1
Penn State Basketball / Re: "Back the Bucs"
« on: June 16, 2013, 06:47 PM »
Time to break out some Bon Jovi - cause of course "we're halfway there..."
NOT AFFILIATED WITH, OR AUTHORIZED BY, PENN STATE UNIVERSITY
Serving Nittany Nation on the Web Since 1954.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Penn State Basketball / Re: 2014 guard Shep Garner to Penn State
« on: June 16, 2013, 04:11 PM »Was it the St. Bonnie or Leigh board that had a thread that was afraid of this starting to happen? I wonder what they are thinking now?
St. Joe's
They have developed a dislike for us for sure, proclaiming Watkins will never come here.
Also saw someone suggest we are building a good A10 team.
3
Penn State Basketball / Re: Reid Travis question.
« on: June 16, 2013, 01:42 PM »Wow, now that is a highlight reel. That kind of player could be a game-changer here, you can't teach that sort of athleticism and he has a very nice looking shot and good handles. Makes me think we have no chance, but oh to dream!
Anyone who visits and doesn't go to a football game is at least somewhat serious about giving us a shot. Getting a player like this would certainly have an impact.
4
Penn State Basketball / Re: Recruiting
« on: June 16, 2013, 09:20 AM »
http://cityofbasketballlove.com/2013/06/class-of-2015-recruiting-recap-june-15/
Several PSU mentions. I know some of the names, but some are new to me.
Several PSU mentions. I know some of the names, but some are new to me.
5
Penn State Basketball / Re: Reid Travis question.
« on: June 15, 2013, 04:51 PM »
Didn't we learn this past offseason that you never stop recruiting?
6
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: June 11, 2013, 11:23 PM »
Don't let Gaea hear you speak this blasphemy.
That's Gaia, but that's okay. What's more important, is that the coiner of that phrase, James Lovelock, has repented, based on the empirical evidence. He says he still believes in climate change, but is a big supporter of fracking. And says he was too alarmist, and wrong about projections.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
Either spelling is fine.
http://www.theoi.com/Protogenos/Gaia.html
7
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: June 11, 2013, 04:08 PM »This is somewhat similar to what many scientists say, that CO2 doesn't cause heat, heat causes CO2. Svenmsark states that as well. He states, if you don't get cosmic rays, you'll get less cloud formation, the planet will heat, the oceans will be less vigorous as you'll have less temperature differential in the ocean between the poles and the equator, which isn't good for plant life, the earth will produce CO2 in an effort to stimulate growth. Svensmark believes this is what killed the dinosaurs(they suffocated) due to low cosmic ray activity, and just the opposite, high cosmic rays, caused enormous cloud cover, but too much, and this caused ice ages, which he says explains abnormally low sea levels during those time, water was temporarily 'bottled up' on earth. So, you need just the right amount in order to have a planetary system which works. Interestingly, if true, there may very well be a planet like ours equidistant from the Milky Way, having similar galactic cosmic ray frequency and strength. I know this can't hold a candle to people like Mann stating that polar bears are disappearing, but it makes a lot more sense.
Taps for AGW?
Nobody says CO2 "causes" heat. CO2 "absorbs" heat. It's this absorption of heat from the sun that causes earth's temperatures to rise.
CO2's heat absorption properties have been known for over 150 years and have been proven in hundreds of laboratory experiments. There's no arguing with it.
And as long as we are talking common sense, where is the common sense in this statement "the earth will produce CO2 in an effort to stimulate growth"? How exactly does that happen? Perhaps the god Vulcan instructs the volcanoes to start spewing forth gases in order to help out with the poor plants who are dying off due to low CO2 levels.What's the scientific vehicle "the earth" uses to produce CO2 in order to "stimulate growth". And why exactly does "the earth" care?
Don't let Gaea hear you speak this blasphemy.
