StrangeSox

QUOTE (Tex @ Nov 26, 2013 -> 09:36 AM) But not a very good one. One of the unusual, not not unique, aspects to Oswald's life was being able to move to Russia then return without much trouble. He qualified as a sharpshooter. He wasn't a sniper, but he still met an elevated standard. Plus, Kennedy was only about 90 yards away at most and moving fairly slowly almost directly away from Oswald. It wasn't a particularly difficult shot.

wall-mount

If I can convince my wife that 59" really wouldn't be that big and her nature shows would look incredible on it...

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 26, 2013 -> 09:02 AM) Here: http://www.frys.com/product/7024871?site=s...CH:MAIN_RSLT_PG 60" Plasma, NO smart features (use your AppleTV/Ruku/Chromecast to make it truly smart in comparison to the garbage "smart" tv's include). Oh, it's only 797$. And it's a really good tv. 55" would already be pushing what would work in this room. The floorplan is basically this, but mirrored, and the TV would go on the wall directly to the right of the words "Living Room". It would completely dominate the room, and not necessarily in a good way. edit: I've already got a Roku LT and a nicer Panasonic Blu-Ray with hulu, netflix etc. which is why I don't need the "Smart TV" crap.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 26, 2013 -> 09:00 AM) The only exception would be certain light situations. But when it comes to best picture, plasma dominates the competition. Well the TV would be near our front windows. Hmm.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Nov 26, 2013 -> 08:59 AM) If you're replacing the 40 with a 40, i wouldn't buy anything fancy. Just about any "small" TV like that will have a good picture from a brand like Samsung. No the 40 is currently upstairs, the main TV, and it's where I'd be placing the new 55". The 40 would go to the basement and the old CRT would go to the trash.

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 26, 2013 -> 08:55 AM) I love my parents because they are constantly replacing TVs for no good reason and I reap the benefits since they push them off on me. I have this 42" LCD, a 32" LCD, and I will inherit another 40"+ TV in the near future. I'm going to be moving into a house at some point in the medium term and it will be great to have so many nice TVs. My girlfriend also has a 32" that I bought her. None of them are super nice, but all of them are thin, big, and they look just fine showing HD. I love a big TV and new tech, but I don't need too much more than 720p and a big screen ATM. I think I'll be getting a 50" plasma next that has 1080p, but it has a flicker problem which is why they exiled it (god forbid they call Samsung to fix it) My friend's grandpa was great for this. He got a two-year old 60" Samsung, one of the their better models, for free, just because his grandpa felt like getting a new one.

Plasmas are supposed to have superior viewing angles?

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 26, 2013 -> 08:50 AM) I have an older, 42" Samsung LCD. It's nice, but just 720p and it really struggles handling blacks. Also very heavy, though that is mostly a product of its time as it was by far the lightest my family had ever owned at the time. That's basically what I'm looking to replace, a 40" Sony. Nice at the time I bought it six years ago, but our (rarely-used) CRT in the basement is on its way out, so I could cycle a new TV into the living room and move the 40" downstairs. edit: why the hell are the Samsung plasmas 51" or 59"??

