text:
This post is not particularly Phillies-related but it is a highly-relevant topic. This year's Baseball Hall of Fame Ballot is one of the larger in recent memory at 37 players and a lot of folks are predicting the logjam will continue to grow. Of the 37 players, 14 pop out to me as players who I would vote for for the Hall of Fame if I had a vote. Because of the rules stipulating that voters can only select up to ten players, a relic from a time when balloting logjams were not as frequent, practically non-existent, this means quite a few deserving players will be either once-and-done or simply fall off the ballot.
Yesterday, we reviewed the five of 37 players who had spent at least some time with the Phillies while reviewing their chances that the exit polls from Baseball Think Factory gave them. Since we went live with that post yesterday, Craig Biggio's projections improved by nearly 10% but still is just under 4% short of induction. Tim Raines projects at 61.3% as of today, in what would be a 12.6% jump from 2012 and definitely putting him on the proper trajectory. The official results will be announced at 2 PM, EST.
Obviously, the taint of steroids, or simply playing in the steroid-era, is preventing the immediate induction of players with some of the automatic numbers. The all-time home run king, and second all-time in fWAR behind Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds obviously tops this list, and is joined by Roger Clemens (354 wins, 4672 Ks), Sammy Sosa (609 HRs), Mark McGwire (583 HRs), Rafael Palmeiro (569 HRs, 3020 hits), and Biggio (3060 hits) as players who hit or cleared the No-Doubt-About-It, "magic numbers" for what used to be first ballot Hall of Fame Induction. These players now not only may not get inducted on the first ballot, but perhaps not at all.
If I had a ballot, which I aspire to, I would not judge these players based on a suspicion of whether or not they took steroids. Other than Palmeiro, the above group of players has never formally been convicted of or proved that they have used steroids. For those that say it is obvious based on body transformation that a player like Bonds or McGwire used performance enhancing drugs, I can use the same evidence to say that other players did as well, which of course is all pure speculation.
Because one player is assumed clean while another is assumed dirty, this year could see Biggio head to the Hall alone while the other players who hit the magic marks and are among the all-time greats be left out. I won't argue that Biggio took steroids, but I am also not entirely on board that he did not take them either. Arguing that he, Bonds, or, as in the case of our comments section yesterday, Jim Thome were clean or not is a useless exercise; the only evidence anyone has is empirical, and again, outside of Palmeiro, nothing has been proven and no tests were failed.
To me, the constant of the so-called Steroid Era is steroids or performance enhancing drugs. In division, ratios, and comparisons, constants wash away; if I had a Hall of Fame vote, any proof, suspicion or link to PED use would be washed away, also, like a constant. One of the biggest misconceptions about PEDs is that they are used solely to get stronger and that its users will be as obvious as an eye test. PED use isn't as obvious as an eye test: PED use can improve a player's longevity, strength, speed, muscular definition, focus, or simply shed a few extra pounds. Remember: a supplement such as the weight-loss supplement J.C. Romero took, Ergogenix, was a fat-loss supplement that was tainted from the factory. Because it was tainted, and contained ingredients not listed on the bottle that violated the MLB policy, that's a PED, too.
Take the example of Raines. Raines is rightfully gaining traction as a legitimate Hall of Fame candidate as he should. But he notably overcame an addiction to cocaine. Cocaine was such a big part of his life that he often used it before games and kept it in his pocket while playing so that it would not be discovered in his locker. Athletes, such as tennis great Martina Hingis, have been banned from their sports for using cocaine and some have attempted to make the connection that cocaine, while used as a recreational drug, can also enhance performance: an increasing sense of energy and alertness, an extremely elevated mood, and a feeling of supremacy are all results of taking cocaine. Should voters penalize Raines not because of his presumed immoral use of cocaine but perhaps because five of his best production years line up directly with what has been made public of Raines cocaine use and presume that it enhanced his performance? Over-counter-stimulants, such as the once popular Stacker, were presumed safer but are now banned by Major League Baseball but provide some of the same performance-enhancing effects.
With that being said, if I had a Hall of Fame ballot, I would take every player's stats at face value. I would not assume anyone is guilty or innocent, just judge the numbers against their own contemporaries. This year, I would also exhaust my ballot at ten players. Without further ado, here are the ten players I would vote for.
Bonds is the all-time leader in home runs, is second all-time in fWAR, and is the all-time leader in both intentional and non-intentional free passes. Easy yes, next.
Clemens is the closest out of the group I would vote for that I would vote no based on the character clause, not based on assumed steroid use but because of his behavior off the field. The alleged affair is horrible but Clemens wouldn't be the first or last adulterer in the Baseball HOF. Clemens won seven Cy Youngs, 11 All-Star, the 1986 MVP, won two World Series, and has plenty of other hardware. Not as easy for Bonds, but still a relative no-brainer for me.
Raines was an All-Star in seven straight seasons, overcoming an addiction to cocaine in 1986 to lead the league in batting and OBP. Raines ranks 67th on Baseball-Reference's WAR All-Time rankings among position players and 83rd on FanGraph's version. If Raines could have kept it together longer, or found regular playing time long enough, to reach 3,000 hits, this would be an absolute no-brainer. His 808 steals rank fifth all-time and is 46th all-time ranked in times on base. Raines got on base and scored runs. Raines' case is gaining steam and is starting to feel like an inevitable candidate. He'd get my vote.
Biggio put up big numbers at three premium spots up the middle (catcher, second base, and center field). He's a member of the 3,000 hit club, which has always signaled automatic induction and for ten years or more, was recognized as easily the best second baseman in the National League. Biggio has seven All-Star appearances, is fifth all-time in doubles, 15th in runs scored, 31st in extra base hits, and 32nd in runs created. Biggio will likely get the "grit" vote, too: he is second all-time in being hit by pitches and it is hard to forget his pine-tarred helmet for long.
Bagwell is perceived to be one of the more marginal candidates, and is followed by whispers of steroids and the fact that he did not reach 500 HRs. He should not be in the marginal group. Bagwell ranks 36th all-time among positional players on B-R's version of WAR and 40th in FanGraph's version, directly in-between two no-doubt-about-it HOF-caliber players: Ken Griffey Jr. and Johnny Bench. Bagwell has the hardware (two MVPs, three silver sluggers), the power (449 HR), the speed (202 SB), and the plate discipline (14.9 BB%) to make him a HOFer.
Piazza is the greatest offensive player ever at his position, period. The all-time leader for HR by a catcher (427), Piazza was a 12-time All-Star with a career .308/.377/.545 line. He's dogged by his assumed link to steroids, his lack of pedigree (62nd round pick by a family member, anyone?), and by the fact that he was not exactly a defensive wizard. Yet, Piazza was the definitive offensive catcher of his generation and an easy yes.
To self-plagurize from yesterday:
Schilling's 216-146 win/loss record isn't as sexy as it could be, in part, because of his time on bad Phillies' teams, but the following stats are: his 4.38 to 1 K/BB ratio is the best ever since 1884 and his 11-2 record with a 2.23 ERA in the postseason is the stuff of legends. Yes, Schilling never won the Cy Young, but his two of his three second place finishes came behind two even historically greater years from Randy Johnson. Schilling is 17th all-time in Baseball-Reference's version of Win Probability Added and 26th all time among pitchers for bWAR, 63rd among all players. An easy yes.
As discussed yesterday, Lofton runs the legitimate risk of slipping off the ballot in his first year. From yesterday:
Lofton runs the risk of being one of the least deserved "one and done" Hall of Fame ballot appearances ever. Lofton racked up six straight All-Star appearances, four straight Gold Gloves, ten years of 30 steals or more, and a career triple-slash line of .299/.372/.423. How does a lead-off hitter who got on base nearly 40% of the time not get in the Hall?
Lofton is 104th among players all-time in bWAR and 113th among hitters all-time for fWAR, just ahead of Billy Hamilton and Shoeless Joe Jackson and just below Richie Ashburn and Mike Piazza. Lofton's second most comparable player according to B-R is Tim Raines – should Raines get in, which I believe he will, Lofton's candidacy in turn will get stronger. But Lofton faces the very real possibility of falling off of the ballot completely this year with the glut of deserving first-time eligible players.
Trammel's case for the HOF has been slowly gaining steam. Getting 36.8% of the vote last year, Trammel has slowly climbed from a 15.7% starting point in 2002. Trammel ranks 61st in bWAR among offensive players and 96th in fWAR, above Hank Greenberg and below Manny Ramirez. A six-time All-Star, Trammel gets overshadowed by Cal Ripken Jr. because he was not the top shortstop in the AL in the 1980s. This is particularly unfortunate is Ripken is one of the best ever at any position. When compared to his contemporaries at other positions in his time period, Trammel compares quite well and is definitely a Hall of Famer.
For my tenth and final vote…
Smith retired as the all-time saves leader and was the first true closer in the modern era. Smith's dominance metrics (8.732 K/9 IP) are good enough for 15th all-time and is ahead of every reliever not named Trevor Hoffman and Dan Pleasac. He is 11th all-time in games played and third all-time in games finished. Smith would get my tenth and final vote.
If I had more votes, I would vote include the following players: Palmeiro, Sosa, Edgar Martinez, and Larry Walker. So sorry, Dale Murphy. For a complete list of the 37 players who are eligible for the HOF this year, check out B-R's 2013 HOF Voting Guide.
61 Comments
I'll take Mike Piazza, Jack Morris, Curt Schilling, Lee Smith and Craig Biggio. I could be talked into Jeff Bagwell amd Larry Walker. I'd write in Dutch Rennert. Umpires are people, too, and The Dutchman was worth the price of admission.
Craig Larry and Jeff are not hall of farmers. Please
Yeah, I see youi point, and agree with most (as opposed to all) your reasons. Change my ballot to affirmative for Abraham, Martin and John and leave the count at 3. Thanks for the education.
How about Moe, Larry, and Curly (or Shemp if you prefer)?
