OCinBuffalo

Oh awesome... /facepalm

Hmm...since I literally lived that conversion as it happened: first with IBM turning it's mainframe creators/supporters into mainframe de-comissioners...and that working, and then, with 10ks of their people gaining field experience by default, and then, seeing them start being contractors on, and then taking over our(Big 6) projects, to beating out our elite groups, by throwing 10x the number of their people at a proposal, and winning projects as a result(like fighting the Chinese) to finally buying our entire, world-wide consulting firm.... yeah...I'd say I saw some definite "wealth creation" from "services" happen at IBM. Therefore.... WTF is this? IBM turned dudes who worked in cubes in IBM offices...into field people....and they went from being a cost center...to a revenue stream(@ $100-250/hr), practically overnight. So....again...WTF? You sound like the assclowns I worked with later...who told us that our revenue had to be 80% product, 20% services...because "that's what Wall Street wants." But, that was a portal company...which means 80% of what we do, by definition, is integration work....which is services...morons. Or...look at any successful open-source software firm...and what you say above is done. They are giving the product away for free...literally due to the services contracts they will score as a result. Given that...please explain how can those services possibly be "overvalued"? Be sure to include "infrastructure holdings" and "real capital commodity" as well. The above....is exactly how Wall Street destroyed so many good business models in the 90s...by trying to force them into a box they didn't belong in....because they couldn't understand that there was more than one box. That and they were too lazy to come up with measuring tools that weren't based solely on Microsoft. I mean, it's not like Oracle didn't start making more money from services, than product, in 199 F'ing 7. But yeah...Wall Street is so much smarter than everbody else....ahem, after doing what they did with us, then went on and spread their genius to banking and real estate.

Because FOX/The internet/Radio/etc has already won this war. (Shhh...don't tell anybody. ) Simple proof: FOX, Rush, etc. are well-established, getting ratings, and often beating the "old" media. If the liberal media wasn't so easily exposed as being biased, they wouldn't have lost market share so easily. Hence, it's over. But, that is also the right's very best kept secret. That's because exposing the liberal media's hacks sells. In fact, I doubt you could find a right-leaning media outlet that doesn't derive 20-30% of their show from this, per week. OTOH, the liberal media(because calling MSNBC "mainstream" is now a ridiculous misnomer), keeps hacking away, and feeding the Limbaughs, by doing things like calling Ryan "bad for suburban women voters"...as if that's not wishful "reporting". It's as I said before: either they are woefully moronic, and incapable of learning from their mistakes...or...they want the right to draw attention to them, because the "war" means $$$. We can't know what's really in their minds, but clearly, after not learning from the Dan Rather, then Chris "Tingle" hilarity? What other conclusions are reasonable? Are they just delusional: do they think they are being "noble" or "courageous" when they get caught reading directly from a Democrat talking points memo on air? Nobody knows where this is all leading. Anybody who says they do is selling something...probably their media platform. As we've seen, with both Dan Rather being busted by the internet(all good), and, with bloggers/amateurs replacing real reporters(mostly bad), it's chaotic. It will be years before it settles down, if it ever truly does. Much depends on how the print media responds to the fact that their format = a buggy whip. One thing has become painfully clear: many that have put out their meaningless activites, poorly considered thoughts, and pictures of their peepees....have paid a serious price. Good. They learned the hard way that the interent is not their personal vehicle for their vanities, delusions, and idiocy. In fact, I know(internet only) some guys who spend way too much of their free time going out of their way to teach them that lesson. Who's the bigger tool? Who can say?. But, I do know that these guys want nothing more than to be the next guy that busts a Dan Rather.

