let the clock evaporate down to about 25 seconds. They put themselves in position where they could not have run 3 running plays. Why take that option away from yourself? More than that, imagine this scenario. You have first and goal from the seven, with two time outs and 25 seconds on the clock, just as Carolina did. Fox lets the clock tick all the way down, because he assumes that they only have three cracks at the win and then will have to kick the field goal. WRONG. Imagine that they run on first down and get to the 4 yard line. They run another play and get to 2 yard line. Now they have 3d and goal with 10 seconds left. What do you call? They have a time out, so they can run anything. Let's say they call a run (or a pass, it doesn't matter), and they don't get the touchdown. But, suppose that Philly commits a penalty -- let's say hands to the face. It's an automatic first down on the half yard line, but now there's only 4 seconds left, and you have to go for the tie. Even worse, if you're philly there, and they run a pass play, just go ahead and commit pass interference all over the field to make sure they don't win. You're still in no worse position. They never ADD time to the clock. The worst you can do is have an untimed down from the one yard line with a 3 point lead. If you're in position where a field goal can win the game, you run the clock down and then win. If you're in position where a FG only ties, but a TD puts you up 4, you never run the clock that far down, expecially if you have time outs and your opponent has fewer than 3. Coaches ask alot of players, but when they don't hold up their end of the bargain, it's a real shame.
I'm not entirely sure what that means. Doesn't Jake have like the most 4th quarter comebacks of any active QB? When you figure he got a bunch of them on a team that struggles year in and year out to win 5 games a year, that's something at least. Anyway, Delhomme made a bad pass, for sure, and the defender made a great play. But I put that result squarely on the coaches.
NEM is right. The clock management was spot on. Figure, with the timeouts, 20 seconds is more than enough to take your shots and kick the FG if you have to. This kills any shot they have of beating you on anything other than a Stanford-Cal like fluke return. The clock management was fine. What seemed weird to me was that final play. It looked real awkward. I think Delhomme made the right read, and was correct in his postgame presser when he said he'd take that matchup again. It looked like Keyshawn jumped way too soon, and the spacing behind him and Lito Sheppard seemed abnormally deep. If Keyshawn takes 2 more steps, he comes down with an easy TD. From the route he ran, it almost looked like he was looking for a quick pass instead of a jump ball, when it clearly was a jump ball situation.
>>>But, running the clockdown , IMO, was the right thing to do. Absolutely. If you don't run it down, you find yourself in the same position as the Giants on Sunday. They scored but left enough time for the COwboys to move down the field for a Grammatica FG as time expired. As another poster said, time managment was okay, it was the playcalling and execution. Just my $0.02,
Actually, you're not in the same position as the Cowboys. The Cowboys needed a touchdown just to tie. The Panthers only needed a field goal to tie, and they would only have kicked a field goal on 4th down, so they had at least 3 more plays (and possibly more in the event of a penalty) to run before they had to settle for a tie, and plenty of time to get the clock down in those three plays if they decided that was what they wanted to do. But first and goal on the seven is way too early to do that. There is no way the Eagles are going to ever call a time out there, unless it's 4th down. As long as losing is still on the table, as it was for the Eagles, you have to let the clock run and hope Carolina settles for a field goal, so the two situations are entirely not comparable. Put another way, the difference between the Giants/Dallas game and last night's game was that the Giants did not have any option where they could take the lead, and thus win the game, on their last drive. When you're in that position, you want to score close to the end of the game -- but actually you don't want to score AT the end of the game. 20 to 30 seconds is fine, because you want to give yourself the opportunity to have more plays if the defense commits a penalty. Once again, the error that coaches make here is to assume that once it's first and goal, that you only have three or four plays to score a TD. You may get more in the event of a defensive penalty, and you don't want to be in position of having the downs to score a TD but not enough time to do so. So, anyway, Carolina was in a much much different situation from the Giants. If you're Carolina, you don't mind scoring a touchdown with a minute left on the clock. You'd much rather do that than score a field goal with time expired, because the reality is that on the road, a 4 point lead with a minute left gives you a much better chance to win than kicking a field goal for overtime does, so you'd take that every time. So I agree entirely that IF you kick a field goal, you want to make sure that you leave very little time on the clock. It doesn't need to be the last play of the game, but you want it to be no more than 25 seconds or so, or less if your opponent has time outs. BUT you don't want to use up so much time that you deprive yourself of the opportunity to win the game. If it were second or even third down, and they were still seven yards away from a win, with the Eagles having two time outs, then I agree, you start to put pressure on your opponent to use their time outs if they want to preserve the clock. (Which the Eagles would never have done.) But first and goal from the seven in a 3 point game is not the time to let the clock run down to 22 seconds. As long as the touchdown is still in order, it's way too early. I think I'm partially proven correct by what happened. The correct sequence there is to wait until there's a minute left then run three times to try to score a touchdown to win the game. If you score earlier, great. You'll take your chances with the Eagles having to go 70 yards to win in a minute. That's better than trying a field goal (which you might miss) to get to overtime. Instead, I think Carolina feld compelled to try at least one pass in that sequence, in part because they didn't have enough time to run three times with only two time outs.
