Iwritecode

It can't connect Eddie Gaedel to Shaquille O'Neal.

I cut/pasted this from another board but apparently it's a fairly easy way to make over a billion (yes, with a "B") dollars in GTA V. Several people have tried it and confirmed that it works. The only trick is to save all the Lester assassination missions (except the first one) until after you have completed the main story-line missions. I was going to try it last night but I realized that since I don't have my PS3 connected to the net, I don't have access to the BAWSAQ market. So there are a couple of stocks I won't be able to cash in on.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 24, 2013 -> 03:57 PM) Can somebody give me play by play? Any matchups where various managers would start to play the lefty/righty game even with workable pitch counts? That would be on you since you’re the one arguing the point.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 24, 2013 -> 04:00 PM) Alfred E Newmann is 'what me worry?' See to those who again think I am despicably stupid, I even know trivia. I’ve never thought of you as stupid. Naïve is probably a better word.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Oct 24, 2013 -> 01:29 PM) This is true, perhaps once I'm forced to get health care I'll get it checked out. Just posted it on the off chance that someone here would know something. If you ever post on WSI one of the mods over there has dealt with hearing problems and surgery to correct it.

This is from a couple of years ago but it sure seems like something that should be fixed as well. Link

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 23, 2013 -> 09:25 AM) Watched Halloween 3 last night. One of most underrated horror movies of all time. Isn't that the one that had nothing to do with the rest of the Halloween movies? I have it on DVD and have seen parts of it but I always fall asleep watching it.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 02:01 PM) I think we've all been there at some point -- but some of us learn from our mistakes, others never do. I'll get there as soon as I can catch up on all the house repairs that I neglected for years simply because I couldn't afford them.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 01:16 PM) Annual wages / 2080 (52 weeks x 8 hours a day) 50,000/ 2,080 = $24/hour before taxes Yea, that's about what I got too. Unless he was figuring full-time as 32 hours a week? Four 8-hour days a week?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 12:19 PM) ...and speaking on this thread, this is actually a very interesting subject. I know quite a few people that view me as rich, and I'm really not, but it would be impossible to convince them of that. In comparison, it may appear that way, but a lot of the reality behind it is overlooked. First, my wife is a stay at home mom, we have two kids, etc. Outside of my mortgage, I have no debt. Now, an interesting thing about Facebook, Twitter, and other such social media is it allows us to do is silently observe people. It doesn't take long for me to realize why I'm viewed as rich because I always seem to have money, while they view themselves as poor. All one needs to do is look at their timeline to see where they spend all their money ... which is eating out seemingly EVERY DAY. The last place I ate out at was Buffalo Wild Wings...29$. Meanwhile, I see picture after picture of these "poor" people at Blackhawks games, Bears games, restaurants, etc... Yes, I'm rich then. Because I don't spend more than I make. The worst part ... when your success is attributed to luck. Yes, my company pays me what they pay me because I'm lucky. That's what it is. I wish I could find the article about the family that made like 350K a year but didn’t "feel rich" because after they paid their pool boy, their cleaning lady, made the payments on their Mercedes, paid for their kids private schools and put money into their retirement accounts, they just didn’t have much money left over. :eyeroll:

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 12:22 PM) Seems reasonable to me. 200 days of work a year, that is $250 per day, 8.5 hour work day = $29 per hour Its possible, but unlikely. 200? 5 days a week X 50 weeks a year (assuming 2 weeks of vacation) = 250 days.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 21, 2013 -> 10:38 AM) Without debt, a family bringing in 100K a year should feel pretty darned rich. A family of 5 can survive on about half that. Mine did for years. I make more now but I've still got a ways to go to hit 100K.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 18, 2013 -> 12:20 PM) FWIW the median age of a fast food worker these days is about 29 years old, and the median wage is less than $9/hr. These aren't HS jobs and haven't been since at least 2002, when the median age was 22 (IIRC). I wonder if that's because they are hiring more older workers or if the younger workers are just staying longer.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Oct 17, 2013 -> 05:22 PM) The issue is that the minimum wage has to be raised. Whether you put little value in a fast food job or not, the people working those jobs fill a role in society and should be compensated with a living wage. At some point, there has to be some corporate responsibility. You can't have it both ways. You can't complain about government assistance while not supporting a raise in wages. This country is filled with people working 60-80 hours a week that still can't make ends meet, while receiving no benefits. This model is unsustainable. Even $15/hour working 40 hrs a week is only about $31,200/year before taxes. The poverty level for a family of 6 is 31,590. For 5 it's 27,570. So if you have an employee that's a single parent with 4 or 5 kids, that's really not enough. But should we really be giving people $15+/hour for something that's typically done by HS kids with a couple of hours of training?