8
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: June 11, 2013, 09:14 AM »Why Can’t America Be Sweden?QuoteIn order to maintain its position at the forefront of global innovation, the authors [of a research paper] contend, the United States must maintain an economic system that provides great rewards to successful innovators, which “implies greater inequality and greater poverty (and a weaker safety net) for a society encouraging innovation.”
Asked for examples of America’s leading role in innovative enterprise, Acemoglu listed: “Software (Google and Amazon), hardware and design (Apple), social networking (Facebook and Twitter), biotech, pharmaceuticals, robotics, nanotechnology, entertainment and retail (Wal-Mart).”
Unless the United States is prepared to initiate a world-wide slowdown, according to this line of thinking, it will have to come to terms with making relatively minor and marginal changes in its social welfare system
Fortunately, Congress is set to cut Food Stamps significantly in the coming weeks. The Senate version probably rolls back the stimulus/Great Recession changes made to the program when Obama took office, but it's hard to find a story about entitlements that explains exactly what they are.
If you're going to have a discussion about the safety net, it doesn't hurt to understand exactly how strong a net we are talking about.
You can look up how food stamps are used in your area with this neat gadget. In my home county, 12 percent of the population receives some aid, and the average is $1,546 per person per year. Or $1.41 per meal. Of course, no safety net should be helping with three meals per day - that's only for the makers!
I'm a fairly conservative guy. I believe in smaller government, lower taxes, personal freedoms, etc. But we shouldn't start pulling safety nets from people who need them. Some simple tweaks should suffice. Store computers can scan all items and know which are taxable and which are not. They can also be used to determine what can be bought with food stamps and which can't. Allow for typical foods, not high end steaks and caviar (exaggeration of course).
How many people believe that the reason some of our greatest innovators (Jobs, Zuckerberg, etc.) did what the did to have billion dollar bank accounts. Do we really feel like raising their taxes some would discourage others from innovating? I'm conservative, and I highly doubt it.
9
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: June 11, 2013, 09:05 AM »12 percent of the population receives some aid, and the average is $1,546 per person per year. Or $1.41 per meal. Of course, no safety net should be helping with three meals per day - that's only for the makers!Or you can look at it this way... Thats about $30 a week, or $120 a week for a family of four. Now, that's not near enough to feed my family, but when I was laid-off, we ate more mac and cheese and hot dogs, and store brand cereal, and shopped at the discount grocery store. If you're hitting a rough patch and need assistance, that $120 can be stretched pretty far. (It won't cover it all, but it can go pretty far if you try)
On the other side, I stopped at a local "crab shack" that steams to order live crabs brought in from Baltimore. They now have a sign that says if you're using EBT you have to order your freshly steamed to order crabs at least 2 hours ahead so that they can be refridgerated and sold as a "grocery item" and not as a "prepared food" (since you can't use EBT on prepared foods). If there are people out there using the program to by $50/dozen crabs, then maybe there are a few too many folks getting assistance that don't really need it.
I'm in the middle on this. I think certain foods and certain stores shouldn't be allowed. No reason this store should accept that form of payment. And no way should people be buying expensive steaks at the grocery store either. I believe that most people who get this form of aid likely need it. However, the reason they need it are also likely the same reasons they use it incorrectly -- they lack maturity, a sense of responsibility or something. Doesn't mean we take it from them. Just tweak how they can use it. When I was in high school and worked at a grocery store, it was still legal to buy smokes with food stamps. Change can happen.
10
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: June 8, 2013, 08:08 AM »http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/sports/ncaafootball/college-coaches-use-transfer-rules-to-limit-athletes-options.html?hp&_r=0QuoteWhen a quarterback decided last month to transfer to another football program after one season at Oklahoma State, he thanked the coach, who thanked him back. Here were two parties seemingly in mutual agreement, on good terms, headed for an amicable divorce.
Then the transfer process started, producing the latest and perhaps an extreme example of what is occurring throughout the country this time of year as many college athletes try to move to different universities.
