Y2HH

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 10:55 AM) And I'm just imagining the people who take a possibly questionable but aggressive loan program (that was so awful the Bush Administration tried to approve it on January 19, 2009) and generalize to the idea that there is substantial crony capitalism in the green energy markets (not like those perfectly honorable fossil fuel markets). I dismiss this sort of thing as partisan bickering...I'm sure there is some sort of crony capitalism going on in the green energy markets, but when did we start pretending that this is some sort of new idea? It's been going on for decades, in practically ANY market you can name. This goes from the highest levels of government down the lowest, such as alderman taking funds and loaning them to friends/family, with no accountability. Sure, some get caught and used as scapegoats, but many don't.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 10:34 AM) Which is of course why the House is so determined to cut renewable energy investments at the Federal level. After all, it's clearly wasteful spending. This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't equation which makes having a discussion about it very hard, if not impossible due to the sheer number of factors that can be involved. Unfortunately, while these types of endeavors are very expensive, and often fizzle out, it's of my opinion that they're also necessary. When they don't fizzle out, you get things like DarapNET > ArpaNET > InterNET, and I don't see anyone complaining about that little invention. But that said, when they do fizzle out, you lose hundreds of billions of dollars with no explanation. IMO, the biggest problem today comes from the mass corruption, from both sides of the aisle, and the sheer cost these projects seem to run now. It's not even inflation adjusted money we're talking about in many regards, it's just out of the realm of sanity in blown up costs, such as loaning hundreds of millions on a single project that lasts mere months, with almost no accountability. When it works, and we invent something great, nobody cares how much it cost...and they shouldn't so long as it's something tangible and real, such as the Internet. But I'd love to see some line items and complete expense reports to see where this lost money went on the failed endeavors that resulted in less than nothing, but let's be real...they'll never show such a thing publicly, and if they do, it won't be for decades when it no longer matters and people have little recollection of the project in question.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 28, 2011 -> 03:01 PM) Because you aren't getting the best candidates. Some companies really don't care about that too much. I personally think that choosing the right people from the outset is something that most companies don't invest enough in. I'm not attempting to play devils advocate here, either...just putting this into a real world perspective. The problem right now comes from the sheer number of people looking for jobs, including those that currently have jobs. In the case of those that are already employed, many accepted jobs that pay less than they're worth or were initially seeking (employers market), but took the job anyway so they'd have some sort of income. Many of those people continue looking for a better opportunity, which keeps the number of people seeking employment very high. Again, this keeps the market in favor of the employers, which is somewhat of a negative snowball effect. Now, keeping that in mind, as a person that's had to interview people in the past (and still does from time to time), I know what a daunting, expensive and time consuming task it can be when you're absolutely bombarded with potential candidates. And herein lies the problem. In many cases, I don't want to go through 500 resumes (or more), so if I can quickly/easily cut that number by only looking for currently employed candidates, it might be something I'd consider. For the record, I'm not saying I've done this, but I'll also go on record in saying that it's something I'd consider DESPITE knowing it may potentially cut some of the best candidates. Why? Because the rent...is too damn... Seriously though, it's because there isn't enough time, and the interviewing process consumes a lot of time from many different people, which in turn makes the process insanely expensive. This is a problem a lot of companies are running into right now. While it would be awesome if we could slow down time and run through thousands of candidates while ignoring the cost, it's simply not reality. Sometimes, great people fall through the cracks in times like this, because as I said, when 5000 resumes hit my desk because of the sheer number of people looking for jobs, the unfortunate reality is 90% of them aren't going to get a fair look. So yes, while it cuts down on the talent pool, it's considered acceptable risk to keep things in order, on time and possible. Not to mention, I'll find a great candidate anyway, only in 1/10th the time and at an acceptable cost in time consumed by the many people they'd have to interview with, etc.