Fan in Chicago
-
Posts
10,140 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Fan in Chicago
-
-
I agree. No point in trading him away - better a known devil than a draft day crapshoot pick. I also think we should get McGahee's contract extended during this offseason. Start locking up the players we will need during the SB run in a couple of years.
-
-
Saw this movie last night not knowing what to expect. Must say I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. Smart, witty dialog (I may have to see it again to make sure I caught everything), excellent performances and well developed story line.
-
-
-
I'd like to suggest two essential plugins for firefox that once you get them, you'll never go back.
I use Adblock Plus, Tab browser preferences and ImageZoom the most.
BlueFire, both your links are for the same extension.
-
This thread is from last June:
TSW: Peerless Price may have to retire
Since he did play (a little) with Dallas last season, the situation obviously wasn't as bad as originally thought. I'm assuming he had to pass an eye exam as part of his physical at One Bills Drive....
Thanx, Lori. I hope the local media will post an update in the coming days.
-
-
Why can I not find anything on this 'eye problem' that is being mentioned on this board ? How serious is/was it anyway ? I think this is a good signing* (Not knowing how much we paid for him)
*EDIT: not for $10MM !!!!!
-
Shameless self promotion here ..... See my post about 1/4th way down.
-
So, i downloaded and installed firefox. It seems to work pretty well. I had to download the flash player and that required a restart. I'm having problems with websites that have embedded videos, like cnn.com and youtube.com. I do not want to ditch internet explorer if i cannot use firefox like i've used IE, and that includes embedded videos. What gives with that?
What specific problems are you having ? I have not had any in the past 1+ years of Firefox use. If you care to, send me the links and I can try them out too.
Till now, the only problems I have had are (1) with websites that only work with IE and not Netscape/Mozilla. Thankfully I have only run across them at the rate of 1-2/month (2) Crashing which was due to an extension I was using. I uninstalled that extension and not had it crash since ( ~ 1 month back)
-
Yes, I have installed Dish Network from a hand me down equipment and subscribe to SE Asian programming (for the wife). They do charge a $5 surcharge for not subscribing to regular programming. My mistake was that now that I am an existing customer, they wont me give me the introductory deal (need to hook up 3 more locations with 1 of them HD for the basement pj). Anyway, I agree that cable seems to be bridging the gap but as I have not had reason for service on my cable I won't see the difference.
-
Do you have a link to the adoption rates of DirecTV and Dish ? I would love to do a comparison and see whose strategy is working better. DTV has raised prices but has NFl Sunday ticket. Dish has lower prices and is now expanding into HD. Albeit a miniscule market, Dish also broadcasts pay-per-view cricket which some of my friends subscribe to regularly (and thus stay with Dish, ala people with DirecTV for NFL). The comparison would be a great marketing kind of study.
-
Have you looked at how much DTV has had to pay the NFL for the Ticket in 1994 vs how much they had to pay the NFL for it last year? Back in '94, before many people even had satellite, DirecTV bought the package for peanuts. Thus, they didn't have to charge much. Now they signed a five-year, $3.5 BILLION dollar agreement for Sunday Ticket. That's $700,000,000/year to the NFL. Assuming the cost for the Ticket is $239 (which it isn't - most get it cheaper), they'd need 2.9 million people to sign up to *break even.* After searching around, it seems that DirecTV has between 1.3 and 2 million Sunday Ticket subscribers. Guess what? That's less than the 2.9 million they need to break even. So yes, regular subscribers are subsidizing Sunday Ticket.
http://multichannel.com/article/CA479045.html
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA480250.html
Care to disagree?
CW
Sounds to me Fez that DTV made a mistake in shelling out that level of cash to the NFL. Either their forecasts were wrong or they had planned on the need for subsidizing it. Whatever the case might be, it is a heckuva lot of money even for the NFL.
-
-
I did not know that. With all the vision correcting procedures now available, I wonder what it is that cannot be cured.
-
The move to allow Macs to boot Windows is a move mostly geared at people who are thinking of switching but don't because of those one or two apps that they really need to use but are only available on Windows. The idea is probably to provide that security blanket until they realize that they can probably do all they need to without falling back on Windows, and once people realize that OS X is really nice to use, they'll presumably then realize that they don't need to go back.
I just finished a conversation with a mac loyalist and he claims it is a long term strategy to get MacOS on the PC platform. He says Apple wants people to warm up to the idea of 'cross-platformization' first and then make that move. Not sure I am convinced.
Rubes thought is interesting but all it does is keep the existing customers as opposed to bringing in new ones into the Mac fold which should be a desired outcome.