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Oct 18, 2013 -> 10:10 AM) I just got a job doubling my salary. I did that a few years ago. It's really nice. My problem is that when I started making more, I started spending more as well. Bought a new car, a new suburban, a new camping trailer, making long overdue and badly needed repairs to the house... So it doesn't "seem" like we have more money. But on the other hand, now I have a new car, a new suburban, a new camping trailer...

I'm still baffled at the zero upward movement in either wage or position within the company after 10 years.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 17, 2013 -> 04:32 PM) The right answer should be that you shouldn't be able to work a full time job in a modern, developed economy and wind up that far below the poverty line. The problem is that the poverty line moves depending on your family size. A wage that puts a single 18-year-old with no kids above the poverty line isn't enough for a 25-year-old with 4 kids.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 17, 2013 -> 04:02 PM) One of my favorite anecdotes from when these strikes began comes from Republican Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn from TN. She complained how she only made $2.15/hour on the minimum wage when she was a teenager in Mississippi. When you adjusted for inflation, of course which neither she nor the minimum wage does, that winds up between $12-$14 an hour. How do we differentiate between the 16 year old who wants to buy a few video games and the 18 year old working 15 hours a week to try to pay for college? If the 16 year old gets some extra money and puts it away, and that leads to $1000 fewer student loans a few years later, that strikes me as a triumph too. $15/hour is not much lower than what I was making at my last job as a programmer just a few years ago. That was with 10+ years experience and an associate's degree.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 17, 2013 -> 03:28 PM) No, it doesn't. We should want a system where a person working a full time job is not stuck well below the poverty line. It shouldn't be the government's job to fill in for what corporate America doesn't want to pay. How do we differentiate between the 26-year-old with two kids that wants a "living wage" for 32+ hours a week from the 16 year old that just wants 20 hours a week to buy a few video games? Should they really be paid the the same amount?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 17, 2013 -> 03:06 PM) It means there are jobs out there, if you do the right things. Being at MCD for 10 years and not getting a raise is probably a bigger indictment of the worker, than of MCD. They also offer educational assistance and management training. I agree that working for a major corporation for 10 years and still making minimum wage means something isn't right.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 17, 2013 -> 12:47 PM) But if Cub fans really care about winning why do they fill the park when they are losing? There are a number of different reasons. Whether it involves drinking with their buddies, the field itself being a tourist attraction, being long-time season ticket holders who are afraid to miss the year the Cubs finally make it all the way or just watching Sammy hit a bunch of homeruns... QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 17, 2013 -> 12:47 PM) About the last thing I would accuse the Cubs "customers" of being is caring about winning. I think the Sox numbers would increase, but my guess is it would be new fans that are attracted to the winning, not an exodus of Cub customers deciding to move the party to the southside. Obviously. The city is big enough for both teams to draw 3 million fans in the same season. But if the Cubs attendance started shrinking like it has the past couple of years and the Sox attendance stayed up, I think the tide would turn from everyone thinking that it always will be a Cubs town.

Speaking of McDonald's, I read the story of one of the workers trying to get them to pay everyone $15/hour. She claims that she is 26, has been working there for 10 years, has 2 kids (2 & 7) and is only making $8.25/hour. If you are only making 8.25 after working at the same place for 10 years, maybe the company isn't the problem. She should have either moved up or moved on by now.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 17, 2013 -> 04:40 AM) And #1 reason it is a Cubs town is TV. All the way back to the late 1960s when the Sox were on 32 and 44 UHF channels that had terrible reception everywhere. All the other factors are well behind losing the TV generation. It's true the Cubs gained and the Sox lost an entire generation of fans due to bad decisions over TV stations but with today's technology of being able to see any team anywhere in the country I think that gap is narrowing. I thought I had read that the Sox had better TV numbers than the Cubs this past year.

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 16, 2013 -> 07:24 PM) Think about this for a second is it really true that consistently winning could switch Chicago to a Sox town? The Cubs haven't won s*** in over 100 years. Their fan base doesn't care about winning. They have done what I wish every baseball franchise could pull off, making it seem fun to go to a MLB baseball game no matter the outcome. As Sox fans we take pride often times in not supporting a terrible team. Cub fans, it could be argued, are better "baseball" fans because 2 million of them come out to watch baseball, not just watch their team when it is winning. The Sox should have made a better dent by having the newer modern ball park, but failed because of the too steep upper deck and ball-mall anti-marketing. Absolutely. Make the playoffs 4 out of 5 years or 5 out of 6 years and see what happens. Hell, just make them 2 years in a row even. I think it would make a huge difference. It's just too bad we've never been able to test this theory.

QUOTE (knightni @ Oct 16, 2013 -> 09:05 AM) I post the entire article because not everyone can travel all over the internet at their places of employment. This way it can be read in one place. Here. I appreciate it. It's nice to be able to just read it while in the thread rather than having to wait for a new tab to load. Especially on my slow work computer that I can't update because it's running Windows Server and I have no authority to change anything. If I don't want to read it, I just scroll past it.