The Oklahoma State coach, Mike Gundy, ruled out nearly 40 universities as transfer options for quarterback Wes Lunt, an apparent show of gamesmanship and punishment toward a college athlete who wanted to take his skills elsewhere.
That's just sad. I'm losing respect for this guy. I can understand ruling out conference schools and future opponents to a point. But 40 schools out of about 120? That's one third. That is just being obnoxious.
11
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: June 7, 2013, 10:10 AM »Where'd you get that on the fat? There was a NY Times piece a couple months back, while it wasn't a diet, it said some interesting things. If you eat fat, and they mentioned roast duck, rib eye steaks, bone marrow, cheesecake, etc., you get satisfied, so you don't crave more food. It said fast food isn't good. It's fatty, but doesn't satiate you. Anecdotal, but when in NY, I stay at a relative's, who's very conscious of their weight, and everything is fat free, pretzels, fig newtons, 1% milk, liquid egg whites, diet soda, diet tonic, etc. So, looking to snack is very unsatisfying. It's like you can't get enough of anything to stop craving food.
It's pretty much the premise of the Atkins diet -- low carbs, higher fat and protein. But next time you are at the grocery store, read the labels on some food items that call themselves "lowfat". They are probably loaded with carbs, sugars and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils -- some of the biggest reasons we have become so obese. I have struggled with my weight since getting off active duty at 30 years old. A few years ago I walked 100,000 steps per week for 16 weeks and dropped about 30 pounds (an exercise contest at work). When that ended, I stopped walking as much and about 20 of those pounds came back. My lifestyle doesn't include an hour a day to exercise, so I needed to find another way to lose weight and get healthy.
Back about a year ago, I noticed an old college roommate had posted on Facebook a bunch of stuff about a certain diet that seemed wonderful, but virtually impossible for me. So I just filed the info away. Around January, my brother mentioned that he bought a cookbook with the gift card I bought him for Christmas. It was about the same diet. I told him I had read about it, but it seemed impossible. He said he was doing something less strict and just wanted the cookbook so he had some recipes. I became interested.
Bottom line, the more I read, the more it made sense. Eat whole foods with good fat, moderate protein and low carbs. The weight has been coming off regularly since. I'm not hungry, have lots of energy, don't do that much exercising. I now weigh less than I did when I got off active duty -- in four months. My blood pressure is back to normal. I'm going for blood tests soon. Pending those results, I'm hooked for life. I laugh every time I hear commercials touting some low fat concept for losing weight. That never worked for me.
Give me an example of whole foods with low fat. You're not doing Atkins I take it. I have a friend who lost a ton on Atkins.
? You mean like fruits or vegetables?
My bad. I didn't mean whole foods with low fat, but whole foods with good fat. What's a whole food with good fat? It seems like you stumbled on something new, not Atkins but something else. But not just fruits and veggies. How about a sample meal? It seems like it was pretty effective for you.
It's not really anything new. Just new to me. One example? Free range organic eggs. Another -- grass fed, grass finished beef. One of the goals is to keep your Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratio low -- close to 1:1 if possible. If you really want to know the details, IM me. I don't want to bore anyone in this thread talking about diets.
12
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: June 7, 2013, 09:34 AM »Where'd you get that on the fat? There was a NY Times piece a couple months back, while it wasn't a diet, it said some interesting things. If you eat fat, and they mentioned roast duck, rib eye steaks, bone marrow, cheesecake, etc., you get satisfied, so you don't crave more food. It said fast food isn't good. It's fatty, but doesn't satiate you. Anecdotal, but when in NY, I stay at a relative's, who's very conscious of their weight, and everything is fat free, pretzels, fig newtons, 1% milk, liquid egg whites, diet soda, diet tonic, etc. So, looking to snack is very unsatisfying. It's like you can't get enough of anything to stop craving food.