Gotta disagree on the juicers, Ian. If their names appear in the Mitchell Report, IMO they are ineligible. It's just the way I feel. I understand that there is a LOT of grey area. I also understand that there are many that got lucky and did not get caught. Sorry, I guess that sucks for the ones that did. Other players have been given the opportunity to stand up and indict those that they know used, most choose not to. Oh well, life isn't fair.
You can say that in this country people are innocent until proven guilty, and I am in full support of that edict when considering who goes to jail and who doesn't.
But that's not what we're deciding here. Immortality should be reserved for those that played the game clean of HGH, Andro and the like.
Well, that's certainly a stance some are taking, but may I ask you this:
Are you in favor of removing all guys who have admitted taking PEDs from the Hall? Guys like Mike Schmidt and Hank Aaron?
I think you should if you want to have a consistent position on the subject.
Oops, I see that you've answered that question elsewhere. Never mind this question.
And in response to your answer, I think that's a bit of a copout. Nobody knows how much or how little each of the PEDs affect the abilities of players, so to just arbitrarily hand-wave away the old guard who broke the rules to take performance enhancers while holding the new generation's feet to the fire is, I think, hypocritical.
Copout? Hypocritical? Wow. I researched the subject and came to a conclusion. That one drug was created to help sick people, and then somehow got prescribed by doctors and then abused for it's side effects.
While the others were created solely for one purpose, to enhance performance. That's how I differentiate, it's where I drew the line. I didn't realize that my analysis would cause others to believe I had character flaws, -that kind of stings EricL. I'm not the kind that arbitrarily hand waves away anything, man.
Tell me, how much did the BBWAA know about Greenies? Their feet are held to the fire now because the issue is front and center now, The Mitchell report, the Clemens case, the Braun mishandling. Was it even on their minds when they voted for Hank Aaron? Again I don't get a vote, it's just my opinion and I stand by it.
Interesting discussion. What I think steroids do is distort the record in such a way that the usual numbers you use to judge eligibility just don't apply anymore.
And the "hasn't been convicted in a court of law standard" is ridiculous. That's not the standard hall voters apply. You don't have to be convicted of being merely a good ballplayer to not make the hall. You just have to be one in the hopefully considered judgment of the voters.
Same with steroids. Granted on-field performance id far better documented than off-field cheating, but that's by the perpetrator's design. You can't wait for the courts to make this judgment for you (the criminal courts don't care about it enough for one thing), hard as it is. You make the judgment based on the evidence you can muster. No punts.
I think looking at the *causes*of the logjam beyond steroids would be helpful– there a bunches more recent retirees who have HOF-like numbers. I think some new metrics should be looked at: metrics that look at HOF candidates in comparison to their contemporary elites–not replacement level or average, but among people who get *some* HOF interest. That'll give a better frame, I think.
Lee Smith isn't in my hall but the other 9 are along with Larry walker there are a lot of players who are hall worthy right now and s lot in the next 2 ballots hurting everyone. Maddux Pedro Thomas Johnson and others are a sure fire bet for first ballot induction coming up
Is that opinion based on being beyond elementarty baseball introduction and having seen Smith for the bulk of his prime years, or after the fact based on a view of his numbers? The reason I ask is because I get the feeling that Smith is a stronger candidate to those that saw him pitch.
I think that's a mistake.
Reason being, none of the voters have seen all of the players equally. Therefore if they rely mostly on personal viewing experience, they're not going to be able to objectively gauge the abilities of each athlete on the ballot. They're likely to form biases for or against those who they saw more often, based not on some objective metric, but from their own irrational experiences.
I think this is a fine article on the subject, and I have much respect for the author for taking the position he has: http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/baseballinsider/should_voting_for_the_hall_science_lCwnlN8qSdYkPQP17zp3EO#axzz2HYEecBpS
No one gets in.
In your opinion, should Schmidt and others who admitted taking amphetamines be in the Hall?
hk, I commented to Ian's posting last night about former Phillies chances-
"I would not vote for anyone associated with steroids, just my opinion- one that I will never be talked out of. Doesn't matter I don't have a vote anyway."
"For those that question "greenies" taken by players before the new drugs became popular. IMO- They are not the same as HGH, The Clear, and Andro. I've read that greenies got them through long hard drinking nights and hangovers, and helped with late season soreness, but did not make them stronger or give long term endurance."
It's just my opinion based on everything I've read and Interviews I've heard. I can be talked out of this if I see compelling enough arguments, but I'll never change my mind on stuff like Balco's "The Clear", or any other HGH. These are designer drugs produced and meant to not only enhance performance but to hide evidence of use. Greenies were prescribed drugs that had been around for years, and were abused for the wrong reason.
Thanks for clarifying your position. I missed reading that. Just wondering, did you ever read Mike Schmidt's book – I did not by the way – in which he wrote that the elimination of amphetamines could have "possibly far greater implications for the game than the crackdown against steroids."?
Interesting piece, I was just watching Bill Madden on MLB Network last night.
I never read the book. But I have a vivid memory of an interview Schmidt gave right after ARod was exposed. They asked him what he thought and he came right out and said; (paraphrasing) that he really couldn't be too judgmental because of the greenies he and his team mates took during his days. He just blurted it out and it surprised me.
Also, why not Piazza? If you were voting, would you keep out those who are suspected to have used steroids?
Piazza was not officially named in the Mitchell report or anywhere else, but apparently enough writers believe he did. It's a shame this has to be so messy, I guess Piazza is either guilty or collateral damage.
As I said above, there is a way to get to the bottom of all this- The players that have information need to stand up and say so, they've been given opportunities but continue to protect the "club". I really think it's the only way to get rid of the grey area, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
There's another way to solve the problem.
We can all stop pretending that the Hall of Fame is some sort of Hall of Virtue. It isn't now, and never has been. Yes, some of these guys (although we can't know who – amongst the current crop of players or the players who've played over the last 25+ years) used prohibited substances, but if you think this is any kind of new occurrence you're being naive.
There are cheaters, racists, adulterers, drug addicts and all around awful people in the Hall of Fame. To keep out some of the best players in the history of the game because they would fit right in on that list because some writers have crowned themselves the moral arbiters of the game is, in my opinion, disgraceful.
When it comes down to the HOF, the writers have always had the discretion to make moral judgments regarding the players conduct as well as their raw statistical production. Hence an all-around good guy like Dale Murphy won't get in because he doesn't have the "needed" stats. Likewise, players like Clemens, Bonds, Sosa can be shunned because their conduct, real or imagined, proven or unproven, is seen as being detrimental to the game. If as EricL notes that all sorts of riff-raf are enshrined in Cooperstown, it is more likely symptomatic of past eras when writers covered for players and buried their darker secrets aka alcohol/drug abuse, infidelity, or a time when racist behavior was tolerated not just by writers but by a nation. Think of the BBWA standards as evolving toward a higher plane.
Lefty, I have to disagree. What the players were doing at the time was NOT hidden from the managers, owners nor the MLB commission. Was it endorsed? No, was it a factor in putting people in the stands? Surely. What is the MLB but a business and putting people in the seats is a number 1 priority.
Baseball players should not be blamed soley, the MLB officials have always known what is going on and they could have stopped it if they wanted to.
When the tree falls in the forest and nobody is around, it does make a sound.
However, when dealing with people who do not have rules standardized or enforced, is it cheating? Remember, these are people who are competetive atheletes who want to do better and better than anybody else, that is their drive. Without management enforcement what can you expect?
I say let them in.
Agreed. I was searching for the right words to explain what I'm feeling and you nailed my thoughts.
And sorry, Lefty. I agree with you like 99% of the time but on this one I'm with Brooks.
Of course I can't prove this, but ongoing suspensions offer a tip of the iceberg that there are still guys looking for an edge attempting to remain ahead of contols. No question, a lot of people are to "blame" other than the players you guys want to make excuses for, but when their me first thinking costs other players job oppoirtunities, let alone fair fields of play, how can baseball turn around and welcome them to share in it's highest honor? They simply can't, but what they can do is leave it up to a third party, and the third party has spoken today. Baseball itself, who you guys wanna implicate for past wrongs, and I think rightly so seems to have at least straightened their part out.
Besides, who do you let in? Pre alleged roid guys Bonds and Clemens? Or Sammy Sosa, who, if you look at his record had some awesome congested stats in a very interesting short term window. Those that did not support the case of suspected roid users done good. The results aren't perfect, mind you, it's often a guess as to who did and who didn't, but the balance seems good.
Wrong is wrong, period. And a tip of the hat to those that sttod up to the shortcut, and said no.
Today is a tribute of sorts to a lot of unnamed players.
I mean, no offense to Brady Anderson, with his 51 homers, but I'm supposed to sit here and ay well, everyone else did it and applaud whatever degree of success he had. I might shut my eyes to some of it too, because I like to see my team win, or my favorite players do well, but enough is enough, and first year enshrinement would be a joke.
I named my son after Brady Anderson. Forget the "supposed" roids. He hit 51 (actually it was 50) bombs and it was never proven that he had "help". So, in my opinion, he hit 50 home runs in the major leagues in 1996 and should get credit for that.
I get your points Brooks and Chuck. But I'm not saying that other people weren't also involved, nor am I promoting the idea of punishment for the people that knowingly broke the law or pretended not to notice.
So just to be clear- I'm not advocating jail time, fines or expulsion for anyone!
But also, no honor for what they accomplished, no immortality, no HOF.
This is just a joke it is the writters trying to prove a point, Bonds and Clemens are first ballot hall of famers juice or not. If any one is going to stand on a high horse and say they cheated they do not get in is a joke, speed is a performace enhancing, And they all took them, Guys like Sosa and McGwure are fringe guys without the juice so I get that, but to just prove a point that the writers can it is a joke no one got in this year. Take the numbers that are suppose to give you an in 3000 hits 300 wins 500 HRs, and watch the players, In the decade Bonds and Clemens played they were the best there was in their positions, I am really sick of all these guys who live in glass houses throwing stones get over yourselves and vote on what they did when they did i t
speed and steroids are not comparable. speed gives you extra energy. juice makes you super human.
