Soxbadger

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 04:21 PM) Now your arguing software options, which is the same as arguing fast food. It wouldn't make sense to release 50 version of the same program, since the development already took place. Just like the cable companies think they will make more money by offering set packages, instead of giving customers complete choice. I think you are stuck on the fact that you believe cable companies are colluding, which is unnaturally messing with the market. That does happen (its rarer), but you see it in things like coke, beer etc. Where there are standardized sizes (milk too). Its just an oligopoly or cartel, and that only can occur in certain markets. It happens in cable because only a few companies can produce cable, thus they are more able to artificially control the market. But in general every company does what you are complaining about, it just is usually on a smaller scale.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 04:18 PM) I'm saying of the content providers, DirecTV, Dish, Comcast, Cox, etc...every last one of them sells channels in the same packages via the same exact models, with nearly identical pricing schemes. No this is a different argument. You are saying that there is collusion, that isnt about how the product is packaged, that is a group of companies working together to break the law.

I stand by what I said. Almost every company builds their products with unnecessary features that they charge for. If I want an ipod that doesnt skip backwards because I dont want to pay for that feature... If I want a phone that only can make outgoing calls because I dont want to pay for the feature of receiving incoming calls... Every product is filled with stuff that you may or may not want. Most people just dont take the time to look at their products and go: "Hey this keyboard has a print screen button, I dont want that. Can i pay $1 less for this keyboard that doesnt have a print screen" The answer is no, the product is what it is. This is even more true in the service industry. You only offer lessons for either 45 minutes or 1:30, but I want a 20 minute lesson. I want to ski at Vail, but I only want to use certain chair lifts, thus I shouldnt have to pay full price.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 03:53 PM) Using food service industry as a comparison was a bad idea from the get go. Not getting onions doesn't really change prep time to the point it would alter how much the burger costs, ESPECIALLY in the fast food industry. In relation to what you said about almost every product you buy makes you pay for something you don't want, this isn't really true. It doesn't apply to most industries. For example, it doesn't apply to computers, lawnmowers, home improvement, cellular phones, etc. In most areas, you get exactly what you pay for, and if you want less, you'll pay less. Arguably, this model cannot be applied because were talking about forced subsidization of the content model, where I'm essentially forced to pay for channels I don't want, because it's how they designed it. The telecommunications industry used this same design, forcing you to purchase options you don't want...because they can. While you may point out that I have to buy a car with air-conditioning, I don't, because alternatives to purchase cars exist. This is a very specific model of content delivery, where they control the entire supply, so you can't go around them to do it yourself. I can go to a junkyard for used car parts. I cannot go to a used cable tv dealer to buy specific channels though. That, and ALL of the content suppliers follow the exact same model. Let's stop pretending they didn't design this model from the ground up with this thought in mind. They knew, from the beginning, it would make them more money, and that's why they did it. This post makes no sense man. Its kind of all over the place. First of all your examples are exactly what Im talking about (well besides for a computer because you could build that on your own). When buying a lawn mower, you only have the options of models that are available. You seem to be arguing that there are "more lawn mower options" but that is just like saying, there is dish, directtv, comcast, and each of those providers have multiple "cable" or "mower" options. But when you buy a mower, you are likely to be buying at least 1 feature, that you do not need, which is the same as paying for a channel you dont need. I also bolded a part, because you seem to be suggesting other alternatives to tv dont exist, which is not true. You dont have to buy cable, you can most shows without ever paying a cent to a cable company. Now you may have to pay netflix, you may have to buy the season at bestbuy, walmart, etc. But that is exactly the same as being able to buy a bike instead of a car, or being able to buy a car without air conditioning. A better example would be a radio. Lets say I dont want a new car with a radio. Basically every car has a radio standard. I am paying for something I didnt want. There is really almost no difference. (Edit) And almost every company that I know of uses this model. You stick in extras, you charge for them, you make more money.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 02:07 PM) Outside of the government pretty much every other product has to stand on its own merits. It's like saying you have to pay for a Big Mac too, if you want to have a steak. Not true, almost every product you pay for something you may not really want. When I buy a big mac, I dont really want onions. Even if I say "no onions", they charge me the same amount. So buying a Big Mac, is the same as buying a cable package, you are often stuck with "extras" that you dont really want, but end up paying for. So most prepackaged goods are similar to cable, youre buying filler that you dont really want.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 3, 2013 -> 11:46 AM) Since the entire planet b****ed about that, they added it with an update. That said, Madden f***ing blows now. lol Really? Ill have to check that. As for the Disney Lucas Arts stuff, you really should take a wait and see approach. Disney is just moving to a different model, where they will license Star Wars stuff to game developers, instead of building the games in house. This very likely could mean more Star Wars games, as they wont be limited to Lucas Arts. And Disney will be getting paid regardless of how crappy the game does.

lol We are talking about big men. Hakeem, David Robinson, Shaq, Ewing, would all be top 5 centers today. So not really making a good argument that Dwight's era for centers is harder than Kareems. Youre actually proving that Dwight should be better because there arent as many good centers.

