Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 07:04 PM) Wait, Jenks just so happened to walk into the room in time to see the exact scene that we are all talking about. And he trashes it? Let me find my surprised face, it is around here somewhere Nope. Wife still watches and called me into the room after it aired. Edit: although I do admit to trashing it

QUOTE (SexiAlexei @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 04:58 PM) I have absolutely no idea where to start, so after seeing this thread I thought I might ask here and hopefully someone could point me in the right direction. My dad loves home improvement projects, but doesn't like to finish them. I'd say my parent's home is 30-40% under "renovations" right now and not getting much better. It's been his plan for a long time to do these improvements so he can get the house in selling shape and move to a much cheaper area. However, recently he has mentioned just selling the house as is so my parents can just get out. This in my mind is an AWFUL idea. He'd be leaving so much money on the table. I mentioned that he should get someone in there to evaluate the house, give suggestions on improvements that would increase the value of the house, and then just get someone to do them. He seemed open to the idea, but neither of us know where to start. So this is my question. Who would you hire to come in and suggest home improvements? What I'm looking for is someone to come in, say if you remodel your kitchen it'll cost you $8k, but your house value could go up $12k. Things along this line. Would this be a realtor? Does something like this even exist? Maybe I've seen too much HGTV. Thanks in advance. I would think a realtor would be the perfect person for that. Most would know what's popular in the area, what upgrades where would be worth the cost, etc.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 04:52 PM) But there are plenty of examples of people acting like morons with their firearms. There are also examples of people acting heroically with firearms. As someone who did not grow up around guns, doesn't hunt, and doesn't have a farm with crops to protect, wouldn't trust myself with a firearm (and without training, shouldn't be trusted with a firearm). The morons with guns are a bigger risk to me in public (particularly in states that allow anyone to carry anywhere) than the heroes who might put a stop to a bad situation. Here's where I say that I'm ok with certification or training classes, etc. for CC, and then people like Balta will say "fine, but that's still not enough!"

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 04:25 PM) Interesting Lol, I love this from the website: We don't know how many of these incidents happen, but we know there are a helluva lot of them that occur routinely!! GMAFB.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 04:37 PM) If you do a search on-line, you can find many instances of friendly fire killing troops - those with the most training with firearms. In a mass shooter situation, I have a hard time believing that the guy who shoots once a weekend, or once a month can properly assess the situation and not ultimately make the situation worse. But then I also think part of the problem with this argument is that both sides argue in absolutes. Could someone armed make an accurate shot and save lives? Sure. Could they make the situation worse? Absolutely. I tend to argue that the odds are higher that they make the situation worse and are, therefore, a net negative in a crisis situation. I'm not talking in absolutes. I'm saying there's no proof that people with guns will suddenly become moron vigilantes, and that anyone who shoots should be held to the same standard as anyone else - is your shooting justified or not. You should be open to criminal prosecution of the situation warrants it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 04:21 PM) First, I'm not at all convinced that's true. Second, even if the chances of that are 10%, and the chances of others being hurt is only say 5%, that's is far too much risk IMO. Especially when you consider that it isn't just a shooter missing that is the bad outcome - it could cause the shooter to act hastily and actually kill more people. And the biggest danger is people who just do stupid stuff, like that lady who shot at a car running away from a shoplifting at a Walmart or something the other day. You are working from the assumption that people will only shoot when justified. Even if you think the risk in that scenario is acceptable, you are ignoring the many times people will shoot when they shouldn't, and when the target would not have hurt or killed anyone. Shooting at a shooter intent on killing multiple people is going to cause him/her to shoot more? I find that premise a bit illogical. And yes, there will be morons. No doubt about that. But I think the potential for MORE safety is higher. It's funny that the myth is more guns = more deaths, but we have more guns now than at any other time in history right? And the murder rates gone down? So which is it?

QUOTE (juddling @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 04:15 PM)