Well, I think Clemens and Bonds and others will get in on the second or third ballots. First ballot HOFers are reserved for the the best of the best and their use of steroids takes them out of that category. The Hall of Fame is more than just numbers. They'll get in, but they don't belong with Seaver, Carlton, Yaz, etc.
Why the hell is Jack Morris not in the HOF? OK, his ERA his high. He was the winningest pitcher of the 80's and one of the greatest WS pitchers ever. He's comparable to Schilling…but better. Its time for him to go in. He belongs. A true ace.
The Dipsy
I hope you wrong about Bonds and Clemens but you are absolutely on the mark about Jack Morris.
And don't think that Bonds being a total doosh didn't hurt him with some voters.
The Dipsy
Morris has a high ERA but that's in the AL where the DH is a factor. His WHIP is pretty high, too, at 1.296. Helluva pitcher though. I think he'll eventually get in. 67.7% is on the cusp.
Until and if anyone is technically found guilty of (or admits to) violating a MLB rule I feel that they should be eligible for the HOF. To do otherwise makes each voter prosecutor, judge and jury based on hearsay.
They ARE eligible, they just didn't get voted in this time. Once the process has played out, many of these guys will be elected in future years. I don't see an travesty in the fact that they're not first ballot guys.
The criteria given to each voter makes them EXACTLY that-judge, jury and exectuioner. Thats the way its always been.
I think no one getting in was the writers sending a message to all future PED/Steroid users. However, it also hurt others on the ballot, like Morris and Biggio, by taking votes away from them, more so Biggio, since he was from that era, but a "clean" player, and lumped in with Bonds, et al. Part of the requirement for entrance is "character" and "integrity"; however, I am sure that argument can be made on both sides: those lacking these requirements (Bonds, et al) and those already in the Hall that might be questionable in those values, who were from an earlier era in baseball, such as the early 1900s-1940s.
If I had more time, I'd love to compare Bonds's stats from when he was a Pirate to that of when he was a Giant (pun intended). Gotta run, but wanted to comment.
There's a character clause in the MVP voting rules too.
Barry Bonds won 7 of them. SEVEN. Four of which came in the steroid era when Bonds was 37-40, which ever writer was more than happy to support at the time.
This witch hunt is silly.
I'll provide a link to a timely and interesting article from the New York Times regarding the controversy with the Hall of Fame and selection process.
It begins.."..a Hall of Fame with a membership that already includes multiple virulent racists, drunks, cheats, brawlers, drug users and at least one acknowledged sex addict".
There will always be controversy related to charges of hypocrisy in voter's criteria for Hall of Fame selections. Personally, I see the notorious racism of baseball's past as the greatest sore of this great game which affected lives of those involved administering the sport and of players both on and off the field. I refer to the segregationist policy promoted and enforced by a Commissioner of 30 plus years and later entered into the Hall of Fame in 1944 (Kenesaw Mountain Landis) or the well documented racists who are hall of famers such as Ty Cobb and Cap Anson (who relentlessly took up the personal cause of preserving segregation in baseball's early years). Just think of all the great black players who were denied a chance to play in the Majors and some who were past their prime when they were finally allowed in when the color barrier was broken (thanks to Branch Rickey signing Jackie Robinson).
If you have such great players with dishonorable reputation in the HOF, why deny players who have posted hall of fame numbers in their career BEFORE the Steroid era (Bonds and Clemens had those kind of stats prior to Steroid era) to be in the Hall of Fame. Remember it's the stigma of allegations and not conviction of any charges in taking illegal drugs that caused Bond and Clemens.to be discriminated in the HOF voting. Unfortunately, the presumption of guilt prevails in this situation and for the HOF voters.
The bottom line is that MLB kept a closed eyelid while all this was going on. The MLB governing body let it happen as a result, it was a part of the game. Some players excelled with it (Sosa, Bonds, Palmiero, etc) and some did not. Since it was part of the game regardless if we think it right or wrong, it happened.
As a matter of fact, which is worse in your opinion? The players who pushed the extremes of competitiveness or the management staff who stood by silently and allowed this to go on?
The management staff, for certain. But you keep missing my point. I'm not trying to indict anyone. If I were I'd throw the whole lot of them in the klink.
I'm giving up at this point. I feel my way and you have every right to feel your way.
Its a matter of ethics. My perspective – I would not do it but then again, I am not a professional athlete. I don't and never will have those juices flowing in my veins.
The Hall of Fame isn't a Hall of Virtue. But that doesn't solve the problem.
How do we decide whether someone ought to be in the HOF? Stats mostly. And where does steroid use have its effect? Stats. Steroids subvert the standard you use to decide whether some gets in. That's the problem. It's not a virtue problem, it's a standards problem.
Did steroids exist in the 1980s? Sure. Did they competely revolutionize the record book? No.
In the 1990s, clearly, they did. And just as clearly it wasn't everyone who was using them . . . It was the very standout performers we're considering for the HOF right now. Essentially they leveraged their money and prominence to make the best possible use of steroids and other stuff to enhance their performance vis-a-vis their more pedestrian non-cheating or ineffectually cheating peers.
All the outlier performances we see in this group–all the performances that make HOF selections "obvious" to some people–are probably largely due to PEDs.
So it is no wonder that folks are having a bit of a problem figuring out how to adapt the standards to these relatively new–what's new? Cheating that clearly and substantially distorts the records that are the standard for entrance–circumstances.
And a thousand tiny violins will play for Clemens & Bonds because they didn't get in on their first ballot. But they're the ones who muddied the waters.
Bonds has admitted using PEDs, though "unknowingly." Sosa was on the infamous list of those who tested positive. McGwire has admitted using. Palmeiro tested positive and was suspended. Clemens' pal Pettitte said under oath that Roger used, before later saying he wasn't sure.
These guys do NOT belong in this place of honor. Further, their cheating-inflated numbers make what have been HOF numbers in the past no longer able to get deserving guys in.
It's an easier dilemma to overcome in the cycling world where everyone was doping.
Of course, Lance got stripped of his titles which technically gives the victory to the second fastest doper; take the title away from him and it goes to the third faster doper, etc.
By the time their through stripping cheaters, the Tour de France victories will have to be awarded to some 6-year-old kid on his tricycle following 1,999 miles behind the pack (assuming he was clean).
Baseball likely had some non-dopers playing HOF-level ball at the same time Barry, Mark, Sammy, Roger and gang were destroying records. Perhaps the dopers would have still qualified for the Hall had they not been shooting performance enhancing substances into their veins. Perhaps they would have been mere mortal superstars instead of hitting a zillion home runs or striking out a like number of batters.
Unfortunately, we'll never know for sure. Perhaps Barry and Roger were nearly that good before they started doping (if there was a before). But McGwire? I'm not so sure about Sammy, either.
My biggest regret was playing high school ball long before the doping era began.
Who knows? As bad a player as I was, had performance enhancing drugs,been available in the mid 1960s, I probably could have been a solid .125 hitter in Single A. Something to brag about to my grandchildren. I wonder if Barry, Roger and gang will thrill their grandchildren with stories about their ignominious feats of glory?
What a mess.And there ain't no easy answer – for the HOF voters or fans.
your excuse making for juicers is disgusting. fact is, the writers did the right thing. none of these juicers should even be on the ballot. they should be blackballed from baseball forever. they nearly ruined the game, and they should not be celebrated for their transgressions. they should be shamed and shunned. it is obvious who the guys who doped are. bonds, mcgwire, clemens, palmiero, bagwell, piazza. to me, it is absolutely clear as day that all these guys juiced.
"Nearly ruined the game"? Where were you when Sosa and McGuire basically revived the game?
How is it clear that Bagwell and Piazza juiced? If it is clear as day that Piazza juiced, is it equally as clear that other big guys like the Big Hurt and Thome juiced? Piazza hit 35 HR's at age 24, peaked at age 30 and began a slow decline. He didn't have any crazy one year jumps like Roger Maris, whose career more closely resembles Brady Anderson's than Mike Piazza's, did.
The HOF lost all credibility with me when they voted in Phil Rizzuto.
They mistakenly thought voting Scooter into the Hall would get him out of the broadcast booth.
hall of fame voting is a joke. really the writers get to vote and have the final say as to who goes in. This is bullshit, the hall wasn't made only for writers to enjoy, it was made for fans of baseball. I think every fan of baseball should get to vote as to who they think is a hall of famer , after all it is for our entertainment, the fans of baseball. Every year we get to vote for the allstar players of the allstar game. I think the voting for the hall should be on a ballot that is handed out to the people who attend the allstar game. This way no one votes 25 times because they like that player(like they do for the allstar game)
They get in then it's okay to cheat. They don't get in it's okay to cheat but don't get caught .
To be a successful home run hitter, a player still has to be able to hit. To be a successful pitcher, he has to be able to control his pitches. As far as I know, they've only been shown to improve muscle mass and strength.
Until it's proven that steroids improve someone's hand-eye co-ordination, his batting eye, or his pitching mechanics, it's totally unclear, at least to me, just how much steroids actually help. Bonds, for instance, still had to have enough skill to actually determine the difference between a ball and a strike, and to actually get the bat on the ball, something which many players can't do. Clemens still needed the skill to get the ball over the plate and mix his pitches well enough to fool batters (many hitters can catch up with even a 100 MPH fastball). Maybe these guys wouldn't have performed so well without the drugs, but it's quite possible they may still have hit or pitched well enough to make the Hall.
I'm not defending cheating, per se. But I do believe that Bonds and others had more skill than just what steroids provided. It's too bad we'll never know.
Well written…and you not defending cheating, you're just stating that you are unsure of the impact that PED's had on these players' careers. A similar case can be made for not being sure how much amphetamines helped players of Schmidt's generation. For instance, while it is pretty clear that amphetamines could not increase the velocity of a pitcher's fastball, they might have helped some pitchers who top out at 95 continue to throw 95 when they are otherwise too tired – pitching out of the pen for the 3rd straight night in 90 degree heat – to reach their maximum capacity. I find it hypocritical that those who bash Bonds for breaking Aaron's all-time HR record don't bash Aaron for whatever help the greenies gave him in being fresh enough to break Ruth's all-time HR record or bash Rose for the impact that pills had in him breaking Cobb's all-time hits record. I've got a bridge to sell anyone who doesn't believe that the pills helped Rose accumulate 720 plate appearances at age 41.