It's pretty much the premise of the Atkins diet -- low carbs, higher fat and protein. But next time you are at the grocery store, read the labels on some food items that call themselves "lowfat". They are probably loaded with carbs, sugars and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils -- some of the biggest reasons we have become so obese. I have struggled with my weight since getting off active duty at 30 years old. A few years ago I walked 100,000 steps per week for 16 weeks and dropped about 30 pounds (an exercise contest at work). When that ended, I stopped walking as much and about 20 of those pounds came back. My lifestyle doesn't include an hour a day to exercise, so I needed to find another way to lose weight and get healthy.
Back about a year ago, I noticed an old college roommate had posted on Facebook a bunch of stuff about a certain diet that seemed wonderful, but virtually impossible for me. So I just filed the info away. Around January, my brother mentioned that he bought a cookbook with the gift card I bought him for Christmas. It was about the same diet. I told him I had read about it, but it seemed impossible. He said he was doing something less strict and just wanted the cookbook so he had some recipes. I became interested.
Bottom line, the more I read, the more it made sense. Eat whole foods with good fat, moderate protein and low carbs. The weight has been coming off regularly since. I'm not hungry, have lots of energy, don't do that much exercising. I now weigh less than I did when I got off active duty -- in four months. My blood pressure is back to normal. I'm going for blood tests soon. Pending those results, I'm hooked for life. I laugh every time I hear commercials touting some low fat concept for losing weight. That never worked for me.
Give me an example of whole foods with low fat. You're not doing Atkins I take it. I have a friend who lost a ton on Atkins.
? You mean like fruits or vegetables?
13
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: June 6, 2013, 02:46 PM »Where'd you get that on the fat? There was a NY Times piece a couple months back, while it wasn't a diet, it said some interesting things. If you eat fat, and they mentioned roast duck, rib eye steaks, bone marrow, cheesecake, etc., you get satisfied, so you don't crave more food. It said fast food isn't good. It's fatty, but doesn't satiate you. Anecdotal, but when in NY, I stay at a relative's, who's very conscious of their weight, and everything is fat free, pretzels, fig newtons, 1% milk, liquid egg whites, diet soda, diet tonic, etc. So, looking to snack is very unsatisfying. It's like you can't get enough of anything to stop craving food.
It's pretty much the premise of the Atkins diet -- low carbs, higher fat and protein. But next time you are at the grocery store, read the labels on some food items that call themselves "lowfat". They are probably loaded with carbs, sugars and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils -- some of the biggest reasons we have become so obese. I have struggled with my weight since getting off active duty at 30 years old. A few years ago I walked 100,000 steps per week for 16 weeks and dropped about 30 pounds (an exercise contest at work). When that ended, I stopped walking as much and about 20 of those pounds came back. My lifestyle doesn't include an hour a day to exercise, so I needed to find another way to lose weight and get healthy.
Back about a year ago, I noticed an old college roommate had posted on Facebook a bunch of stuff about a certain diet that seemed wonderful, but virtually impossible for me. So I just filed the info away. Around January, my brother mentioned that he bought a cookbook with the gift card I bought him for Christmas. It was about the same diet. I told him I had read about it, but it seemed impossible. He said he was doing something less strict and just wanted the cookbook so he had some recipes. I became interested.
Bottom line, the more I read, the more it made sense. Eat whole foods with good fat, moderate protein and low carbs. The weight has been coming off regularly since. I'm not hungry, have lots of energy, don't do that much exercising. I now weigh less than I did when I got off active duty -- in four months. My blood pressure is back to normal. I'm going for blood tests soon. Pending those results, I'm hooked for life. I laugh every time I hear commercials touting some low fat concept for losing weight. That never worked for me.
14
Penn State Basketball / Re: Transfer: PSU lands Allen Roberts from Miami (OH)
« on: June 5, 2013, 11:36 PM »If Marshall wants to come back I would imagine PC will take him back with open arms.