He seems to have lost it this year, I think all of their 4th quarter collapses had to do with Jake INTs. I was actually waiting for it last night.
No way. If you have the timeouts, you run the clock down right away, and then that way if you score on 1st down, you're still in a good position. You never play for the tie there. The odds of getting a touchdown on that possession inside the 5 with 1st and goal and 2 timeouts, are better than playing for OT and hoping you win the toss. Bleed the clock, your TOs allow you to absorb and situation and still be OK, and this way, you've maximized your opportunity.
I think we're talking past each other. I agree you never play for the tie. That's kind of my point -- giving yourself as many opportunities as you can for the touchdown without running yourself out of time. What about my hypothetical situation? You run the clock down to 25 seconds on first and goal from the seven. You run a couple of plays and don't score. Now it's third and goal with 10 seconds left. You've just taken winning off the board in the event of a defensive penalty. In fact, if you're the defense, and it's a pass play, why not drag down every single receiver on the field? No matter what you do, they are still going to kick. I've probably seen this exactly scenario half a dozen times watching the NFL. Team is down by 3 in the red zone, and they worry so much about running the clock down that they run out of time after a defensive penalty. Most defensive penalties are automatic first downs, but the teams can't take advantage of all the new downs to win the game, because they don't have any time left. First and goal on the seven, there is absolutely no reason to run the clock to less than a minute. If you don't score on first down, then you can start thinking about taking time off the clock. The reality is that in one play you can use up 40 seconds at any time, unless it's 4th down, because the Eagles are never going to call time out there.
You play under the assumption that each play is going to be successful. If you fail to run down the clock when you have the chance, score on first down, and get beat by the opponent having time left, you're going to (rightfully) take heat as a coach. In theory, you've found a great solution (the defensive penalty), but you don't coach for the outside shot that the defense may commit a penalty to extend the game. In fact, keep in mind that your WORST CASE here is the FG, and OT. Hence, you hold the cards. The defense isn't going to commit a penalty for the sake of commiting a penalty, namely because they never know if a coach will be crazy enough to go for the win with the ball on the 1. The defensive penalty is just as likely to occur with more time on the clock as well, because the only time they are intentionally taking a penalty is to save a sure TD. In football strategy, you always take what you can control. That's why on offense, you control in this situation the end of the game. You run the clock down, score a TD, and the opponent has little to no time to win/tie. Worst case, you run it down, tie, and go to OT. This is a better scenario than playing for the outside shot of a defensive penalty, and leaving enough time for the OTHER team to sieze control. On defense, you can take the penalty, but only if it prevents a sure TD.