Let's try to look at it this way. I know it's not this simple, but hear me out. Let's say there are two questions a ball player has to answer-
Question A-
Mr. Aaron,
as a member of the training staff I have a drug I can provide that could help you get through the soreness of the dog days of late season, and the drudgery of a day game after a night game, especially if you and the guys go have a couple of drinks, and wake up with a hangover. With your natural power base, you might even break the bambino's home run record. Everyone else on the team is taking them, would you like some too?
Question B-
Mr. Bonds,
As a member of an fitness organization unrelated to your team, I can provide you with a drug that you may have to inject, that has been proven to prolong careers and build enormous muscle mass. There are risks, but it will enhance your performance to the point where you will have a clear advantage over the other players that don't partake because of those risks. With your natural power base, you might even be able to break Aaron's all time home run record. Would you like to try it?
If you can't see the difference, and you still feel it's hypocritical, I guess we will just never agree. If I have to stand alone on this subject on this board, so be it.
George, They have willingly created an un-level playing field. Sure they had the natural ability, but those that didn't wish to take the risks, that didn't want to take the chance of ending up like Lyle Alzado, didn't get a fair shot. Let's say you are a decent position player for the Baltimore Orioles between 1984 and 2006, and you faced Raja Clemens over and over year after year while he pitched for the Blue Jays, Red Sox, and Yankees. Isn't it possible that you might have been looked upon as a better player if he didn't have that edge?
40-55 AB's per year for maybe 10-12 years. Couldn't those 600 or so AB's have made a difference in the career of a player. This is my problem with these guys. Again, I don't want to throw them in jail, I just don't want to reward them with baseball's highest honor.
Lefty, whos's to say that Lyle Alzado didn't take steroids? Some of these guys wouldn't hit even if there wasn't a single pitcher who could hit 90MPH on the gun.
I'd also like to know if simpler and non-rule breaking therapies have advantages effects. It's certainly okay for a player to consume a gallon of Jolt Cola, or two hundred different vitamin pills before a game, which might make him more alert with quicker reactions, and better able to stay on his toes late in a game.
I realize that you have your own views, but I can only go so far in agreeing. There's just too much that's not known about all the potential ways to gain an edge, and what edge they actually supply.
As I said, I don't condone drug use. But I'll also say that some players probably were unwilling to accept risks due to potential health concerns, and if they'd felt those concerns had no validity, they might have been helping to create that "unlevel playing field" just as much as anyone. It's only been in the past several years that steroids and hormones were declared off-limits by the MLB, anyway, so there was no risk of rule breaking. I'll also say that the field isn't level anyway when players like Greg Maddux or Roberto Clemente had so much more obvious abilty than those like Adam Eaton or Michael Martinez.
George, I see your side too, no doubt about it. I guess that this issue is just an overly emotional one for me. There are times in my life when I've been "edged" out by those that paid the devil to move up the ladder when I refused, and my family suffered for it.
BTW – My math in the above comment is way off- please disregard that, my bad. I'm fighting a bit of flu here. It's a pisser because I got a flu shot back in November, but I guess they didn't have this strain covered. Not fun.
After finding thi question humorous, I settled in to realize maybe it's not so silly to think of Curt Schilling's career in thee terms. Conversely, if, large if that it is, if Cole Hamels rounds out his career in Hall of Fame debatable terms, would he be helped by the first half of it having been with the Phils in winning times?
If you did not spend nine seasons with the Phillies from 1992 to 2000 would you have made the Hall of Fame on the first ballot?
"That 10 years was detrimental to my win total, but I loved it there. I always thought we were going to be a competitor next year. I believed the ownership was going to make the moves the next year, because the fan base was so passionate and so adamant about pushing them to win, and they never did. One of my last years, I had Ruben Amaro hitting cleanup for me, if that tells you anything. It was just a bad situation. I think about that. And I think about, in '97, I signed my first big contract. I went 17-11 and I think I punched out 300 guys. And I had a sub-3.00 ERA. The opening day of that season, I signed a four-year, $24-million extension. Kevin Brown, after that season, signed a $108 million contract. That was the first big contract. So, you could play that what-if game, but I don't. I'm so blessed and so lucky. The game owes me nothing. It's good."
Great article, I'm going to spend more time exploring this subject matter.


text:
Daylight Saving Time
Published On: Feb 28 2013 04:09:50 PM CST Updated On: Mar 11 2016 09:59:26 AM CST
On the second Sunday in March, we move our clocks one hour ahead and "lose" an hour during the night and then in Fall, on the first Sunday in November, we move our clocks back one hour and "gain" an extra hour. But Daylight Saving Time wasn't just created to confuse our schedules. Learn more about Daylight Saving Time here.
The views expressed are not those of this company or its affiliated companies. By posting your comments you agree to our Terms of Use.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
22-May-2006 - 25-May-2006
Conservation in Changing Societies: Heritage and Development
In 2006 the Raymond Lemaire International Centre for Conservation will celebrate its 30 th anniversary… After 30 years of multidisciplinary ...
15-May-2006 - 19-May-2006
Training Workshop on Sustainable Tourism Planning and Management at World Heritage sites in China
China has 31 World Heritage sites inscribed on the World Heritage List, and the volume of mass tourism in China has been a major challenge for ...
Saturday, 13 May 2006
Intangible – Tangible Cultural Heritage : a sustainable dichotomy ?
7th Annual Cambridge Heritage Seminar, 13th May 2006 Call for papersThe Cambridge Heritage Seminars bring together researchers, policy makers and ...
11-May-2006 - 02-Jun-2006
Call for Nominations: Young Conservationist Award
The International Ranger Federation (IRF) and IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) call for nominations for the prestigious ...
07-May-2006 - 11-May-2006
Sub-regional Conference on Outstanding Universal Value, Authenticity & Integrity in a Caribbean Context
The representatives of 18 Caribbean States Parties will meet in Barbados to participate in a sub-regional conference on "Outstanding ...
03-May-2006 - 06-May-2006
First Expert Meeting for Trans-national nomination of Amerindian Rock Art to the World Heritage List
The World Heritage Centre organized a thematic "First Expert Meeting on Rock Art in the Caribbean and the UNESCO World Heritage List, for a ...
01-May-2006 - 03-May-2006
Indo-Israel workshop on the management of World Heritage sites and Jewish heritage in India
Within the framework of a technical cooperation between India and Israel, a workshop on the management of World Heritage sites and Jewish ...
27-Apr-2006 - 29-Apr-2006
World Heritage of Portuguese Origin
The 1st International Meeting on World Heritage of Portuguese Origin will be held in Coimbra, Portugal, from April 27th to 29th, 2006. The ...
24-Apr-2006 - 28-Apr-2006
Capacity-Building Workshop for Cultural and Natural Heritage Professionals in the Pacific Region
Capacity building of cultural and natural heritage professionals from Niue, Samoa and Tonga with regard to the preparation of Tentative Lists and ...
20-Apr-2006 - 20-May-2006
"Treasures of Coiba" Photo Exhibition
The Fundación Albatros Media is presenting an exhibition of 40 large-format photographs and videos called "Treasures of Coiba" from 20 ...
19-Apr-2006 - 22-Apr-2006
The 9th US/ICOMOS Int'l Symposium
The 9th US/ICOMOS International Symposium will convene to look once again at the World Heritage Convention and its List as a rich source of ...
17-Apr-2006 - 20-Apr-2006
Heritage at Risk: Preservation of 20th Century Architecture and World Heritage
This conference is organized in co-operation with ICOMOS International, with the support of World Monuments Fund and DOCOMOMO International, the ...
27-Mar-2006 - 31-Mar-2006
Workshop for the Preparation of the Tentative List of the Solomon Islands
Within the framework of the Action Plan for the implementation of the World Heritage - Pacific 2009 Programme, and with financial support from ...
22-Mar-2006 - 25-Mar-2006
Who Owns the Past? Heritage Rights and Responsibilities in a Multicultural World
A special feature of this year's colloquium will be a day of Round Table discussions focused on practical problem-solving and the formulation of ...
Wednesday, 22 March 2006
Launch of Partnership between the World Heritage Centre, HP and National Geographic Maps: the World Heritage Map
The launch of the partnership between UNESCO's World Heritage Centre, Hewlett Packard and National Geographic Maps will take place at UNESCO ...
20-Mar-2006 - 24-Mar-2006
Workshop for the Preparation of a National World Heritage Strategy and Tentative List of Papua New Guinea
Within the context of the Action Plan for the implementation of the World Heritage - Pacific 2009 Programme, a World Heritage National Strategy ...
16-Mar-2006 - 17-Mar-2006
Climate Change and World Heritage: Expert Meeting
The impacts of climate change are affecting many natural and cultural World Heritage properties, and are likely to affect many more in the years ...
13-Mar-2006 - 14-Mar-2006
New Heritage Conference: Cultural Heritage and New Media
A working conference that will discuss current practices and future directions in which to expand and re-define the scope and nature of digital ...
09-Mar-2006 - 10-Mar-2006
Regional Meeting for Natural World Heritage Capacity Building in Southern and Eastern Africa
Thanks to the continued support of the Nordic World Heritage Foundation and in collaboration with UNEP and IUCN, a meeting of key ...
02-Mar-2006 - 03-Mar-2006
Reflection Year on World Heritage Periodic Reporting
The World Heritage Committee has decided to postpone, for one year, the beginning of the next cycle of Periodic Reporting: 2007 will be the ...


text:
House to reconvene Sunday as cliff looms
Principal dispute continues to be over taxes
The U.S. House of Representatives will reconvene on Sunday as the end-of-the-year deadline for the fiscal cliff looms, sources told CNN on Sunday.
