smidge76

Too long I guess

Sorry the hyperlink didn't work there...you may have to copy and paste. I'll try one more time: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Goldman-forecasting-biggest-rise-joblessness/story.aspx?guid={C174CCA5-803B-4656-9340-5591106B08D8}&dist=hplatest

Goldman Sachs forecasting biggest rise in joblessness since WWII

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Goldman-forecasting-biggest-rise-joblessness/story.aspx?guid={C174CCA5-803B-4656-9340-5591106B08D8}&dist=hplatest

Republicans mentioned as being on the short list. I'm sure this isn't complete, and I'm not attesting to the probability of the selections -- just noting them:

Defense Secretary: current Sec. Robert Gates, Sen. Chuck Hagel (NE)
Secretary of State: Sen. Richard Lugar (IN)
Education Secretary: former Gov. Tom Kean (NJ)
Commerce Secretary: Sen. Olympia Snowe (ME)
Homeland Security Secretary: Sen. Susan Collins (ME)
Secretary of Energy: Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneggar (CA)

I'm assuming that any cabinet-level administrative offices not mentioned in the settlement details are not being included, but just in case, former Sen. Lincoln Chaffee (RI) is being mentioned for Administrator of the EPA.

Seems the question is suspended anyway...I guess my observational skills only extend so far.

Interesting observation.
Last time I'm going to try to post this comment...I seem to be experiencing technical glitches...
I'm assuming that you would be counting DC since it's been counting for other election questions. However, I didn't see it on the list above. Since it borders VA and MD which are blue, I would have expected it to if we were counting it. However, it's microscopic and easy to miss, so I though I would doublecheck before placing my wager since VA is a battleground state.

totally different question, that is....sheesh....it's bedtime.

Okay, the above comment was meant for a totally question, but got posted here...the question that I had wagered on right before going to the question for which it was meant to be posted. Bottom line, ignore the comment here. I will attempt to post it where it belongs. :)

Interesting observation.
I'm assuming that you would be counting DC since it's been counting for other election questions. However, I didn't see it on the list above. Since it borders VA and MD which are blue, I would have expected it to if we were counting it. However, it's microscopic and easy to miss, so I though I would doublecheck before placing my wager since VA is a battleground state.

Also, dragon, I totally agree with you that the value of our dollar is strongly linked to the size of our GOP.

Actually, I understood it prefectly. You were correct that we could print more money to pay off our debt. That might reduce or eliminate the debt. However, if the dollar is worthless, we would be no less broke than we are now...just ask Mexico.

Yes, we print our own money. However, currency does not value in and of itself. It merely represents something of value: in basic terms, the strength of a country's economy/size of its GDP. Printing more money increases the amount of paper, but not the GDP which means that each piece of paper is worth less. Look at is this way: If you have ten $1 bills, your wallet will be fatter than if you have one $10 bill, but you still only have 10 bucks.

This just in:
Mozart's Bakery (Columbus, OH) is selling more blue donkey cookies than red elephant cookies!!! Obama is a shoe in.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/18/copy/cookie_poll.ART_ART_10-18-08_A1_JEBKSH9.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Must have been a slow news day.

First of all, the Supreme Court did not rule that the 200,000 mismatches need to stand as is. The counties have access to the state database and can use it to verify registrations. The issue was over whether or not the state needed to provide each county with a separate list of mismatches. Further, the mismatches do not mean that the registrations aren't valid. There are known to be probelms with the way that the computer system (set up when the GOP had control) matches the data:
** For example, "Brunner said it appears that when new voters provide a driver's license number and it matches motor-vehicle records, the computer still tries to match the Social Security database and a mismatch is returned because the voters left that field blank on their registration."
** In addition, "Voting-rights groups also insisted that studies have shown a large percentage of the mismatches are the results of typos when information is entered into databases or legitimate discrepancies, such as people giving a full name when they register and a shortened name when they get a driver's license."
So, some of the 200,000 registration may be fraudulent, but it isn't necessarily the case that all, or even most of them are. Furthermore, while voter fraud certainly isn't impossible, Ohio's I.D. requirements provide a lot of safeguards on election day even if these registrations stand.
I haven't agreed with Brunner on all of the legal issues here, but she has a point about the GOP waiting until the end of September to make this request. They have a history, here in Ohio, of using 11th-hour tactics like this to wrongfully purge lists in Democratic counties including a massive caging effort targeting Democrats in 2004 (which, despite federal court intervention, is estimated to have prevented nearly twice the number of legitimate votes that are in question this year -- funny that it got far less coverage than this year's fiasco). It's time to move to a bipartisan elections panel, and take the elections oversight duties away from the Secretary of State altogether. Too late for this election, but for such a key swing state it seems like a logical move...which is why I'm sure Ohio will never do it.

@valornhonor,
In 2000, there were over 7.5 million registered voters (63.7% actual turnout in Nov). In 2004, there were over 7.9 million (71.7% actual turnout). Given the trend toward increased participation here in Ohio (and elsewhere for that matter), I don't think another 0.3 million valid registrations is too much of a stretch.

No, frank, I thought the same thing, but didn't want to nitpick. With the categories set up this way, it would have made more sense to ask how many Ohioans would vote on November 4. However, it isn't like there is any ambiguity in the options -- people know what they are wagering on when the put money on a category, so the question can be settled.
For those who are somewhat interested in the percentages, but not Type A enough to actually do the math, here are the APPROXIMATE percentages for the categories (loosely rounded since settlement will not be based on my numbers) according to the population estimate given by valor:
Less than 64.3%
64.3% to <75.8%
75.8% to 87.25%
Greater than 87.25%

By the way, I actually came here to provide an update to my previous comment:
Secretary Brunner just announced that the eligibility of about a third of the new registrations need to be verified due to inconsistencies. If all of those registrations end up being thrown out, that would reduce the number of registered voters from about 8.2 million to about 8.0 million.

Just to add to the background info: With the deadline to register for the Nov. 4 election now passed, there are a little under 8.2 million people registered to vote in the state of Ohio (as reported by the Columbus Dispatch on Oct. 7).

In response/addition to those who commented that he will say my friends less at the third debate, because it isn't a town hall. I think it should also be noted that, in the third debate, they won't be standing at podiums either. They will be sitting at a table. Both candidates will likely be addressing the moderator and each other rather than the audience.