Too bad for you: it's been exhaustively documented that the TEA party on average is: 1. more successful 2. more educated 3. more intelligent than both the OWS clowns....and Democrats in general, on average. So...if the TEA party people are morons....what does that make OWS/Democrats? (There goes another one...and typical? There's no such thing as a "typical" TEA party member, short of the above, accurate charateristics) The lame mischaraterizations of the TEA party, in order: first it was racist, then it was violent, then it was dead, then it was irrelevant, and now...they are only stupid? So, basically you(MSNBC) shoot high, and progressively aim lower as each false characterization doesn't work out? Pathetic. What's next below stupid? Mean? Oh, don't tell me, I know: anti-gay, right? Or is it: selfish? Given this history...how can anyone take what you have to say about the TEA party seriously? Honestly? It's exactly as LA said...you, and apparently the Big Cat, are feeling it starting to "slip"..aren't you? (See: lashing out). Obama's lies and obvious incompetence are way worse for you...than however you feel Bush "victimized" you, aren't they? However, even if you can't see that yet....rest assurred, the TEA party will help you get there, regardless of who wins the election. I'll be here too...helping you to learn not to be suckered so easily.

First the examples of experimentation I have seen thus far. Defense: 1. In the first game, they clearly kept in their base d, even when 3 Wr/TE were brought into the game, on an obvious passing down(3rd +9). Then, later, when it became clear that the Skins were practicing their running...they brought in the pass D? This "run the opposite D" approach was too obvious to not be intentional. The "great play" of RG3 was throwing to a TE...who ran away from Morrsion on that 3rd +9. Please. If that's a real game, Morrison is on the bench, and Scott is covering that TE = no dice, since Morrison almost got it done. 2. In the second game, they did this: http://blogs.buffalo...e-play-callers/ Offense: 1. The 1st game. Obvious. 2. 2nd game: we come out and tell the other team "we are going to run"...and basically challenge them to stop it. This was designed to see who can outplay the other guy 1v1 in the run game, period. Scott Chandler was exposed in a couple bad blocks via this method, but he wasn't the only one. Given this: 1. are you comfortable with the amount of experimentation? 2. are the Bills not good enough to be doing this, or should they be trying to get better at what they ARE gonna do, and save the experiments for the preseason of the year AFTER we've made the playoffs? 3. do you believe that "experimentation" is BS, and it's merely excuses for bad play from the starters? Finally, my conclusion is: they must believe that this team is pretty darn good...if they think they can afford to do this much mucking about. Now, either the team is really good, and of course they can...or....they are fooling themselves.

Exactly. That's what I thought. It would have been a hilarious bit.

I am so tired of the "but if we give them amnesty, all of them can vote, and they will all vote Democrat, and we will lose elections" GOP political argument. The worst part is that this argument is wrong on it's face: "latinos", or any other immigrant group, by definition as an immigrant group, are more conservative than anybody seems to get. There is no auto-win for the left in adding these people. Think about it: they have risked life and limb, and their family's life and limb to improve their station in life. Does that sound like a "gimme" person to you? NO. The gimme people in that country...are still sitting in their own schit. The people who endure hell to get here are hardly the "please make me dependent on the government" types, aren't they? IF they wanted to be poor/underpaid for their skills/dependent on the govt...they could do that at home, couldn't they? That's why we shouldn't have a "guest worker" program. If they want to come here...then make them kick in, be a citizen, and not just take their money, go back home, and be "rich".. If I was Romney or Ryan, I'd go to New Mexico...and ask one question, first in Englsih, then in Spanish: "Did you come here to be poor? Seriously. Is that why you are here? I didn't think so. Did you come here to get stuff from the government, or to make a better life for your family, be proud of what you accomplish, and pass that on to your kids? It's the second one, isn't it? We represent why you came here, and they represent why you should have stayed home." Think about it again: if the situation was reversed....and we were faced with guaranteed poverty and/or reliance on the government...would you stay here? Would you want your kids to be raised in that? To a lesser degree, we already have your answer: why do most of you live someplace besides NYS?