There was a TON of contact between MeShawn and Lito Sheppard on that final play. I know there's a five-yard buffer where contact is legal, but the Panthers were on the 5 yard line and the contact was past the goal line. Both guys appeared to be making a play on the ball, yet the ball was clearly thrown farther outside than either player expected and Lito had the dexterity to adjust at the final moment. It's easy to criticize the Panthers after the fact, but when have you ever seen so much contact with the ball in the air and no flag thrown (on either guy)? That was an oddity of a non-call. Regards, Chris
That's really the main difference I think between our positions. You and I would be very different coaches. I don't agree with either of these statements. I think the key to game-coaching is doing taking exactly situation that's presented to you as it's presented to you, using every piece of information you have at that moment, and making the choice that gives you the highest chance of winning. Not winning the play, or the situation, or the battle within the battle, but the game. Because the reality is that every play is not going to be successful. We can disagree about whether up by 4 with a minute left kicking the ball off is a better chance of winning than first and goal from the 7 with 22 seconds left. Seems like an easy call to me, but reasonable minds can differ. My more fundmental point, and I guess what I think makes a great coach is one who understands that with first and ten from your opponent's 20, a 9 and a half yard run is better than a 10 yard run. (Just to take a silly example.) Or, to put it in Belichickian terms, one who realizes at 4th and forever from the two yard line down by 3 that a safety is the better play than a punt. That coach ain't, in my opinion, John Fox, which is really my only point. Good debate though. I respect your view.
I'd rather them never throw that flag than throw it every time. Shappard didn't impede MeShawn to the point where he couldn't catch it, it was a poorly thrown ball, and Lito took the inside route and has just as much right to it not to mention the fact that MeShawn was contacting Sheppard just as much as the other way around. Further, when I watched the replay it wasn't really that much contact, mostly just hands reaching out but no obvious push or hold and it was equal on both parties.
Fair enough. I come from the University of Michigan coaching tree, so control is what has been preached to me. I can definitely understand your point, I just tend to play the percentages within scenarios that I control. I think 9 times out of 10, Carolina comes away with at worst a tie in the game last night. I agree with those statements as well. I'm a HUGE fan of the 2nd and 1 play, anywhere on the field. It's a freebie. That's why I almost always root for the opponent to get the first down when they measure in that situation. I hate giving up free plays. The safety call is smart, too. While we're debating coaching philosophies, I'd be interested to hear your point of view on the Holmgren decision in SB XXXII when he chose to allow Denver to score to take the lead to preserve time on the clock for Favre. Personally, I think that you never relinquish the lead in that situation. I have a friend who is firmly in the "let them score" camp, and actively advocates letting a team score late so that you can counter and win. Drives me mad.
I don't even think you necessarily need to go deep there. It's a great opportunity to pick up free yards over the middle of the field, because typically teams help toward the sidelines anticipating a go route. 10-15 yard ins, slants, deep drags, those are perfect in those situations, especially to TEs releasing. If field position dictates, I LOVE the 3rd and 1 PA downfield, especially with an offense as efficient as ours is in short yardage and 4th down conversions.
I thought that one was a tough one. It's just a bad situation either way. Wasn't the game tied there? I think that's a harder call than if you're winning. I think Holmgren let them score from out about the 20 yard line, which was maybe a bit too generous. Still, I think if the game is tied with 2 minutes left, and I don't have time outs, and they are inside the 10 yard line, I probably let them score, rather than run the game down to nothing and kick a game winning chip shot. Going back to my philosophy, I think the chance that they will kick the field goal is greater than the chance that I will score a touchdown to tie and then win in overtime. Not much, but still higher. Here's a related scenario. You're on defense, up by 1, with less than 2 minutes. Your opponent is out of time outs. You intercept the ball with a clear path to the end zone. The correct play there is to sit down on the field or run out of bounds. If you're the team that has been intercepted, the correct play is to get the heck out of the guy's way and let him score if he wants to. Better to be down by 8 with the ball back than to have the other team just kneel on the ball to run out the clock.
Depends on where on the field. If it's a second and one at my opponent's 11 yard line, I really want at least a 3 or 4 yard play. It's way better than having first and goal at the 10 yard line. The stats for touchdown converstions when you start with first and goal from the 9 or 10 yard line are amazingly low. It's way under 50 percent, maybe even under 30 percent or so. Wheras scoring a TD when you start a 1st and goal inside the 7 yard line goes way up. It's just really hard to get 10 yards on 3 plays with only a 20 yard field (the 10 yards and the EZ) to work with. For as much as announcers like to talk about red zone conversions, it's really all about where you start your 1st and goal from. In fact, in NCAA football, apparently you're more likely to score a TD if you start overtime from the 25 than if you start it from the 20, which is somewhat amazing if you think about it, but the opportunity to get 2 first downs (instead of just one) is apparently a big advantage. Whenever a team gets inside the other team's 50, I always pay attention to that. There's really not much you can do about it to control it, but if you're a receiver and you've picked up the first down, and your choice is to get tackled at your opponent's 10 yard line or his 15, the 15 is actually the better spot, as weird as that sounds. Not that any receiver can actually make that decision on the spot (and not that we'd want them to try).