Senate leaders argued Thursday over how even to debate a possible fiscal agreement, four days before the deadline for a deal to avoid automatic tax hikes and spending cuts set to take effect in the new year.
The back-and-forth occurred as President Barack Obama and the Senate returned to Washington after a Christmas break, and House leaders announced the chamber would reconvene on Sunday for what will be the final days of the 112th Congress, before a new legislature is sworn in next week.
Republicans insisted on more details about a scaled-back proposal first mentioned last Friday by President Barack Obama, with Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell saying his side won't "write a blank check for anything Senate Democrats put forward just because we find ourselves at edge of the cliff."
A Senate Democratic leadership member also said more details would be provided, but two White House officials said Obama will not send a fiscal cliff measure to Congress.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, argued it was Republicans who undermined an agreement by refusing to compromise on their opposition to higher tax rates for the wealthy.
"We are in same situation we've been in for a long time," Reid said of what he described as GOP intransigence that prevented progress on deficit reduction for the past two years. "We can't negotiate with ourselves."
Economists warn the full impact of the fiscal cliff could spark another recession. In signs of the potential effect, the Consumer Confidence Index sank.
Last week, Obama called for a scaled-back plan that would prevent tax increases on middle-class Americans and extend unemployment benefits.
McConnell told Obama in a telephone conversation Wednesday that he must see details of a proposal before he can figure out any process for a Senate vote.
However, a senior Democratic Senate source told CNN on Thursday that it was McConnell who must first work things out with House Speaker John Boehner on how legislation will proceed before Democrats provide more details of their plan.
Hopes for a so-called grand bargain that would address the nation's chronic federal deficits and debt appeared dashed for now, leaving it to the White House and legislators to work out a less ambitious agreement.
The principal dispute continues to be over taxes, specifically the demand by Obama and Democrats to extend most of the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush while allowing higher rates of the 1990s to return on top income brackets.
Obama campaigned for reelection on keeping the current lower tax rates on family income up to $250,000, which he argues would protect 98% of Americans and 97% of small businesses from rates that increase on income above that level.
Republicans oppose any kind of increase in tax rates, and Boehner suffered the political indignity last week of offering a compromise -- a $1 million threshold for the higher rates to kick in -- that his colleagues refused to support because it raised taxes and had no chance of passing the Senate.
With House Republicans unable to resolve the impasse, the focus shifted to the Democratic majority in the Senate to come up with a way forward that could pass the House and get signed into law by Obama.
Last Friday, the president proposed the scaled-back agreement that included his call for extending tax cuts on households with incomes under $250,000, as well as an extension of unemployment insurance.
Little if any negotation occurred since then, and Reid expressed doubt Thursday that enough time remained to reach an agreement.
"I don't know, time-wise, how it can happen now," he said as he opened the Senate's first session back from the holiday.
Possible scenarios include a short-term deal now, setting up continued negotiations next year when Obama and a new Congress that convenes in January confront a need to raise the federal debt ceiling and approving further spending to keep the government funded.
Another possibility would be a short-term deal reached after January 1 that would change the political calculus by having legislators vote for cutting the higher tax rates from the fiscal cliff -- a much more palatable exercise than the current debate over allowing top rates to increase.
Retiring Republican Rep. Steve LaTourette of Ohio told CNN on Thursday that such an outcome would be entirely due to politics.
"Nobody is willing to pull the trigger" on an agreement because "everybody wants to play the blame game," he said. "This blame game is about to put us over the edge."
In his remarks Thursday, Reid said Boehner wanted to wait until after the new House re-elects him as speaker on January 3 before proceeding with a compromise that will need support from Democrats as well as Republicans in order to pass.
Boehner was "more concerned about his speakership than putting the country on firm financial footing," Reid charged.
In response, Boehner's spokesman said Reid should stop talking and instead take up legislation passed by the House that would avert the fiscal cliff.
"The House has already passed legislation to avoid the entire fiscal cliff. Senate Democrats have not," said the spokesman, Michael Steel.
Reid and Democrats reject the GOP proposals, which would extend all the Bush tax cuts and revamp the spending cuts of the fiscal cliff, as insufficient steps that would shift too much of the burden of deficit reduction on the middle class.
Instead, Reid called on Boehner to allow a vote on a Senate-passed measure that would implement Obama's plan to extend tax cuts to the $250,000 threshold. However, McConnell rejected that possibility on Thursday in seeking to focus the debate on revising House-passed measures.
Rep. Nan Hayworth, R-New York, acknowledged Wednesday that a deal will have to include some form of higher rates on top income brackets, but she said her party would fight to make it as minimal as possible.
Hayworth also made clear to CNN that a limited agreement was the most to expect for now, saying: "I don't think we're going to get the big plan in the next six days."
A statement Wednesday by Boehner's leadership team said the Senate must act first on proposals already passed by the House but rejected by Senate leaders and Obama.
"If the Senate will not approve and send them to the president to be signed into law in their current form, they must be amended and returned to the House," the leadership statement said. "Once this has occurred, the House will then consider whether to accept the bills as amended, or to send them back to the Senate with additional amendments. The House will take this action on whatever the Senate can pass, but the Senate first must act."
Obama and Democrats have leverage, based on the president's re-election last month and Democratic gains in the House and Senate in the new Congress. In addition, polls consistently show majority support for Obama's position on taxes.
The Gallup daily tracking poll released Wednesday showed 54% of respondents support Obama's handling of the fiscal cliff negotiations, compared with 26% who approve of Boehner's performance.
A senior Senate Democratic source told CNN on Wednesday that Reid has made clear in private conversations that he will need assurance that any plan can pass both the Senate and the House before he will bring it up.
"It is to nobody's advantage to have a failed Senate vote at this point," the source said on condition of not being identified. "This will be the last train we will have, and there is no sense in it leaving the station before we have assurance it will get through."
Remaining questions include whether enough Republicans will support a compromise acceptable to Democrats, and whether McConnell and Senate Republicans will allow a simple majority vote to take up and pass any proposal, or stick to the filibuster level of 60%.
"We believe very strongly a reasonable package can get majorities in both houses," a senior White House official said. "The only thing that would prevent it is if Senator McConnell and Speaker Boehner don't cooperate."
Some Senate Democrats have discussed holding off on bringing up a proposal until the final days of 2012 to increase pressure on Republicans to support avoiding higher taxes on everyone due to the fiscal cliff.
While the focus now is on a possible agreement in coming days or weeks, anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist told CNN this week that the nation should gird for long-range battle.
"It's four years of a fight. It's not one week of a fight," said Norquist, who has threatened to mount primary challenges against Republicans who violate a pledge they signed at his behest against ever voting for a tax increase.
He predicted "a regular fight" when Congress needs to authorize more government spending and raise the federal debt ceiling in coming months.
"There the Republicans have a lot of clout because they can say we'll let you run the government for the next month, but you've got to make these reforms," he said.
On Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner informed Congress that the government would reach its borrowing limit at the end of the year -- in five days' time -- but could take steps to create what he called "headroom" for two months or so.
However, Geithner said uncertainty about the fiscal cliff negotiations and possible changes to the deficit situation made it difficult to predict precisely how long the government's steps to ease the situation would last.
The GOP opposition to any kind of tax rate increase has stalled deficit negotiations for two years and led to unusual political drama, such as McConnell recently filibustering a proposal he introduced and last week's rebuff by House Republicans of the alternative tax plan pushed by Boehner, their leader.
Reid and other Senate Democrats say House Republicans must accept that an agreement will require support from legislators in both parties, rather than a GOP majority in the House pushing through a measure on its own.
Some House Republicans have said they would join Democrats in supporting the president's proposal in hopes of moving past the volatile issue to focus on the spending cuts and entitlement reforms they seek.
The possibility of a fiscal cliff was set in motion over the past two years as a way to force action on mounting government debt.
Now, legislators risk looking politically cynical by seeking to weaken the measures enacted to try to force them to confront tough questions regarding deficit reduction, such as reforms to popular entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
The two sides seemingly had made progress early last week on forging a $2 trillion deficit reduction deal that included new revenue sought by Obama and spending cuts and entitlement changes desired by Boehner.
Obama's latest offer set $400,000 as the income threshold for a tax rate increase, up from his original plan of $250,000. It also included a new formula for the consumer price index applied to some entitlement benefits, much to the chagrin of liberals.
Called chained CPI, the new formula includes assumptions on consumer habits in response to rising prices, such as seeking cheaper alternatives, and would result in smaller benefit increases in future years.
Statistics supplied by opponents say the change would mean Social Security recipients would get $6,000 less in benefits over the first 15 years of chained CPI.
Liberal groups sought to mount a pressure campaign against including the chained CPI after news emerged this week that Obama was willing to include it, calling the plan a betrayal of senior citizens who had contributed throughout their lives for their benefits.
For his part, Boehner conceded on increased tax revenue, including higher rates on top income brackets and eliminating some deductions and loopholes.


text:
Meet our new favorite way to eat oatmeal. I really like it with some chopped pecans on top. The kids prefer it without.
Apple Pie Oatmeal Recipe
This is a perfect not-too-sweet and healthy way to start your family's day. You can use maple sugar instead of brown sugar if you have it.
2 tablespoons unsalted butter
1 large or 2 small apples, peeled and cored
2 tablespoons brown sugar, not packed
1 teaspoon ground cinnamon
Pinch ground nutmeg
Pinch salt
1 cup old fashioned rolled oats
1 3/4 cups water
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
In a medium saucepan, melt the butter over medium heat. Chop up the apples and cook them until they start to get soft. Add the sugar, cinnamon, nutmeg and salt and cook for another minute and stir well.
Add the oats and water and cook on medium low heat until thick, stirring occasionally. It should take about ten minutes for the oats to thicken. Stir in the vanilla and serve. Top with chopped toasted pecans if you wish.