@bigken1

There are a number of reasons that the poll numbers differ, some are due to sampling bias as mentioned above, but not all. Here are just a few of the reasons:

1) The dates that the questions were asked could differ. Even if they overlap in time-frame, the numbers from a rolling poll conducted over three days such as Gallup will be more volatile than those conducted over an entire week...than those conducted over an entire month....etc.
2) Some polls are referring to registered voters, and some are referring to likely voters which changes the results...usually "likely voters" polls scew toward the Republican candidate since they are a more reliable voting block. By the way, robamichael, I'm not sure which news organization reported that poll as using 406 "people" as the sample, but it did, in fact, question "likely voters" (As reported in the Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080925/POLITICS01/809250409/1409/METRO) That said, there is a 4.9 percent margin of error on that poll, so you are correct that people shouldn't put a lot of stock in that 10-point lead.
3) The sample size can affect the reliability: Gallup questions atleast 1,000 people per day for its Gallup Daily poll (or atleast 3,000 people). This sample would probably be more representative of the general population than one with a sample size of say, 406 as the one cited above by robamichel (EXCEPT that the one cited above is for Michigan only, so the population being represented is much smaller making the smaller sample size more appropriate). The margin of error is meant to mitigate some of that bias, with smaller relative sample sizes leading to higher margins of error. However, most people don't pay much attention to the margin of error.
4) The polls collect phone numbers for their "random samples" in different ways which can sometimes scew the results. For example, I just read that the Pew Research Group and AP-Ipsos include cell phone numbers in the list that they use to generate their sample, but most organizations do not due to the expense involved in it. As more and more people are now using cell phones as their only phone line, this tends to scew the results to the older population since it is younger people who tend to shun land lines.

There are a number of other reasons, but that atleast covers some of the big ones. I hope that helps.

@ dragonfangxl, in response to comment #2

Actually, while Bush received less than 50% of the popular vote in 2000, Gallup had his approval rating at 62% after the first 100 days.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1768/After-100-Days-Publics-Perceptions-Bush-Remarkably-Unchanged.aspx

I would presume that atleast a few of those 62% voted for Gore. Perhaps they "hated Bush no matter what," but they were pragmatic enough to separate those feelings from their assessment of his job performance.

The first 100 das tend to be a honeymoon faze. I think, for whichever candidate is elected, it will depend on how things are going in the country and whether or not the American people have confidence that the "new guy" is working to going to make things better. Remember, Bush's ratings shot up above 85% after 9/11 even though it was a dark time because he gave the impression to the American people that he was in control of things and America would prevail. There were certainly more than a few Democrats/Gore supporters in that group as well. There are some idealogues who will never have anything good to say about the other party's officials. However, they are a small number...less than 15% if the above figure is any indication.

I agree with you dieseldog...doesn't sound dumb to me. In addition to the possible polling bias (I think I covered this in another comment...polls bias toward the older population...the McCain population in other words), Obama being a lesser-known (as shocking as that is to the political junkies among us) of the nonincumbent party running against a well-known from the unpopular incumbent party means that a lot of the undecideds could well turn to Obama at the last minute. Think 1980 when Reagan was decidedly behind Carter right up until election day. Of course, I feel much happier about this than you do, dieseldog. Also, keep in mind that I thought no way could Gore or Kerry lose to Bush, so maybe I am not the one to judge the intelligence of your comment.

I'm surprised that so many are choosing 'The View' after John McCain's appearance there last week and Cindy's criticism of the way that he was treated.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out...and maybe get some clarification on...something regarding the SNL comment (#5). I think the overall point was missed in the response to that question. Sure SNL isn't on the list, and wouldn't count, but I think the main point of that question was not about the program itself, but the nature of the appearance. In other words, does any appearance on one of the program's listed count as an interview? For example, Hillary appeared on the Colbert Report, which is on the list, before the Pennsylvania primaries. However, she appeared in a scripted bit where she fixed his big screen. This doesn't seem to fit the spirit of the question, which specifically asks which talk show will land the firt interview. It seems that the appearance on the show should involve at least one or two questions, even they are softballs, in order to qualify as an interview. However, the settlement details just use the more vague term "appears," so perhaps any type live/satellite appearance counts...which might make the question less "voidable" anyway. Destry? Anyone?

Doesn't change my wager either way, just an observation.

@markov...also, if McCain wins, everyone's money will be tied up regardless of their wager...unless they choose to cash in. I suspect most "Obama" wagers will try to cut their losses by doing that...pushing the McCain odds up to nearly 100% allowing most of those players to cash in at nearly the full value if they want access to their h$ before January 20. Players who want the full amount will have to wait for it. Those types of decisions are always part of the game. Of course, this is based on Destry's statement that the market "will run" until Jan 20. If is is suspended on Nov 4, that would be another story. Based on the volatility of all of these election markets, I suspect a lot of people will be shortselling over the coming two months anyway. Thanks for bringing the issue up though. You make a good point...one that I hadn't considered as thoroughly being an optimistic Democrat who refuses to accept that McCain might win. However, for those who aren't patholicially delusional, it definitely something to consider when deciding on a wager.
In addition...as to the validity of point #5, suppose something came up with one of these "scandals" that forced Sarah Palin to step down as VP sometime in early January. Or...heaven forbid...remember the 2000 election and 2002 midterm elections? Senators Carnahan (MO) and Wellstone (MN) were both killed in plane crashes in the weeks before the elections those years...could just as easily occur in the weeks after. Stuff happens, as unlikely as it might be. I suspect the market odds will reflect that during the course of the election/post-election season, correctly leaving the bigger payouts to those who took the greater risks, smaller payouts to those who played it safe.
Of course, we could have recounts keeping us from knowing the outcome until December as in 2000. Or, there could be a tie in the electoral college, and then we won't know the outcome of the election until January. In that case, we could have an Obama President (decided by the state delegations in the House), and a Palin VP (decided by the Senate)...or maybe, in this case, both houses would bicker back and forth and remain tied in their appointments and we would have Nancy Pelosi as acting President well into February while they figure out the mess. Never know. It's the risk you take with longer-term questions.

Also, my apologies to the Gov. of California for butchering his last name.

Also @Jen, in my first comment I misinterpreted your "fair argument" statement to mean that there was a fair argument for hacking into the account. In reading it again, it appears you were referring to there being a fair argument that official use of her personal account is wrong. My apologies.

