iamshack

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 21, 2013 -> 01:09 PM) Apple is not too smart to find them now...but what about a company of 10 people started in a garage in california a few years ago that could come up with the next big thing? They have to go against a behemoth that can artificially keep its price down by creating fake overseas shell corporations. That company is most likely not going to find themselves on the map because of Apple's lawyers. They're going to do so because of some innovation or market niche that Apple missed. Ironic that you mention this scenario, as this is exactly where Apple was about 30 years ago.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 21, 2013 -> 12:58 PM) What we ought to actually recognize is that a rigged system like this has a good chance of preventing the rise of the next Apple. Rigging the system in favor of companies that already exist disadvantages companies that aren't big enough to afford their own loophole. I disagree...I don't think Apple is the only company smart enough to find these loopholes...in fact, the article specifically states that. It is just more glaring in the case of Apple because they make so much damn money to shelter in the first place. What we ought to recognize is that our tax code is so ridiculously complex that it becomes impossible to maintain and manage. This is not exclusive to our tax code, btw.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 21, 2013 -> 12:43 PM) They could always tell their lobbyists to start supporting a sensible campaign finance system. Oh brother

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 21, 2013 -> 11:09 AM) Do you really believe that legislators are crafting legislation which protects the best interests of the nation or are they crafting legislation which protects their personal best interests, reflecting in part the actual voters they have to face and in part the people who pay for their campaigns? And this is Apple's fault?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 21, 2013 -> 10:50 AM) Does a company like Apple also employ lobbyists who assist in making rules with loopholes they can drive a truck through? Of course they employ lobbyists to protect their interest...this is how capitalism works...you are well aware of this...the legislators are still the ones responsible for ultimately signing legislation which protects the interests of the nation...

I tend to side with the folks who figure out the way to beat the system in these instances...this is on those who make the rules of the game, not the one who finds the flaws in those rules.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 21, 2013 -> 07:46 AM) He has been playing well, but the results aren't there and that's what matters in the end. Fact is he has 0 goals & 3 assists in 8 playoff games. They have scored only one goal in each of their last two games. Bad luck sucks and all, but if your best player isn't putting points on the board, you are gonna go home. They have more than enough ammunition to beat Detroit even if Toews is neutralized.

Adam!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 19, 2013 -> 11:15 AM) Foul Lebron as hard and as often as you can. The "Jordan Rules" from the Pistons. The problem with that is you can't win like that anymore because of the way they call flagrants...you'd be giving up too many points and extra possessions.

So FINALLY the Sox are actually playing the Angels (who I am always stuck with during these Fox games), and today I get Rays and Orioles...ack!

QUOTE (G&T @ May 18, 2013 -> 08:21 AM) A curve argument refers to the rise and fall of BAC levels. Tracked on a graph, it's sort of a bell curve. The argument is that at the time of operation a person had just finished drinking and had unabsorbed alcohol in their system. Driver is stopped, does the field tests, goes to the station, blows. In all that time, the BAC has risen as the alcohol is absorbed. So if someone blows a .15 in WI they will have an ignition interlock on their car. The defense will argue that BAC was rising so at the time of the stop, he was at a .14. This seems like an easy argument but it isn't. The stop would really have to occur within 30 mins or so (dependent in part on food consumption) of consuming the last drink. Eliminating alcohol takes longer than absorbing. It's far more likely that a person is on the way down rather than rising. Most defendants won't have a good memory of what they drank anyway. Yeah, I'm surprised most judges would even care to listen to that, considering how there is really no record of when the drinks were consumed...

QUOTE (G&T @ May 17, 2013 -> 06:10 PM) Just kinda throwing this out for fun, but being a beer snob has proven very helpful. These days, it's really common for people to come in and say "I only had two beers" or whatever. Making defendants show what beers they were drinking by name to get the alcohol concentration is really helpful to block a curve argument. Police are getting savvier about that too. Meanwhile most people still don't realize that beer is much higher in alcohol than it used to be. So they have their 3-4 beers and are totally messed up because they were 8%. G&T...I've seen you mention this a few times now...what is the curve argument?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 17, 2013 -> 11:52 AM) No, my irons will. My short game is consistent actually, I am a good putter. My irons and Driver never seem to be on the same page. For example ill start striping my irons dead straight with a great ball flight path and my driver will start duck hooking with top spin. Yep, it's always something...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2013 -> 11:47 AM) Reading this paragraph, and then the ones that follow, I believe he is referring to the price to trade for Peavy, ie; the players that would go the Sox in this scenario, and NOT Peavy's contract. Who knows...I am done commenting on whatever the guy meant...at the very least, it has made for some discussion on a boring friday morning...