Dude...this? This reminds me of the frog that pees on the snake frozen in ice. The snake then eats him, and as he is going down wants to know why, since he freed the snake. Snake says: "I'm a snake". Better to not pee on TMZ, and just leave them frozen in the ice. There's a giant dfference between relevance...and celebrity. The latter is wholly dependent on the whims of the irrelevant, while the former can only come from the individual, and therefore can't be taken away by anyone's whims. Therefore, I'd rather be relevant. Now...is Paul Ryan relevant...or is he a celebrity?

You're both being silly. GG is too wrapped up in his usual affrontery ...to unsderstand that Tasker is merely suggesting(I think) that we take a cost accountant's approach to the budget, every time, and in real time. That doesn't preclude keeping spending on pace with revenue, but it does preclude idiocy like Solyndra. Tasker is stuck at the 10 ft level, unwilling, or unable to elvate his thinking and see the 10k ft points GG is making. The reality is that the government does demand things, a lot of things, and that demand...is demand. The moronic? The positions that Indignant and Butthurt( ) have taken here are not mutually exclusive. Quite the opposite: the only way to ensure that we are "having government spending be within a 3% range of the realistic 19%-20% tax revenue take"(GG) IS to "debate" each item "on it's owns merits and it's cost benefit"(Tasker). Otherwise, we don't know that the hell we are spending, or why, this year. More importantly, Federal budget items are rarely one year thing; they tend to extend multiple years. So, if we don't proceed as Tasker suggests, good luck meeting GG's 3% range...next year. Right? Consider: if we have 20 new multiple-year items, how are we supposed to "guarantee a 3% range"(GG) next year....if we aren't looking at each one..."on it's own mertis and (ongoing) cost benefit"(Tasker) in real time?. Tasker's problem: What happens if all of them are meritorious( )...GG's problem: but continuing all of them means not "guaranteeing a 3% range" and running a deficit? GG's business rule says we must cut away the least of them to maintain the 3% thing(absolutist?) If that holds, then we have to KNOW which ones are better than others(Tasker) in real time. However, Tasker's false assumption is that there will always be clearly cut "bad" programs for him to easily cut(10 ft lvl thinking). What happens if that isn't the case/crisis, etc.? And, how do we replace the lost demand? Remember...from above? GG's rule means we have to have replacement, meritorious programs at the ready....to meet 3%. The false assumption for GG is that all spending = good spending, if it gets us to the 3% range. That requires that we look at Solyndra...and say "good". (I don't think this is what GG is advocating, but he hasn't done much in this thread to say otherwise. All this because of Krugman, GG? Why do you give him that power? ) If the goal is to maintain a 3% range, both this year, and next., then we must be a lot wiser than we are in terms of what is funded. That's because both GG and Tasker combined creates a set of constrainsts that demand that we are able to shut down any of these programs, and/or add new ones, without doing too much damage, at any time...in order to maintain both the 3% and the "merit". So, it's as I said: you're both being silly, or...narcissists ...and I sound like the Sicilian in "The Princess Bride".

Again, is the Army an agressive combat command....or a jobs/jobs training program? Nobody wants to answer that question. Reality, with an all-volunteer force is you have to attract volunteers. You have to recruit and retain soldiers, and officers too, by giving them skills that they can use in the real world. You also have to provide services, at least at a somewhat comparable level, and in some cases better, to what they would get as a civillian, otherwise...not enough will sign up, and even fewer will stay singed up. If we want the volunteer force we have, and we want that force to be elite...when compared to the rest of the world, with elite literally meaning: one of our brigades can destroy 2 of their divisions, we have to pay for it. You can't look at all of this...and ignore all of the dependencies and assumptions that are built into it, like the requirement that our smaller units are able to wipe out their much larger ones, no draft, etc., and just talk money. But who knows? Perhaps Joe six pack would have been more comfortable being drafted into the infantry(that's where he'd be, given his posts), and being Private Joe Six Pack who cleans latrines, and does push-ups, until I order otherwise, rather than spending the $? After all, that was the reality before the "Army of Reagan".

