techboy

Members
  • Content count

    425
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About techboy

  • Rank
    The Rookie
  • Birthday 11/14/1973

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • Redskins Fan Since
    Birth
  • Favorite Redskin
    Mark Murphy
  • Location
    Lorton, VA
  • Interests
    Biblical History, Finance, Travel
  • Occupation
    Teacher

Recent Profile Visitors

750 profile views
  1. Trump impression, but no exclamation points. Sad!
  2. That's actually a real disorder. It's called Capgras Delusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capgras_delusion You do know that it's fairly easy to spoof a phone number, right?
  3. I'd vote for tic tac toe chicken over any of the options on the ballot in 2016. Probably should have written him in.
  4. No, this IS "typical" negotiating. It's just that reports are that the Redskins are offering Cousins much less than he could get by not signing. Cousins and his agent know they can get 24 million this year guaranteed without doing anything. Signing for less than that would be idiotic. They also know that if they don't sign a long term deal this year, the great likelihood is that they'll get a huge deal next year, either as a pure free agent or on the transition tag. There is some risk of regression in play this year, but that won't affect him too much because teams are quarterback starved and likely to overlook a lot of that especially given the changes in staff. The only real risk would be a career threatening injury. That provides some incentive to take a long term deal now, but Cousins is frugal and could easily live the rest of his life on what he's already made, so it's a risk he can self-insure. It really doesn't make sense for them to accept less than something very close to the guaranteed tag this year and the huge deal they'd get next year, because the risks of not having a long term deal are small and not that catastrophic, removing the main reason people take less... the security. Negotiations don't require meeting in the middle if one side's offer doesn't reflect reality... Otherwise the team would offer veteran minimum and say "Okay... let's meet in the middle at 15 mil per year." Or Cousins would ask for 60 mil per year fully guaranteed. I think it's also important to remember that Cousins has causes he cares deeply about and is financially savvy enough to understand the impact that kind of money can have on them. I have no doubt that he will refuse a "team friendly" deal not because he's personally "greedy", but because he'd be reducing his ability to support International Justice Mission and other things he cares about.
  5. I just want everyone to know that as a teacher I am very disappointed that I will probably not be able to go to work tomorrow. My greatest joy is shaping young minds, and missing out on that is terrible. Sitting in the kitchen with my wife lingering over a second cappuccino watching the snow fall just doesn't have the same appeal. I sure hope it's only one day, and not two or more. The students must learn!
  6. It is correct that the name derived from wind direction, not location. Just for clarity though, the winds blow FROM the Northeast, not towards it. Northeasterly winds actually blow Southwest. It's another holdover from REALLY old school tech... They used the direction weather vanes would point, which of course is the opposite of the direction it's actually blowing. In the case of Nor'easters, the cyclone effect means the strongest winds end up coming from the Northeast.
  7. FAKE NEWS reporter Dan T. of failed Extremeskins.com won't cover Crooked Hillary petitions. Very dishonest!
  8. Anyone remember when we had a Republican president who was a highly decorated aviator in World War II, former director of the CIA, and graduate of Yale, and the biggest complaint people had about him was he didn't know the price of milk at a grocery store and agreed to raise taxes after he said he wouldn't because the situation changed?
  9. McConnell is a moron. How does he not realize this is going to trigger a Streisand effect?
  10. I don't know that it was a con... I suspect anyone paying attention knew it was dirty pool. I think twa knows it's dirty pool, and is just yanking your chains, as he always does, and yet you guys continue to let him do it. I think they just (correctly, as it turns out) assumed that: -Democrats would be outraged, but they weren't going to vote Republican anyway. No loss of votes there. -Republicans might be outraged (if they have a conscience), but they probably aren't going to vote for a Democrat because of just that, and it probably energizes the base that wants to get another Scalia type on the Court. -People who don't normally vote one way or the other probably don't have strong enough convictions on Court nominations that they'd change their vote over it. The problem is that there was no way to punish the Republicans short of voting for a Democrat, which is going Nuclear for Republicans, and already happening for Democrats. The only thing it can do is add to the "Republicans suck" file which might eventually add up enough to swing things.
  11. I have a better question... Why didn't it include the Irish?
  12. I do it, though not recently (haven't had to). In a lot of ways, the glory days are over. There was a time you could literally apply for the same card over and over and over, collecting a bonus and cancelling it, rinse and repeat. The Citi AA card was especially famous for this, though I never got super aggressive. Some people were getting 3 cards every two months, though, at 20k miles a pop. Now it's a lot harder... Amex has implemented a once in a lifetime rule for each card. Chase has something similar, though if you wait long enough you can get a bonus again. Chase also has the 5/24 rule now where if you've gotten 5 new cards (including authorized users) in 24 months, it's an auto rejection. It used to be if a bonus appealed, the best idea was to go for it. Now it's much better to wait for the biggest offers, like the sapphire one, which can be worth a heck of a lot more if used right, because those 100,000 points can be transferred into miles or hotel points that can be valued a lot higher than $1000 with the right usage patterns. But, it's worked for us. My wife and I have travelled to Europe two, sometimes three times a year, in business class, for like fifteen years, and haven't paid more than taxes and fees for a ticket (plus time to monitor and learn the system, of course, which isn't insubstantial). It's allowed us to live that one part of our lives well above our means. It's actually pretty funny to me... we go from sipping champagne and eating celebrity chef designed menus in business class to riding a city bus to our pension. The absolute best part, though, is how much it annoys zoony that I can snag award tickets which he thinks should go to actual fliers. Pfffft.* Churning is like credit card use X100, though... You have to be REALLY on top of things to avoid losing out on the deal. It's certainly not for everyone. *In reality, the money airlines make selling miles to credit card companies has kept several of them afloat (or in the case of United, for example, literally getting them out of bankruptcy), so his rage is misplaced, and there's nothing to feel bad about anyway. *EDIT TO ADD* The upshot, though, is that "churning" is mostly dead, because that refers to the process I mentioned of applying for the same bonus and card over and over. There are still some ways to do it, especially with some minor card compaines, but the biggest most lucrative ones (which were Chase and Amex) have shut a lot of that down, and since the best bonuses tend to come from Chase, and they don't want to see more than four new cards every two years anyway, it's probably a bad idea even if it can be done.
  13. Not only is that wrong if you read the article I linked Assange has gone so far as to criticize the leaks of other groups when they make Putin look bad (the Panama papers which exposed many of Putins cronies).
  14. I think the much more likely explanation is that Assange is either wittingly or willfully blind to the fact that he is a tool of Putin. It suited Putin to weaken Clinton during the election (probably expecting Clinton to win, I don't think anyone expected Trump to win including his own team). Now that Trump has won, it suits Putin to weaken Trump. http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/6/14179240/wikileaks-russia-ties does a pretty good job of demonstrating the close ties between wikileaks and Russia going back to 2010 or so. I also think that it's likely that Putin is intentionally destabilizing Syria in order to put pressure on the EU through the immigration crisis and cause chaos there too, though I'll admit that I haven't read any other analysis making the case... it's just a personal theory. Putin strikes me as the evil genius type.