JJFIVEOH

I finally watched the season finale. I've given up trying to predict what will happen next. Some women can really pull off the short hair look....................... Cersei isn't one of them.

I was going to join but my Email seems to indicate I'm not wanted. "nobody wants you to rejoin their league, SabreSpaceBlue!"

If I'm not in the playoff hunt and both Luck and Brady are healthy, I might have to consider unloading one of them for draft picks next year. B-) They seem to be a hot commodity this year. Maybe it's just me.

Didn't the accuser in the Owen Labrie case take the stand? Nobody has any facts one way or the other. The same could be said about Kane being a rapist as equally disgusting. Yeah right, that was a 'comedian laughing at his own joke' moment............. just ruined the whole thing. :doh: I agree 100%. If there is irrefutable evidence that the rape never happened and she is doing this for money, she should face harsh penalties. No matter what happens, she will always be the 'victim'. Even if this was all made up Kane's reputation will forever be tarnished. As was mentioned above he will lose endorsements, he will be frowned up by his peers, the public scrutiny.............. There is no evidence either way (that we presently know of) to support either side so what if he is the victim? Maybe I don't understand the process well enough. There is always the possibility of her pressing charges in a civil case. But how can there be a settlement in this particular case? Shouldn't charges be pressed by the county? If so, why does she have the power to change that if the check is big enough? If Kane legitimately did something wrong the county should be pressing charges. I don't see how the grand jury hearings can be postponed while they discuss numbers. If you commit a heinous crime the county should be moving forward regardless of what happens between the two parties. If I'm the county legal system, I'll be damned if you're going to waste probably hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars for us to investigate an accusation you made only to collect a big check and tell us 'nevermind'. I'm not entirely familiar with the process, I just figured a serious charge would be pressed by the county simply because of the severity of the accusation.

I forget the differences between Blue and Gold. I was in Blue last year.

I guess it depends on how one defines 'performance'. You don't see gas tractor trailers, you don't see gas ships, you don't see the majority of 3/4 and 1 ton pickups hauling big loads with gas. On one hand you have gas outperforming diesel, on the other hand you have diesels outperforming gas. What you don't have is electric, ethanol and solar outperforming any of that. Diesel is old technology, invented way before gas engines. What is new (for both gas and diesel) is the fine tuning of turbocharing with todays injection technology. Turbocharging has led to serious power increases from smaller engines with better fuel economy in gas engines, but gas engines have already been fine tuned so each step forward is small. Just 10-15 years ago diesel pickups were just noisy clunky things you used to pull your toys to the track or beach. Now with modernized computers and injection, diesel is taking the steps gas did 30-40 years ago. Take a diesel pickup from the last 15 year (especially ones from late 90's to early 00's) and add a basic handheld programmer. Finding 150 HP and 200 lb/ft of torque in stock form without making a single change to the engine is not uncommon with gains of 2.5 seconds in the quarter mile. Add the same type of programmer to a gas engine in stock form and you might find 20 HP and .3-.4 seconds. With some exhaust and induction work while maintaining a stock bottom end, full size 7,500 pound daily driven diesel trucks are outrunning Corvettes and getting 25 MPG to boot. All with engines barely larger than the gas V8's. And you never have to change spark plugs. B-) Like I said before, the vast majority of diesels are found in Europe. Here are some of them, many of them high end. http://www.cheatsheet.com/automobiles/alternate-fuel-wonders-the-20-fastest-diesel-powered-vehicles.html/?a=viewall I'm a big fan of the screaming small blocks too. Some of those old Trans-Am races were fun to watch. Given the suspension and tire technology of the old muscle cars torque was wasted because they couldn't put it to the ground. I agree the extra weight of diesels doesn't help. Most of the reasons you see gas being the primary type of engines in racing is because of parts availability. Anybody can pick up old engines to rebuild, and performance companies have been doing it for decades. Sorry, didn't mean to be so vague. They all have their pros and cons. In my opinion the best way to move forward isn't by perfecting one energy source but to incorporate many. There is something to be said for hybrids.

Last minute substitution.................... Brady for Luck. :wacko:

It wasn't a literal 'pound for pound'. All things considered, yes, diesels do outperform if you compare apples to apples. You can't ignore torque because that is one aspect of performance. During the muscle car era, what separated big blocks from small blocks? It wasn't just horsepower. I never said they were better or worse for any type of vehicle. I was talking specifically about diesel engines in general. Apples to apples. But, is it really worth discussing if you're just going to dismiss it as nonsense?

Not seeing the specs in front of me, if I had to guess, the transmissions are probably different because of the gear ratio differences needed to maximize the power band.

Well, of course you're not going to get 81MPG. But it shows what is possible with diesel. As has been noted, diesels make make more torque than a gas motor and similar horsepower. Diesels tend to be larger in displacement because of air flow. The low RPM's are not conducive for a turbocharger so extra air flow is needed. Pound for pound diesels out perform gas engines.

If it can be produced up to 90%, why isn't it? Oil spills occur mostly because of shipping. Elect officials that will keep crude in our own continent and we'll never have that issue. We don't need to be in the Middle East to get oil............ Big Oil needs to be in the Middle East to profit. I stand corrected. Naturally aspirated are SDI's. 81 MPG World Record. https://media.vw.com/release/1017/

You need to compare apples to apples. How big are those engines? 1.4 and 1.8 for the gas and 2.0 for the diesel. As far as I know that 2.0 TDI isn't turbocharged either. The TDI put out 240 pounds of torque, the gas engine doesn't put out more than 180. I tow about 14,000 pounds with a diesel and get around 11MPG @ 75 MPH. People I know with similar setups and a smaller gas engine get around 6-7 @ 65 MPH.