That is hilarious, because a similar situation happened to us at Michigan in 1999. We blew a big lead against Illinois, at home, and had just turned the ball over on downs with almost enough time for Illinois to run out the clock. A first down seals the game, and we would've needed a quick stop just to hope to get the ball back for a Hail Mary. Lo and behold, we pinch at the line, and Illinois' RB Rocky Harvey breaks through, and makes a move, running 50+ yards for the score. The Illinois bench erupted, the Illinois fans erupted, and so did we, because we realized they had given us hope. Brady drove us down, but a TD pass went through Dave Terrell's pass in the end zone, and we lost. It was still an amazing realization that their TD was a good thing for us.
Outside of the clock management issues,which have been well stated,didnt the Panthers throw the same type of pass on an earlier scoring drive?I was listening on the radio,didnt see that ,Esiason or his winger mentioned that.If so,thats a huge faux pas,the Eagles defence would e looking for that.


text:
Curious what recommendations are on an IWB vs an "outside" holster would be for concealed carry.
I'm 6'3" about 320 (too frigin much), waer jeans with belt and generally polo shirts NOT tucked in.
Considering a 1911 commander/officers or browning HP. Leaning strongly to 1911.
Thinking of having it above right hip, probably with a forward cant.
Questions are really about comfort of IWB holster given above considerations. And brand/model. Cost IS somewhat of a consideration, as I won't be carrying all the time.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
You must earn 10,000 points to post other members' whiteboard
May your life and the lives of all you know be jeweled with auspicious coincidence. May all good befall you. May all good come your way. May the Fates not ever know the letters that form the words disaster. May you all live in love.
Before the day ends, I wish that all my GasBuddies Christmas has been merry and bright and safe.
A very merry Christmas to you and yours, and a happy and auspicious new year, too! We have several buddies in common. Want to be buddies?
Hello. de, k7lvo
Congratulations on having the determination to post for 600 consecutive days! Hope that you are having a Happy Thanksgiving! Warren
Wishing you a safe and Happy Thanksgiving!
I paid $0.169 as well in 1973.
Keep it Safe on Labor day!
Wishing you and all my GasBuddies a safe Labor Day!
Hello. I saw your posting on GPSs and you mentioned yours was in your vehicles. How do you obtain map updates? Do you have to take the vehicle to a dealer? Is there a charge? Thank you :-). Dan - MGY


text: Deals and Discounts Translate this pageArabicBulgarianCatalanChinese SimplifiedChinese TraditionalCzechDanishDutchEstonianFinnishFrenchGermanGreekHaitian CreoleHebrewHindiHmong DawHungarianIndonesianItalianJapaneseKlingonKoreanLatvianLithuanianMalayMalteseNorwegianPersianPolishPortugueseRomanianRussianSlovakSlovenianSpanishSwedishThaiTurkishUkrainianUrduVietnameseWelshMicrosoft® TranslatorCheck out this page in {0} translated from {1}translated fromOriginal:Translated:Automatic translation powered by Microsoft® TranslatorStart translatingStop translatingCloseClose and show original pageSelect The Sea Gull Motel Deals and Discounts Deals and Discounts Package A: 2015 Family Getaway Weekends! $194–2 Adults and up to 2 Children (under 18) 2 Nights Motel Unit (Type A) Accommodations Late check-out on Sunday (6 pm) 2 Breakfasts at Surf Side West Diner Upgrade to type B +$40 Upgrade to type C +$120 Dates Available May 8 Classic Car Show May 15 Wild Half MarathonPolish Festival May 29 South Jersey Ski Club Weekend October 9 Seafood Festival Visit www.yourcitylists.com for more info on these events. Deals and Discounts Package B: Pre & Post Season Special! Mid-week 15% off when you stay 3 nights or longer! Special for Motel Unit (A) only – sleeps 2 adults and 2 children Does not include Friday or Saturday nights Dates excluded: 6/21 through 8/22


text:
City bans open carry in buildings
By MATTHEW KENWRIGHT
The Hays City Commission voted 4-1 Thursday to ban open carry of firearms in 12 city buildings and post signs stating the policy.