Regarding the subject lines of the e-mails: As I stated, first line of my above comment, "She may have been conducting official business using the account." However, we cannot state it deinitively. The links you provide it refer to the accusation as "alleged" for a reason. Hacking into her e-mail and posting the contents online, however, is only going to hurt the investigation into the matter not help it.
As far as the subject lines of the e-mails. They are not proof of anything. Can we prove it wasn't official business? No. Can we prove it was? No. "Please read and aprove." Well, that could very likely be related to campaign materials...or it could be governent business. "Draft of a letter to Governor Swarzeneggar" Again, it depends if it was state business or Republican party business. Even the fuel tax e-mail could have been referring to the state party platform and not official business. We just don't know, and this move by this hacking group hurt our chances of knowing more than it helped it.
@biken1...Yes, there is something wrong with using a personal account to conduct government business. Government officials are required to keep copies of their e-mail correspondence as a matter of public/government record. Using a personal e-mail account allows officials to delete this correspondence presumably without being caught, and/or shields the e-mails contents from public records requests and investigators.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am an Obama supporter and not crazy about Sarah Palin. I'm just troubled by what this group is doing, and you are correct, Jen, this is a known hacking group. By calling it liberal, I was not suggesting that it is connected with the Democratic party or the Obama campaign. I don't even know if it is, in fact, liberal. I thought it was obvious that the last part of my comment was meant to be tongue in cheek.

She may have been conducting official business from the account, but there is no evidence of that in the e-mails posted on gawker.com. From what I could see (the screen shots were small and blurry), the e-mails posted were about political ads/campaigns (negative press in one case and an opponents "misleading" ads/statements in another). Not only was it appropriate to use her personal e-mail account, but it probably would have been an ethical/legal violation not to. Government officials are not supposed to use their government e-mail accounts for political communications. Political campaigns, while a necessary evil for elected officials, are not government business. Regardless, there is no "fair argument" about hacking into her account. It is not only a horrible invasion of privacy as Jen stated, but a violation of federal law. The fact that Sarah Palin may or may not have been breaking the law in her use of that account does not give anyone the right to hack into it. That is what subpoenas and such are for...and I'm sure the administration would honor all of those in the same spirit of cooperation that they have shown thus far. This liberal group should get out of the way and let the partisan ivestigators attempt to do their jobs while McCain, Palin, and their aids do everything they can to undermine them -- meanwhile pretending that they welcome the investigation and have nothing to hide. That is, afterall, the American way.

What do you mean, John? McCain was a logical choice. He's been up in most polls for the past week, and he was up by 5 points last month. Polls are hard to predict. The fact it ended up being Obama doesn't mean that more people would have been placing their money on him if it were a real "investment." I put my money on Obama, but I was doing it as a long shot because I liked the odds. I figured there was a good chance I would be losing my money on it, but I liked the potential payout better. This question isn't on Intrade, but I suspect that McCain would have been ahead there as well. I looked at several markets on Intrade that are also on hubdub and in most cases the odds were within 3 points of each other. I saw one market where the odds were off by 8 points and one where they were off by 5. I don't think money was a factor, people just genuinely believed that McCain would be ahead.

Oh well...I suppose Jenni had said "spice things up" anyway, so I couldn't get it right coming or going.

Obama to appear on SNL Saturday night. Don't know if it will "shake things up" or not, but good call, Jen.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/12/obama-set-to-make-snl-appearance-saturday/

Regarding the "constitutionally imposibility," the Supreme Court ruled on this matter in 1866 on behalf of a former Confederate Senator who had been previously pardoned by Andrew Jackson. Here are the pertinent parts of the decision:

"9. The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. The power is not subject to legislative control.
10. A pardon reaches the punishment prescribed for an offence and the guilt of the offender. If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching."
Source: Cornell University Law School website: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0071_0333_ZS.html

As mentioned by bout3fitty, the pre-emptive pardon was used by Ford to pardon Nixon, and is sometimes mentioned as the leading factor in his defeat in the 1976 election against Carter.

Also, Factcheck.org recently was asked the question, and responded on their website:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/can_a_president_issue_a_blanket_pardon.html

Great question. It's certainly relevant as there has been a lot of speculation on the matter in the media. Some sources say that Bush is being pushed by conservatives to exercise this option for official involved in his "counterterrorism" programs. Please note that I expressing no opinion as to the reliability of these sources...primarily blogs and the NY Times... I am merely noting that it has been reported/rumored. To me, 50/50 odds seem as good a starting place as any.

I agree with mork. It is a cool question. I never would have thought of that take on it.

If the last two administrations are any indication though, the question might actually be coming a year too soon for us to see a bump. Out of curiosity, I looked up the name, Jenna, to see if President Bush gave it a bump. In 2000 while Bush was campaigning, it had declined to #64 from #61. However, after he took office in 2001, it jumped up to #45. It declined slowly in the years to follow until 2006 and 2007 when it declined rapidly...perhaps following Bush's own popularity ratings?? :) (The name Barbara didn't seem to be impacted, but I wouldn't expect people to snatch that one up anyway)

Lest the Republicans feel picked on, I'll also point out that the name Chelsea was moving steadily up the list through 1992, and then began a fairly significant and steady decline from 1993 on (from #15 in 1993 to #209 in 2007). Maybe its true that conservatives hate the Clintons more than the liberals love them...or maybe politics have no effect on baby names. Interesting to note that it followed the same pattern though...moving in one direction all the way through the election year, and then changed direction the year that Dad took office. Well, interesting to me anyway, but I'm a geek.

By the way, despite this, I still put my money on one more name being added to the list. It looks like most years it takes a little less than 200 births to make the boys list. Trig and Track are names that I could envision hearing at the playground, and since they are so unusual I think they might grab people's attention. There have got to be a few expecting parents watching the political coverage who are still fighting over names, right? So maybe Palin's kids will buck the trend.

What a great question! I'll have to think about this one for a little while. You were pretty thorough with your choices. I am, however, a little surprised that Michael Phelps made the list, but not Oprah.

Actually, my math might be bad. I'm trying to subtract hours and minutes from current time, and doing a poor job. It might have been closer to 2:00 am when it was posted online on CNN. I know it was probably on TV before that. I seem to remember the "breaking news" hitting right before I went to bed though, and that was after 1:00 am. Regardless, as I said above, I think the question refers to the official announcement by the Obama camp anyway.

I don't see where the leak would make a difference in the settlement. From what I could see, the news organizations didn't start reporting the "leaks" until about 1:20 am ET. The e-mail was sent out at 1:50 am ET. Shouldn't make a difference with such broad categories. Further the question asks what time "Obama will announce his v.p." Leaks from "two democratic sources who we can't name due to the sensitivity of the issue" shouldn't be considered the same as an annoucement by the campaign anyway.

