Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    39765
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by TwiceHorn

  1. 2 minutes ago, Cajun said:

    Some Longhorn hotty softball pitcher just threw a no-no.

    For what it's worth.

    cute as all get out.

    Also ended it with a grand slam.  Miranda Elish, transfer from Oregon.

  2. 5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    I’m curious...how in the blue fuck is anyone declaring victory or defeat at this point? We literally have no clue what is in it, whether there are additional sealed indictments or not, etc.

    Today is proof of one thing: that Mueller has completed his investigation. So...umm...yeah.

    There are credible reports that there are no further indictments, sealed or otherwise, coming from SCO.  Also, I discovered that the final footnote of the DOJ policy pretty clearly forbids sealed indictment of the President, which kinda bummed me out.  I know you'll appreciate seeing that in the last footnote of a brief or opinion.

  3. 1 minute ago, Gil Bang said:

    Flynn?  Prison

    Manafort?  Prison

    Cohen?  Prison

     

    Yeah, nothing substantive at all. 

    Not yet on Flynn.  Kinda curious about that one.  Sentencing was just delayed again a few weeks ago, ostensibly to facilitate continued cooperation.  Maybe its with another USAO.  Maybe it's really to facilitate a hand off.  Some of these kind of loose ends are a tad perplexing.

  4. 44 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

    You yourself maybe aren’t one, but there are plenty on this board. Maybe if you called out the trolls yourself you would have some credibility on the subject. 

    I don't think I am but I have been called one and have noticed that it's pretty de rigeuer on the politics board these last couple of years.

    Everyone probably drops a few "trollish" posts here and there, but to me, a troll does nothing but.

    I dunno, fuck it, it's just a word.  It used to have a pretty specific connotation.

  5. 26 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

    @TwiceHorn

    They don’t post anything in the thread for months other than insults. Comes back and asserts conclusions without facts. What would you call them then?

    If making conclusory posts and not contributing anything of substance to threads is trolling, and trolling is a bannable offense, then we need to ban about 95% of this board.

    Being wrong or a gloating asshole without justification is still not trolling.

  6. 3 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

    One thing that is possible is that Mueller concluded that members of the Trump campaign did work with Russians to release damaging info on Hillary, but that such acts did not violate any law.  Which would be very bad, even if not criminal. 

    I have wondered about this.  The law forbidding foreign contributions seems broad enough to encompass most of that, but maybe some of the facts just didn't fit.

  7. 11 minutes ago, Nueces River Rat said:

    The fact they got federal approval for lab service by DHS without them even looking at the device inside and out should give everyone the shits about how really safe conventional blood testing labs are operating.    

    It would have been nice to see how much money they contributed to politicians  and exactly how much each got in key congressional committees, etc.   

    That's a great point.  They weren't initially certified or regulated at all under the Laboratory Developed Test "loophole." https://www.statnews.com/2016/11/18/fda-lab-test-loophole/  But, were subject to inspection, leading to the downfall.

    So not applicable to testing labs more generically.

  8. Just now, JimmyJames said:

    Its hilarious that the right wing trolls and their multiple socks have suddenly come back in full force, even though nobody knows what the report says. 

    Its almost like it was, I dunno, coordinated somehow. 

    These guys are as predictable as the morning sun. 

    You and Hugo need to find a word other than troll for the people you disagree with that aren't trolls in any conventional sense of the term.

    • Like 7
    • Haha 1
    • Fuck You 2
  9. 1 minute ago, Laxtonto said:

    If there are no other indictments, sealed or otherwise, and the report won’t contain anything that would be disparaging to those not charged with a crime, doesn’t that mean it is going to pretty much contain nothing very little substance? Based on this , it can really be about Russia collusion and essentially will a troll farm, process crimes and Manafort and then what?

    We don't know that bolded part.  Certainly has been emphasized lately.  But, as I said, I think there's a difference between those not charged for lack of evidence and those not charged because of an immunity.

  10. 15 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

    CNN just reported unequivocally no, nothing sealed, it's done.  (At least from Mueller, that doesn't mean SDNY doesn't have farmed out cases.)

    That has to be correct.  There should be nothing left for the SCO to do with the delivery of this report.  I suppose he's even handed off the Gates and Mattis Flynn, sentencings and the further Stone proceedings.  There's the sentencing of that one schmuck that was complicit with the Russian, too.

