StrangeSox

forte tackled by a few fingers.

lol gotta love the facetious applause, as the announcers put it.

worse performance today: bears or officials?

He needs to realize that there's a 50/50 shot of his receiver breaking the wrong way. I'm not sure what he should do at that point, though. Also the Bears defense continues to be an embarrassment.

I love when players on teams who are getting their asses beat act cocky after one good play.

God damnit Cutler

If that's not a touchdown by the rule, the rule needs to be changed. Play should end as soon as that second foot hits the ground.

Omiyale was such a fantastic signing.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 9, 2009 -> 02:13 PM) I'm not Kaperbole ™ for nothing. Besides, I can say that about every post you make. :lolhitting You were asking for that one, BS.

Possible/ likely. Let's just not pretend that the market actually incentivizes long-term planning and objectives over better and better and better quarterly numbers.

And of course no one questions that statement.

You don't need a PhD in economics to see the bulls*** here: And they can raise short-term stock performance to the detriment of the long-term profitability of the company. The entire system of focusing so much on quarterly performance incentives this.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 7, 2009 -> 10:33 PM) Yet which group is costing companies the most amount of money? Executives. Labor at least adds value somewhat in line with wages, generally. Kap, think carefully about net economic impact on the company, not just pure dollars.

You can make the same argument multiplied by 1,000 for executives vs. most of the entire world, so that's a dead end for you. They're criticized when made in regards to labor because we're not talking about a very small number of people being in the 99.999 percentile of wealthiest human beings to ever live while offering questionable value compared to compensation.

How many people would be willing and capable to do the same job for less than tens of millions of dollars? The "best and brightest" f***ed up the world's financial system. I'm at a loss for why we should pay them obscene amounts of money to fix what they broke. "Every CEO gets paid tens/ hundreds of millions!" is no better than "but the other kids are doing it!" I refuse to believe that companies get a net financial benefit when they pay CEO's the way they do,. They're rewarded with billions for taking big risks that pay off or they're rewarded with millions for failing miserably. The entire system is based on perverse incentives.

Really though, how can anyone be expected to work for $500k? What is this, some third world country?

They are so much better, though. Being $100,000 in debt is better than being $1,000,000 in debt, even if you've still got a lot of debt.

I know Forte has been crap this year, but why keep running Bell? Do not let the best run of his career fool you, he is not good.

The Bears are "fun bad" now.

The grass has been s*** on that field year after year after year. It's a joke. Resodding grass in 0-30 degree weather is just not going to work.

Please go to field turf.

Off to a great start. A fumble and a line-up-offsides penalty in the first two minutes.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 10:11 PM) I understand that. Probably better then you... (no slight intended). But, for the media to be orgasming over these numbers and everyone talking about "how it's all ok now" is bulls***. The pure NUMBERS (not percentages) do not suggest that permanent hiring is taking place, and when that turns around, then I'll agree with the sentiment that things are turning around. I had a pretty long talk with a recruiter who's a good friend of mine - they are starting to see an uptick in positions to be filled as well. They aren't seeing the number of positions actually being filled yet, though - just the feelers. That part is encouraging - but my larger point is it's still a train wreck out there. There's a long way to go before we see real employment turn around and unless some things change drastically, the numbers are not going to improve. But it is less of a train wreck than it was in the summer or spring. It is still bad but it is trending in the right direction.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 4, 2009 -> 10:03 PM) I'm as pessimistic as anyone about the long-term prospects since the stimulus was too small, but saying "oh it's just a surge in temporary hiring" is moronic. Temporary hiring increases tend to presage long-term hiring at the end of a recession because companies don't want to commit to long-term hiring until they're certain the recession is ending. Exactly. I'm currently considered a "temp" hire on a 6 month contract. Along with about 50 other people at a company that had 30 employees a year ago. They fully expect to be able to keep most/ all of us on in the future.

There is a global effort to analyze the raw data. It's not like the only information comes from UEA.