Oh, I don't think Saturday would be a good move. It will be Friday...and it will be early in the morning. He'll want to take advantage of a full day's news cycle. If he waits until the event on Saturday afternoon, he won't get the coverage on the morning news cycle. I don't think he'll do it Saturday morning, because, unlike Sunday, there just aren't as many news programs on the main networks, and as Jenni mentioned, it will be too late for the news to hit some of the Sunday programs. Besides, this way he gets to usurp the media for atleast two days...Friday when he announces and Saturday when they are together for the first time. And if he gets it out early enough on Friday, he'll be the only thing spoken about Sunday as well. By waiting until Saturday, he might miss that coverage. And then, of course, it's on to the convention Monday through Thursday. He will have effectively extended his convention coverage from a four-day event to seven.
He used the same approach when he announced his campaign....putting the announcement up on his website the day prior to his public announcement in Illinois. I can't see him doing it any other way this time around.
Of course, I could be eating crow tomorrow morning.

Even though the conversation is a little off subject...I wonder how many of the comments from people who say they have never been polled come from people whose households do not include a landline. Since the demographic on this site seems to tend young, I would guess that atleast a few of them would fall into this category, and therefore should not be receiving a call. Unless that law has changed recently, it is illegal to dial business or cell phone numbers automatically. There is a lot of controversy over how this skews the numbers to reflect the older population since it tends to be younger folks who are cell-phone-only. Also, having an unlisted number would keep you off most of the phone number distribution lists, although I have been polled even though my number is unlisted. Further, my guess is that there are some people who hang up on the pollster the minute they hear the voice on the other line, thinking that it is a telemarketer...particularly now that many of these polls are conducted with recorded voices and push button options.
@cheesenips...laughing at the beer distributor comment.

@dragonfangxl...Vlad Putin got person of the year in 2007, so I doubt he will get it again this year. There are several people who have received the nod more than once, but none of them two years in a row.
As far as Phelps' fifteen minutes of fame, you're probably right. I mean, look at all the other Americans who have achieve epic Olympic feats like this one. Who evers hears about Jesse Owens, Mary Lou Retton, or Carl Lewis anymore? Other than the dropping of their names any time someone even comes close to any significant athletic achievement...the occasional stadium or athletic field named in their honor (University of Texas, Ohio State University, etc.)...I'm sure we'll never hear the name Michael Phelps again after this week.
Sarcasm aside, you are correct that the focus is usually on politics (with business or science being slightly less common). Assuming the list on Wikipedia is correct, the first "man of the year" was Charles Linbergh, and that is about as close to an athlete that they've ever come as far as I can see.

@pembeci...the time stamp on the e-mail will tell what time the e-mail was sent as well as what time it was received, so it should be pretty easy to set a fair suspend time based on it.
@dieseldog and destry...according to "campaign officials" the e-mail is supposedly going to be sent simultaneous to the media release. This makes sense to me. It still makes a nice token gesture to the supporters, but there's no reason to delay the media release because I'm sure every reporter even remotely covering politics is signed up to receive the e-mail, and will be breaking the story right away anyhow.
Either way, it will be all over the news within seconds of the announcement at best, so it shouldn't give anyone a HubDub advantage to receive the e-mail. Not that anyone would try...I'm sure the market just swings like that at the end because the really good predictors could predict that the market event was about to occur and waited until last minute. They just couldn't place the wager fast enough. Maybe they are slow typers. And, while we're on the subject, this e-mail/text message idea is just to thank the supporters...it isn't a senaky way to secure e-mail addresses and cell phone numbers for fundraising purposes. Sheesh, you people are so cynical. ;)

I'm thinking Biden. NY Times is saying that Obama had "all but decided" last week while on vacation, but that the potential nominee supposedly hadn't been told yet (as of late yesterday). Biden has been in the Republic of Georgia and wasn't scheduled to return home until yesterday. I know that there are cell phones and all, but it still seems to make the most sense as to why he hadn't spoken with the nominee yet. Especially given that the campaign is indicating an announcement will be made by midweek, you would think a conversation would be in order. Of course, they could just being blowing smoke up our you-know-whats to keep the media hype going.

I was going to mention the fencing sweep as well. Also, I just read that the American track team swept the men's 400m hurdles. So, that is atleast three events now that have been swept. Don't lose faith in the U.S. just yet, Jenni. :)
It would be interesting to know how many events do allow three competitors. I'm not feeling up to that kind of research though.

Laughing at valor's comment above...don't worry, the photo didn't make me question your honor. By the way, an interesting question. Where is John King and his magic wall when you need him?

I was surprised nobody had put this link up yet. For those trying to follow along:
NBC's complete Olympic medal standings updated daily:
http://www.nbcolympics.com/medals/index.html

When I brought the point up last night, Nigel updated the number of events to 34. I stated at the time that the 10k was a new event, so I'm assuming that means the 10k counts, or he would have put the number of events to 32.
It would probably mess up the market odds a bit to drop the number all the way down to 32, since the starting odds were set assuming 36 events. It makes the "31 and up" category much less likely.

Let me correct my ignorance...FINA sets the rules for all Olympic aquatic. The rules would be the same for world and Olympic records. I hope that clears it up.

Sorry, don't have the Olympic record rules, but I've heard them say about a dozen times on TV that the first leg counts toward it, and they usually follow the same rules as the FINA world records.

FINA offical rules for 2005 to 2009:
"SW 12.8 The first swimmer in a relay may apply for a World Record. Should the first swimmer in a relay team complete his distance in record time in accordance with the provisions of this subsection, his performance shall not be nullified by any subsequent disqualification of his relay team for violations occurring after his distance has been completed."
http://www.udasc.co.uk/members/Dowloads/FINA_SWIMMING_RULES_2005.pdf

The opening legs of the relay count toward the "official" records...opening legs ONLY. all other "fastest" legs are just kept as a point of interest. You will see an OR or WR next to these swimmers names on the official results just as you would in the individual races...I'll look up a source to substantiate that when I get a chance.

SPOILER alert!!!

I'm not sure if these have been televised yet, or it they will be shown on time delay. Not listing the names, so I it shouldn't take the fun out of watching.
11. Women's 200m Freestyle
12. Men's 200m Butterfly

F.Y.I. for those considering new wagers: By my count, only one event is out of contention for a record so far: the men's 400m Freestyle. The women's 100m Butterfly also was completed without a new record, but it will be up for contention again since that stroke is the leadoff leg in 4x100m Medley Relay.
That means atleast 14 (due to the 10K races being "gimmes"), but no more than 33 records are possible so far.

