Chisoxfn

Here is what I don't understand. How were there all these bad reports and then it has taken this long for this information to come out. Seems like a lot of bad information started the process, followed by good info. If this info comes out 10 days ago, we don't have this situation. Again, not saying it is easy and investigations have to be done, but seems like there should have been pretty strong statements coming from the government denying reports, etc.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 10:18 AM) That is correct. But once you figure out the price, they'll figure out the monthly payment, and then they'll try to lower it for you (how generous). They sell it like they're doing you a favor, but it's always for a longer term and a higher interest rate, thus you end up paying more for the car. The monthly payment is purely math. Negotiate the price. You need to get comfortable on what you can afford and what terms you want before you go into the dealership. If you start talking about payments, you'll be screwed. You'll get a great monthly payment and pay lots of interest over 6 or 7 years. Figure out what you want term wise and what you are able to afford and then figure out what you want to pay for the car. Then know what rate you can get from credit unions, etc, and pretty much see what they can beat (but only after everything is negotiated). Car negotiations do not need credit checks. Do not get a credit check until you have everything else in line. Always maintain the position of power.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 09:12 AM) Yeah, I think Nevada and California are being hit with the same wave right now. The prices have come down to the point where it makes sense for the companies to install the equipment if you exceed a certain threshold of power use. It certainly is a bad deal for the consumer, but like you said, it does make it available to more folks, but then they are just paying Solar City instead of the utility company. The advertising is ridiculous right now. I'll be driving in to work (at the power company) and they will be criticizing us for retiring coal and developing solar ourselves, and then in the next sentence selling their rooftop solar. Pretty humorous. The net savings is probably over-inflated based upon what i've read on solar city. There are a lot of subsidies out there that can help from a purchase standpoint, but in reality, to get the best bang for your buck, you have to be a pretty big user of energy. My electric bill ranges from $35 to $100 bucks depending on how hot it is during the summer, so until we get a bigger place, or prices are just dirt cheap, I wouldn't even consider it. However, when we eventually get a bigger house for our growing family, if we do buy new, I can tell you, given the current price builders charge, I would be all over it. Most of the builders out here, you can have a full retro-fit that for less then $8K (often times as little as 3K, depending on the builder), with 30 year warranty, etc. Supposedly that amount can handle a bill around $200/month out here (not sure on the kilowats which is what really matters) and then if you use less, you get a portion back as an actual credit.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 09:00 AM) So what are your thoughts on residential solar? You guys probably are not getting this yet because of your location, but we've had massive advertising this past year for residential solar. Basically, the company installs a rooftop system free of charge but makes you sign a power purchase agreement for 20-30 years. The utilities are not pleased with this because we're the ones who've paid (and continue to maintain) for the infrastructure (the distribution system) to make this possible. Its pretty popular out here. However, those lease deals usually aren't as good as buying your own equipment. That said, obviously up-front money vs. the alternative. Solar city is a big one out here that is doing it. The new homes being built now usually come with a few and then you can upgrade (for a pretty minimal cost, especially when you consider it can be financed as part of the house with the interest being tax deductible) and then you can be fully self dependent and even make a few bucks selling back to Edison or whomever your power company is. Very interesting point you make though about the infrastructure investments of the power companies. Personally I think the idea is great as the more energy self sufficient we can become, the better. I also think there have already been significant improvements (from what I've read) in the capabilities of these panels and I'm curious to see that with the increase in demand, how much better the capabilities get as more money gets invested in the space which drives more R&D.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 08:23 AM) Yeah, it's near Primm. About an hour southwest of Vegas. We're trying to get approval from our utilities commission to build a 200 MW solar facility on the Moapa Native American tribe's land. I'll be interested to see whether the technology is similar to Ivanpah or not. I remember when they were building that I was wondering what the heck was going on out there and then finally I saw when it was completed and was like, whoah. At first, all you could see was just massive towers being built in the middle of nowhere when it started (and there were no signs off the freeway, like you sometimes expect out in areas kind of in the middle of nowhere (like when you are passing a nuclear plant, you usually see a sign or something).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 08:21 AM) Weird that you take such a sarcastic tone in that last line given that all I was saying was what you said in your first line. The autopsy results are consistent with both versions of the shooting out there right now. There's a difference between saying that the autopsy results are consistent with (the second-hand version of) Wilson's story and using language more along the lines of "the autopsy showed" or "the autopsy found brown was moving forward." Apologies if I misconstrued what you were saying. i read your response as you telling me what the autopsy said vs. what I saw analysts saying. Basically like, listen, I evaluated the information and this is the case (e.g., you pretending you were an expert). All I was saying was that what was once a one sided story is turning into much more and the autopsy seems to be more supportive right now of the officers story then what snippets we have gotten from the witnesses story. Mainly basing that on the fact that he wasn't in fact shot in the back, like the witnesses indicated. Again, sorry if I misunderstood that.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 08:14 AM) I've driven by this place a few times...it is pretty incredible how bright it is. This is the place that is like an hour outside of Vegas right (West of Vegas, kind of on the way to California, right)?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 08:10 AM) There is absolutely nothing in the autopsy that says he was moving forward or probably moving forward. The wounds are consistent with charging with his head down, but they're also consistent with being shot as he's falling to the ground. I've heard a few different analysts talking and discussing that the results could be interpreted to indicate he was moving forward / falling forward. Seems like a lot more information has came out in the past day or so that falls on the police officers side. Again, still a lot more to come out, but a lot of the early reports would appear to be incorrect based upon the new information coming out. Not saying jump to a conclusion, just saying, things look a lot different today then they did a week ago when people were ready to hang / let the police officer rot for life. Also note, I don't pretend to be an expert on this. I'm not a scientist or investigator and just catch what I see on the news, etc, but I'll let some of you experts go back to playing CSI and tell me what you know from the autopsy vs. what I saw multiple analysts say last night.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 07:57 AM) No, in a shooting situation, you're almost always going to have multiple shots fired. And if some of the stories are to be believed, Brown kept charging after being hit multiple times, making the shots necessary. Wasn't that how some have interpreted the autopsy results. Still there has been so much misinformation on both sides. Kind of crazy to me that it took as long as it did for it to come out and be reported that he wasn't shot in the back.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Aug 19, 2014 -> 07:18 AM) Christine Byers @ChristineDByers Police sources tell me more than a dozen witnesses have corroborated cop's version of events in shooting #Ferguson It seems like the more and more evidence coming out, would indicate, that while an unarmed man was shot, he was not innocent and put the Cop in a very precarious situation where, without other weapons, he had to fire. It also seems that from the autopsy results, that until the last bullet shot, he was still moving forward, hence the reason he was shot multiple times.