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 26, 2011 -> 03:27 PM) Thanks guys! The wife and I are ecstatic. Wow, BS, just saw the news now...I hope everything works out and you love the new job/living arrangement. It was great meeting you this past winter, you're a super cool dude...it'll suck knowing you won't be at many future meetings for Soxtalk (if we have another), but if I'm ever in Seattle for any reason, I'll be sure to try to meet up! Oh, be sure to turn your Sox fan membership in at the door on your way out, I'm afraid we can't let you keep it...you'll be issued a new Seattle M's card shortly, it will arrive via non-guaranteed USPS. So you may not get it... Good luck!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 28, 2011 -> 03:04 PM) If you are giving up on it, then you are among the enablers. You can choose that route if you wish. And centrist has zero to do with it, since I'm about as close to net center as anyone who posts here. I've only given up on the dream that they'll actually do what we elect them to do, but so long as a candidate I like runs, I still vote. So dismissed because you tried to make a point without actually making one, by design, no less. You need to stop basing your opinions on guessing and/or assumptions, which is exactly what you keep doing. Just because I don't want to "come up with solutions on a f***ing forum where it doesn't matter", doesn't mean I don't care. I've just accepted what reality has shown is to be true, the idiots now control the vote, and there is nothing you can do about it. Where you enjoy pretending that's not the case...reality tells a different story.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 28, 2011 -> 02:06 PM) http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/27/opinion/gran...%3A+Politics%29 He about covers everything I say on here...only I'm called an idiot while he's celebrated. Says it all about some of you guys... See, like Northside so awesomely points out...it's MY fault they get away with this stuff, because I'm a critical thinker that votes for candidates, not parties, and it's my fault that stupid voters continuously go with stupid candidates... Whatever.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 28, 2011 -> 09:16 AM) And they can do that because of the exact approach Y2HH is taking - giving up and relying purely on screaming and yelling about it. Yea, that's why they can do it. Has nothing to do with the fact that they write the laws, so they know the loopholes in said laws or anything. Has nothing to do with their pockets being lined by the corporations they pretend to hate. Republicans like big business... Democrats like big banks... Both parties are getting their pockets lined by their respective favorites... But you're right...they can only do this because of people like Y2HH who gave up! Heh. I figured you to be smarter than that. But you're right...it's because of the centrists like myself that vote both ways (oh wait...I guess that shoots your crap theory to s***)... Anyway. I'm actually their problem, but party line voters like so many people on this forum and in this country (and I'm not saying you specifically, because I actually do think you're smarter than that), are the ACTUAL reason why they can do it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 28, 2011 -> 08:41 AM) Wow. Hm, instead of getting all riled up like you did, I'll point out three small facts for you to consider... 1. I think you missed the point of the thread - it is an exercise to create discussion and illustrate that actually making budgetary decisions isn't so easy. This thread was supposed to be people showing what they'd do, and see how those topics fall out. From what I can tell, you think this is a futile effort, which makes me ask... why bother posting then? 2. No, no one in Chicago has been here before. We haven't had deficits at this level before... we haven't had an independent IG office do this kind of study before either.... and many of the suggestions are sacred cows that have only been whispered about before (did you notice how the Aldermen reacted to the IG's list? They ran so fast to denounce the whole thing they were out of breath at their press conferences). 3. You still never gave an answer about the transit system. What is your proposed solution? Do you want to just let if fall apart, and dump 1.75M more drivers on the roads? Do you want to invest in it to make it better? Do you want to just have it continue to limp along like it does now, and hope for no major disasters? What would you do? Or do you prefer to be the guy who just yells and screams at stuff because they aren't able or willing to come up with a solution? I'm not riled up at all...I'm just like that. As for your final sentence which makes zero sense and is nothing more than a weak talking point: That's the people we all are, whether you propose some sort of solution or shoot holes through someone elses proposed solutions on a fan forum...otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversion on a forum, as you'd be an elected official and actually trying to implement said solutions. And to answer your