10. Men's 100m Freestyle (broken by the leadoff leg in the 4x100).
http://sports.aol.com/olympics/story/_a/bbdp/relay-stunner-keeps-phelps-dream-alive/126914

Uuumm...I didn't catch this before, and I don't know how much of a problem it's going to be...I hope none, because I really like this question. I only counted 34 swimming events on the schedule, not 36. So I checked the NBC and IOC websites and they say the same thing: 32 pool events + the men and woman's 10K open-water marathon.
http://www.nbcolympics.com/swimming/index.html
http://www.olympic.org/uk/sports/programme/disciplines_uk.asp?DiscCode=SW

My wager would have been the same, either way, so I'm not complaining, but I thought I'd point it out now. Perhaps I'm missing something.

Also, assuming the admins decide the market is okay as is, I'd like to request a new suspension date. The 23rd would be too late of a date anyway, because the last swimming event takes place on the 21st. However, I believe the question should actually suspend before the Sunday 10 am session begins on August 17th (I'm assuming the 10am is Beijing time). The 10K marathon (both genders) is the only thing that takes place after this date. I'm assuming that these events are included in this market. However, we don't have to wait for them to actually take place. They are most definitely going to new Olympic records, because they are debuting in this Olympics. So, the market could be determined NO LATER than the 17th, possibly even before if all of those events' records were to be broken in preliminary heats or semifinals.

Hope I'm not causing a headache.

They should team up and do a second ad with Britney as the running mate.
That would settle as yes, right?

Hey...I told you it would go above 11600 just due to the typo being on that category. You should always trust a woman's intuition. :)
I like the closing time being a little early too by the way.

Flagged it too Jen...thanks for the fix.

Never mind the flag...see you got it.

Uuumm..is it too late to do anything about the fact that the last ctegory read "over 11700" instead of "over 11600"? There is no 11600 to 11700 category. More likely than not, it will be a nonissue since it would require more than a 300 point climb to close above 11600, but watch it be a big day just because the error is there. Could we atleast note the typo in the background information?

Sorry, valor, didn't know you were so sensitive. I don't believe I've ever complained about a question of yours. I liked the question...I came here, after all, to complete your challenge. If I put money down, though, I want the payout to reflect the risk. That's all, and I wasn't quibbling...I was clarifying. Sheesh.

Sorry...didn't mean to make this two separate comments. Just want to add this: 40% of the days left, so 40% odds would only make sense if we typically experience only ONE event each year. Your map shows that we typically experience more than three times that amount.

Also, by your logic, if we average more than 3.5 events per year over the course of any year, then in any given 5-month period, we could expect 1.5 events in any 5-month period which would make 34% odds seem even more ridiculous. Of course, with many of the above events being seasonal, that doesn't really make sense. That's why I focused on hurricanes, again, because your timeframe covers the entire "official" season.

Yes, valornhonor, I acknowledges (and accounted for) the fact that you are looking at only a 5-month period, and that those events did not indicate the month in which they occurred. That is why I specifically called out hurricanes, which are seasonal, and would nearly always occur within the Aug and Dec timeframe for which the question is written. As I said, just looking at hurricanes on the map indicates that the odds minimally should be set at 62%. That doesn't even account for any wildfires...we're still in the dryseason out west. Then add in more random, though less likely events, like earthquakes. Again, thirty-four percent just doesn't make sense.

Sorry..didn't mean to post twice. It isn't THAT important to me. Anyway, should the odds stand, happy predicting, everyone.

Fact is, there are 5 months left, and hurricane season is only now beginning. I don't even know if the meterologists consider it having begun yet despite the storm in Texas already. A very active season was predicted this year. Five of the past 8 hurricane seasons have included atleast one billion dollar storm. (I didn't look past 2000...I got bored and my eyes are starting to cross). That alone should indicate that starting odds should have been above 62%. Odds at approximately a 1 in 3 chance just doesn't make sense to me.

Fact is, there are 5 months left, and hurricane season is only now beginning. I don't even know if the meterologists consider it having begun yet despite the storm in Texas already. A very active season was predicted this year. Five of the past 8 hurricane seasons have included atleast one billion dollar storm. (I didn't look past 2000...I got bored and my eyes are starting to cross). That alone should indicate that starting odds should have been above 62%. Odds at approximately a 1 in 3 chance just doesn't make sense to me.

Excuse me, I should have said the rest of this year. Don't want to confuse matters.

Chatarra, good point. Unfortuantely, odds are A LOT better than the market would indicate as well. The graphic displayed shows that you have to go all the way back to 1984 to find a year when the U.S. has not had a billion dollar weather-related disasters. Since 1990, we have had 66 such disasters...that's an average of more than 3.5 per year. How on earth can the starting odds be justified at only a 34% chance of such an event this year??

Transcript from last night's situation room:

BLITZER: On our Political Ticker today: Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico appears to be cozying back up to the Clintons somewhat.

Clinton ally James Carville, as you all remember, famously called the New Mexico Democrat a Judas for backing Barack Obama, instead of Hillary Clinton, in the primaries. Today, Governor Richardson announced he will hold two fund-raising events in New Mexico next month to help Senator Clinton pay off her campaign debt. A Clinton spokeswoman says the senator is grateful for the governor's help.

Remember, for the latest political news any time, you can always check out CNN.com/situationroom. That's also where you can download our new political screen saver. You might want to do that.

Let's check back with Jack Cafferty once again for "The Cafferty File" -- Jack.

CAFFERTY: I wonder why he would do that.

BLITZER: Because he wants to be in -- he wants to unify the Democratic Party.

CAFFERTY: What happened to his beard?

BLITZER: I don't know if he's still -- I don't know the answer to that.

CAFFERTY: Yes. Well, that footage you just had up, he was hairless on the chin.

The question...

BLITZER: Yes, I don't know.

CAFFERTY: Yes.

Hhhmmm...I haven't heard any buzz, so I'm thinking it might be old footage. However, the Huffington Post ran a beardless photo of Richardson for the same story...strange considering he's had the beard...how long? Since February or so? Seems strange that two news organizations would revert pre-beard images after all this time if he was still sporting facial hair. I think I cashed in my position on this question awhile ago, but my curiosity is still getting the best of me.

Does a one-year-old count as an "owner?"

Saw this article today, "Dog leads firefighters to baby inside":
http://www.nbc4i.com/midwest/cmh/news.apx.-content-articles-CMH-2008-07-30-0035.html

This one is actually a little impressive...more than just the-pet-made-a-noise-and-woke-me-up-so-he's-a-hero type of thing. It may not be enough for settlement. The article implies that it was the family dog by saying "the dog went BACK into the home," but does not say directly that the dog was owned by the family. Made me think of this market, though, so I thought I'd share.