My sig says it all: Why should I support a candidate, or a party, who's experssed interest is F'ing me over? Telling me to pay for things now, that I KNOW won't be around later, and trying to call me evil....because I correctly identify them as completely full of schit? F them. They have 0 credibility. They are the party of yesterday, because I haven't heard a single truly new idea from them in years, just more boilerplate they ripped out of a 30 year-old 3-ring binder.

Oh I don't know....perhaps because liberals NEVER talk in terms of threats...and only in terms of money.... ...until % of GDP numbers prove that we are spending less on defense over time, and not per their myths. On a seprate note...given that defense spending has consistently decreased as a % of GDP.....just imagine what else must have been added...or has increased...since 1965....to the extent that we have the debt we have.

yeah....I heard a Rex Ryan press conference clip....and it was literally a repeat of the last one I heard "Well, you have to prepare for the Wildcat. We may run it once we may run it 50 times. Either way...you have to prepare for it" Rex sounds like a certain political campaign: we've got nothing, and we've done nothing to make things better...but we are going to try and repeat some minor thing about what the other guy's problems are, over and over, and hope that sooner or later it sticks, as both important and factual. The chief issue on the 9th remains: Wayne Hunter RT vs. Mario Williams LDE Even if they run the Wildcat every down...they still have major problems against our front 7. The key to the game right now? Can our offense score TDs early? If we can, we take away their "ground and pound" game and force them to throw...which means we win. That's no big secret. It's straightforward. Everybody should already know that. Now we just have to go do it.

Yeah...you can take that, and "Obama is in Iowa for an unprecedented 3 day trip to discuss energy policy" and file both under nobody gives a F. It's doubtful anybody ever did give F...but now? There can be no doubt. Ryan's ability....and Biden's stupidity....have erased the board and those stories are all there is. Yeah...what LA said. Did you know MItt Romney is a Mormon?

♫ "No reply...there's no reply at all" ♫ Edit....wtf...one day ascii works and the next it doesn't? Well ....☻

http://www.washingto...940a0_blog.html "Next Frontier"? That's an interesting choice of words.....is that like the old Libyan "Line of Death"? (Edit For Rookies: a line on a map across the Gulf of Sidra...that they kept drawing closer and closer to shore...as our Navy moved closer and closer. It was a great source of humor for us in the 80s). Need Schumer to pass around a memo trying to tell them what to try next. This part is hysterical: Straw grasping. "but...but...but...you numbers don't add up"... Yeah, as if politicians numbers ever add up, there Chuck. Hey, I don't blame Chuck for trying to help out the team...but this? This is a pathetic..."schit...we don't have a plan B, so let's just do this" attempt...that won't work either. Why? Because it's all about Ryan, and none about Obama. Where is Charles's "here's why Obama's plan is better"? Simple: because Obama doesn't have a plan...and honestly...even if he did...would it be demonstrably better, and still be an accountable, comprehensive and reasonable solution directed towards our imminent problems? Or...would it be more spending, regulation and taxes, pretending the problems don't exist?

See? that's why I thought you were F'ing with me...that's the joke I thought you were going for. That's funny...but...I've heard it before. I had a wiseass girlfriend once....once.

Yeah right....I'm the one guy in America...who does...and now I'm ruining that.

Dude ...the point is: you write the number down, when they are talking smack...now....NOT on the field...so that you remember it....later, when you are...in this case....on OCT 11. I thought you were just F'ing with me earlier...but you really didn't understand, did you? When I asked for numbers...it was because I was being bothered oFF the field, at the mall or whatever. I get the number now then I educate them later, ON the field. You...are a writer...not...a reader.

Yeah....does anybody remember that Obama is in Iowa for three days...to talk about energy policy? Ethanol, etc.? Nope. Thanks Joe. I mean, it's not like Obama's agenda was that compelling anyway...and is wiped out in a single word: Solyndra, but still.