Login Here to Read More...
Did you know? For just $0.99 you can get full site access today. Click Here
By MATTHEW KENWRIGHT
The Hays City Commission voted 4-1 Thursday to ban open carry of firearms in 12 city buildings and post signs stating the policy.
Despite opposition from Commissioner Kent Steward and two community members, the leaders decided to prohibit the practice. Concealed carry is allowed in the same buildings.
Hays Police Chief Don Scheibler said he supported the ban.
After acknowledging his vote was not easy because he and others might feel intimidated by the public display of firearms in city buildings, Steward criticized city staff for not admitting they were addressing a right granted by the Constitution. The commissioner questioned the possible consequences of banning open carry on city properties.
"If our concern is intimidation, is the next logical step to try and find some way to ban open carry entirely in the city?" Steward said.
He also targeted the justification for the ban.
"While this ban would reduce intimidation, it would do almost nothing to improve safety. The ban on open carry would not stop a madman," Steward said. "(It) also creates a false sense of security. Just because you don't see a weapon, you should not assume no one in your immediate presence is not carrying a concealed weapon, either legally or illegally."
The commissioner said he would have been willing to reconsider his decision in the future if the ban had been defeated and open carry became a problem.
Bill Rymph, who lives south of Ellis, addressed commissioners to support open carry and said he was concerned with the infringement on the Second Amendment.
"I agree with Commissioner Steward that it is a slippery slope that disturbs me. Obviously, I believe strongly in self-preservation," Rymph said.
"Whether or not you have a weapon concealed or open, the same outcome could occur if somebody has a mental problem or an issue," Rymph said.
Chris Miller, another local resident, said city staff should not have used pictures of people carrying an AR-15 firearm in the presentation because it was a scare tactic. Most people exercising open carry have the gun holstered.
"I know that you guys are all smart people up there and all you guys know that putting a sticker on a door is not going to keep a madman from coming in here and shooting the place up," Miller said.
Commissioner Ron Mellick said he supports open carry, but he had concerns about it in a confined area because an individual with a gun could block his path to a door. Mellick would have alternate routes available if he was outside. Mayor Henry Schwaller IV said it was not an easy choice for him, but he supported the prohibition because it was city staff's preference.
"The reason I will be voting for this is because city employees have asked that we do it," Schwaller said. "They said they would be intimidated if someone came into their office, they're collecting money or whatever, and someone came in with a gun."
In other business:
* With Mellick abstaining, commissioners voted 4-0 to approve permanent use of portable shipping containers for storage. Regulations include maintaining the units' appearance and safety, painting them earth-tones or to blend with surrounding buildings and allowing electricity to service the units. The units cannot be stacked or placed between the main building and public streets.
* Commissioners accepted a $1.1 million bid from Mayer Specialty Services LLC to line 9,776 feet of corrugated metal storm water sewer pipe. The work will cover 6 percent of the city's storm sewer pipe grid.
A financing plan was approved to pay for the project. The city could gain $16,000 on its investment if it uses funds from capital projects to pay for the work and repay it with money from the storm water management budget.
Schwaller was concerned future commissioners could opt not to pay for the plan during its five-year installments.
John T. Bird, city attorney, said the city would not owe a third party, and it would benefit the city.
* Appointments were confirmed for local committees. Robert Meier, building trades board; Ron Augustine and Jim Krob, Fort Hays Municipal Golf Course Advisory Board; Tammy Younger, Hays Convention and Visitors Bureau Advisory Committee; and Elizabeth Innes, Hays Housing Authority Board, were approved.
* Schwaller nominated Mike Konz for the Airport Advisory Committee and Lina Miller for the Hays Convention and Visitors Bureau Advisory Committee.