Defensive 3 second was called all the time, not sure what NBA you were watching. Lostfan, This argument does occur, but usually its reasonable like "Magic was better than Oscar Robertson". Not often do you get Dwight Howard would be better than Alcindor. Kareem was insane, NCAA changed the dunk rules because of him (made it illegal). As a freshman he beat the UCLA varsity team (back then frosh couldnt play on varsity). Im pretty sure 18 year old Kareem can beat any version of Dwight in any era, let alone man version.

I basically never played it because it didnt have franchise. Pretty annoying.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Apr 2, 2013 -> 08:27 PM) What do you mean, exactly? I haven't really followed it for a while. There's a good chance. I've never been to lolla, but if it's like what I hear, I'm assuming you could get a decent secondhand/contact high just standing around. Sorry though, I don't think you can feel the affects of molly secondhand. Haha not what I meant. I meant when you are on drugs indoors at a concert it has a warm/oppressive feeling. When you are outside, it just has a much bigger atmosphere, it just feels different. Thats why I said "its probably the drugs" meaning that youre perception is warped and Im not talking about contact high from marijuana, not even sure that would phase me. But the reason Im going to lolla is for the outdoor atmosphere. (edit) Yeah I was on 10 minutes early to buy tickets and didnt get them for over 45 minutes. I actually never did, one of my friends was buying them as well and she got in first, so she just used my credit card.

I prefer outdoors to indoors. There is just a different feeling, its probably the drugs, but there is definitely something to an outdoor concert.

Steve actually wrote a review lol http://flapship.com/directv-genie-review/

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Apr 1, 2013 -> 01:12 PM) It's not great evidence, but the idea that he was made up out of whole cloth, rather than an actual guy who was made legendary, seems unlikely to me. Well I think the most likely scenario is that Jesus is a compilation of multiple people that did actually exist or that he was just John the Baptist, but later people decided to create a more mythical figure.

That cant be right. Jesus Christ is greek, no Hebrew was born "Jesus". Likely name could have been Yeshua (Joshua). Also, Muslims and Christians are in agreement that he existed, Jews it depends on the person. Ive done a lot of research, I have never been able to find what I consider to be reliable evidence. There is evidence, I just think that its suspect at best.

7 hours, hard to justify purchase.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Apr 1, 2013 -> 09:06 AM) It's pretty commonly accepted that he was a real person. You can argue about what he means, his life and his actions (or lack thereof) all you want, but his existence itself isn't really much in question Just because its commonly accepted, does not mean that it is true. It was commonly accepted the Earth was the center of the universe. I dont even know how you would prove or disprove this. Who is even Jesus? Are we just saying that at one point there was some Jewish guy making trouble and he was crucified? Or are we saying that a verifiable deity existed. If its the former, sure, a bunch of Jews have been murdered by the Romans, and I suspect even a few were killed for causing the Jewish establishment trouble. If its the latter, Im not so sure. But that is why its a difficult argument, first people have to define what they mean by "commonly accepted that he was a real person."

Yeah I was saying McGary might leave before, but now its seeming more likely

Rumor that QOTSA is playing Lolla.

I just think Michigan has more talent. They definitely can lose this game, but they have a lot of talent and Im not sure if Kansas has the "Self" control to slow down the tempo and see who can grind out a win. Michigan running up and down the court is a recipe for a Michigan win.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 27, 2013 -> 03:25 PM) I don't think you are being realistic if you really think Thibs would undercut the medical staff and play Rose more than his limit. He's not an idiot, and if the Bulls trusted him like you trust him, they should hire a different coach. No I think that Rose does not trust Thibs, and the medical staff/Bulls are telling Rose hes fine, and Rose is worried and wont say yes. Its not the Bulls/staff, its Rose. (edit) I have no inside information, its just based on reading tea leaves. Bulls seem to indicate Rose is okay. Rose seems to be fine listening to doctors regarding practice, etc. The only thing Rose does not seem willing to try is playing. Playing is the only thing that is controlled by Thibs, not a doctor.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2013 -> 02:58 PM) oral arguments on prop 8 were yesterday, doma was today. Yeah I think prop 8 was just as important of a ruling. Because DOMA (in my opinion) is going to be decided based on states right, just basically saying "Fed doesnt give out marriage licenses, fed has no ability to regulate marriage, its up to the states."

I just dont trust Thibs to play Rose for 5-10 minutes and watch the Bulls lose. He just has not shown the ability to rest injured players.

Good timing, always want to make noise after the decision has been made.

What am I supposed to be protesting, I didnt get the memo.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 05:29 PM) The correct answer to this IMO is that there shouldn't be an answer. That should be up to the judge to determine, based on the child's living conditions, the reason for the decade long separation, the condition of both of the parents, and so forth. I could come up with scenarios on both sides, where the judge should say "No" and where the judge should say "yes". I actually agree to a certain extent that decisions should be based on specific facts and less on overarching broad decisions. But thats why the Michael H case is so sick, the child lived with Michael for a portion of her first 3 years of life, Michael petitioned for parental rights within 1 year of her birth, the guardian ad litem (attorney appointed for the child), filed a petition asking the state to grant rights to BOTH fathers. Yet the state and federal court said no, that just merely being married trumps everything else. Thats wrong.