question, again...I don't want to come up with solutions, which is why I didn't run for the f***ing job. Instead, many of us ELECTED other people who promised to come up with said solutions, that we 'trusted' to do so. I have a job, a job I like...and a job I do well, Network Security. If you need solutions to your network security needs, I'm your man. If I actually cared about this as much as you all pretend to care, I'd actually do something about it other than writing about it on a baseball forum...I'd run for office, I'd get out there and into the various republican or democratic clubs around Chicago, and get involved. I'd write congressmen, I'd write city officials, etc... There was a time I was actually involved in such political clubs around Chicago...meeting various people, etc. But I went a different route in my life, a route I'm happy with. I get that this is a conversation...and in this conversation, the role I'm choosing to cover is of the guy that looks at your proposals and explains why *I* don't think they will work (or) why I think they will work (if I see any), and thus far the only one that I can foresee making a dent is the Casino idea but we all know where that leads...to a political discussion where the Governor and other city official disagree and never get it done. While I can try to come up with some of my own, I really don't care too do so, which is why I elected someone else to do it.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 27, 2011 -> 11:48 AM) probably would be a good thread. Not really, because his suggestions could have been suggested by a f***ing first grader...since they're all f***ing "well, no s***" suggestions. Here is my prediction, and I'll be right about this just like I was right about the "no longer affordable health care act". They're do a combination of fake cuts*, various nickle and dime tax increases, such as soda tax, gasoline tax, income tax, entertainment tax, increase various fees, such as stickers, etc... ...and despite all the increases in revenue and fake cuts*, nothing will change...budget shortfalls will continue to happen, and round and round we will go. *fake cuts are the types of cuts governments propose, such as all the "cuts" we've implemented in the federal budget...where where pretend not increasing future costs count as cuts. For example, while we currently only spend 1M on X, and we "predicted" we'd be spending 2M on X in 5 years time...we will instead only be spending 1.25M in 5 years time...HENCE OUR AWESOME FIGURE OF "CUTTING .75 MILLION!" Reality is, costs went up .25M, and they didn't cut dick. Because that's how we do things now. Only in my family, we "cut" going out to fancy dinners to once every few months, down from once a week. IE, really real cuts. The kinds of cuts governments don't do. What we love to do more than anything is stick our collective heads in the sand while we keep electing the same people to continue doing the same s***ty job. Let's all pretend these budget shortfalls came as a big surprise when over the last decade, despite the fact that we watched them band-aid short term s*** solutions like selling off City services, or the Skyway, only to blow through that windfall of money in less than 2 years time...to then find ourselves right back where we started, only worse, because all the while nothing was done to curtail it! Only now we are without valuable assets that could have been reformed to save money, kinda like the private enterprises that bought them did. I've decided shooting holes into other peoples suggestions is my new desired method of posting, versus proposing wildly out of reach solutions in an ideal world none of us live in!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 27, 2011 -> 05:52 PM) Thought so. You'd obviously prefer to point to some non-existent boogie man, than try to suggest a solution. On the other hand, I can be like you people and pretend I know what I'm talking about when I suggest solutions for all the City's woes...which is pretty much what all of our modern day politicians are. People that "don't know" that "pretend to know". Difference is, I'm ok with saying "I don't know how to solve this massive set of problems they've created", whereas you aren't...which makes you exactly like the people you elect. A bunch of people implementing a bunch of "solutions" that do nothing but make things even worse. If the people who actually DID know how to fix this were elected, it'd get fixed. Until then, they're just a bunch of group-think forum posters that pretend they have all the f***ing answers, when in reality...they don't...but they're too "smart" to admit it. Thought so that. And this is a forum, where I guess I can post how I want, so long as I don't call you names...so while you call it a non-existant boogie man, I call it shooting holes into the "solutions" you've thus far proposed, which have ALREADY BEEN proposed time and time again, only to fail...time and time again. Let's see, transit? Yeah, because reforming our transit system hasn't already been proposed and attempted 50 times. What else did we suggest off the list of mind numbingly stupid suggestions so far...raising more taxes of some sort? Implementing some sort of additional fees perhaps? Riiiiight...because nobody's EVER suggested THOSE things 500 times before! You're a f***ing genius, Gump!