CNN was using a video of Richardson today, while speaking of his offer to help Clinton raise money to pay her campaign debts. Cafferty asked Blitzer what happened to the beard? Is that recent video? Blitzer responded that he did not know. Anyone know anything about this?

By the way, in first comment above, the parrot saved the owner AND family not owner FROM family. My mind must be in a dark place today.

Thank you for the high five, but it really didn't take much leg work. That's why I was so disappointed. Markets that I thought were far less questionable have been voided, and this one seemed a no-brainer to me. Oh well, C'est la vie. If the market stands, I guess a few people got a good buy. I'll stay away from it, personally. Doesn't seem like much of a challenge to me. Good point about the working dogs. I have to admit the "rabbit saves life" article did seem pretty unique. Like I said, if you took the dogs and cats out of the equation, the odd would have seemed more reasonable...I didn't dig very deep, but still, I only found the one parrot story.

Seriously? Market is fine to continue? I usually find you pretty reasonable, Ryan, but this is ridiculous. There are five months left in the year. Here is what I found for the last five months without even trying. All are from major newspapers or national media sources:
- Mar 28: dog saves owner with modified heimlich
- Apr 7: cat saves owner from snake
- Apr 9: dog saves owner from house fire
- Jun 16: dog saves owner from bridge fire
- Jul 13: parrot sounds fire alarm, saves owner from family
- Jul 15: dog saves owner from rattlesnake
I stopped at six, because I think its more than enough shows how ridiculous the 5% starting odds are, and to spend any more time typing is a waste of effort. This market should be voided. It's one thing when something like this slips under the radar, but quite another when a question like this has -- supposedly -- been "reviewed" and still gets through. It's a little disappointing, especially considering that the creator of the question was also an admin. If the question had asked if another rabbit would save a life that is one thing, but these type of "pet saves owner" articles are a dime a dozen. Kudos to newswrangler for flagging this one. Maybe it's time to give the superusers more responsibilities.

Do the letters "ED" have to be pronounced like the name Ed? Or do they just have to occur together? Jack ReED (Sen-RI), for example, is generally considered to be on the short list, but wasn't listed in the background info.

jake,
no Republican running mate is going to deliver Massachusetts. However, Gov. Romney is remembered fondly in Michigan. I have family there who are die-hard Democrats who describe him as one of the best Governors Michigan ever had. Earlier this year, some who had never voted for a Republican President indicated they might go with Romney if he secured the nomination just because he was his son. When the pundits say Romney could help deliver the state of Michigan, I believe it is a possibility. Some also believe he is popular enough in Nevada and Colorado to help McCain there as well. That's three states. Massachusetts is never in contention for the Republicans, it's the swing states that count, and just because Romney isn't from one of them, doesn't mean his name won't help on the ticket.

I don't think I'm going to wager on this one, because it's making my head spin. However, I do think one area could use some clarification. Everyone keeps talking about "celebrity" as a possible category for someone falling into the "two or more" category. I think that is a mistake. Celebrity is not it's own category...it falls under the "none of these" categories. A person can be "none of these" and "two of these" at the same time. I realize that celebrity was specifically mentioned under the "none of these" category, and that the writer even stated that Ronald Reagan would qualify as "two or more" for being both a celebrity and a governor. I think that is going to be a problem. Very few people begin their career in politics. Almost everyone had some job while climbing up the ladder. I think you might be opening this up to an argument when settlement time comes around. For example, Clinton was an attorney, and first lady before becoming senator. If she weren't senator, she would be "none of these." That doesn't mean that she belongs in two categories, in my opinion. It would make just about everyone fit that category, and what fun is that. I think it would be wise to clarify this now before the cussing starts. :) (Jenni's list is thorough, but I don't know that anyone would have predicted that Dick Cheney, serving as Bush's vetter would nominate himself for the role, so you never know. If I remember, Al Gore was a surprise back in 1992 as well.)

Jschiang, if you read the background information, I clearly stated that the market would settle as "undetermined source" if the source is determined not to be tomatoes afterall. Should the FDA announce that certain tomatoes from a disclosed location are implicated as well as peppers, than I would think that the admin would settle the market according to the source of the tomatoes. That was my intention atleast.
Latest update: The strain of salmonella linked to this outbreak has been found on a jalepeno pepper grown in Mexico, and processed in Texas (where most of the initial illnesses were reported).
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/07/21/fda.salmonella/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular
The FDA is still not stating conclusively that this is the source of the outbreak, however.

Latest update: Tomatoes remain the top suspect in the salmonella outbreak. However, the government is now checking if the problem is really with tomatoes or with another ingredient. If the contamination occurred in a warehouse, it is also possible that there could be multiple ingredients involved. For the full story, you can read the article here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/ap_on_he_me/med_salmonella_tomatoes

New developments.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/06/15/mcdonalds.tomatoes.ap/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular

Also, the safe list is still being updated here:
http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/tomatoes.html

Still silent (through the April session).

Also, California is now on the safe list. Mexico is still not on there.

Correction/update to coolkrafts's post. As of today (Friday, June 13), only certain counties in Florida have been added to the safe list and shipments from those counties are acceptable only if they come with a certificate from the Florida Department of Agriculture. It appears that atleast some parts of Florida are still being investigated (and/or are under suspicion) by the USDA.

I agree that was weird. Did you read the case, ironman? They actually did read the Miriam Webster dictionary into evidence. In fact, it seemed to be the majority of the case, although I did just barely skim it. Maybe you should become an become a federal attorney.
Personally, I don't think it's the case itself that is the weirdest part. It's the fact that newswrangler actually knew to turn to Supreme Court caselaw. Who woulda thunk it? That's what I call resourceful.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080610/us_nm/food_tomatoes_florida_dc

Today's press release from the CDC now includes Canada on the list of safe producers. Of the states mentioned in the background information, Georgia is also on the safe list. Florida and California are not. Mexico is also not listed as safe yet. For the full list, follow this link.
http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/tomatoes.html

My money is one. I think lettuce is due. By the way, I put my tomato/salmonella question under science as well. It seemed most appropriate since we're dealing with microbes.

Pardon my errors above. I had edited the background information a few times before submitting. In case it wasn't clear due to the omission of a rather important word: the illnesses occurred BETWEEN Apr 23 and May 27, not on Apr 23 and May 27 only. It seems self-explanatory, but I'm a freak about these things, and it was bugging me. Happy predicting, everyone.

Wow. That reporter really needs to follow her obvious lifelong dream of writing romance novels. I don't know where you find this stuff Mork, but your questions are always so interesting. I'm going with no. August 8 seems to soon given the drama unfolding between the other jealous wives of the polygamist male gorilla. Stay tuned...