Fantastic interview. Really great answers and responses in there. Love his approach from a mental perspective and his overall mindset. Beck is going to play for the Sox. Not sure if it will be in the rotation or pen long-term (I still buy the rotation) and he's a part of our future and I am very optimistic that he'll have a positive impact on the major league club starting in the next year or so.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Aug 16, 2014 -> 07:05 AM) Terrific article. Loved this quote: I had a little league coach who was a first-round pick of the Cubs in the 70s out of high school, blew out his knee a couple seasons into his career and never recovered. Played for a few more seasons, but never made the Big Leagues. I have always wondered what's worse: Being in his spot, never making it to the Big Leagues or being a guy who gets a taste of it here and there, but can't stick. Interesting....I had a baseball coach with that exact same story. He blew out his knee skiing. I can't remember if he was a 1st or 2nd round pick. Wonder if it would be the same person. I presume it couldn't be since we are similar ages and I believe mine has lived in California now most of his life.

You got to figure Jordan was rocking his 1980's Bulls attire too, so lots of people were saying awkward and then taking selfies with him. No explanation for the I love my BF shirt, other then they wanted to make sure 1980's J4L knew these ladies were taken.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 06:05 PM) Special teams looks terrible, Defense started terrible but got better, Offense looks a bit off but still there Cutler out, Clausen in Ready to get on the Decamil is a f***ing joke bandwagon yet?

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 01:51 PM) Oh come on...baseball has trouble attracting younger viewers because of the slow pace. It has very little to do with what Hawk, or Vin or other "old men" say or do. God forbid kids actually have to sit down and think a little. Or take something at a little bit of a slower pace than their video games provide. I don't understand why everything needs to revolve around what "kids today want." Maybe the kids of today are wrong? Maybe the kids of today need to wake up and smell the coffee that the real world doesn't always give them exactly what they want RIGHT NOW? I get it, the kids of today determine where the money of tomorrow is spent, and we all need to please them...but it's really not a great lesson to be teaching them. One of the many reasons I think the biggest priority for the next commissioner, outside of the labor agreement, is speeding up the pace of baseball. Drop replay, put in some serious regulations to increase the action / speed. IIRC, the length of a baseball game today vs. 40 years ago is significantly longer. I'm sure part of that is commercial breaks (although those existed back in the day too). However, since 1970, the average baseball game has increased by approximately 30 minutes (from roughly 2.5 hr's to almost 3hr's). There are also more pitching changes now, I'm going to presume, then 30 or 40 years ago, however, I'd go to more extreme's to limit the amount of pitches and the total amount of time you can take during pitching changes and also potentially alter rules for mound visits in an inning. Maybe truly cap it at 1 per inning vs. current rules which can allow multiple in an inning (presuming the 2nd time you visit each pitcher you are pulling them).