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 26, 2013 -> 08:24 AM) Plasmas run at native 600hz without tricks or gimmicks like frame interpolation. That's why plasmas can keep up with fast moving sports, etc, much better than LCD's can. Note, an LED tv is a LCD that's backlit by LED light, nothing more. These TV's use tricks like doubling refresh rates or adding frames to smooth out motion. I do NOT like that gimmick crap when watching movies on LED/LCD tv's, it makes everything look fake to me. Yeah, the "Soap Opera Effect" is caused by these sets trying to fake higher refresh rates than the source provides IIRC. It makes everything look horrible. But, you can always turn that garbage off. Most of the "enhancement" features are garbage. Yeah, the power consumption thing is somewhat important to me. Looking around at some specs last night, the expected energy consumption was something like 150W. Not horrible. I also don't leave my sets on for very long and have the "auto-off" features enabled for when I accidentally do, anyway. I can't imagine when screen burn-in would ever really be an issue for me. Most devices these days have their own auto-dimming features anyway on top of whatever the TV itself offers. I was looking at the specs of comparable plasma and LED tvs. Seemed like you're talking about 40lbs for an LED versus maybe 60 for a plasma. That's really not a big deal. Still a hell of a lot more manageable than an old 36" CRT. I'll have to look into the Samsung, I was checking out their LED TVs and some Panasonic plasmas last night. I care about picture quality, not any of the smart TV stuff or 3D. I wish someone would make a high-end display with the extra stuff stripped out at a lower price-point. I hoping Fry's has some plasmas on display that I can go and check out in person before deciding.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Nov 26, 2013 -> 08:28 AM) When I vote, I actually DO act on it with my vote. If I think a democratic candidate deserves the job, especially when this decision can be made on past performance, I'll vote for them, same goes for I's and R's. But if you've shown that you're going to vote for corporate interests, or other such nonsense, I will not vote them back into office. Other people do, though ... which is exactly how this 9% approval rating congress will get mostly re-elected with relative ease. That 9% approval rating is a bit misleading since we don't elect representatives at-large across the entire country or even across an entire state for the House. Both me and a die-hard conservative in Texas might strongly disapprove of Congress right now, but I'll bet that that person loves them some Ted Cruz whereas I'd think he's exactly the cause of the problem, not my guy.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 25, 2013 -> 02:06 PM) It is worth pointing out that 77% of what is required in 2033 would actually be a larger amount of benefits than paid out today due to the fact that OASDI increases at a rate greater than that of inflation under the thought that if the country is becoming more prosperous it should be reflected in how we treat the elderly. Well that gets back to the whole "chained CPI" argument. The argument against that is two-fold: one, we should be increasing these benefits anyway, but two, the cost-of-living for retirees doesn't track the general COL increase because healthcare costs are rising faster than anything else and represent a significant expense to the older retiree segment of the population.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 07:54 AM) I'd probably go RG3. Home game and even when he's (and Washington) have been bad, he turns in good fantasy numbers. QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Nov 19, 2013 -> 10:32 AM) RG3, garbage time points count the same

He was a sharpshooter in the marines.

Best 55" TV $1500 or under? Don't care if it's plasma or LED, just whatever is better.

That friend-of-a-friend I mentioned before that was eventually convicted of 2nd degree murder sat in Cook County for months and months before his family could scrape together the cash for bail (it was $50k IIRC). If they hadn't been able to, he'd have been sitting in Cook County for about three years before his trial finished.

We do some pretty terrible things in our justice system. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/11/2...nviction-trial/ Despicable. Hope he gets enough out of the city and other agencies to be set for life.

All I need is 31 points from Boldin...

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 25, 2013 -> 02:18 PM) And in 2033 I'll be 47. Probably not quite to retirement age I'd imagine. It declines to 72% by 2087, so you'll probably be around 75% when you retired assuming no changes in the law. page 11: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2013/tr2013.pdf For a bit of perspective on these long-range estimates, including the hysteria to cut Medicare and Social Security because it'll be insolvent a few decades from now, consider that 2013 would still fall under pre-WWII 75 year projections.

Ok?

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 25, 2013 -> 12:42 PM) Both. They won't agree to a fix, and it will thus run out of money. I mean... shut down anyone? Using current projections, if absolutely nothing is done, benefits will be reduced to ~77% of what's required by statute in 2033 (this changes yearly when the trustees publish their reports because there's a lot of assumptions that go into 75 year projections). I'd like to see the payroll tax cap eliminated and SS expanded, but it will still be around when we go to retire.

welp I'm out

QUOTE (Jake @ Nov 24, 2013 -> 03:22 PM) No time for the short passing bulls*** this is where McCowen's weaker arm really hurts

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 24, 2013 -> 03:20 PM) Hester is a f***ing moron might as well try for something down 14 points with 3 minutes

game