text:
Researchers Question Obama's Motives For BRAIN Initiative
President Obama's announcement this week that he's launching the BRAIN Initiative generated widespread and enthusiastic media coverage. Researchers, however, are suggesting the initiative has more to do with politics and public relations than research.
Copyright © 2013 NPR. For personal, noncommercial use only. See Terms of Use. For other uses, prior permission required.
It's MORNING EDITION, from NPR News. Good morning, I'm David Greene. Earlier this week, President Obama announced his new BRAIN Initiative. He said he wants $100 million to explore America's next great frontier in science - mapping the human brain, to understand how the brain's neurons and circuits communicate.
But now that brain specialists have had a little time to reflect, some are wondering whether the president's announcement has more to do with politics and some good PR. Here's NPR's Daniel Zwerdling.
DANIEL ZWERDLING, BYLINE: The White House rolled out the president's BRAIN Initiative partly with a video.It features Francis Collins; he runs the National Institutes of Health. It features Francis Collins; he runs the National Institutes of Health.
FRANCIS COLLINS: I'm happy to salute the proposal the president put forward today, the BRAIN Initiative...
ZWERDLING: The way the president described it, the BRAIN Initiative won't just help science and medicine. It'll help...
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: ...to grow our economy to create new jobs, to reignite a rising, thriving middle-class by investing in one of our core strengths, and that's American innovation.
ZWERDLING: The president said this initiative could eventually help scientists cure and even prevent diseases, from Alzheimer's to traumatic brain injury. So you'd think if anybody would be excited, it'd be the world of brain researchers.
When you heard the president's announcement the other day, what was your reaction?
SUSAN FITZPATRICK: My reaction was (pauses) befuddlement. I was befuddled.
ZWERDLING: Susan Fitzpatrick helps run a leading foundation that finances brain research. It's called the James S. McDonnell Foundation.
FITZPATRICK: Right, because I'm not quite sure what the initiative is.
ZWERDLING: Or talk to David Hovda. He runs the brain injury research center at UCLA. He's dubious about the BRAIN Initiative, too.
DAVID HOVDA: This sounds more like - um - a PR splash.
ZWERDLING: Hovda says it's not like scientists have been ignoring the brain. To the contrary, some of the best research centers in the United States have been doing path-breaking research for decades. They've been spending billions of dollars. A consortium of Europeans announced their own, big, brain project last year. So Hovda wonders, how is the president's initiative going to suddenly change the direction?
HOVDA: And I think we're promising too much. I don't think it's going to be the big breakthrough that people think it will be.
ZWERDLING: Brain specialists like Hovda and others said, to be fair, the administration hasn't released many details about the BRAIN Initiative. But they say it sounds to them like something administrations have done forever. You take research projects that are already going on, put them in different wrapping and say, "this is new." A top official at NIH says that's not true.
STORY LANDIS: This is not rehashing. This is not old stuff that we've been doing - none of it. None of it. It will be all new science.
ZWERDLING: Story Landis runs the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Strokes. She says she doesn't know exactly how the initiative would change brain research, either. The government's going to assemble what they call a dream team of advisers, and they'll lay out a plan over the next year; to which skeptics say OK, well, let's suppose, for a moment, that this dream team does propose new research that's not already under way. Is $100 million anywhere near enough to do what the president says he wants to do?
ALEX DROMERICK: Oh, not even close.
ZWERDLING: Alex Dromerick helps run brain research at the National Rehabilitation Hospital, and at a center at Georgetown University.
DROMERICK: This is a very open-ended agenda that is going to go on, I think, for decades.
ZWERDLING: A White House spokesman wrote that it's going to take time to figure out exactly what the BRAIN Initiative will look like because for one thing, the administration has no idea how much new funding Congress will ever approve for it - if any.
Daniel Zwerdling, NPR News.
Copyright © 2013 NPR. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to NPR. This transcript is provided for personal, noncommercial use only, pursuant to our Terms of Use. Any other use requires NPR's prior permission. Visit our permissions page for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by a contractor for NPR, and accuracy and availability may vary. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Please be aware that the authoritative record of NPR's programming is the audio.
