At least the Yankees make no bones about outspending everyone. I used to have sympathy for the Red Sox and root for them over the Yankees, but 2 events completely turned me against them. First they sign Manny for $160 Million - the difference between the BOS and CLE offers was deferred money in the CLE offer. Second, less than 2 years after using their deep pockets to get Manny they turn around and whine about the Yankees signing Contreras saying that other teams have no chance, thus verifying that Red Sox management and fans are the biggest whiners in baseball.

They've continued the trend with the Dice-K nonesense. They almost spent as much just to get access to Dice-K ($51.11MM) as the Indians' total salary ($67.47MM). Their top 4 players make more than the Indians entire team. Their cheapest 10 players cost $5MM more than the Indians.

And spare me the, "We had to wait so long for a World Series victory." Boo-hoo. Nevermind the Celtics and Patriots dynaties. Bill Buckner, ha! He blows a play in Game 6 - there was still another game. What about the 13th inning of Game 7 of the 1997 World Series?

The final straw was leaking HGH rumors (even though purchases were made before any ban on HGH) the day of game 7 from an investigation done by someone sitting on the Red Sox board.

At least if the Indians had won, I could stand the "Nation's" whining about how horrible it is to be a Boston fan with a $143MM salary. I only hope that the Red Sox lose to the Rockies so I don't have to hear how smart they are to win with such a huge payroll. The only consolation is the Boston crowd recognizing Sizemore's diving catch in center in the last game.

As far as the series - the difference I think was the number of postseason veterans on the clubs. Sabbathia and Carmona each had 1 out of 3 decent outings. The Indians needed 1 more strong outing from one of them. The teams with the two best records in baseball - you would expect it to go seven even though there was really only one game where both teams played well for the whole game.

Boston's cheapest 10 make $5MM more than Cleveland's cheapest 10 (not more than the entire team).

Living in the Bay Area has taught me how many drivers have no clue about the concepts of relative motion (merging into 70mph traffic at 40mph is like backing up through stopped traffic at 30 mph) and conservation of momentum (a heavy object moving at a slow speed is much much more dangerous than a light object moving at the same speed).

This last point is important here. No matter how rigid a body structure or how many air bags you have, if the car is light it will be accelerated/decelerated much more for the same force of impact than a heavier vehicle. Driving a vehicle much lighter than the majority of those on the road is INHERENTLY unsafe. All those safety features added to the Smart car are also available on many other vehicles with the Smart car having negligible crumple zones so more of the energy of impact is delivered to the occupant.

The debunking of the theory that the article links to really related to SUVs and in particular debunking the myth that 4WD helps you stop and pointing out that the high center of gravity can limit the lateral forces the SUV can take before it rolls over.

The fundamental problem (due to conservation of energy) with coming up with a fuel-efficient car is that gasoline engines are as efficient as they are going to get and the ONLY way to improve the car's fuel efficiency is to make them lighter so less force is needed to accelerate them (which is why the sheet metal on Hondas are so thin you can dent the panels by looking at them too hard). Turbocharging has a minimal effect since the weight of the car remains the same - roughly the same amount of gas is needed to produce the same amount of acceleration fuel efficiency is unchanged, but maximum acceleration available can be boosted this way.

Diesel engines are more efficient (due to high compression ratios) and are a safer way to get better gas mileage. An all-electric drivetrain is a different animal which is more efficient, but battery technology limits power and range.

Safety is nowhere near my number one concern when purchasing a vehicle, additionally I think that all these safety features give drivers a false sense of security. But the Smart car is one car in which I would reasonably fear for my life.

This statement is patently incorrect:

"Unlike most phones today, devices running Android will be able to run applications created by third-party developers."

This is only true for the iPhone. Microsoft has a Windows Mobile development kit for Visual Studio complete with phone emulators. I've had almost a dozen 3rd party apps on my phone for a year now. Most applications for Java-based phones are third-party (mlb live game audio, Sprint Family Locator service - made by someone else). For the Java-based phones, distribution of 3rd party software is not as simple as for Windows-Mobile-based devices so distribution is generally, but not always, through the carriers. Also, don't forget the 3rd party applications for Palm products. Last I checked there were a lot of Treos and Blackberries out there.

Check out http://www.pocketgear.com for examples of 3rd party apps.