Yield: 2 1/2 cups
Prep-time: 15 minutes


text:
Science, Society, & Global Catastrophes
Professor of Physics and Astronomy
Wausau, WI 54401
Science, Society, and Global Catastrophes is a team-taught, interdisciplinary course that aims to convey the nature, excitement, and role of scientific inquiry as a means of solving real-world problems. It is organized around the exploration of past and possible future catastrophes that did and can affect our environment, including plagues, extinctions, global warming, ozone depletion, and collisions with space debris. The historical, scientific, and social aspects of each theme are examined from different perspectives, and solutions are proposed and analyzed. Because many of these issues involve unsolved questions about the natural world, the course reveals to students that science is a human endeavor inextricably linked to values, politics, and social factors and that its future course will depend on their engagement and involvement as informed citizens.
One of the main goals of the course is to help students understand how scientific knowledge is structured and how it develops, and how to distinguish between science and pseudo-science. It also strives to illustrate the value and cost of the scientific enterprise and to promote rational examination of the appropriate public policy choices through the use of unsolved scientific problems and questions. The science content of the course includes the physics of meteorites, asteroids, and comets, their role in planetary formation, and impacts with the Earth, epidemiological and statistical data on HIV disease in Africa, and the chemistry of greenhouse gases. Mathematical calculations and statistical modeling techniques are used to explore various questions, such as the effectiveness of strategies for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, the rate and impact of human population growth, and the past and future effects of asteroid collisions on the Earth.
Science, Society, and Global Catastrophes involves approximately 60 students and 5 faculty across five campuses of the University of Wisconsin system. The campuses are linked by compressed video. Assignments emphasize critical thinking and writing skills, and include group projects, interpretation of data, analysis of journal articles, mathematical and statistical modeling exercises, and essay questions.
Goals1) To understand how science is structured and develops, and to study the historical development of scientific ideas through the use of contemporary problems.
2) To learn how to distinguish between science and pseudo-science.
3) To illustrate the value and cost of the scientific enterprise and to promote rational examination of the appropriate public policy choices.
4) To examine how scientific knowledge and risk assessment can interest and impact public policy making.
ProficienciesWe will address the following proficiencies in this course.
I. Clear and Logical Thinking
(a) Analyze, synthesize, evaluate and interpret information and
(b) Construct and support hypotheses and arguments.
(c) Distinguish knowledge, values, beliefs, and opinions.
(d) Select and apply scientific and other appropriate methodologies.
(e) Solve quantitative and mathematical problems.
(f) Interpret graphs, tables, and diagrams.
(g) Integrate knowledge and experience to arrive at creative solutions.
(h) Evaluate situations of social responsibility.
(i) Make decisions based on an informed understanding of the moral and ethical issues involved.
II. Effective Communication
(a) Read and listen with comprehension and critical perception.
(b) Recognize fallacies and inconsistencies.
(c) Respond to the media actively and analytically.
(d) Write clearly, precisely, and in a well-organized manner.
(e) Develop a large and varied vocabulary.
(f) Respond orally to questions and challenges.
(g) Work collaboratively as part of a team.
(h) Gather information from printed sources, electronic sources, and observation.
(i) Use computer technologies for communication and problem solving.
III. Aesthetic Response
(a) Employ and expand the imagination.


text:
Submit News
Microsoft CEO Ballmer Roars at Shareholder Criticism, Defends Innovation Record
Jason Mick
November 29, 2012 3:06 PM
Recipient E-mail
Sender E-mail
(Source: Reuters)
Amid low share prices, Ballmer received a chilly reception from some shareholders at their annual meeting
At Microsoft Corp.'s (
) annual shareholder Wednesday, the company's at-times boisterous Chief Executive Steven "Steve" Ballmer brought in Microsoft's "big guns" -- former
Microsoft CEO, co-founder, and tech icon Bill Gates
and Chief Financial Officer Peter Klein. But at the meeting of 450 shareholders, Mr. Ballmer did not need to enlist the help of his fellow Microsoft elite, who remained silent even as the meeting turned chilly,
according to
reporters in attendance.
Amid tough questions from the audience, Mr. Ballmer was candid in his assessment that Microsoft was a late-comer to the tablet game, but he told the audience in a fiery defense that he saw "nothing but a sea of upside" for
Windows 8 tablets
. He comments, "We're innovating on the seam between software and hardware. Maybe we should have done that earlier. [But] I feel pretty good about our [current] level of innovation."
Indeed, Microsoft has some defenders in odd places. Stephen "Steve" Wozniak, better known as the "Woz", was once a ferocious critic of Microsoft and evangelist for Apple, Inc. (
), the company he co-founded. But today he said in a recent
interview that
he fears for Apple
because Microsoft has become more innovative.
Steve Ballmer is overwhelmed with anticipation regarding his company's
prospects in the tablet market. [Image Source: Getty Images]
Others might disagree.
While Mr. Ballmer pointed optimistically to
Windows Phone sales
quadrupling on a year-to-year basis, the platform is still estimated to only own 2 to 4 percent of the global market, well behind Apple and market leader Google Inc. (
). While Microsoft dreams of "pulling a Google" and rising to the top of the stack, it currently is resigned to vying with embattled Research in Motion, Ltd. (
for the third-place spot
But when it came to shareholder criticism, the harshest questions came not about Microsoft's products, but rather why its share price was so low. Indeed, Microsoft shares trade at an order of magnitude lower than their Google and Apple counterparts. (To be fair Microsoft has significantly approximately 9 times as many shares as Apple, and 25 times as many as Google). Apple recently passed Microsoft in market capitalization and today has a total stock value that is
more than twice that of Microsoft's.
Steve Ballmer dodged the share value question, remarking, "I understand your comment... [but Microsoft has] done a phenomenal job of driving product volumes... The stock market's kind of a funny thing."
Funny indeed, but the shareholders might have been less than amused. Mr. Ballmer did placate the critics slightly by pointing to
Microsoft's $10B USD profit sharing effort
which includes share buybacks and quarterly dividends.
Currently, Microsoft shares are trading at around their levels from a decade ago, having risen roughly 18 percent in 2012. In other words, despite the criticism, shareholders should be pleased to an extent that Microsoft outperformed the Standard & Poor's 500 average of an anemic 3 percent in gains.
"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet. A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis
Related Articles
Windows 8 Usability on PCs for Novice and Power Users Blasted in Study
November 21, 2012, 4:20 PM
Bill Gates Agreed with Ballmer: Sinofsky Had to Go
November 13, 2012, 2:43 PM
Windows Phone 8 Launches on 3 of Top 4 U.S. Carriers With "Killer" Hardware
October 29, 2012, 4:24 PM
Microsoft's Ballmer: We Want to "Set a New Standard" With First-Party Hardware
October 25, 2012, 5:54 PM
Microsoft Windows Sales Plunge 33 Percent as Company Looks Ahead to Win 8
October 19, 2012, 12:21 PM
Latest Headlines
WhatsUp with WhatsApp?
August 29, 2016, 5:23 AM
Fuchsia – Google's New Open Source Operating System
August 17, 2016, 6:30 AM
Windows 10: End of an Era & A New Beginning
August 1, 2016, 9:59 AM
Free Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM
Quick Note: Whoops, Microsoft Pushed Unwanted Windows 10 to Some Users
October 15, 2015, 9:04 PM
Quick Note: Windows 10 Insider Preview Build 10565 Fixes Boot Camp 6.0 Issues
October 13, 2015, 11:39 AM
More Headlines
Most Popular Articles
What Can You Do with Your New Echo Dot?
December 3, 2016, 5:00 AM
Google has developed Deep Learning Algorithm to detect Diabetic Eye Disease
December 4, 2016, 5:00 AM
Sound Blaster Z SBX PCIE Gaming Sound Card - Superb High Performance Sound Card
December 6, 2016, 1:00 AM
GizmoTab – Verizon's new $80 Tablet for Kids
December 4, 2016, 5:30 AM
Foscam R2 Home Security Camera System – High Quality High FHD Security Video Footage with No Monthly Fees
December 1, 2016, 2:00 AM
Latest Blog Posts
What's in the News?
Saimin Nidarson
Dec 11, 2016, 5:00 AM
Some News
Saimin Nidarson
Dec 10, 2016, 5:00 AM
Today's Talk
Saimin Nidarson
Dec 9, 2016, 5:00 AM
Latest Tech News
Saimin Nidarson
Dec 8, 2016, 5:11 AM
In The News
Saimin Nidarson
Dec 7, 2016, 5:00 AM
e Guide: Mobile Security for 2017
Saimin Nidarson
Dec 6, 2016, 5:00 AM
Apple Car is Not Dead
Saimin Nidarson
Dec 5, 2016, 1:00 AM
More News
Saimin Nidarson
Dec 4, 2016, 5:00 AM
More News
Saimin Nidarson
Dec 3, 2016, 5:00 AM
Top News
Saimin Nidarson
Dec 2, 2016, 5:00 AM
Surface Ergonomic Keyboard
Saimin Nidarson
Dec 1, 2016, 3:01 AM
Chapeconense plane crash: Football rallies around Brazilian Team
Saimin Nidarson
Nov 30, 2016, 1:00 AM
How to Extends Your iPhone's Battery Life
Saimin Nidarson
Nov 29, 2016, 12:49 AM
Top Stories
Saimin Nidarson
Nov 28, 2016, 1:12 AM
News: Fidel Castro
Saimin Nidarson
Nov 27, 2016, 5:00 AM
Top News
Saimin Nidarson
Nov 26, 2016, 5:00 AM
Changes in Social status affect the way genes turn on and off within immune cells.
Saimin Nidarson
Nov 25, 2016, 5:12 AM
Austrian far–right hopeful Hofer may back EU vote.
Saimin Nidarson
Nov 24, 2016, 4:00 AM
Final Fantasy XV Leaked Before Nov 29 Launch Date
Saimin Nidarson
Nov 23, 2016, 1:00 AM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. -
RSS Feed
About Us
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information
Kristopher Kubicki


text:
Add your site here: List your business today! Get your website listed in the top spots of Legal Services and attract motivated customers. Enjoy the benefits of global exposure and meet your business objectives. Submit your Legal Services related website now!