Honestly, I'd bet the Dodgers ownership group is about damn tired of bringing in expensive players and getting a s***ty return...I'm not expecting them to take on a whole lot more salary unless they really make a big move in the standings soon...

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 17, 2013 -> 11:21 AM) Finally fixed the little duck hook thats been plaguing my driver, now a little on the fade side which I hate but it will naturally come back to my bread and butter draw. Now just give me some nice hot weather please. You know when that happens your short game will then go to s***

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 17, 2013 -> 10:57 AM) Do you need to disclose a conflict of interest here? Haha...it seems like whenever someone writes an article that is very centric to another team and not our own, everyone gets all defensive and rude about it. I just think it is funny the way people in here are dissecting this article...it's just basically an editorial by another team's fan...it's not a Jon Heyman or Ken Rosenthal or Jeff Passan article.

QUOTE (MEANS @ May 17, 2013 -> 10:32 AM) concerned over Jake's HR rate, then next sentence, states he pitchers in a hitters park and gave up 2 hr this year so far...huh? I read that as he was pointing out that the increase in homers allowed was not due to park factors.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 17, 2013 -> 09:14 AM) I think, given the circumstances that would come with trading Jake Peavy, owners get a little looser with their pockets to try and make that extra postseason push. I don't think there would be any shortage of suitors, nor do I think there would be any reason for the White Sox to chip in money. That said, this article is incredibly premature and should not have been written. As I suggested, the Dodgers are in worse shape than the Sox right now, the Sox have played much better of late, and it's May. If this were written in June, I'd have a hard time arguing with it. As is, it's a mistimed article. Again, take the article in its proper context...it's their "Contributor Network." It's not written by Jeff Passan. Keep in mind, he even pointed out we would get much more in return if we traded him now than what we gave up for him in 2009.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 17, 2013 -> 08:48 AM) And I just don't see how that's the case. At midseason, Peavy will only be due $21 million or so over the next year and a half. Plenty of teams have deep enough pockets to suddenly absorb that. We aren't talking about the AGon/Crawford contracts here. You have every right to disagree with his opinion. I don't think the fact that you disagree with him makes him a crappy writer.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 17, 2013 -> 08:29 AM) Not to mention it is a two year contract. I promise you that if Peavy were a FA, he would get A LOT more in terms of years and of dollars per year. The problem is that you are talking about trading him in the middle of the season...this is no longer the FA period. No one is saying he'd be difficult to move...the author flat-out states that there would be plenty of other suitors...he just thinks the Dodgers would have an advantage because of their deep pockets.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 17, 2013 -> 08:14 AM) And I'm explaining to you that it's not a big contract. Therefore, the Dodgers' ability to eat money won't be an advantage in negotiations, because plenty of teams will gladly take Peavy's team-friendly contract. See my edit above.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 17, 2013 -> 08:07 AM) So why would the Dodgers have an advantage if it's a price that many people are willing to pay? Again, I explained it right above for you...see a few posts up... To elaborate...mid-season, most teams have basically set their budgets for the most part and it is somewhat difficult to absorb a player with a large salary...so often times teams have to get creative and offer back other forms of compensation, such as more prospects. What the writer is insinuating is that the Dodgers, with their big pocketbook, can absorb that salary without a problem, making them an ideal suitor if the White Sox decide they want that salary off the books. Obviously the writer is not super familiar with the White Sox organization and how it has historically been run.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 17, 2013 -> 08:05 AM) No 59 210 89 5 48 Those are bold numbers No wite, those are bolded numbers or numbers in bold...

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 17, 2013 -> 08:02 AM) "Peavy's high price tag" It is a high price tag....a Mercedes has a high price tag too...doesn't mean there aren't people willing to pay that price...