bmags

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 23, 2010 -> 04:22 AM) Unfortunately I can make "attempt on the ball" mean anything or mean nothing. You have to use discretion when enforcing a rule. With less than a minute left, a close game, where a guy doesnt even try and hurt him, but merely fouls him (how many "intentional fouls" can be called in the last minute when teams are actually trying to foul to put the other team on the line), you have to use discretion and give the guy an and 1. It was bad judgment, I dont think you can look at the circumstances objectively and come to any other result. Even if my team won that way, I would still in my heart feel that it was cheap.You dont kill a team unless the guy really went out of his way to hurt him. Funny I don't feel cheap at all. Reading these comments was great entertainment.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 09:58 PM) Call me crazy, but I dont care if mobile is "neutral" yet. I'm more worried about wired, where MOST Americans get the internet. And the new FCC reules do, in many ways, create net neutrality for wired networks. but what about those in rural areas?

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 07:31 PM) I doubt the music is any worse than the country bars here in Ames. Truth. Or country bars in chicago (houndstooth...ughghghghg)

I've had gay friends go to my bars...and i've gone into gay bars. The music is obnoxious but beside that it's not that different.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 06:54 PM) I already said that, and still find the existence of gay specific bars to be exclusionary, which goes against wanting to fit in. This is just my opinion on the matter. you realize you can go into gay bars, right?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 06:51 PM) The reason you don't see a listing for hetero bars next to gay bars is because "hetero bars" would be all other bars. disagree...uber hetero bars are found in lincoln park see: duffys. there are then bars for regular folks.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 06:14 PM) Well, I didn't mean they can't file a lawsuit...but they can't just "sue and win", which is what you're making it sound like. They lose these cases more than often than they win them. if the company actually takes the case to court, it means they probably have a good chance of winning it. They'll probably settle far before then.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 22, 2010 -> 06:06 PM) So long as they never say why, no they cannot be. It would be impossible to prove that's the reason, since the at-will law protects them in simply saying, "we were cutting back", or "we felt like it", without citing the actual illegal reason, even if it was the true reason. That's not true. Civil courts have ruled against businesses who claimed it was different reasons.

but they can also be sued for that.

I may or may not be able to come to that depending on whether i can shirk some responsibilities.

stupid patents like these is what i'm talking about http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/21/where-geofencing-patent/

Thanks for sharing that Rex.

analysis here: http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/21/verizon-g...net-neutrality/ and here http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/21/how-t...c-failed-t.html and here http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/12/fcc-order/ The wireless punt is so f***ing stupid.

Just as I was starting to feel a little less cynical, the FCC shows that they are good for nothing beside being really great prudes. Sigh. what the hell is this: soooo because google android is an open platform that means ... you won't regulate wireless access to prevent picking and choosing from the big companies? Quality argument. And you seem so hip showing that you know what Android is! I had a much much more graphic subtitle that featured how much *********** **** you could hold in your **** while writing a law, but i spared you all.

because these things can't be accounted for? You are being stubborn.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 07:36 PM) What happens if you're stupid enough to turn 65 (or w/ever payout age is) during a huge economic recession and don't have time to wait for it to average out? I dunno, any talk of converting SS to an investment makes me really leery. That's not why it's there. Hence the phasing out to secure bonds as you get nearer to retirement.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 07:17 PM) what does this mean? @joshtpm - was #2010shellacking obama's secret plan to make GOP pass his whole legislative agenda? #chess #12stepsahead #dreamon it's making fun of how people always credit obama with playing a "long game"

Their struggles early on are our gain. It's still a system I think would be beneficial especially with late phase-out. It's not crazytalk to say that a well-diversified fund (like the default plan they offered) will have made considerable gains over a 30-year time.

okay but where is the list of the people going to death camps.

i can't read that at work. I'll get to it later.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 04:54 PM) Well, not very familiar with it, so went looking for some reports. Most were Cato and Heritage exulting the change, but here's one from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Page 39 starts Sweden. Here's their view of the partial IRA plan: Since then, they've pared back the number of choices. Still, you're left with the inherent risk of investment, while social security is meant as insurance. We already have IRA and 401(k) and other tax-exempt retirement accounts people can use for investment in addition to SS. yeah they learned a lot from the pared back # of choices. The default plan has performed very well...and obviously a 3 year evaluation is pretty stupid.

interesting enough we lived in a world w/o social security, and prior to it, the elderly were the most prone to living in poverty.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 04:28 PM) Since it's more insurance than investment, you need everyone at the safe and secure level. Allowing opt-outs for risky investment throws off the balance. See: Sweden It's not free money to invest as much as choosing what bundle of stocks your money will be invested in to, add in a phase out into secure bonds gradually as you near retirement and it's not risk free but it's more choice and not terrible.

I think you could privatize social security in ways that would benefit those who want to have a choice and reduce some risk.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 21, 2010 -> 03:27 PM) The local Dunder-Mifflin office doesn't have to deal with the same issues soldiers in the field have to deal with. Perhaps only a small group of people believe a military unit in combat is different than organizations all over this country. That's a great example tex.