Dirbull ~ Regional ~ United States ~ Vermont ~ Legal Services


text:
I've talked a lot about creating mental images that will help improve your golf game. I have another one that will help you picture the correct way to hit short shots around the green.
All you need is a spatula, a wrist band and a golf club.
Start by putting the wrist band on about halfway up your forearm. Next, slide the spatula underneath the wrist band so that it bends away from the back of your hand.
Now, grab the golf club and when you address the ball, angle your wrists so that your hand rests up against the spatula.
Once your set-up, make a couple of swings or chip a few golf balls. Focus on keeping your hand up against the spatula during the backswing, as well as the follow through. This stabilizes the wedge face through impact.
A lot of players flip their wrists at contact, rotating the toe of the club. You want to keep the toe of the club stable because this will cause the ball to go straighter.
If you rotate the club wearing the spatula, the back of your hand will move away from the spatula.
The idea of wearing a spatula while you practice short game shots is one of the best mental images or drills that I've come across. You get instant feedback when you make a mistake, rotating the toe at impact.
So next time you're planning on practicing your short game, remember to bring a spatula.


text:
There is no doubt about it – - install week is busy and full of unexpected surprises (some good, some not so great) but even in just these past two days, it has been so rewarding to see the works arrive to the gallery and to have them all intact! This is definitely one of the best parts of curating an exhibition – to see all the works together for the first time feels like one big sigh of relief. They are finally here and I'm so pumped to finally have everyone see what all the fuss is about.
A special shout-out of thanks to the Wormwood & Haze crew who have transformed the gallery into a pristine white cube gallery space. Joy from W&H has even worked closely with Do-Ho Suh whose piece "Doormat:Welcome Back" is in our show and who I am writing about for my thesis!! Such close encounters!
Some interesting shots:
"They're here!!"


text:
Building department extends hours in Estes
- published_in
- Today's News
A new building-permit technician has been hired in the Estes Park office to cover the extra office hours. The hours were added in response to additional projects and an increase in permit activity in the Estes Valley Area, according to a release Tuesday.
Previously, the office was not open on Tuesdays and was open for a shorter period of time the rest of the week.
Want to see more? Login or Subscribe.


text:
Packing list for Guatemala
|Packing List for [[{{#explode:Packing list for Guatemala| |3}} {{#explode:Packing list for Guatemala| |4}} {{#explode:Packing list for Guatemala| |5}}]]
|These lists has been compiled by Volunteers serving in [[{{#explode:Packing list for Guatemala| |3}} {{#explode:Packing list for Guatemala| |4}} {{#explode:Packing list for Guatemala| |5}}]] based on their experience. Use it as an informal guide in making your own list, bearing in mind that experience is individual. There is no perfect list!
|[[Image:Flag_of_{{#explode:Packing list for Guatemala| |3}}{{#if:{{#explode:Packing list for Guatemala| |4}}|_{{#explode:Packing list for Guatemala| |4}}|}}{{#if:{{#explode:Packing list for Guatemala| |5}}|_{{#explode:Packing list for Guatemala| |5}}|}}.svg|50px|none]]
See also:
For information see Welcomebooks
This list has been compiled by Volunteers serving in Guatemala and is based on their experience. Use it as an informal guide in making your own list, bearing in mind that each experience is individual. In addition, the climate in Guatemala varies greatly from cold to hot. The training center, in Santa Lucia Milpas Altas (near Antigua), is at high altitude. Therefore it can be very cold at night and in the training rooms during the morning hours. It can be quite cold for the training group that arrives in January, and quite rainy for the other two groups that arrive later in the calendar year.
It is important to keep this in mind while packing and be sure to pack accordingly (think layers!). There is no perfect list! You obviously cannot bring everything we mention, so consider those items that make the most sense to you personally and professionally. As you decide what to bring, keep in mind that you have an 80-pound weight restriction on baggage. And remember, you can get almost everything you need in Guatemala.
General Clothing
- Two to three pairs nice pants (lightweight that quick dry can be helpful)
- Two to four pairs work pants or jeans
- Six T-shirts or short sleeve polo shirts
- Two to three blouses or dress shirts
- One to two pairs of shorts (not short-shorts)
- Two week supply of cotton underwear and socks
- One pair long underwear
- Two to three medium-weight sweater/sweatshirt
- One medium-weight jacket or fleece
- One poncho or rain coat (rain pants optional and advised by some) For Men
- A few ties, one or two nice dress shirts and a sport coat (optional) for formal occasions For Women
- Two casual and one dress-up dresses
- Two to three "going-out" outfits
Other Clothing Items
- Belt
- Handkerchiefs or bandanas
- Running or athletic gear (if you are into sports)
- One to two bathing suits
- Two hats (sun hats, visors, or caps with bill)
- One stocking cap (for colder weather)
- One pair of lightweight gloves
- Sunglasses
NOTE: The general characteristics for clothes are sturdy, easily washable, iron-free (if possible), and conservative.
Bring what you are comfortable in, for example things you would wear on a weekend in the states. You do not need to change your whole style because you are a Volunteer. Good quality, used clothes are available in many Guatemalan markets or stores (called ropa Americana). Additionally, many Volunteers have noted their work requires business casual for special meetings or events. As one Volunteer noted: "Although many items on this list may seem like it, you are not preparing for a two-year camping trip, nor do you need to."
Other Items
- One or two pairs of sturdy, walking tennis/cross-training shoes
- One pair of hiking boots or water proof shoes
- One to two pairs comfortable casual/dress shoe
- One pair sport and dress sandals
- One pair farm/mud boots (for agriculture Volunteers). Rubber boots are also very easy to buy in Guatemala.
NOTE: The overall selection and quality of shoes in Guatemala is more limited than the US. It is difficult to find women's shoes larger than size 9 and men's shoes larger than size 10. If you have larger feet, you may want to consider a plan for getting extra shoes once the ones you bring wear out (e.g., bringing a two-year supply, having people bring you shoes when they come to visit, or arranging for people to send them to you).
Personal Hygiene and Toiletry Items
- Your regular hygiene items (e.g., soap, shampoo, shaving cream, etc.) to get you started (replacements/ refills are easily bought here)
- Three-month supply of prescription medicine
- Extra pair of prescription glasses
NOTE: Peace Corps nurses will supply you with over-the-counter medicines such as: vitamins, painkillers, cold medicines, tampons, etc.
- One to two sets of flat sheets and pillow cases for a full bed
- Two bath towels (quick dry towels are convenient for travel)
- Flashlight (headlamps are popular)
- Sturdy backpack/duffel bag for three- or four-day trips
- Day pack/Small backpack
- Watch (fairly cheap and water-resistant/proof, although cell phones can also serve as a watch.)
- Small travel alarm clock (Most people use the alarm on their cell phone.)
- Money belt (30% of PCVs in Guatemala report theft so this is almost a necessity)
- One water bottle
- Pocketknife (basic knife, corkscrew, screwdriver model is very handy, e.g., Leatherman)
- Shortwave radio
- Start-up supply of stationery, pens, journal, etc.
- Light sleeping bag and sleeping pad (e.g., thermarest)
- Digital camera (blank CDs are cheap for copying files). Film developing is also easily still accessible in many towns.
- Good scissors
- Photos of family, friends, and home (Guatemalans will LOVE to see your photos)
- Decks of cards and favorite board games are popular
- Small sewing kit
- One or two books to get you through training (PC has a very large library/ book exchange)
- Travel guide to Guatemala
- Music (Many PCVs have iPods, although they are targets for theft. Some people bring small radio/CD/MP3 players, but others buy them in Guatemala.) CDs are sold in every market at very cheap prices.
- Small, basic cookbook/favorite recipes (Peace Corps/ Guatemala also sells Que Rico! a cookbook of Volunteer-compiled recipes that are easily prepared with common items sold at market)
- Duct tape
- Instrument (harmonica, guitar, etc.)
- Comfort foods (favorite snack foods)
- USB storage stick 4 GB (easy to use and hardier than disks for saving important documents)
- Laptop or netbook computers are very useful, just be aware that computer theft can be common on public buses so the property insurance policy is a good idea.


text:
Big university or small college. Public or private. Visiting a campus in person is the best way to learn about the environment where you'll be spending the next four years of your life. It's an opportunity to sit in on a class, or even spend the night in a residence hall. And during your visit, be sure to ask these ten questions.
What made you choose this college over the other ones you were considering?
Not too long ago, these students were in the same situation you're in now. Something helped them make their decision. Maybe it'll tip the scales for you too.
What are a few things you wish you had known before arriving on campus?
This is how you'll get the inside scoop—the information you won't find in the guidebooks.
What are the most popular majors on campus?
Get insight into certain programs, and find out what students are actually studying.Get insight into certain programs, and find out what students are actually studying.
What's the average class size for first-year courses?
Yes, just first-year courses. It will give you a better idea of what to expect from day one.
Which professor has had an impact on your college experience, and why?
Technically these are two questions, but you're bound to get interesting answers to both.
What connections exist between the college and local residents?
This is another way to learn about the community that will be your second home for four years.
Which students live where?
Some colleges require first-year students to live on campus. Some don't. Either way, you'll learn the best places to live.
What do students do for fun on weekends?
Ask everybody you meet. Especially people who look like they're having fun.
How do you get around?
This tells you whether you'll be walking, biking, or shuttling between class, the store, and your room.
Who has the best cup of coffee or slice of pizza?
Actually, this should probably be the first question on the list.
Ready to get started?
Take a virtual tour of Albion, or check out our interactive map of campus. Then request more information from Albion, visit campus, or contact our Admission Counselors for questions!


text:
Headlines (News Releases)
Playwright Keith Barker to speak at Laurier
Communications, Public Affairs & Marketing
Oct 10/13| For Immediate Release
Spy Dénommé-Welch, Aboriginal Education Consultant
Lori Chalmers Morrison, Acting Director
WATERLOO Keith Barker, a Métis actor and playwright, will speak about Aboriginal issues and contemporary theatre for an event titled In the Playwrights Studio: Discussion with Keith Barker, taking place on Lauriers Waterloo campus Oct. 24, 2013.
