Chisoxfn

99 out of 150 right. Got killed on Colorado and the Rays. That was tough. After finishing there were more than a few...oooh. Plus I had plenty where I had the name on the tip of my tongue but couldn't get the spelling right or only knew the first name.

My MLB predictions are as followed: Giants Cardinals Phillies Braves - WC Cardinals play in the world series Angels Sox Yankees Devil Rays White Sox play and win the world series

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Apr 2, 2010 -> 10:08 AM) Hurray for stating opinion as fact! Yeah, I have big problems with both Heyman and Nightengale and it's funny: I don't feel like a dumbass for holding such opinions. The dumbass portion applied to Rosenthal. But I think Heyman and Nightengale both have a good idea as to what is going on in the game of baseball (ie, rumors, trades, ect). And I think the other people I mentioned also do an excellent job of having a grasp as to what teams are thinking/doing, etc. Not saying you need to agree with there actual opinions or analysis of the trades as those are seperate things but as pure baseball reporters all of those guys have a history of having good connections throughout baseball and have and will continue to break plenty of moves. And yes, I think people that call X reporter a dumbass because they were wrong on a rumor are complete jackasses. Now sometimes a reporter has a history of being an idiot and in those instances, well they are an idiot. I also think stat people state some of there conclusions based upon stats as pure fact too and ignore the non-statistical parts of the game that can also impact the game.

Elarton is going to pitch out of the pen I take it?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 2, 2010 -> 05:04 AM) Its amazing how much more solid a baseball writer becomes when they count the White Sox as one of the best. I've read for years on this board that Rosenthal was an idiot. I like Rosenthal's columns, but am concerned about his prediction. It appears his pre-season picks haven't been on the money. Rosenthal is one of the best in the game. Anyone that calls him an idiot is a dumbass. Same with Gammons, Heyman, Olney, Nightengale, and Kurkijan. And yes, there are a lot of people on fan sites that are dumbasses and rip on good sports reporters because they don't say what they want to say or because the rumor that came out didn't turn out to be true. It's ridiculous.

I'm working today and flying on Easter Sunday for work.....so take that b****es!!1 LOL.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Apr 1, 2010 -> 10:10 PM) San Quentin is a prison in California that contains all of their Death Row inmates. Ya, its a very cool nickname. Never heard it till today but I think thats what I want to call him.

This might be true. Who knows if the Twitter feed was joking or not.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 1, 2010 -> 03:21 PM) Once again proving the Bears arent really sure what they are doing. The quote the Trib had from an NFC scout was pretty telling. It was along the lines of "good, he's one of there best players". The quote was in reference to Brown being cut.

Is this seriously true?

QUOTE (Molto @ Apr 1, 2010 -> 01:10 PM) More importantly, I have to give a freaking speech as the best man for this guy. Could use some help. It should be easy...Madam, you are marrying one grade A jackass. Thanks for taking him off my hands!

It stinks but the Bears are diong the right thing cutting him as opposed to dragging it out. Brown has been a class act and I wish him the very best. He'll be missed, but I have no problem with Anderson taking over the job and given the money the Bears spent I just hope the new money saved goes into Atogowe.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 1, 2010 -> 08:18 AM) So the government is still going to lose out on this, right? They'll be taking the loses directly instead of paying out subsidies. I think that's what Mike was getting at. It isn't the losses. It is the opportunity cost and Banks weren't going to get enough of a return to do these products as is. They needed to be subsidized. The federal government can do this. It isn't that you are losing money, it is more that you aren't getting enough of a return for it to be a worthwhile investment for your company (ie, the bank). For example: You have 100M. You could loan that 100M on this student loans and get a rate of return of say 1.5%. Now you can switch that and loan this out to the general public or invest in different things and get a 6% return. I'm not saying this is exactly what is happening, but if you are the bank, you not going to touch this 1.5% return when you have other options out there. Now when the subsidy kicks in, all of a sudden that 1.5% return moves up to 3 or 4% and given that it is fully guaranteed it is a nice risk-free return for the bank (thus they provided student loans).

QUOTE (Dubyaj @ Mar 31, 2010 -> 04:49 PM) I used it last year with my Roku box and plan on using it again this year. I think it is a much better way of enjoying it on my tv then connecting it to a laptop, but there is an additional fee of the box. I won't have to pay the fee. I can directly hook my tv to the internet or just hook it to my laptop.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 31, 2010 -> 03:59 PM) You're missing the point, and it's not like I don't have a CPA and understand a correleation, not a direct relationship of this. Read what I said again. Almost all FAS's have had some correlation to what happened with these financial debacles and cleaning it up - which is a correlation of what SOX is about. No, one is not DIRECTLY tied to the other, but there are correlating circumstances to what the new rules are subsequent to 2003. And you have to have internal controls to get the FAS's right. But Mike's larger point is that the government doesn't have these reporting standards to adhere to - so they "save" when banks had to keep the loans on the books less the deductability of the subsidies. Meanwhile, the government takes the difference and calls that a "savings" when in reality it's revenue neutral to a real accounting of the funds. So they've been saving the books since 1965 than, well before they needed to "save the books". You guys are so far off, its ridiculous.