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 27, 2011 -> 05:22 PM) Also, Mr. Superior, how about you take a crack at the original topic of the post? Try your hand at it, see what you can come up with. In order to take a serious "crack" at this, I'd need to see the city books, how much money they REALLY have, how much money they're REALLY spending, and how big/small these departments are... Otherwise it's just stupid guessing games IMO. In other words, I'd need to know FAR more than I know in order to start making such large scale suggestions.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 27, 2011 -> 05:19 PM) LOL You do understand that the more people use it, the more money they make to fix it, right? And that the more people use it, if it's in bad shape, the more voices and voters will look to prioritize funding for it? If you think it should be fixed, you should love the idea of more people riding it. If you think it shouldn't be fixed, then have fun on the streets and highways of Chicago when we add 1.75 million more people a day to the roads who can no longer commute via mass transit. That should be fun. LOL again, while you think with logic, it doesn't jive with reality. Do you think that they'd actually use that extra money to "fix it"? Because I don't. They'll upkeep it, but honestly, what we have cannot be "fixed"...it has to be ENTIRELY REBUILT, from scratch. I'm not even talking about a partial teardown, but entirely NEW construction. IE, won't happen, and if it did, it would take them so long to implement it, we'd never get to use it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 27, 2011 -> 05:11 PM) I said, "most" commuters who CAN, take a train. For a lot of people it isn't a realistic option, because they live too far away, or have to take multiple lines, etc. And while it may seem "fair" to charge them, fairness isn't going to jive with impact here. I agree it would seem fair, I just think it may have a negative effect. I would be open to the idea of, say, just having people buy a city parking sticker - $100 a year or so - to park in the city. For people who only visit occasionally, provide $2 daily permits or something, kind of like making the whole city have zoned parking. It is a small enough amount to not be a massive increase in costs to people, it would force more folks to take transit (which is good), and give the city more money for its infrastructure. But doing a congestion toll like they suggest, even at just $1 a pop, that's $20 a month or $240 a year for a commuter. Do it at $5 like they suggest, it becomes $1200 a year. Our transit system/infrastructure, in it's current state...I have to go ahead and disagree that it's a good thing that more people would be forced to use that pile of monkey crap we call public transportation. Chicago should be ashamed of itself and it's transit infrastructure. It's garbage. Total garbage. I feel sorry for people that have to use it.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Sep 26, 2011 -> 07:02 PM) I thought it was common knowledge that was how Groupon counted revenue. I've known for a long time. What they were doing wasn't really "legal" or by the book...hence why they got b**** slapped when applying for an IPO to stop accounting like a bunch of idiots...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 27, 2011 -> 04:59 PM) The nice thing though is that as that revenue stream collapses, you also save a lot on health care costs from your employees, as they're not smoking, more productive, not laid up in the hospital, and not dead. You really do live in a dream world, don't you? You need to start thinking with some logic that's applicable to reality. Though I must confess, what you say *SHOULD* happen, sadly, it won't happen, and historically hasn't happened. I ask these questions with all sincerity... Do you honestly think they'll magically lower the health care premiums you're paying (which are skyrocketing as we speak, btw) because people quit smoking? I mean it...do you honestly think that? Because I have the answer for you right now. No. Do you honestly think ex-smokers will suddenly become more productive? Eh, it's possible...but what cost savings will that be to anyone other than the company they work for, which will just pocket the additional profits? The company they work for *MIGHT* benefit, but even then, they'll probably just waste time in another form/fashion instead of becoming more productive as you suggest.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 27, 2011 -> 04:47 PM) The City of Chicago does very little in the way of mary jane law enforcement, so the impact on that end would be minimal. But, you could put a city tax on it, and that would work. If they tax it anything like cigarettes (and they will), it'll just price the black market lower than the legal market... It's not like mary jane costs a lot now...if anything, they'll find a way to make it 3x as expensive for no better quality.