Yes...Duck_Dodgers....don't worry he's on my list. So far...it's 1. Tgreg 2. Duck Dodgers It's going to be a fun night on Oct 11.......

Yeah..the paper that just got done putting a 6 point bias into it's poll that it DOES WITH QUINIPIAC....is the answer. What a wonder...that they would promote polls that they did...over a competitor's. Here's the latest NYT from FL/OH/PA: http://www.nytimes.c...s-cbs-poll.html There's a 6 point registerd Democrat bias in all 3: (EDIT for the lazy: Page 8, last question) FL 36R 42D OH 35R 42D PA 40R 46D Now....WTF is that? At least 6% more registered Democrats, representing 6% of the total people sampled, were used? In ALL 3 states? (EDIT for the uneducated/willfully ignorant: putting 46% registered Democrats into poll like this GUARANTEES a bias. At most...40% is about the most you can put into something like this..and pray that you come away without a bias....that's what those of us who use statistcal software and do Business Intelligence do...because we are paid to get it right...and not massage the F'ing raw data) Meanwhile: 2000 Progressive Review conducted a review of polling accuracy in the 2000 presidential primaries. The review ranked Rasmussen Research number one in accuracy.[34] 2004 In the 2004 presidential election, "Rasmussen...beat most of their human competitors in the battleground states, often by large margins," according to Slate magazine.[37] Rasmussen projected the 2004 presidential results within one percentage point of the actual vote totals earned by both George W. Bush and John Kerry.[38] In 2004, Slate said they “publicly doubted and privately derided Rasmussen” polls because of the methodology. However, after the election, they concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were the most accurate.[37] 2008 According to Politico, "Rasmussen’s final poll of the 2008 general election — showing Obama defeating Arizona Sen. John McCain 52 percent to 46 percent — closely mirrored the election’s outcome."[39] In reference to the 2008 presidential election, a Talking Points Memo article said, "Rasmussen's final polls had Obama ahead 52%-46%, which was nearly identical to Obama's final margin of 53%-46%, and made him one of the most accurate pollsters out there."[40] Ahem... Willful ignorance...birdog.....willful ignorance.... EDIT for the wiseass: Yeah...pasted in Wiki...because it's the fastest way to get all those links...that all work, try em....into this post. Slate magazine is the best: "union rag admits FAIL".

So...are you saying that anybody who doesn't get the first meaning: Wall Street unchained means you in chains is just as much of an idiot as those who don't get the second meaning: Romney/Ryan want to put you black people back in chains(I assume figuratively, as literally is probably too idiotic...even for Joe)?

Once again...willfull ignorance of the material being discussed....makes you wrong....and me

The only thing that is "worth noting" is the fact that Rasmussen uses proper statistial methodology, and others do not. As I've said....the only way I will believe that Romney loses Florida, for example, is if you show me a non-Rassmussen poll that has Obama up by 10 pts. If the poll says 9 points..it's a tie. Here's how: 2-3 pts of undecideds will move to Romney. That's because that's what they always do, in every election since 1950, except 1. Bush in 2004, but that was due to the war. So, any poll that doesn't show more than 4 pts of undecideds or has more than 40% RV Democrats, like we keep seeing? Auto-adjust it 2-3 pts for undecideds moving to Romney. 6 pts of Democrat bias in sample as I said above. It's ridiculous. You put more than 45% Democrats into a poll and wonder what you will get? 3+6=9. Thus show me a poll that has Obama up by 10...or doesn't have these flaws...and I will listen. Until then...yeah...a poll that shows a tie...may actually be showing us a 6 point Romney victory. The polls are flawed, while Rassmusen has a record since 2000 of being the most accurate compared to the final vote. If he says Obama down by 2...then he's down by 2. Deal with it. For my own part...Obama being down by 2, at this point in the election? Yeah...a 10 point loss is not likely...but a 6 point loss is more than possible.