bigg jay

Sucks to be the teams that tanked to try to land that pick.

I watched it again & looked for screen caps and now I'm on the side of it not being a skull. Just the burnt up shell of his helmet. Here's a screen cap I found:

Not all Jedi bodies dissappear though (Qui-Gon's didn't in Phantom Menace). Obi Wan & Yoda did because they "became one with the force" (a trick they learn from Qui-Gon ironically). It looked like a skull to me on 1st glance but I've only watched it once.

SOOOO pumped for this movie after seeing that.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/sports/football/bombers/Bombers-add-receiver-Derrick-Hector-298178611.html

To me, the biggest thing ECW did for wrestling that still stands is giving guys that didn't fit Vince's mold a chance to make it in North America. 20 years ago, a guy like Daniel Bryan would have had a great indy career or would have worked in Japan (neither of which is a horrible thing, just harder for the fans to follow).

This......But also curious how he showed at the combine, where he was showcasing as a receiver, apparently... Here's how his numbers ranked against the 8 WR's: Bench: 2nd 40 yard: 9th Vertical: 7th Broad Jump: 8th 3 Cone: 3rd Shuttle: 5th

I wish more people could have seen ECW in it's prime. It was pretty innovative and changed the game (at least for a while).

Meltzer reported on the Shane/McMahon thing too so given that's he's one of the most (if not the most) reliable source in wrestling, I'd say it was true. DSE had a lot of issues going on back then & they were trying to do anything to stay afloat. They also tried to get Mike Tyson to fight one of their guys (under boxing rules so we all know how that would turn out) around that time. Once they lost their TV deal, they were done.

Not sure what you mean by DSE doing business with Pride... they were Pride (like Zuffa is the UFC).

When did Shane try to buy the UFC?

This... ...But also curious how he showed at the combine, where he was showcasing as a receiver, apparently... Here's how his numbers ranked against the 8 WR's: Bench: 2nd 40 yard: 9th Vertical: 7th Broad Jump: 8th 3 Cone: 3rd Shuttle: 5th

Ronda is the one star they have that can basically do what she wants right now. They (Zuffa) won't even mess with her entourage for fear of pissing her off so if Ronda wanted to do it, there's no way they would have said no.

Sounds like he ran the 40 with an already injured groin but he's still going to participate in the one on ones.

I'll also add that yes the FAA creates the regulations but they do not investigate crashes. The NTSB has that job and they want cameras in the cockpit (and have for 15 years). http://time.com/3760716/germanwings-plane-crash-pilot-cockpit/

I'm all for giving investigators tools, but maybe it would be a better idea to have them tell us what they think would be useful and I don't think I've read or heard of the FAA or any other agency saying that they need to be put into place ASAP. If they decide to use armchair investigators, then clearly, it's got to be cameras, lots and lots of cameras, and backup cameras for the main cameras, oh and body cameras too, one for each person. Can never have enough video... Yes, because that is exactly what is being suggested. Tons of cameras & we want them installed yesterday. Oh by the way, the FAA recommended cameras 10 years ago as a post crash tool for investigators. Some pilots objected due to privacy concerns. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/surveillance/2005-09-20-faa-cameras-wireless_x.htm

Do you think someone who is intentionally bringing down a plane would give a s**t if the camera was covered? Are they secretly hoping they survive crashing into the side of a mountain & need to cover their tracks? I'm lost as to what you think the point of covering the camera would be. Will cameras prevent this? No but neither do voice & data recorders. It would be another tool to potentially aid in the investigation, no more no less.