You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign In / Register
Please keep your community civil. All comments must follow the NPR.org Community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated prior to posting. NPR reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part, and to use the commenter's name and location, in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.


text:
Cable TV in Stantonville
Do you know how many people still watch TV as it is broadcast? And how many wait and watch shows on their DVRs? You can learn so much about cable TV in Stantonville, TN by looking at larger trends. Approximately 97% of people watch regularly scheduled programming, even though 48% also stream some TV online and 7% watch some of their shows later, from their DVRs. And, 72% of Americans bundle their cable subscriptions with high-speed Internet, and one-third of Americans own four or more televisions.
377 people live in Stantonville, which means there are:
- 366 people who watch broadcast TV
- 181 people who stream TV online
- 26 people who regularly use DVRs
- 271 people with bundled services
- 124 people with a plethora of plasma-screens


text:
The End of the Twinkie?http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/11/16/hostess-twinkies-ding-dongs-wonder-bread-going-out-of-business/1708409/World War 3 may just be months away, with much of the middle east currently being blown apart by missiles and the locals setting their neighbours on fire, but the real news is that the Twinkie, the USA's primary contribution to world cuisine, could cease to be."You eat those?" I hear people ask. Hell no. Never eaten one in my life. There's something about their unnatural, chemical-yellow colour and that they have a half-life rather than a use-by date that just sets off one too many alarm-bells.In fact, I'm pretty sure that if you read the print on the pack, you'll find asbestos to be a key ingredient.Even John McClane can't keep one down, and he took out a building full of terrorists with nothing but his bare feet and a Santa hat.Which leads to my point: Without the Twinkie, there are SO many lines from SO many classic movies that future generations just a
EjaculationThat got your attention Now who dares click the link?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z99xbwrFWocAhhh, language.
Paperman.Astounding: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTLySbGoMX0
Learning to read, with Jolly Jack.Well, that was fun.Let's just go over what I posted yesterday: I voiced that I have no opinion on guns in America, because I don't live there and as such; don't care. I said that I, personally, am afraid of guns and think they're industrial killing machines. And I posed a vague, hypothetical question that could have been applied to any situation where an old law/doctrine is in effect.That's it. Nothing more. Harshest word in there was "change" followed by a question mark. Not "ban", not "make guns illegal" and certainly not "outlaw free speech and trial by jury", which some people with a slightly looser grasp on reality seem to think go hand in hand with owning the firearms I said I don't care about.Well, today, I am going to post an opinion: if you're the kind of insecure, paranoid little twit that flies off the handle when someone poses a simple question, and who holds weapons and the laws that permit them with such religious reverence that you perceive that question as not
Evil Dead RemakeIf an original film has a splendid core concept, but a budget too low or a director too inept to do it justice, I don't mind a remake. I'll applaud it.The most toxic remake thus far has been "Total Recall", which was terrible simply because it used the original as a crutch at more than a few points and, despite having a massive budget and 20 years of technological advancement on the original: felt less exciting and epic.Closer to the book, sure, but just not as much fun.And now they've turned their gaze upon "Evil Dead".Now, I'm not going to try and defend the original Evil Dead, because it's not actually that great a film. This is proven with "Evil Dead 2", in which the entirety of the preceding movie's plot and purpose is successfully reduced to an opening act. Something that wouldn't have been possible were the movie, y'know; good."Evil Dead 2" is awesome. It's called a "cult classic" for a reason, and, in my eyes, should have rendered the whole franchise "sacred", meaning you
PuritanArt"Your deviation Sonic Screw(driver) was reported for Explicit Pornography. The report was reviewed by a member of the Staff and action was taken, deleting the deviation and marking the report as Resolved.Additionally, the following comment was provided:A member of staff has reviewed this deviation and has determined that the theme itself, or one or more details present in the scene, has made the work unacceptable for submission here.As such this deviation has been removed in accordance with our policies and should not be resubmitted.""Explicit Pornography"?! Aw, jeez, guys. You must have the worst collection of porn on the planet to think that was explicit.A 90s Rochelle Swanson outing was more explicit that that pic, and that stuff got aired, uncut, on terrestrial UK TV (god bless you Channel 5, you made the young Jack jolly).I believe that, for something to be labelled "explicit", SOMETHING must be visibly going in SOMEWHERE. Such was not the case in the offending image,