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 03:54 PM) I am having just as difficult of a time finding stories of hero vigilantes stopping mass murders. weird how that works Plenty of examples here: http://gunssavelives.net/browse-stories/ Some are just self-defense in one on one situations, but still, they show a positive outcome to having a gun in a stressful, fearful situation. Of course not. But would I feel better if an adult at Sandy Hook had a gun and could have potentially saved my son, or some of his classmates? Yep. Odds are more likely that lives would have been saved, not lost, if someone was shooting back.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 03:26 PM) Or end them. I wouldn't suggest taking away guns, for many reasons. But I do think the reasoning that an armed public is a crime deterrent it weak at best. I think the reality ends up being, as we've seen in the news plenty, that you will get a lot of bad things happening. There MAY be a few more good than bad, but for me at least, the threshold needs to be very high. And the ratio, in reality, won't be. If you do a search online and try to find evidence of innocent bystanders being killed by some hero vigilante, you'd be hard pressed to find many stories.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 03:13 PM) Just keep in mind, even with some training, people firing a handgun in the heat of a bad situation are really bad at it, as a group. Most shots will miss their target. This has been documented. They may be more likely to hit the bad guy than an innocent bystander, but both are low probabilities. Not good odds if you ask me. Hitting the target isn't the only good outcome though. Just shooting back, forcing the shooter to take cover and stop shooting could save lives.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 02:48 PM) Just curious, if someone steps up with their own gun and things get crazy and innocent bystanders are killed by the guy defending himself, are you ok with that? Greg, you see someone come in and pull out a gun and threaten people, and you have your gun with you, pull it out and nervously point and shoot and accidentally hit the wrong person because you are so scared and nervous and anxious, like most people would be in that situation, would you be able to live with yourself? Just the sort of thing that runs through my head when i am thinking about everyone packing and anyone playing the hero. A teacher gets his gun out and blows away my kid while defending the class from a guy trying to kill them all. Not every situation is bad guy against good guy 1) Better to live with yourself for making a tragic mistake than risk not being alive anymore to worry about anything. 2) There have been very few documented cases of this happening. Certainly more rare than said innocent bystander taking down the would-be killer and SAVING lives. There's a growing list of examples of that happening. 2) Assuming someone is unintentionally/accidentally killed, I think you hold the person shooting to the same standard as anyone who fires a gun and kills someone. What's the context? How reasonable was the fear to use the gun? How errant was the shot? (aiming blindly down a hallway, in a crowd of people, etc. etc.). I'm sure it would be tough to hold that person criminally responsible in most situations, but it's possible. There's no reason you can't hold them civilly liable, though. If you're going to use a gun in public you need to be prepared for all outcomes. That comes with the territory, IMO.

My prediction: Loss in the ECF to the Cavs. Unless Lebron tears an ACL, no way the Bulls get past a healthy Cavs team. Too many weapons. If they couldn't do it last year without Love, without JR Smith for some games, and a hobbled Kyrie, it's not happening. That said, they'll be the one seed. I think the Cavs take a page out of the Spurs' book and they start resting guys more often. Lebron in particular. They'll be so-so early with all their guys hurt, but when it counts they'll still be the overwhelming favorite. Beyond that I think the Cavs lose to whoever comes out of the West. I'm picking OKC. Durant is going to have a monster "FU" type year. He's the MVP too.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 06:54 AM) Heroically defend yourself? You have a very strange definition of heroic and defense. Defending yourself is an instinct, there isn't anything heroic about it. It isn't a fantasy or heroic to raise your arms against someone hitting you. If someone is beating you up it isn't heroic to hit back. It isn't a fantasy to wish you had a stick or a lead pipe. It isn't a fantasy or heroic to try and stop someone from killing you. If someone takes a knife to me I want to be able to defend myself. What are you going to do? Open your arms wide and say stab me? No, you will heroically defend yourself. Unless you have a really strong martyr fantasy then I guess you will allow the person to kill you. After you defend yourself you will feel relieved. If you successfully defend your wife, you may even feel better. I have no clue why you find self defense so repugnant. It is a fantasy to believe that people do not get attacked every day in America. How about this fantasy, you are in trouble and a knight in shining armor, or a cop, will ride in and save you just in time. Your white privilege does allow for this fantasy. The cops will probably rush to defend you. But until they arrive, I want to defend myself. Not out of being heroic, and no fantasy, but out of my natural survival instinct. Maybe it is a fantasy to you to actually defend yourself or someone else. It isn't a fantasy to me to want to save my family if someone attacks. If you're Balta, you're praying the guy with the knife stabs you before the guy defending himself with a gun shoots you!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 25, 2015 -> 03:39 PM) I'm sick of thousands of people being butchered because people like you fantasize about how you'll heroically defend yourself in order to make you feel better and more important. And I don't want to have to deal with that because of your fantasy. Oh Balta. Thousands aren't dying at the hands of people with guns trying to defend themselves. They're dying because lunatics are committing crimes. Plain and simple. I think you really do need to see a pysch about this. Your fear of guns is on a pretty irrational level.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 26, 2015 -> 10:01 AM) The government is not handling our entire healthcare system. Any while some people may believe that it is a good idea for them to take over every hospital and medical facility in America (like they run the VA), it isn't many people. The government under the ACA is not delivering the care, only providing the economic help for people to actually pay for a portion of their healthcare. With the VA the government is actually running the hospitals. As the system switches over and insurance becomes the norm, we could conceivable abandon the VA system and have the veterans use the same hospitals and health care system as everyone else. The difference between the two is Blue Cross doesn't run hospitals and hospitals are not insurance companies. Same witj the ACA and the VA. Two very different roles. But the whole problem with the VA comes down to money. Money to pay staff, to manage staff, to pay for treatment, etc. It's all subject to a budget, which is of course dictated by the government and argued over by politicians. Even if we end up on a Medicare-like program, we're still running on a "private" system that is beholden to the government for payment. Once you go down that route, the government is, in effect, running the show since it can dictate the rules by which various doctors and clinics and hospitals can be paid. If you want to go on that system and wait 5 months for an operation and die in the mean time, go for it. That's your right. Don't force me on it. That's all i'm saying.