  11. 8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    This is just the beginning.  If true, the reports that Barr is going to brief congress over the weekend indictes Barr, Rosenstein, and Mueller had a plan in place and they are executing it.  

    Not sure how to read the swiftness being good for Trump.

    Eh.  I think the plan was just to follow 28 CFR 600.  Depending on whether the report is 60 or 600 pages, maybe Barr had some advance notice of the contents.

    Also, I think this is probably the last great hope for articles of impeachment.  The congress lacks the competence, much less the political will, in my opinion, to develop a case for impeachment.

  12. 3 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

    So how many of the sealed indictments in DC are from the SCO?  And when do they get unsealed?

    I'm also curious about the mystery company subpoena.  The SCO is still pursuing that but is somehow in a position to release the report anyway.  Does that mean that they have sufficient info to indict or release a conclusion about whoever was tangled up in that mess, and they're just pursuing info from the foreign govt. to put an extra nail in that person's coffin?  

    Now it's just a principle of law, I guess.  Pretty clearly the evidence not critical to the investigation.

  13. 1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

    From the Special Counsel's office, yes.

    From other jurisdictions, no.

     

    Yup, believe this is right.

    Also:

    Quote

    "I am reviewing this report and anticipate that I may be in a position to advise you of the Special Counsel's principal conclusions as soon as this weekend," Barr wrote in a letter on Friday to a group of lawmakers on the House and Senate judiciary committees.

    That indicates to me that it is, indeed, a comprehensive report.

  14. 2 hours ago, Not a cat said:

    How the hell does anyone within 200 miles of DFW, much less an SMU alum, not realize SMU is expensive as hell?  Even if he was on the GI bill, he had to have some idea how much it cost.

    I think I'm roughly the same vintage as twicehorn (began UT in Fall 87) and I vaguely remember sending my SAT scores to UT and that's about it.  I don't remember exactly what else was required but it could not have been too complicated if my mess of a teenage self was able to handle it.     

    Why would parents of an only child, when there's a local, decent, but not great school, be aware that SMU had extraordinarily high tuition?  I graduated HS in 84 before SMU was a household name for profligate spending of all types.  It was just assumed that that was what college was going to cost, with allowances for public/private and other variations.  It sort of represented average to them.  $4 a semester hour was almost incomprehensible.  Dallas County Community Colleges were more than that, $32/hour I believe.

    I don't know when it became really expensive.  Maybe it always has been.  By the time I was looking at colleges, we were aware that they could afford just about any place without further sacrifice.  My parents were maniac savers.

    But before the scandals in the 80s, nobody really thought of SMU as some expensive haven for rich spoiled brats who partied a lot and did tons of drugs.  It's where a lot of people in Dallas went to college.  Fin.

  15. 1 minute ago, Chewbacca said:

    You would be too if you knew she was full of shit and you were vindicated years later.  I'm sure she took a lot of heat over the years over that stance.

    Eh, "everyone's a critic."  I don't think she took any heat because I don't think she was public with it. She's barely mentioned in Carreyrou's book (he apparently considered and rejected her as a source) and I've never seen anything that indicated that she was the great doomsayer of Theranos.  She is also associated loosely in the book with that maniac Fuisz, who seems to be a narcissistic headcase in his own right, although clearly coming in second to Lizzie.

  16. 2 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

    In the podcast, she got more into why she thought Holmes was full of shit.  Primarily, she had been at Stanford for one semester and was an engineering student.  She didn't know jack shit about medicine or blood testing.  Gardner saw that what Holmes wanted was a quick path to greatness and wealth and that's when she pawned her off on the other Stanford professor that Holmes snowed.

    That I can definitely buy.  She came off as a little smug in the HBO doc, but that could have just been editing.

  17. 2 hours ago, Incredulity said:

    I have personally experienced a number of occasions where large companies did everything in their power to stop innovations because they had such a vested interest in the status quo.

    Also, even if the culture of the company is to innovate getting an innovation implimented past the 14 senior VP's is a monumental task.  The VP's motivation,  very often, is to keep the train on the tracks till they can retire.   Not burn the thing to the ground so the consumer can get 200 blood tests in real time.