That will never happen... pilots wont go for it and really when you think of it ... it wouldnt help anything in this case. Would you agree to have a camera watching you work? Sure, why not. I have cameras in my work place. My management has the right to access my computer at any time and see exactly what I see, hears what I hear. This isnt a big issue. The union would bargain for cameras to be used in the same sense the voice recorder's are used - incidents. Every word they say is recorded and there are processes for when they can speak and what they can say and Im sure pilots violate that from time to time but airlines arent pulling the voice recorders to use to discipline them. If they valued cameras, it would not be a big issue to get them. I think it would help. For one it fills in blanks. It gives you the opportunity to see the faces and expressions of the pilots. It can show what a pilot was physically doing and not just what the data recorder recorded he was doing. It can show medical issues, sleeping, distractions etc. I think it's valuable. Having access to your comp aint really the same thing IMO. You would be ok with them putting a camera on your desk pointed right at you so they can watch you any time they want? Record you and watch it whenever they want? And like i said a cockpit is a pretty small area... they could just cover it up if they wanted.... put a hat over it and its useless. Thats not even close to what I wrote though is it? I dont do a job that requires a camera on me at my desk. But one aspect of my job requires handling of large amounts of money and in that room there is a camera on me. And it is monitored by security. I dont believe airlines can pull the voice recorders and listen to them anytime they want to to discipline the pilots. This would be the same thing. Cameras there for the safety of the crew and passengers to be reviewed in the event of an incident. And if it was set up the same as the flight recorders, it couldnt even be used to review something that happened mid-flight since it only records the final 30 minutes. it's designed to help investigators when there is a major crash. Ask investigators if they'd love to be able to plug in to a lap top and immediately hear AND see what happened during the final moments of the plane. It's a no brainer, really. Well i asked if you would be ok with a camera focused on you all day at work and then you answered me about them having acsess to your comp and being able to see what you see. Im not arguing it with you im just saying what im hearing on CNN and pilots seem to say no. And like i said they could just cover it up. How do you stop that? You also mentioned airlines being able to see it at any time. Im saying that's an easy solution since they cant access the voice recorder at any time as is. Have the camera feeding the recorder. Last 30-120 minutes of action and thats it. Im sure there is some way in the security industry to make a camera resistant to being covered. I guess. I just really dont see how it helps anything. Having a camera is not going to stop anything from happening or detour anyone from crashing a plane if thats what they are set out to do. If they are going to spend billions on something it should be on something better then that. IMO. My question would be this... If this plane had a camera.... what would you learn from watching? They already know what the guy did, they dont know why he did it and he didnt talk. So what would a camera tell anyone? By that logic though, why do we have voice and data recorders? They dont stop anyone from crashing a plane if they really want to. But they do help tell us what happened and why. A camera wouldnt just be valuable in cases of pilot action. In cases of malfunction it can still show what the pilots were doing, how they reacted non-verbally to the situation and each other, body language, facial expressions. This isnt a matter of "we never needed it before", its that technology didnt catch up. Now there is no excuse. Took the words out of my mouth. I would also add that just because the investigators seem to have pieced it together in this particular case without video, doesn't mean it wouldn't be a valuable tool for them to have in the future.

That will never happen... pilots wont go for it and really when you think of it ... it wouldnt help anything in this case. Would you agree to have a camera watching you work? I've worked with cameras in the workplace for many years and I'm pretty sure TUP also has years of experience with that. They can definitely be useful in determining what happened after an event. If you aren't doing anything wrong (you are at work after all), what's the problem?

Times have definitely changed in regards to player safety. 20 years ago you still had a couple guys playing with no helmets (MacTavish was the last guy to go without a lid in 1996-97).

Yep, even auto-correct thinks he's a nobody!

Gary Leeman was a longtime Leaf from the 80's. He is one of only 3 Leafs to score 50 goals in a season, which is incredible considering how long that franchise has been around.

We had this in Mexico too. The 13th Man logo on their flag made me laugh every time I saw it though. The Rider fans didn't find the "Too Many Men" penalty signal quite as funny.

They are everywhere. A few years ago my wife was in Brazil (in a pretty off the beaten path kind of place too) and bumped into a guy in Rider gear. Right off the bat, she told him they couldn't be friends because of his choice of clothing. She emailed me later on and asked if I had heard of a guy named Graeme Bell!