QUOTE (JohnCangelosi @ Mar 31, 2010 -> 03:18 PM) I do since I live overseas. I just got a new laptop and HDMI data cord that I will be plugging into my HD TV- no idea how that will turn out but the picture quality on the monitor screen is EXCELLENT if you have a high speed connection. Praying it will look even better on the HDTV! I am hoping this year that MLB.TV doesn't blow up (as usual) on opening day- the last 3 years on opening day so many people hit the system that it inevitably crashes it....fingers crossed But most of the time there aren't any issues with it being blurry or tough to follow? I know when I would watch it, sometimes I'd have one hell of a time being able to actually follow the ball due to the buffering.

Anyone use it? Does it work well when plugged into an HD TV? Ie, am I going to be able to get near HD TV quality?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 31, 2010 -> 02:05 PM) Which has zero to do with this. There is no way that opening up areas to offshore drilling now, will do anything at ALL to gas prices in the next couple years. Furthermore, even when it does start producing - which is probably 5 years out - it will be a very minimal effect if any at all on prices. This is politcal expediency to be sure, but its all about two things. One, short term, its a way of getting what he wants on alt energy, which he all but said in his speech. Two, it continues his chosen methodology to try to make the GOP look bad - offer an olive branch, let the world see them burn it in his hand, then say "fine, they won't play nice, I won't play nice". The only effect it would have is a social/psychological effect. And I don't even know if that is what you'd call it. Short-term we'd never see the effects of long-term drilling except for any pressure that the oil producing countries feel which pressures them into opening up production, etc. Sometimes it is good to apply a little pressure like that, but the best way is to cut demand, improve efficiency and develop alternatives. Personally, I'm incredibly curious to see how this Nissan car does. It isn't priced too terribly and 100 mile drives with 25 minute recharge periods isn't so bad.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 31, 2010 -> 12:09 PM) Nevermind. Neither one of you guys have any idea what I am trying to say. Mike, just an FYI, but the subsidy from the government for student loans started 45 years ago. That is 20+ years before Mark to Market accounting even existed and ~35 years before SOX.

The problem with your theory Mike is you are blaming accounting rules for why the subsidy was given and that isn't really the case. The subsidy was given because these businesses want to make money and they aren't going to waste there resources on stuff that isn't as profitable as other avenues that they can utilize there resources on. Thus, the gov needed to provide a subsidy so that the Banks were making enough of a return to determine that being a part of this business was worth it financially.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 31, 2010 -> 05:49 AM) Apple has to realize though that they are holding all the cards. The iPhone is about the only thing AT&T has going for it right now. Outside of dropped calls, a s***ty network, and slow internet speeds.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 30, 2010 -> 05:53 PM) This exactly what I am talking about with discounted loan valuations. And it has absolute N00000000000000000000 correlation to SOX.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 30, 2010 -> 06:39 PM) That's not entirely true, Jason. You can make the leap that mark to market (FAS 157) came about as a result of Enron, because of two reasons. 1 - the market that Enron established was falsely valued and 2 - the off balance sheet crap (which is what is now being debated by FASB and IASB). Mark to market would have come about, but not because of SOX but it's certainly intertwined as to the reasons behind it. And mark to market is not just mortgage loan portfolios. It's only a small portion of the FAS. ETA: I see you sort of addressed this but I still maintain what I said here, which makes a slightly different point then you were making. Look guys, I was on the calls. You two are completely off when it comes to this. Go ask anyone that audited or worked accounting in the big investment companies during the time period and not one person will tell you that 157 has anything to do with SOX.

And the real reason mark-to-market accounting became such a hot-ticket item is that in the past we had never had companies in a position where they were going to get absolutely f***ing destroyed because of the "un-realized" losses they were going to take. A lot of people felt that if you didnt' intend on selling this investments and if you could maintain and hold long-term that it was really really stupid for people to have to completely write-off the investments value, thus creating even worse financial statements, and when those reports come out, they'll continue to push the economy further and further into the s***ter. And that is where the hardest part lied, these investments that aren't readily traded that have estimated values which are only being sold in distressed markets so companies were claiming geeze, I got to right off 20B just to get to the value, but that is the value of a distressed market and the actual value really (If I held and utilized my cash-flows i'd earn) is 40B. That is why we heard all about mark-to-market for a while during the initial crash.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 30, 2010 -> 04:49 PM) Then how are they judging if the asset valuations are accurate? I actually edited my original post to include more info and have made a 2nd post on the subject.