Just for context...if I'm counting correctly, in 2004, Kerry had 19 states with 20 if DC counted. So, DC would have made a difference in how the question was settled in that case. If we're agreeing that DC will be counted could an admin add that to the background information?

DC has 3 electoral votes.

Wow. That was thorough. I love how you even thought of the possibility of a midterm innauguration (not to mention the nudist innauguration). Hats off to you. Red was not my lucky color for the Clinton concession. Maybe I'll go with blue this time.

He really only needs 4,000 signatures? He may be a nutjob. However, if my calculations are correct, 4000 represents not even .001% of the population in Colorado. I bet there are atleast 4000 other nutjobs. Is there a statewide Star Trek convention before the petition deadline?

Good question. Just for clarity...DC votes in the general election. Are we counting it as a state? The way the question is worded, I'm assuming no. Since it usually goes Democrat, however, I think we should make it clear early on.

Did this question really start at 50-50 odds? What is the justification for that?

Even better shot on the Wallstreet Journal website. The microphone is directly in front of her and blends right in.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121284872481654695.html
Same photo on abcnews.com, but in the video (on the same site) it looks brown...note that the microphones do as well. Don't remember who thought of that, but it was a good call.
Neither site mentions the color. I'm not sure there will be a media concensus, jennieandboys. Your link might be it. My money is gone either way, so I'm signing out. Good afternoon, everyone, it's been fun. :)

I thought it appeared like it could be a chocolate brown on my TV set as well...look at the photo on CNN though. If we go by the suggestion to compare/contrast it with the microphones, it definitely appears black. This particular article makes no mention of color, unfortunately.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/07/clinton.unity/index.html
I take back my statement about hoping she wore a monocromatic black suit for Ryan's sake...who would have thought. <sigh> Fun question, swilson. Maybe Clinton will get a v.p. nod, I'm going to miss the pant suits.

That wasn't meant to be contentious, swilson. I was just intrigued by the conversation. If Ryan called magenta green it wouldn't matter to me, I have never, in all my months on here argued over a settlement. Also, I agree with most the others that pink is unlikely...although, I think I have seen her in magenta. Like I said, I just couldn't resist weighing in. It was the first time that "art for elementary teachers" class that I had to take in college has ever been useful (I never worked as an elemtary school teacher). Good luck to all.

Steph, you may be right. I hadn't thought of that. Maybe the question should have asked how many times she will mention it.
Since the media is reporting that she is going to concede AND announce her support/endorse Barack Obama, wouldn't is be nice to suggest that her supporters go to www.barackobama.com and support HIS campaign? Sounds crazy. <sigh>

I can't resist on weighing in here. A shade is a color you get when adding black to the base color. A tint is the color you get when adding white. Most people commonly use the term shade to refer to either a shade or a tint since neither changes the acutal hue. Since this isn't an art class, I'm assuming that is what is intended here...it might be nice for the author or an admin to weigh in that, however, before tomorrow since the topic came up. Either way it would mean that magenta would fall under "other." Since we've established that it is red+blue, then that makes it a shade/tint of purple...not red, not blue. Pink, on the other hand, is a tint of red. If shade is to be interpreted as either a tint or a shade, then that makes it a "shade" of red, not other. Sorry for the nerdiness. I put my money on red, but for Ryan's sake, I hope she sticks to a nice, monochromatic, black power suit.

I thought the odds gave Larry Johnson a little too much credit as well. There is $1150 on yes to $2240 on no. I can't help but notice that the two superusers who placed bets cancelled each other out. It looks like Skipper disagrees with you on the odds. I doubt there's a video...it doesn't seem credible to me. In fact, I put so much money on it primarily because I was so annoyed that there was so much money on yes at the time. I don't see how setting the odds at 50-50 and letting the market decide is such a bad idea on this one. Who's to say? Of course, I don't mind voiding it either. I hate to see Larry Johnson get the publicity. We're definitely getting to the stupid faze of the campaign...it's going to be all downhill from here I'm sure.

This is where the bookmark option discussed in the forums would be nice. Sorry for your frustration bayoubear.

Oh...actually, federal administrator isn't on there either.

Oh...I took too long to type. I don't think it messes up the options too much, although I don't know what you had intended, and didn't even see the initial question. It seems to me that it makes the 8% odds on "none of these" a little more likely. It's pretty unusual to have a vp nominee with neither political nor military experience.

Personally, I think the corporate experience choice might get messy anyway. I looked at Hillary's bio, for example, and it's really difficult to tell what exactly is meant by she "ran" a legal aid clinic. Given that John McCain's shortlist supposedly includes the CEO of...somehwhere(Hewlett Packard??), the option might be nice, but the other options are certainly more clear cut and easy to settle. I like the question too, bayoubear...waiting for the final decision.

I might be missing something, but I don't see the coroporate experience option in the predicitons section...just in the background. Was it intended to be there?

I know that was an old comment Melmel, but I needed to respond. If you are goint to complain that a question writer does not have the facts, then make sure you have your own facts straight first. Both parties do not have primaries rather than caucuses. Florida held a primary, Michigan held a caucus. There was a period of time (before the proposed mail-in primary idea) that it was being said that there would not be the time or money for a new primary in Florida, and the idea of a causus was being thrown around. I suspect that this is probably why the writer chose the word caucus.

As reported by FoxNews?? I thought in the event of the second coming, all of their reporters would be raptured up. <shrugs>

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to put the suspend date as the time of the conventions (September 4 - the end of the Republican convention)? By then we should know what the candidates ages will be on 11/4. I suppose settlement could be postponed until 11/4, but wagering should definitely be suspended by the time the candidates are named.

There are only two other nominees for this category. Why not list them as well instead of just "someone else"? A question regarding vice presidential nominees was voided some time ago, because the category editor felt that it was missing some selections that should be there, and that was just projection. It seems that the other two nominees should atleast be mentioned so that people can make an educated prediction. So, for those who are wondering, "someone else" would either be Keith Urban or George Strait. In addition to being last year's winner, Brad Paisley received 4 nominations (I believe this puts him third in the number of nominations).

Not a word from Thomas through the end of the March session.

Yes, the settlement details should be updated. The outcome of this question will be determined by the games to be played on March 27&28.

Pics4d, the six men are:
- Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
- Ramzi Binalshibh
- Mohammed Qahtani
- Ali Abdul Aziz Ali
- Mustafa Ahmed Hawsawi
- Walid bin Attash

Anyone know what the current record is?

I'm with captainron.

It might help if this question were placed in the NCAAF category rather than basketball.

