Balta1701

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 09:00 PM) That is just wrong. What did this guy do, go buy peas one at a time from Whole Foods? Buy a can of Campbells Soup and a few bananas, there is lunch for less than $4. You can buy a whole roasted chicken for $6 and another $1 for a can of peas. Dinner for 2, or more. $36? Yeah, right. And that $3.52, 2000 calorie diet would be one bag of potato chips. QUOTE (Reddy @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 10:10 PM) This is called bad math, bad science, and straight up manipulation. I spend $50 a week and eat 2500 to 3000 cal a day. All healthy foods. Do you guys go to a grocery store that you drive to, or do you live in a place where your only source of groceries is the corner convenience store and it's an hour+ bus ride each way to get to the nearest grocery store (and you're limited to what you can carry home, and you've just finished up your 2nd 29 hour a week job when you head there?)

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 5, 2013 -> 01:04 PM) I would if the stupid Star Trek video you embedded forever ago wouldn't auto play every time I open this thread. It wasn't even a good one. (Post was deleted before I posted that video).

Shut up and watch.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 08:52 PM) has ck ever not predicted doom, DOOM! in the near-future? To be fair...each of the last few times the DOW has touched record highs, 3 years later we've looked back and marveled at the incredible amount of fraud exposed as the collapse has taken hold.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 09:00 PM) That is just wrong. What did this guy do, go buy peas one at a time from Whole Foods? Buy a can of Campbells Soup and a few bananas, there is lunch for less than $4. You can buy a whole roasted chicken for $6 and another $1 for a can of peas. Dinner for 2, or more. $36? Yeah, right. And that $3.52, 2000 calorie diet would be one bag of potato chips. So are you up for the eat on $4 a day challenge?

Melo pulled with a knee injury (non-contact).

I knew I'd seen this, it just took me half a day of random googling to find it. This is the problem with requiring that people on food stamps. Keep in mind for scale, most food stamp programs are reported to come out at about $4 a day.

One of those online petitions the White House has allowed was set up a while back requesting that the White House support legalized unlocking of purchased cell phones. The White House today came out in support of a proposal to do just that, legalize unlocking of smartphones. Whether it does anything, who knows, the lobbies opposing it are still quite strong, but that's progress on the issue.

QUOTE (SAVVY18 @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 05:09 PM) Please tell me I'm not the only one who laughed when they read this? I tried to help with that last post.

QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 05:06 PM) Castro's breaking balls look very soft and hangy to me. I feel like they should become homeruns. Not sharp enough and he's leaving them up. Some of that may be the Arizona air, don't forget, that always screws with breaking balls by drying a guy's hand out.

Quick 123 for Castro, 2 k's and a fiarly deep fly ball to CF.

Castro in, Gillaspie takes over 3b, Phegley in at C.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 04:30 PM) Bears were not gonna be able to afford a Albert-type player in all likelihood. True, but now any team with an LT need and cap space to spend has 1 less option as well... The only way this "moves the LT's farther down the draft" is if he would have signed with a team drafting below the Bears.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 04:27 PM) Great news potentially for the Bears. Pushes all the OL down one spot. But also takes an OL off of the free agent market and leaves other teams 1 fewer option to sign.

Of course, I'm sure the reason why designating those foods as "non-nutritious" would be burdensome is that any effort to do so would put you up against agricultural lobbyists. You're going to lose that fight.

"The Following" picked up for a 2nd season.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 03:35 PM) So even from a simply pragmatic standpoint, you'd need to do a cost-benefit analysis. One wonderful bit of fun...it costs money to do any sort of security...so if all you care about is achieving a 10% across the board spending cut from the spending line...and you do so in the completely foolish way...you have to cut the amount you spend on that security by 10% as well. It's just like cutting funds from the IRS enforcement. The end result winds up being more fraud, but we have to cut the total amount of spending, because spending is always bad!

8 hitters faced for Danks, 6 hitters retired, 5 groundballs, 1 pop fly, 1 HR, 1 soft single the other way by a lefty. Looked like his fastball was reasonable. Can't tell if there's a difference from pre-injury, but it wasn't obviously slow.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 03:25 PM) I guess i'm thinking small time - most of the time you're going to eat that loss. If it's a problem or the amount is big enough you'll report it. But if it's a 5 times a month at 20 bucks a pop type thing, you're just going to train your employees better, not get the state involved (what are they going to do about it anyway?) And as far as I know nothing compels a store to accept it. They just want that business. So the store is not compelled to accept WIC cards, they do so in order to get the extra business...but we can't expect them to enforce the rules of the program? That's why I asked. If they were compelled as a consequence of being in operation to accept the cards, I might wonder whether it's a substantial cost to the business, but if they're able to decide whether to accept the cards...then they've decided it's worth their efforts to develop fraud protection, same as they would for any other payment method they're accepting. And if you have a counterfeit check/bill problem, you report it to the state and the state decides what level of resource to put into the problem. 5 different counterfeit $20 bills/$20 checks a month from 1 store is a strong suggestion that you have a counterfeiting operation active in the area.

QUOTE (fathom @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 03:12 PM) His demeanor reminded me of Matt Garza. He held a very good team to only one hit, and that was on a hit and run. With that said, his control wasn't very good and his fastball was around 90 mph How accurate are WBC radar guns (in international stadiums, right?) I'd say he was low 90's when I saw him in person last year. The stadium gun showed him topping out at 90-91, but that stadium's gun has been about 2 mph slower than MLB level guns in the past. Castro clearly threw harder than him, but not hugely.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 03:03 PM) Sure, but that situation need not involve the state unless a business wants to press charges. With food stamps you're requiring the business to become an agent of the state. They become the enforcers of the law. Doesn't "have" to involve the state? What kind of situation are you picturing here, one where the business realizes they've been scammed when the bank won't take the check/bill that they accepted, and then decides to do...nothing about it? Second Q: Is there anything that actually compels a grocery store to accept WIC funds?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 02:37 PM) Stores shouldn't be responsible for customers. If a store takes a fraudulent check, or a counterfeit dollar bill, isn't the store itself responsible and out of the money if its discovered?

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 01:33 PM) LOL. Uh excuse me, can I have your address and social security #, I would like to report you for fraud. Clearly they're expecting that some of the reports will come in the case of families, where that information might be available, and they're also expecting people to take the time to read 3 sentences of text, which apparently, some will refuse to do.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 01:12 PM) I have seen it, often. Then why haven't you reported this problem to the authorities? It's not difficult. Here's the form.

QUOTE (Jake @ Mar 3, 2013 -> 09:22 PM) The logic seems to be that it was treated very aggressively before it had a chance to spread -- normally, it would re-emerge after lying dormant despite the drugs...but in this case, it never got a chance to spread to those corners of the body where it could "hide." It doesn't appear to be very applicable to those who contract it via sex/drugs, yet, unless perhaps you treat aggressively the moment you come into contact with it. It's definitely a treatment technique that they described as something they don't regularly do...so it might well be something that can be replicated in other kids. (Of course, for that to happen, it would actually have to be systematically tried. Thankfully, the National Institutes of Health will have the number of grants it disperses cut in half this year, because we don't want to know whether this might work elsewhere.)