     

    P.S. the above isn't an anti-capitalism rant.  Actually the exact opposite.  The most common mechanism that allows new innovation to see the light of day is start-ups and smaller organizations.

     

    2 hours ago, HouTex said:

    Agreed.  Many companies simply don't innovate even when the innovation would seem obvious.  You'd have thought Yellow Cab could have easily developed something like Uber.  They already had a network of drivers and a brand.

    As for Holmes, I see people like this all the time in business.  They are very smart and driven.  They think that sheer will power can overcome the technical problems with their idea. I have seen several smart oil and gas CEO's with similar personality traits during the latest oil bust--during the earlier one's as well. Their businesses failed not because they bet wrong on oil and gas prices and/or their assets sucked, and/or they simply had too much debt.  Their execution was brilliant.  It was someone else's fault--the Saudis were a prime target--it's easy to blame them.     

    Another thing about people like Holmes.  Investors/employees/the public often fall for smart, articulate people.  Especially the articulate ones.  Carnival barkers did well because they were great speakers.  And when the barker is smart, they can really do some damage if they have no scruples. 

    Holmes dismissed out of hand the negative comments to her patch idea by the Stanford professor.  In her mind, because it's her idea and because she's the smartest person in the room, she can make it happen.  I'm sure she will tell a convincing lie in her criminal trial.  She's charming enough that she just might get off saying that she thought it could work and never knew it couldn't.  

    I don't doubt that these companies exist, but they don't live and die by research and product development like Abbott, Beckmann Coulter, Siemens and others in this "space."

    Most smart companies know that you can't bury an idea forever and doubly or triply so if it has entered the patent system.  It's going to get out and you are going to have to compete with it at some point. So you get busy livin or get busy dyin.

    Cab companies are a great example.  Never known for innovation, they blew it off and are busy dyin.

  18. 4 minutes ago, bschoolprof said:

    On The Dropout podcast, they interviewed a Stanford med prof who met Holmes when she was a Freshman. The prof said a) she told Holmes (at the time) her ideas were full of shit and would never work, and b) Holmes had a normal voice back then.  This prof saw Holmes a few years later at an event with her fake voice and was appalled.  

    She's featured in the HBO doc.  Phyllis Gardner.  In the doc, she acted like she "saw through everything," but the only thing she articulated is that you cant administer antibiotics through the skin because the dosage requirements are too high.  That was an aspect of Holmes' earliest conception of her invention, but formed no real part of Theranos.  She didn't for instance, point out that skin prick sampling is always going to be highly problematic because of contamination on the skin and by the puncture, and the low volume sample that doesn't dilute that contamination.  And it just goes downhill, technically, from there.

  19. 56 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

    The way the do their uppers is probably a way to save on costs. First, they are slightly shorter than traditional boots. Less material, lower costs. Second, they are not sewn through like most nicer boots. The lining leather has no seems poking out inside and the little stitching they have doesn't go through the lining. They tout these inside out uppers as a good thing on their website, but if you compare most nicer boots with cheaper work boots you will only see this in cheaper boots. Whether or not this effects the longevity of them I don't know. They also talk about a cork footbed under the foot. This usually means that the Goodyear welt is attached to fabric that is then glued to the insole (not the semiremovable bit of foam and fabric, but the innermost layer of structural leather). This is opposed to the traditional and more expensive method of stitching the welt directly to the insole. The glue method obviously doesn't last as long and is harder to repair if something happens, but having a cork filler doesn't automatically mean they use the glue method. I'd have to have a pair in hand to deconstruct to say for sure. Regardless, they are obviously good boots and get good reviews from virtually everybody, and I'd have to tear them apart along with other boots in the same price range to really determine how they are made and whether or not they are better.

    Yep, I have no doubt that the "corded" shaft is a cost-cutting measure.  I have never owned corded shaft boots, so I don't know if any stitching is supposed to come through the lining, but it is on regular, stitched boots.  Last  time I was in a western store, I noticed that a number of the cheaper boots (including, I think, shockingly some Lucchese 1883 or whatever their low end model was/is) had multi row stitching that didn't go through the lining.  Weird looking.

    There is a video on their site showing their construction methods to some degree.  I believe you can see both pegs and brass nails being used in the arch.

    https://player.vimeo.com/video/141478656

    I'd be real interested in your comments and observations on that.

×
×
  • Create New...