-
-
Apple officially makes Windows XP work on Macs
Personally, the only reason I would ever need to run Windows is to run Microsoft Access, and this has been a sticking point for me. I'm able to run Access on my Mac at work because I can run it using Citrix and it works great. But I've needed a laptop solution for some time that would allow me to run Access without being connected to my work network, and the new MacBook Pro will fit the bill nicely.
I may be real dense here having never used a Mac. But with this move, what differentiates a Mac with a standard run-of-the-mill PC ? I was under the impression that Mac OS combined with the hardware is what really makes the Mac kick a$$. Is the hardware just so good that it can mask the deficiencies of Windows ? There can be two possible motives:
(1) Claim superior performance: I really cannot believe that the general public will buy into that. If the difference is not visible to any but the geeks and Mac loyalists, then it wont help sell more Macs. In fact Macs are at a disadvantage due to the higher hardware cost. Adding Windows will make them even more expensive. If I wanted faster performance, the consumer will pay a bit more to get a faster processor and stick with a PC.
(2) Prove to the public that Windows is crappy anyway so you won't ever have to use it: Well then why should the consumer pay the extra money to prove this to himself. I think the Mac buyer already knows this.
All in all, I think this is a very bad move. It removes the exclusivity of Mac hw+sw without offering any real benefits. In addition, those that bought Macs to thumb their noses at Microsoft might rebel. {Disclaimer: I am neither a PC or Mac loyalist so above is my objective take on this}
-
Am I only one who thinks that PP may not be a bad addition ? Yes he really sucked after leaving Buffalo with EM on the other side. But if LE really takes on the #1 role, PP may shine yet again. If he is still out there, vet minimum may be enough to get him. Let camp decide which of the receivers gets canned.
-
hang on there - how does buying the Bills cut his net worth to half ? Net worth is a sum of all assets owned. He would be trading his cash (or debt) for the Bills asset. If done correctly, his net worth would stay same or go up.
-
Thanx for pointing it out - I was not aware of the stadium ownership. In which case, the original point may be correct in that any new owner needs to be able to finance this deal from a combination of his own money and debt. Not having the stadium essentially means that the amount of debt that could be borrowed is less (not technically but for sound financial reasons). Whether the Bills as an organization can be considered a fairly liquid asset, I don't know. Perhaps yes, because we need to make a basic assumption that the Bills will not go away from the NFL. Hence, if the new owner were to get rid of it, he would get a fair amount of his/her money back.
The point of all this rambling is that the new owner must first figure out if the Bills make financial sense, if he/she can do a good job owning and managing it. If the answer is yes, how to finance the deal is a secondary matter. In any M&A, the first question is strategy and second is finance.
-
Couple of things on corporate finance. First of all, taking on debt is not entirely a bad thing as the interest is tax deductible. The problem is how much debt. Start up companies can take on no debt as they have no tangible assets. For the Bills, the stadium can be considered a tangible asset and hence he can take some level of debt (if company goes under, can liquidiate this asset and re-pay the senior holders).
Secondly, interest is one of the items subtracted to get net income so the $36 million number, if true, is fairly healthy. Not sure how much debt RW has taken on, if any.
-
That practice can work both ways - NC knows how EM plays too so it will come down to whoever is the better player (duh !). My personal thought is that if we get a good DT next to Triplett, our LBs will bring enough pressure that Carr won't have time to throw well. The EM-NC match up may well become a non-contest.
This administration IS insane.
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
To get this thread back on topic.
The threat of using nuclear weapons is okay if it is only a threat (deterrent). But the administration has a penchant for following through with its threats (Iraq). First of all, I do not subscribe to the theory that if you think differently than me, you are wrong and I am going to punish you for that. What makes Iran's thinking irrational ? Just because we think so ? If I see someone walking on the street with his hands in his pockets, should I shoot him because he may have a gun and he may point it at me and then use it ? This is a plainly ridiculous way to interpret pre-emption.
Secondly, if we use nuclear weapons, how stupid would we be to point the finger at someone else and say they are not ratonal enough to not push the nuclear button ? We would be the ultimate irresponsible party for using nuclear power to enforce what we believe is right.
Lastly, right now would be the perfect time for Iran to attack the US, using our administration's logic. Think about it, we invaded Iraq because we believed they had WMDs and though they would use them against us. Aren't we the equivalent of Iraq and Iran is the US ?
This entire situation makes me mad to the point of pulling my own hair out. When will this ultra-conservative agenda stop ? Anger only breeds further anger.