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/darth-vader-st...&soc_trk=tw

QUOTE (chw42 @ Oct 23, 2015 -> 11:13 AM) The device has been around 4 years, I'd expect it to have at least 4-5 games that would make me want to get the system. Are you talking about the Vita or the Wii U? I kid, I kid!

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 23, 2015 -> 11:23 AM) I am going through this right now. My cabinets are being installed as I type. Here is what I can tell you...we had a kitchen that I thought was original to the 1956 build, but after demo, appears to have been a renovation from perhaps the mid-to-late 60's. My kitchen was not small, especially for the time in which it was designed, but it was semi-enclosed by a wall of cabinets with a pass-through on one side, and a breakfast bar on the other side. The cooktop and oven were ancient 60's models, and the countertop, which I thought was kind of cool, was stainless steel and my wife did not care for it. Our fridge was nice but old and on its last legs (a 28 year old subzero). Basically, it was dark, kind of enclosed, in need of new appliances, the electrical was outdated, etc. I originally set out on just finding a way to replace the cooktop and stove. I found a cabinetmaker on Angie's list and had him come by the house to take a look. He did come up with a design and present it to us, but then that evening, he called me back and said that he was having second thoughts. He asked me if we had any plans in the near future of doing a complete remodel of the kitchen. I told him we had gone back and forth about it, but we just weren't sure the timing was right. He said well, I will tell you this. I can do this project for you, and I would make more money if I did this for you now and then you called me back in a few years when you wanted to remodel the entire thing, but I think it is smarter for you to just wait until you are ready to remodel the entire kitchen. So my wife and I discussed it, and ultimately decided to pursue a full remodel. We had the cabinet maker provide drawings for a complete renovation. He proposed knocking out the wall of cabinets with the pass-through and the breakfast bar, and completely opening everything up. My wife and I liked the plan, and decided to move forward. We started costing everything out, including floors, countertops, cabinets, appliances, demo, electric and plumbing. As we are both very busy at work, have a 4 month old son, and generally are useless when it comes to doing anything handy, we knew we wouldn't be able to do any of the work ourselves. We knew this would cost more, but at least I felt more confident the work would be done right. I basically leveraged my cabinetmaker's knowledge with my project management skills to handle the general contractor role. This was a large project. Everything was so incorporated into the existing design, that changing it required us to address nearly everything, down to changing the location of HVAC vents and installing a new downdraft exhaust vent underneath the floors. Additionally, we chose to not only replace the flooring in the kitchen, but also in the dining room/den and laundry areas. We also had the cabinet maker build cabinets for the laundry area as well as one in the dining room/den. We've actually stayed fairly close to our original budget, which I am pleased with. However, there were some items we forgot to budget for, basically because we simply didn't recognize the level of destruction which would occur or what exactly we would unearth in the demo. The most expensive things were as follows: 1) appliances (high-end) 2) cabinets (custom) 3) flooring (mid-range, but we're replacing 650 sq ft and we encountered a LOT of issues once the tear-out of the original floors began) 4) countertops (silestone quartz) 5) electrical (needed lots of updates) Those were the major costs. We also spent about $1600 on the ventilation work, $1500 on drywall and ceiling repair, anticipating $1,000 or so for backsplash and install, I'm sure several hundred to paint, etc. Then we also bought a new kitchen table and 5 chairs, a new ceiling fan, new steel vent registers, etc. You can see how the costs start adding up fast. It certainly has been a major, major project. We are through the worst of it now, and I anticipate things going more smoothly from here on out. Floors go in on Monday-Tuesday. Then we will work on some finishing work while we wait for countertops to be fabricated, and then finally, appliances get installed. I am hoping to be finished by mid-November or so. So can you do it for $12k? Possibly. Utilize handymen that are friends or friends of the family. Do as much as you possibly can yourself, without significantly putting the finished product at risk. However, don't overlook things like electrical, drywall, plumbing, etc., which can add up quickly. Lastly, I fully agree with Y2k...you want to do it right the first time. If possible, spend a little extra if necessary to get it done right, and the way you want it. However, you will have to make decisions to stop the bleeding at some point. I've tried to push this envelope as far as I am comfortable with, and I think we will be really pleased with what our finished product will be. Edit: Oh, and I did not mess with any permits. We did not remove any load-bearing walls, nor did we change the sq footage of the house or anything. However, Las Vegas is a bit more lax on those types of things than the Chicago area is, I'm sure. It's still a little wild wild west out here. Demo, drywall, flooring, cabinets (install anyway), tile work etc. can be done by anyone with some patience and a little practice. It's not difficult and, IMO, well worth the savings. The key difference between a professional and doing it yourself is time. If it needs to be done within weeks, hire someone. If you can take your time with it and tackle one project at a time, try to do as much yourself as you can. Knocking out a wall and putting a header in is going to take someone with some knowledge and experience on how to do that. Electrical and plumbing the same. But everything else can be done by the average home owner. Read up on what you're doing, go watch youtube videos and be patient about it.