Creativity is addictive.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23572742I believe that Minecraft is the future of massive multiplayer games, and I'm surprised that none of the big developers/publishers have cottoned onto it yet.They look at Minecraft and think its success is down to its business model, or to its blocky, retro charm.It's not.It's down to the fact that you get out of it what you put into it.With a MMORPG, there are pre-scripted quests. With Minecraft, you set the quests yourself or others.User created content is the key. All you have to do is provide the players with the tools to build.There are two types of gamer: wall builders and wall breakers.Wall builders are the ones that spend an age in an RTS game getting their base just right. They play SimCity and act as Dungeon Master during an RPG.Wall breakers are the type to follow the mission brief. They get set a quest and they follow it. They're the Call of Duty crowd and they're never more happy than when
Always someone that ruins it for the rest of us.3D printing is a fabulous technological advance, and anyone with a creative mind will be thrilled at the possibilities that could be just around the corner as a result of its development .Or would be if some dick hadn't decided to use it to make a weapon: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22421185Yes, we're back on the gun-debate-thing. And this time the pro-gun crowd are pissing me off because they've set in motion a chain of events that will stifle the potentially fabulous ability to transfer what you create on your computer into the real world.The man behind it harps on about liberty being his motivation for doing it.What rot.Liberty has to be tempered with responsibility, otherwise you just have anarchy. Using new technology to build a gun doesn't make you a champion for freedom, it makes you an attention seeking moron who gives the powers-that-be REASON to restrict it. They will now do everything the can to prevent the proliferation of the technology. They
X-Botch OneAfter recent polls that said sh*tloads (an actual unit of measurement) of people were going to by a PS4 and only the mums of M$ employees were going to buy the VCR shaped Xbox One, Microsoft crapped itself and ditched its plans to charge for use of second-hand games and the requirement for the machine to be kept online, beyond an initial, one-time system set-up.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22980973M$ are, naturally, trying to pat themselves on the back for this U-Turn, and some people are actually praising them for "listening to consumers".No. Just, no.You don't get to pat yourself on the back for having so much money that you can buy your way out of a complete and utter cluster-f**k. You only get to do that when you use common f**king sense and get it right first time. You spend enough bloody money it! There's no excuse!I'm still at a loss as to which console I want to invest in. It's going to be one or the other
Minecraft - VoltzHello people.I'm renting a Voltz server that I occasionally play on with friends, but most of the time it just runs empty, which is a shame. So if you're in the mood for Voltz and are looking for a server to play on, hit me up with a note and provide me with your Minecraft username and I'll make sure to white-list and IP you back.Happy nukin'TumblrTwitterFacebook
Magic Knight contest - Winners!For contest's info, deadlines, and prizesPlease kindly visit the previous journal:Hi everyone!Firstly, we want to say thank you to every contestants for your cooperation with us in the last 2nd round of the contest.You all did a wonderful job, which is admirable.However, there are only 5 top winners. We did a lot among entries to choose the winners. The judging factors are: Level of details - Skills - Creativeness - Diversity between each level of the card - Enthusiasm - Efforts - and Cooperation. Many factors right? You can see that it caused us headaches. Luckily the voting gave us a result.Now, not to waste your time. Let's see who the winners are.♚♚♚ FIRST PLACE ♚♚♚isakysakuYour prizes:Your card will be used in our game.500$ via Paypal1272 DA pointsIn game items: 1 Premium card pack and other supplement item
A classical spin.Very, very cool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjOQac1vOEcKinda makes you wonder why people with genuine talent aren't used more often in popular music.....


text:
-- Paul Heyman's Heyman Hustle website has an exclusive gallery of photos from WWE Axxess.
-- 2014 WWE Hall of Fame headliner Ultimate Warrior's announced on Saturday night that he has signed a "multi-year" deal with WWE. Warrior will have an "ambassador" role, similar to legends like Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair.
Also during his speech, Warrior ruled out the possibility of "One More Match" - but did thank fans for suggesting the idea.