Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: mlb.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to mlb.com.

Comments · 109

  1. Re:GNU/fp? by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: -1 · on BT Pushing Hyperlink Patent

    Very well. I would like to license it for one more use, as I am attempting a hat trick today. I am willing to trade blowjobs and/or hot grits for the right to fp.

    Please note that blowjobs will be fulfilled by none other than kc royal's pitcher Roberto Hernandez, who asks that you not ejaculate into his moustache.


    Sometimes a cigar is just a penis. I mean cigar.

  2. Re:Where does it say you have a right to privicy? by JCMay · · Score: 2 · on Feds Undertaking Massive Passenger Profiling Plan

    That's the great thing about the Constitution - it's always evolving, based on the decisions and judgements handed down by the Supreme Court.


    Wrong! I couldn't disagree more. The liberalization of the Supreme Court and its re-interpretation of the Consitution of the United States have made this country a worse place, not a better place.

    Although I can't find it at the moment, it seems like I once read (or heard?) Walter Williams discuss the folly of a "living" Constitution. Basically the problem is this: if the rules are malleable, the game doesn't work.

    The Framers didn't intend us to have a country run by the rules of Calvinball, but thanks to your gleefully activist Supreme Court, that's what we've got.

    Games people play are known for their unchanging rules that are known and understood by everyone. The Constitution was intended to be a "set in stone" framework for government, not a warm and fuzzy Silly Putty ruleset.

    That doesn't mean that the Framers intended the Consistution to never change: they included provisions for incorporating amendments. To be constitutionally correct, if The People wanted a right to privacy added, then the amendment process would be utilized to add it. As it reads, there is no right to privacy in the Constitution of the United States.

    The job of the courts is to apply law, not interpret it. A corollary of this is that Congress should not write vague and nebulous laws, but that's a seperate issue. Even in the presence of poorly written laws, the courts should only make use of the literal verbage; to stray from that standard to find "original intent" or whatever is a departure from their constitutional duties and is an invitiation to impeachment from Congress (see Article 3, Section 1: shall hold their offices during good behaviour).
  3. Re:Science and sports don't mix. by dlkf · · Score: 1 · on Pentium Throws a Fastball

    I stand corrected. Though they dont really say that the minors and majors use the same rules, the "Official Playing Rules for Professional Baseball" link on www.minorleaguebaseball.com takes you to the rule book on www.mlb.com. Next time I wont be so trusting of how well ESPN columnists know the rules. Thanks for the correction.

  4. Re:The real innovation here... by gowen · · Score: 2 · on Pentium Throws a Fastball
    `Viola: The beefier cousin of the violin.'
    Surely he means:

    "Viola, Frank: Left handed starting pitcher who led the Twins to the 1987 World Series"

  5. The Best Pitches Aren't Always In The Zone by phantumstranger · · Score: 2 · on Pentium Throws a Fastball
    ". . . it has the ability to throw practically any pitch within the strike zone.

    The best pitches are the ones that make the batter reach or hit into a predetermined part of the field. If the robots AI were to have the ability to choose which pitches where and when then it may be a "smart robot" but it'll get taken for yard every pitch. Unless it has Jason Kendall calling the shots for it :o)

    No, I'm from Chicago.

  6. Re:freebies by Jose+Chico · · Score: 1 · on Baseball Fans Must Pay To Listen Online

    Actually, you do. Sort of. According to this story on the MLB site, each subscription gets you a $10 gift certificate at their online store. I can't say I really understand this. Maybe they're just trying to lessen the blow. I wonder if this deal is temporary, and if they will do the same next year.
    I don't really understand the reasoning behind any of this. Hopefully all MLB wants is to improve the quality of online broadcasts, but I doubt it. It make me wonder how the individual teams will feel, as well as their flagship broadcasters. Apparently this has caught many people by surprise, including the media. Today's local paper in Pittsburgh even states here (2nd question) that you can listen online by going to the Pirates website (which of course has no mention of the Real Networks deal). Have to wonder what exactly is going on.

    In any case, this doesn't really seem like a prudent thing to do, given the pending labor war next offseason. I hope they have some fans left once they get everything straightened out. Personally, this isn't doing much for my waning enthusiasm (of course, when your hometown team sucks it's hard to be positive, but hey at least they get a new ballpark this year).

  7. Re:freebies by Jose+Chico · · Score: 1 · on Baseball Fans Must Pay To Listen Online

    Actually, you do. Sort of. According to this story on the MLB site, each subscription gets you a $10 gift certificate at their online store. I can't say I really understand this. Maybe they're just trying to lessen the blow. I wonder if this deal is temporary, and if they will do the same next year.
    I don't really understand the reasoning behind any of this. Hopefully all MLB wants is to improve the quality of online broadcasts, but I doubt it. It make me wonder how the individual teams will feel, as well as their flagship broadcasters. Apparently this has caught many people by surprise, including the media. Today's local paper in Pittsburgh even states here (2nd question) that you can listen online by going to the Pirates website (which of course has no mention of the Real Networks deal). Have to wonder what exactly is going on.

    In any case, this doesn't really seem like a prudent thing to do, given the pending labor war next offseason. I hope they have some fans left once they get everything straightened out. Personally, this isn't doing much for my waning enthusiasm (of course, when your hometown team sucks it's hard to be positive, but hey at least they get a new ballpark this year).

  8. Re:Anti-trust laws need global reach by / · · Score: 3 · on EU To Take Legal Action Against Microsoft
    Two responses to your point:

    The DOJ's antitrust division has been having a lot more success in prosecuting international cartels since 1994.

    De Beers (who handed the DOJ much of its humiliation in 1994 by refusing to show up at trial), perhaps the most notorious cartel (diamonds) pulled out of the US in 1945 under antitrust scrutiny. A month ago, however, De Beers decided it would start getting out of the cartel business and would position itself as a value-added brand-name, owing somewhat to increasing scrutiny by the EU but also a desire to reenter the US market. It can't be said that such regulatory pressure can be considered "normal free-market forces", but it does suggest that often full-blown trials needn't be necessary. Of course I have due-process concerns about plea-bargains and settlements in general, but that's a different consideration.

  9. Major League Baseball != mlb.com by Crawl · · Score: 1 · on Boston Perl Monger Plays With the Big Leagues

    Come on, Boston Globe. Before going to press, you would think that you could at least check and see if all the URLs in your stories are correct. If you did so, you would realize that the web site for Major League Baseball is not mlb.com, as stated in your article:

    The computer police entrusted with sniffing out corruption did their job, according to Alex Tam, director of Major League Baseball's web site (mlb.com).

    It is, in fact, majorleaguebaseball.com. I could maybe expect something like this from the NY Times, but not from an organization as good as the Boston Globe :)