I don't want to do this, but I have to point out that many on this forum will not agree with you.
When Marshall left, myself and Crafty said it was a huge loss. Most people on this forum said it was negligible. They said we will not miss him at all. They said his minutes would be reduced, we already had a backlog at guard, and that he was not going to contribute a whole lot this year.
Now, we add Allen Roberts, which will go further to reducing Marshall's minutes and opportunities.
Why would Chambers want Marshall back, if we already have more than enough guards, and just added Marshall's replacement?
Of coarse, I think if Marshall comes back, he will still play 30mpg, and will be our best player on the floor for a lot of games.
Here's another thing to consider.... If Marshall decides to return to college, what makes us think that he will come back to Penn State?
That's an exaggeration. With Frazier coming back and the addition of Johnson in December, it was almost a given his minutes would be reduced (and therefore his scoring also could be down -- not a bad thing). Heck, all guard minutes should be reduced. I know at the time, I said we'd miss the senior leadership a 5th year guy brings. And of course we'll miss those 28 points he always seemed to put up against Michigan. I hope he finds a team overseas willing to pay what he needs to take care of his family. If he doesn't and wants to come back, I'd gladly welcome back one of our top 3 players for another season.
Not to beat a dead horse but since you guys brought it up, I still don't understand how his minutes going down was nearly a given.
This fan-base sure puts a lot of faith in unproven guys every off-season and at the same time seems extremely quick to write off proven commodities who don't fit into their view of what a PSU starter should look/play like. If two of the new guys are half as good as most of you act like they will be, we should all be shopping for final four tickets this summer.
Maybe I'm wrong, but bringing back Frazier would automatically mean 35 or so minutes per game of the 200 available would no longer be available. I am assuming that would give the guys like DJ and Jermaine a couple extra minutes per game of much needed rest.
But JM is closer to a 4 than a 1 (although clearly a 3 more than anything), so I don't see how Tim coming back really effects him? You're also forgetting that Sasa and Colella are gone, they combined for almost 50 minutes a game (or about 1/4 of the 200 minutes you speak of). Just getting Tim back wouldn't even replace those minutes in this little vacuum hypothetical you've created which really doesn't matter unless we hear JM is officially coming back.
And Newbill is also closer to a 3 than a 1. But he played a lot of minutes at the point last year. Frazier isn't bumping Marshall from the point. He's bumping Newbill, who is replacing Colella. Add in some additional depth from Johnson...... It's basic math.
I'm certain that Frazier, if healthy, will play more minutes than Colella (26.7). And Johnson will likely get more minutes than Montminy. So someone else has to ride more pine. JM (34.6) and DJN (36.5) played too many minutes last year (my opinion). You are taking my comment as some sort of insult. It wasn't meant as anything negative toward Marshall. And maybe it was just wishful thinking. Hope we find out if I'm right or wrong.
15
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: June 5, 2013, 11:20 PM »
I only stated that coal use in India has a positive correlation with increasing life expectancy. The chart is clear. Why it's happening is in the article. Indians used to use wood stoves to heat their homes, and coal is replacing that. Maybe correlation only works when you claim rising CO2 leads to rising temperatures. How's that working out? And what exactly is the current "climate change trend?" What do flat temps for the last 16 years, with rising CO2 mean?
correlation does not imply causation. this is generally taught on the first day of statistics.
So, while maybe high levels of CO2 and AGW can show correlation, they don't prove any causation on CO2's part? Thanks. Psst..you might want to get a note to Mann. Then, add that the graph shows no correlation between CO2 and temps over 4+ billion years, you'd agree that the science behind AGW is at best suspect, unsupported by statistics, no? Probably learn that before the first day of statistics, don't you think?
I don't know much about AGW science, but I know there is a lot of conventional wisdom in this world that is totally unsupported by facts. Would anyone actually believe that the best way to lose fat is to consume a diet high in fat?