Barkers play, The Hours That Remain, is his response to the great number of Aboriginal women who have gone missing in Canada, especially around the Highway of Tears, a stretch of road in Northern British Columbia. The plays protagonist, Denise, is haunted by the disappearance of her sister, Michelle. As Denise and her husband Daniel grapple with the loss, Denise is visited by Michelle in a series of visions that help her to find the answers she is looking for.
I cant even begin to imagine what the families of people gone missing must go through not knowing what has happened to their loved ones, said Barker in a statement. I picked the title The Hours That Remain to honour that sentiment. Often for those who are left behind life is just the hours that remain. My intention with this play is to stimulate conversation, raise awareness, and with my sincerest of hopes honour the women we have lost.
At Laurier, Barker will discuss contemporary theatre, the process of writing and his motivations for addressing First Nations issues. The event will also feature a reading from the play and a question-and-answer period.
The event is a partnership between Lauriers Faculty of Education and Office of Aboriginal Initiatives. On Oct. 25, Barker will speak to Faculty of Education students about teaching Aboriginal history, issues and culture through theatre.
It is a privilege to have Mr. Barker come and speak to our faculty and teacher education candidates about his work, and it is a great opportunity as educators to learn more about First Nations, Métis and Inuit issues through the power of theatre and storytelling, said Aboriginal Education Consultant Spy Dénommé-Welch. Its these kinds of interactions that bring education to life.
Barker graduated from George Brown Theatre School and became the Artistic Associate at Native Earth Performing Arts. He was also the playwright-in-residence at Native Earth for the 2012/13 season. The Hours That Remain is his first full-length play.
The Oct. 24 event begins at 6 p.m. in The Senate and Board Chamber. It is a free event and open to the community. Participants are asked to RSVP to email@example.com.


text:
Çeviri gerekli! Bu sayfanın çevirisi henüz tamamlanmadı, bu yüzden burası asıl haliyle İngilizce görünüyor. Çeviriye yardım etmeniz bizi fazlasıyla mutlu eder! Bu sayfadaki yazıyı çevirin ve gobolinux-www AT lists.gobolinux.org adresine yollayın, biz de buraya koyalım (elbette ki çevirenin ismini belirterek! :-)).
GoboLinux is a Linux distribution that features a new filesystem organization, which departs from the traditional Unix heritage of Linux systems. Basically, this means that it is not based in directories such as /usr and /etc. The main idea of the alternative hierarchy is to store all files belonging to an application in its own separate subtree; therefore we have directories such as /Programs/FooPlayer/1.0/lib.
To allow the system to find these files, they are logically grouped in directories such as /System/Links/Executables, which, you guessed it, contains symbolic links to all executable files inside the Programs hierarchy.
To maintain backwards compatibility with traditional Unix/Linux apps, there are symbolic links that mimic the Unix tree, such as "/usr/bin -> /System/Links/Executables", and "/sbin -> /System/Links/Executables" (this example shows that arbitrary differentiations between files of the same category were also removed).
Here is a more visual overview.
No. In fact, it was motivated to fulfill the needs of users who prefer to install applications from the original source packages instead of relying on the distribution. That is the main reason why each application gets its own directory: so you can install it from source there and then remove it with an "rm -rf". So, you see, GoboLinux was designed focusing the experienced user who doesn't like things to be automagical. Our scripts merely automate procedures, but they don't "make decisions", and whenever they have to, they ask first.
The binary package collection was created as a way to avoid duplication of effort between users. The Compile project was created to store "compilation rules" of the original source packages of the applications, given that there is no single standard on how to compile apps on Linux. We do not wish to estabilish a "packaging standard" such as RPM. We think that there is no real need for "packages" if the original .tar.gz is properly made. For instance, when an application uses the GNU AutoTools (autoconf, automake...), compiling for GoboLinux is trivial; for non-trivial cases, Compile takes care of accumulating the necessary knowledge on how to compile things.
However, given the more logical directory tree, GoboLinux is often considered a more conceptually friendly distribution, as its structure is more logical and less hindered by historical limitations. But we do not target beginners as a specific goal (at least not in short or mid term).
Yes, it is ready in the sense that you can, today, have a full operating system running 100% on GoboLinux, like many people around the world do.
This can be split in two questions, one about the status of the GoboLinux tools, and one about the availability of packages.
GoboLinux relies on a series of tools that automate various tasks, such as generation, installation and removal of packages, and most importantly, maintainance of the symbolic links that keep the system consistent. These tools are fairly stable, as they are a few years old by now.
Another important issue when using a distribution is the availability of packages, ie, software that you can download in binary form and install in it straight away. In this aspect, GoboLinux still lags behind other estabilished distributions, as we don't have a large community of developers and we are not based on another distribution as many distros are, so we don't have another pool of packages to base ourselves from. We have, however, all packages needed to get a running system (all packages that are part of "Linux From Scratch" and "Beyond Linux From Scratch" projects, for example), plus many others, such as KDE and all related packages, and the list just won't stop growing. Also, we have an even larger set of compilation recipes for use with the GoboLinux Compile tool, which allows one to create packages from source.
The concept was created by Hisham Muhammad. The first version of GoboLinux was created by Hisham and André Detsch.
GoboLinux has matured over a period of two years. Initially it started as a way to install programs cleanly inside a regular user account at the University (since we didn't have the real Linux tree available anyway, it was an opportunity to redesign the tree).
One day, after The Great Filesystem Crash in Hisham's computer, he had to reinstall the whole system. That's when the idea came to use, in the new system, only the alternative tree (which in the pre-crash system, already held about 80% of all installed software). André was also considering reinstalling his Linux system, so they gathered one weekend at his house, and ran the entire Linux From Scratch procedure, changing it to use the alternative directory tree. The result was jokingly named GoboLinux, and as it usually happens, the name stuck.
From its inception (described in the previous answer) on, we started getting more and more users, many of which, in the true spirit of Free Software, also became contributors the project. As in every project, people come and go, so it's impossible to list all names here, but check out the dev team page.
Our first goal is to have a system that we enjoy using, that won't get destroyed by package managing software that tries to administrate our machine for us. Most Linux distributions try to make life easier to the novice user, but this way they are making life much harder for the more seasoned user. We don't claim that GoboLinux is easier, only that it "makes more sense". However, people who use it say that it is indeed easier to administrate, given that it lets you understand your system better (if you are willing to understand it).
As they say, "world domination is just a secondary goal". :)
The short answer: theoretically yes, but no, we never measured it (to know why "theoretically", read "the long answer").
The long answer: the actual impact of the use of symbolic links is probably lower than you think. In a regular Linux distribution, libraries are already accessed through symbolic links. In GoboLinux, our links point directly to the actual file, so there is really one level of indirection to reach a library.
For example, take libc.so.6. It is in /lib, which is a link to /System/Links/Libraries, but the actual file is in /Programs/Glibc/Current, where Current is a link to 2.2.3, and inside Glibc's lib directory you have that libc.so.6 is in fact a link to libc-2.2.3.so. That's a lot of links right? However, libraries are acessed like this: the directory /System/Links/Libraries (which is not a link) is the only one stored in ldconfig's configuration (and LD_LIBRARY_PATH). There libc.so.6 points directly to /Programs/Glibc/2.2.3/lib/libc-2.2.3.so (no links in this whole path). So we have exactly one level of indirection, just as in regular Linux distributions. You may *see* a lot of links, but they are there mostly to ease the system's management.
Applications are also compiled with the --prefix set to their "homes" at /Programs/App/version, so when a program looks for a datafile it does not go through links. Reaching executables involves going through one link, but, unlike regular Linux distributions it does not have to search through items of a PATH (and any modern filesystem's tree structuring of a directory is probably more optimized than the shell's traversal through elements of $PATH. Of course, there's always the shell's hash, but then, there's always the filesystem cache).
We persuade them to cope with the GoboLinux tree with compilation options whenever possible. However, there are many programs that can't cope completely, featuring hardcoded paths in their sources and whatnot. Ultimately any free software can be patched to cope, but we don't have enough manpower for such a task and maintain it afterwards. It would be, at the very least, a big hassle, so we generally like to reduce the applied patches to the minimum. At least /bin, /lib and /sbin are critical. We have made tests in a chrooted environment and it's funny to see all the weird things that happen when those are missing.
/Depot is a "free area" to store your documents, such as media files, downloaded stuff, etc. You can think of it as a "community area", a "home for all users" (some UNIX systems have a /pub directory for this purpose). GoboLinux as a system ignores the contents of /Depot it only exists to encourage users to store their random files under a single place and keep the rest of the system clean.
/Files, on the other hand, is a standard GoboLinux directory. Inside it, there are directories such as Fonts and Plugins, where shared files that are required by applications but not necessarily part of them are kept.
Apart from Fibo, his loyal servant, no one who saw him survived to tell the story. Beyond that, we never risked digging any deeper into the subject.
Don't ask.
Of course not. :-) You may disregard the two questions above -- they are just one of the many internal jokes in the GoboLinux world. Gobo does not exis-- uh, what's that? AAAAAHHHH!!!! ;-) just kidding


text:
The slouch boot style was seen all over the runway this season, but Stuart Weitzman's 'Harbor' stands up to the competition with a concealed wedge for a little lift. Pair them with baggy moiré, trousers and a fur vest for the runway look introduced by a leading, luxury fashion house!
No results found.
We are not perfect but we try to be! If you are not satisfied, please let us know how we can improve your footnotesonline experience!
Most orders ship within 24 hours of being placed, Monday-Friday. Please refer to the Shipping map below to estimate your delivery date.
Visit US Shipping Page or the International Shipping Page
Please enter your information and we will alert you when your request becomes available!
Note: Due to their popularity, some sizes may not be available from the manufacturer. However we will do our best to accommodate you. Thanks!
Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.