I'm not reading hype, I'm pretty familiar with gas, diesel and ethanol and all their properties. Some things need to be considered when compiling those numbers. One, diesel has slightly better energy density but there are two aspects when comparing it do gas/ethanol. Diesel, by nature, produces significantly more torque than either gas/ethanol because of it's slow burn rate. Which in turn reduces engine RPM's and increase engine longevity considerably. If an engine can produce a high amount of torque, the engine can be built to produce less horsepower than it's gas/ethanol counterparts in the same car. That means smaller engines can be used. Two, when comparing efficiency the stats are determined using similarly sized engines. When you take into consideration that smaller diesel engines can be used to accomplish the same results the overall increase in MPG will be more than 45%. If you use the diesel engines that show a 45% better efficiency, the performance you get will be greater than the gas/ethanol engine they were comparing it to. Another negative of ethanol on a large scale is it will not be feasible for large trucks any time in the near future due to it's burn characteristics. In a time when single digit increases in efficiency of gas engines over several years is consider a improvement, 45% is a gigantic leap forward. Most people don't look at the savings a diesel engine gets you, all they do is look at the gas prices all while paying more in the long run. If the EPA relaxed their regulations even a small amount diesels would sell much faster; prices of vehicle might even come down because all the major brands could start using their European lineups instead of the extra costs required to produce a gas lineup.

Diesel can be produced from corn, jatropha, soybeans and almost anything fat-based. It can be created using every source used for ethanol. On top of it, diesel produces more power, air-fuel mixture is less than half that of ethanol and most cars with diesels nowadays are getting at least 50% better gas mileage than gas, some as much as 100%. Which makes it even better gas mileage than ethanol because approx. 20-30% more ethanol is required in an internal combustion engine than gas. Audi has even created a diesel fule out of carbon dioxide. https://www.audi-mediacenter.com/en/press-releases/fuel-of-the-future-research-facility-in-dresden-produces-first-batch-of-audi-e-diesel-352 There is nothing wrong with carbon, what do you think is needed to grow the products used to create ethanol? Ethanol is a failed experiment. Even regular diesel is better than ethanol or gasoline. Less crude is required to create a gallon of diesel. And when you consider most diesel engines get at least 50% better gas mileage, much less crude is required to travel the same distance. The only people that willingly produce corn for ethanol are the ones collecting a subsidy. Every other civilized nation in the world has a much higher percentage of diesel cars on the market than the US.

Ethanol is not less polluting overall because more is required to burn efficiently. Therefore gas mileage decreases. Diesel is a MUCH better alternative to ethanol. Significantly better mileage, can be produced several different ways and if the EPA would cut it some slack would be much cheaper.

I disagree with most of that, but my point was, do you put climatologists that don't believe in man-made global warming on the same level as doctors that don't believe in evolution? Or are you implying that the only climatologists that don't believe in man-made global warming are the ones that are paid to say so? That's the way I've always looked at it. Until we get pollution under control, until we get population growth under control, and until we get sustainability under control........ the climate will be the last thing on our minds.

I'm already running other leagues, and I'm not crazy about Yahoo's format.

What do you think about climatologists/scientists that don't believe in man-made global warming?

AND NHLGC will have prorated subscriptions as the season progresses.

I have NHLGC and I agree with Matt. It's not always 'HD' in that the motion isn't always very fluid. Now, that is streaming through a laptop plugged into a big screen. Last year I bought a Roku and the streaming is much smoother. It's not HD cable quality, but it's pretty damn close. The problem with Roku is NHLGC couldn't care less about making the app work nor do they care about helping you find the problem (because they know the problem is with their app and not on my side). I have no issues streaming NHLGC on my laptop nor do I have a problem streaming anything else on Roku in HD. When the app isn't working right it will be stuck buffering for several minutes, even entire periods. But the glitches did seem to decline as the year went on. If the games are blocked due to your location you can use a VPN service on your computer to mask your location. If your location is fine, pick yourself up a Roku and give it a shot.

I didn't say I had a plan. :P

Every team needs a core of veterans. As much as it may not sound enticing to have a handful of mid 30's on the team, I think it's important in the development of every team. I wouldn't mind if Murray picked up one or two more over the hill guys.

You're way off base on this one. You feel comfortable calling Christians hypocrites simply because you think the majority believe in what you want them to believe so that it fits your narrative. The irony lies in the fact that you, of all people, gets offended more than most on this thread when your liberal ideologies are questioned. Not to mention you've gotten on people's cases for painting with a broad brush. 'Most' is not 'all', and in this case you don't even know for sure that 'most' is the correct term. You've preached about offending people on many occasions, yet when the roles change you have no problems being the offending party. If there's is any hypocrisy here it belongs to you. I have no problem with you calling out people you disagree with, or questioning the motives of others......... if you weren't so easily offended when somebody does it to you. And I'm a devout atheist.

Not to mention 91.2% over the last two years. (62/68)

The Bills are working out Billy Cundiff today? My interest in football has been rapidly waning over the last few years. Between the non-stop commercials, the thuggery, the inept motives of Goddell, egos and free agency that have pretty much ruined any chances of dynasties any more................... I was almost ready to give it up completely this year. If it hadn't been for fantasy football I probably would have given up already. The hiring of Rex Ryan sparked my interest slightly and I was back on board this year. I wasn't keen on going with Tie Rod, but I understand the options were limited. But with cutting Freddie and possibly looking to replace Carpenter because of a couple of bad pre-season games I'm this close to giving up. It's just not entertaining any more and I'm getting the feeling this team is going to miss the playoffs again. Really? Billy Cundiff?