I'm not saying that this question should be taken down. I know that this question is meant to be silly and is more about making a statement, and I don't have a problem with it. No one is going to be making big money at 95% odds on "no." However, the statement that the odds were set right is almost as ridiculous as the question. Even with medical science, a 60-year-old getting pregnant is an abberation. To my knowledge, it has only happened once, and supposedly, the doctor only assisted the woman because she had lied about her age. Do you really think the probabilty of this happening is 1 in 20?? Give me a break.
That aside, I had wanted to respond to historyteacher's point. I agree the media treats male and female candidates differently, and appreciate the sentiment expressed. However, just for another view point...I think the statement was more an expression of surprise over the announcement than a comment about the quality of her appearance.

Why are so many of today's "relevant" news stories for this question about potatoes?? :)
I would have expected a few citrus stories to pop up, but...weird.

Provisional, overseas, and military ballots have yet to be counted, but the Secretary of State is reporting (with 100% of precincts reporting) that the voter turnout reached 3,449,808. The results are pretty close to the borderline between two of the categories. I don't know if they would expect more than 100,000 overseas ballots or not. I believe overseas/military ballots must be received by March 14, so it may be a little bit of a wait.
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/media/20080305.pdf

Hhmm...that's an interesting point, owl1. I would think that dropping out would technically mean dropping out before the last primary/caucus. Anything after that, particularly if it occurs at the convention would seem to be conceding defeat rather than dropping out. John Kerry didn't drop out of the presidential race, he conceded the election. Is there a difference between dropping out and conceding in a primary election? If so, where is the line drawn? The settlement on this one could get sticky if the contest goes to the convention as many are predicting.

...his or her actions. Sorry, just committed a grammar pet peeve of mine.

Someone shot the video...it seemed as though the people in the video were aware it was being shot. It ended up on the internet...I presume by someone close enough to the situation to have obtained the video. Yet, you're accusing the person who wrote the question of "propagating rumors." It seems to me the individuals involved wanted the attention. Don't treat them like they are some kind of victim just because the attention turned out to be negative. Anyone in the military, legally, must be an adult, and therefore should be mature enough to consider the consequences of their actions.

Per the settlement "details," it has to be reported by a major news source that he called Bush diabolical. Since the term in the question is in English, I would assume that the source must state...in Enlgish...that Bush was called diabolical. I can't see anyone from hubdub trying to translate Persian terms to determine whether or not a synonym was used.

I see that the suspend date is set for the day of the election. When is the question to be settled? How long after the election? This year? 2020?

I don't know, dr_ph0bius. I wouldn't take it that way...it says "on" the U.S., not "in" the U.S. Hard to tell if that is a typo or not, but we considered the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole a terrorist attack even though it was against a military target (I believe in international waters). The bombing of the Kenyan embassy is referred to as a terrorist attack against the U.S. This is the problem with settlement details that say only "as reported by a major newssource." I would interpret the question to mean any terroritst attack on a U.S. interest, but you (and I'm sre others) interpret it differently. So, if an attack happens overseas, this question is just begging to be voided. It's a pretty short timeframe, so I suppose it's probably more likely that no attack will happen, and it will be irrelevant.

cbfolsom (Seabee?), I'm not going to respond to most of what you wrote, I'll let your comments stand as they are. However, since my "name" came up, I do want to address that. As far as it not being a matter of predicting the news because 0 was not a choice. I just want to point out...the question was written on February 3rd. Sadly, one soldier had already been killed on February 2nd. I don't know if the author of the question was aware of that, but since his answer choices begin with the exact number of casualities at the point of writing the question, I'm giving him/her the benefit of the doubt. Either way, the question did allow people to accurately predict the news as it was written, at the time that it was written. Like I said, the question saddens me. It's one several on here that make me my stomach churn every time I see it. I chose not to participate in the market, as I'm sure many did. I'm not saying that I disagree with the way you feel about the question...I just wanted to address that one point.

I got burned on this question before Super Tuesday, but I guess I'll go for it again. One question though, is the outcome determined by whether or not she cries before the polls open, or before the polls close?

Only problem is, the question does not state "which state listed" it says "which state will be hit first." The question should read "which of these states" or "which of the following states" if that was your intetion. Also, there is still a problem if none of those is hit at all during this season. Either way that the question is interpreted, there is a possibility that there might be no winning outcome.

Golwar, sorry, I didn't notice your comment until now. Just for the record, I was not in any way implying that the questions of suicide were any more or any less ethical than the other...quite the opposite. Actually, my comment was not so much about ethics. I was responding to the question posed earlier regarding why some people were seemingly more upset with this question than others relating to death. I was just posing one possible explanation as to why this one might leave a more bitter taste in the mouth for some people. I don't recall making a value judgment either way.

Well, since two of the films nominated for best documentary deal with the war in Iraq, I'd bet it's going to be mentioned atleast twice.

Why would you set the time zone to PST if no time zone was specified? I thought the rules stated that the local time zone would be used for locale-specific questions. Had any bets been placed before that time was set? If so, what was the point in even writing the rules?
Besides, that's quite a long time after the polls close. I know you cleared it with the author of the question, but that was that the intention when the starting odds were chosen? A three-hour difference is a long time in a question like this one.

Okay, so the promos for the episode said another member of the Oceanic Six would be identified in this week's episode. If it wasn't Claire's son, Aaron, then who was it? It certainly wasn't Sawyer, Locke, or Desmond. I think this is a silly argument.

I'm with you you, trevorbradley. I have a lot of money riding on Persepolis. I loved Ratatouille as well, but Persepolis seems more in line with the types of movies that the academy goes for, both in style and theme. I suspect part of the reason that Ratatouille has so much money on it is that more people actually saw it. I have to admit, though, I'm usually bad at predicting these things...doesn't bode well for your $1000.

Cloud-seeding techniques...no kidding?? Fascinating. I looked it up. August is, on average, the rainiest month of the year in Beijing, so I guess officials have some reason for concern. I have no idea. I think I'll sit this one out. Interesting though.

Jonathan Edwards was an 18th century evangelist. John Edwards might endorse him though.

f.y.i
Since it wasn't noted in the background information above, I thought I would mention that the SAG's current contract expires June 30 of this year. I had to look it up, thought I would save ya'll some time.

How do you define "talk about?" Does he have to dedicate a speech to the issue? Hold a press conference? Would a mere mention of the country mean "yes"? He's in Tanzania and Rice is in Kenya today, I would think that he might "talk about" the country. The settlement rules are a little ambiguous.

oops...I meant 4 pm Pacific time...the ev