Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Unlucky

Members
  • Content Count

    3,588
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Unlucky

  • Rank
    Phenom
  • Birthday April 3

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    PhenomsFFCommish
  • Website URL
    http://www.phenomsff.com
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    SL, UT

Recent Profile Visitors

8,329 profile views
  1. I'm so sorry to hear of your loss. It was gut wrenching to read this thread. Thank you for sharing your story and your feelings - it's really touching to read, even for someone with no children and has never met you.
  2. At what point do I cut bait on Masterson and/or Bailey? Possible options available: Beckett, De La Rosa, Tomlin, Paxton 12 team, 5x5 roto.
  3. OK, in all seriousness, I am surprised the Pens pulled of this deal and it doesn't seem like they gave up much. Really curious as to what the lines will look like, since the Dupuis-Sid-Kunitz line is really clicking. Iginla bumps Dupuis? Then Morrow-Malkin-Neal, Cooke-Sutter-Dupuis, Bennett-Adams-Kennedy? I like how Beau Bennett has been playing and hate to see him down on the 4th line. But I'm no coach or GM, so whatever. I also like that the two main rentals the Pens picked up are guys that were captains on their teams. Good character guys.
  4. I am so glad I finally found this thread! I'm taking everything out of the stock market and putting it all on the Tennessee Titans +1 tonight.
  5. Is it really hard to imagine that had this kid's mother not had any guns in the house, that perhaps he wouldn't have gone on a shooting spree? I don't buy the "he would have done it anyway" argument in this case. Doesn't seem to be evidence of a thoroughly planned out attack. He just took the guns, shot his mom, then went on a rampage. Is there evidence to the contrary? If this kid grew up in a house with no guns, do we really think it plays out the same? Seems a bit different than the batman movie kid. That kid was going to do damage no matter what.
  6. Totally agree with this. Besides, Penn State already has plenty of fans and alumni in the DC and NY areas. This doesn't help. As conferences move towards 16 teams, isn't that basically just two 8 team conferences that happen to play a title game between them? Football teams would play 1 or maybe 2 cross-over games, and thus basically not be in the same conference.
  7. Can't say their sales are so strong just because the fanboy geeks buy every new version. They sold 20+ Million iPhones in the quarter, even though it had been out for a year. The fanboys already had theirs. Now, everyone is buying them and not just the "loyal base".
  8. I guess it's fair to say that Comcast isn't a monopoly. I'm sure the other options, such as wireless access, will get better in the future. Fiber Optic coverage is nearby my neighborhood, but not in it. If my provider (Comcast) is going to limit speeds of certain sites I visit, how would I really know that? Wouldn't I think that site is running slow today? Maybe I'd be mildly annoyed, but maybe I'd stop going to that site after awhile? I find it hard to say that it's good for the consumer in the long run if network providers are not regulated at all. Shouldn't someone have some regulatory authority over them? I'm not asking for strangling regulations or government to dictate terms, but rather some governing body with authority to enforce rules that promote a fair and competitive marketplace. That's my general take on regulation: rules that ensure a fair and competitive marketplace. Without that, companies will screw consumers and screw each other in order to make money.
  9. Here's the bottom line: I want the FCC to have the authority to regulate the service providers in a way that ensures that the service providers do not block, alter, or purposely slow down connection speeds to any website. I want the FCC to have my back in keeping the internet open and free. If the FCC does not have this authority, then who does? If the answer is nobody, and that I should change service providers if I don't like mine, then I am not OK with that.
  10. Do you think Comcast or other large companies will act in the best interests of the citizens of the United States? I'm not saying they'll screw over the citizens outright, but anytime a company uses monopolistic practices to decrease competition, the consumer loses out.Is Comcast a monopoly?In some ways, yes. If I want reliable, high-speed internet, I have to get Comcast. Yes, I could get DSL or Satellite, but they are either slower or less reliable to an extent that is not OK with me. Comcast owns the cable lines going into my residence. I don't have a fiber-optic network option.That's like saying that Coke is a monopoly because Pepsi and RC Cola taste bad. There are other options, you just don't prefer them.Yes and no. There are other options, but what if those other options don't really work as well and are thus not useful? It's not a question of taste or preference, but a question of performance. Perhaps an analogy that there is only one car dealer, but several moped dealers? If I want a car, I have one choice, but I could still find transportation through the moped dealers.
  11. Do you think Comcast or other large companies will act in the best interests of the citizens of the United States? I'm not saying they'll screw over the citizens outright, but anytime a company uses monopolistic practices to decrease competition, the consumer loses out.Is Comcast a monopoly?In some ways, yes. If I want reliable, high-speed internet, I have to get Comcast. Yes, I could get DSL or Satellite, but they are either slower or less reliable to an extent that is not OK with me. Comcast owns the cable lines going into my residence. I don't have a fiber-optic network option.
  12. Last thing before I go to bed: I'm with Rich Conway in that network providers should be able to charge for bandwidth if they so choose. I don't see it as being all that different from the power company charging you by how much electricity you use. However, it's got to be clearly stated. What I'm not OK with is the network providers altering how web content is delivered based on what site I'm getting it from. As the end user, I should have equal access to all sites and the speeds I'm paying for.
  13. Do you think Comcast or other large companies will act in the best interests of the citizens of the United States? I'm not saying they'll screw over the citizens outright, but anytime a company uses monopolistic practices to decrease competition, the consumer loses out.
  14. There's protection from that now. These companies have not put anything like that into place. If they did, then a consumer can go to a different company for a more competitive rate. If it was found that all the companies were colluding to keep the prices artificially high, there's a thing called the Antitrust Law to prevent companies from doing just that. This FCC powerplay doesn't help anything that isn't already covered under current laws. All it does is set precedent for the FCC to meddle in internet regulation at a later point in time because they already have.Right, I'll just cancel my Comcast broadband internet and get the Other broadband internet company instead. What's that? There isn't another broadband company that provides internet via the cable lines to my place? I can't call someone to install that? Oh, right. I'm sure in some places, people don't have cable lines and rely on satellite. Or DSL. Neither of which are as fast or reliable. In all seriousness, your attitude that companies will do the right thing because they don't want to lose business is a bunch of baloney. Just ask those fellas on Wall Street that Greenspan was sure would regulate themselves without the need for government interference.