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Aug 14, 2014 -> 01:12 PM) For what it's worth, the author is being universally trashed in the comments section. As he should...oddly enough, my first thoughts when I read it were, don't get your panties all bunched up.

Blah Blah Blah. Go cry me a river. Writers like that are the pure epitome of oversensitive america.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 08:49 PM) Remember that this didn't start with some random, unprovoked riot but with the likely murder of Mike Brown, with leaving his body to rot in the sun for hours, with a stonewall from the police on what happened and who did it. In response to what is ultimately just property damage, they've turned the town into a police state. Dude, do you even read. Nothing of the first part justifies the second actions. Both sides are incredibly wrong in this. Its disgusting how people rationalize that it is okay to effect innocent people and their property, etc. Looting solves nothing, rioting solves nothing. Peaceful protests solve problems and the Cops response to these protests have been terrible but it still doesn't justify the 2nd action. And I'm not saying that is what the majority are doing but two wrongs don't make a right.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 04:38 PM) Yeah, I don't understand why it is blocking the plate if the runner is nowhere near the plate, and if he has the ball, he has to be able to get in front of the plate or there is a good chance the runner can avoid him. I am all for protecting catchers. But to me the vast majority of big collisions at the plate were guys who where out by 15 feet thinking their only chance was to barrel into the catcher, and hoping the ball was jarred loose. I don't even know if the rule was interpreted correctly today, but that play isn't baseball. It is really a shame that calls like that continue. Like the transfer rule, it needs to be changed now, not 2015. Today's game is really meaningless for the White Sox. That call changing a game in a game that really matters would be a disgrace. Technically it isn't meaningless for the Giants, who are in contention for the wild card. In fact, I think they are currently tied for the 2nd wild card spot with the Cardinals.

When they implemented the rule, I called it stupid and I still do. Instant Replay and this rule change are both awful.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 01:01 PM) HE CANNOT USE HIS SECOND SHOT. HE MUST USE HIS WORST BALL ON EVERY SHOT Yeah, which will usually be his first shot. Meaning you can't just split the percentages because his 2nd shot, by and large will be better, so worse case he plays his first shot 90% of the time, which is what he would have to do on tour, etc. These guys are such good putters, that while I think he'll give up some with the having to make puts twice, I still don't think he's going to miss that many puts to make up the difference cause I don't think the normal 90 is making up more then 10 strokes. Usually (and I have pretty close to a 90 average) when I have a bad shot and rehit from the same place, I follow it up with the same terrible shot. Less so when I get closer to the green but off the tees, certainly, and that tends to be where I lose a lot of shots. I do agree I'd get some back in these scenario, specifically near the greens, but again, I'm not making up the difference.

I took nothing from that article that Locke was involved. Just a very interesting read more then anything.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 13, 2014 -> 09:59 AM) Remember, he has to play the worst of his two shots every time... I would presume the worst shot, more often then not, would be his first shot. Give a pro two chances and they are going to do even more damage. However, a pro on his worst shot will still be a very good golfer. A guy shooting 90 (which is probably my average) is not getting into the 70's with a 2nd shot on a regular basis and I wouldn't expect Els to shoot much lower then normal.

Ernie Els. I would expect most of his 2nd shots would be better then his initial shot he'd have to play anyway, where as a typical 90 golfer probably doesn't get that benefit. However, the 90 golfer will likely save significantly on his putting.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 12, 2014 -> 02:27 PM) If any contender wants him after his first good outing, trade him. Get rid of him ASAP. Why should we get rid of him ASAP? He is a good reliever? Seems like there is no harm keeping him, unless we get a prospect we like for him, as we have an earlier window to negotiate with him exclusively for a potential contract next year. Plus, if we are trying to build towards next year, probably makes sense not to completely stink the rest of the year. I realize its one thing if guys in our pen who we aren't counting on are blowing the games, but at different points, if you just keep losing, people lose the competitive edge and atmosphere can be pretty negative. I'd rather the club had a strong finish driven by people who are part of the plan and give Hahn some momentum for next year and reason to maybe be more aggressive in terms of speeding up the timeline (but doing it right).