This looks funny, looking forward to it: http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/22/9592804...trailer-netflix

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Oct 23, 2015 -> 08:47 AM) Since we have several attorneys on the board, I thought you'd get a kick out of this one: University of Louisville students and alumni are suing the woman who wrote the book detailing the basketball recruiting sex scandal, claiming that her book has devalued their degrees and damaged their opportunities to make money using those degrees. http://www.courier-journal.com/story/sport...-book/74400594/ If I were the publisher/author, I'd file a motion for sanctions (with no hope of winning of course). Talk about a frivolous lawsuit.

If you're doing major work, you'll probably need a permit. Anything having to do with electrical, plumbing and major renovation usually does. Check your local city/village website. There should be a building department page with a list of construction that require permits and the cost of each. Be prepared to spend a bulls*** amount on it, like 1-2% of the total cost of the project.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 22, 2015 -> 01:36 PM) Star Trek is pretty close in obsession, if not equal Pssh, no way. Disney put 500 storm troopers on the great wall of china the other day. You're not doing those massive, global events with Star Trek.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 22, 2015 -> 12:35 PM) Never have been interesting in Dead. I watch Game of Thrones, but I don't get the obsession over it. It is decent, but I don't get the LOST levels of obsession either. Lost made sense to me because there was so much mystery and theorizing. It was perfect water cooler entertainment. Walking Dead and Game of Thrones fill two genres (apocalypse/survival and fantasy). I wasn't meaning to say that I don't get why people like Star Wars or why people find it interesting. It's more the intensity of the fandom I don't get. To the point where people will supposedly spend thousands or tens of thousands just to see the movie when it premieres. There's an obsession to it that really is unrivaled.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 22, 2015 -> 10:48 AM) Arlo rules Is there a delay? The battery issue might be a pain after a while too. Wonder what the battery life is.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Oct 21, 2015 -> 11:40 PM) Thank you. I said it when Thibs was fired and they did nothing in the offseason. By simply firing Thibs and hiring Hoiberg, you are flat out saying, Thibs was the only problem and not roster makeup. If Hoiberg doesn't make it farther, then the target is on your back because you have consistently done nothing to fill the holes, in 12 years you have yet to make a trade which netted you useful talent back, you haven't been able to sign a big time free agent (which means that flexibility bulls*** you keep touting is just that, BS) and you have the same core from 2008 Gibson, Noah, Hinrich, Rose. In the end, they have not taken any risks and the only trades they have done is for cap purposes. I don't know how they've gotten a pass this long, especially Paxson. And it's not like his last few drafts have been great. I'm sorry, but this is kinda laughable. GarPax have been pretty embarrassing at times with their decisions about coaches and player health (if you can pin that on them, which I don't really), but drafting and roster make-up is not one of them. They've earned A's in my book for basically every year. Gibson, Mirotic and Butler were all absolute steals. They "missed" on James Johnson (mid 1st round) and Teague (28th/29th?). They're able to find guys in the late 20's that can play and produce. That's not easy. Thibs needed to go. Plain and simple. They needed a new voice in the locker room. X's and O's don't matter if the players stop listening (and his X's and O's on offense were s***). And rumors were that several players were done with Thibs and wanted him gone. That shouldn't dictate what the Bulls do, necessarily, but it's not a glowing endorsement either.