...also let me add that they're overdoing the cigarette tax, and it's starting to come to a head, due to the short-mindedness the government usually displays. They've gone to that well too many times already and the current taxes on cigarettes is at a sticking point where it's almost so high it's priced out of smokers range of affordability (hence why so many people have quit or are simply buying them from Indiana since it's like...you know, 2 minutes away)...raising it more and more every time they need money cuts off more and more revenue from what was once a very consistent stream. Eventually, it'll fall off a cliff and they'll have a new budget shortfall of quadjillions of tax dollars they're no longer getting from cigarettes...because they effectively forced everyone to quit smoking and/or go to Indiana... ...then they'll move that 4$ tax to gasoline, or liquor, or soda...or water...or whatever sells the most, because it's not really being done out of concern for our health anyway...it's done because a lot of people used to smoke. So they need to start looking elsewhere before they totally collapse the tax revenue they're getting from that well. EDIT: Disclaimer, I do not nor have I ever smoked.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 20, 2011 -> 01:42 PM) <!--quoteo(post=2483077:date=Sep 20, 2011 -> 02:23 PM:name=Y2HH)-->QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 20, 2011 -> 02:23 PM) <!--quotec-->People can and have made reliable guns out of wood, not to mention plastic derivatives...it's not only possible, but it's been done. The issue isn't just stopping the production of guns here, but everywhere else, too...meaning we have to again assert our way of life on others, be it Canada, Mexico, or any other foreign nation that doesn't share our feelings on the manufacturer of guns. IE, not happening...ever. All this does is create yet another black market. I love it when 3 month old quotes start a new discussion when they weren't worth responding to the first time. Anyway, this post gives me an excuse to post this video. Yes I know Mythbusters hit it. I don't care. I don't get what you are trying -- and failing -- to convey here. Are you saying that banning guns in the US wouldn't create a new black market but are too afraid to say the words? Because if so...wow are you dumb.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 20, 2011 -> 10:34 AM) Prohibition was a constitutional amendment as well as its repeal. Clarifying the language of the 2nd Amendment to be a collective right or another SC ruling down the road can change that. I'm not actually in favor of that but I don't think comparing the black market manufacture of drugs and liquor is comparable to the technology and ability required to manufacture a reliable gun. People can and have made reliable guns out of wood, not to mention plastic derivatives...it's not only possible, but it's been done. The issue isn't just stopping the production of guns here, but everywhere else, too...meaning we have to again assert our way of life on others, be it Canada, Mexico, or any other foreign nation that doesn't share our feelings on the manufacturer of guns. IE, not happening...ever. All this does is create yet another black market.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 5, 2011 -> 01:55 PM) Yup. Every election you find 1 or 2. And by "Election" I mean "full national election with 100 million people voting". Really, it's remarkable how you guys care insanely about something that is already against the law and rarely ever happens. If you applied the same standards to guns, we'd probably save hundreds of thousands of lives over my lifetime. Exactly how so? Most gun violence is done with illegal weapons by people that don't have a problem breaking laws. Gun bans will work in this country about as well as prohibition did... Which is, in your own words, caring about something that is already against the law.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 20, 2011 -> 09:12 AM) the Galaxy SII has been available in other countries since the spring, but that may have been true of the evo as well. A day after you buy something technology related, something better probably exists or will exist in a very short amount of time, that makes what you currently have look slow.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 20, 2011 -> 08:51 AM) The Evo came out in June of 2010. Ok...so not quite 2 years but almost? It's well over a year newer...and in technology that's a LOT of time.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 20, 2011 -> 07:57 AM) OSX Lion passwords can be changed by any user with physical access to your computer. They need local user access, either remote (SSH) or at the physical computer itself, physical access in an of itself doesn't really matter. IE. If you have physical access, but no user/password to logon with, can't exploit it. They need to fix this, pretty bad oversight on how logons work.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 12:19 PM) It blows the EVO out of the water. It's 2 years newer, so of course.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:12 AM) This phone is an absolute beast. Silky smooth, awesome camera, gorgeous screen, and light as a feather. Puts my EVO to shame. So you mean the same exact review you'd have given the EVO when you first got it?