Jake

While I agree that the Holo UI needs replaced, it was far superior of pre-iOS7. It was the most up-to-date UI on the market until September 2013. And I think HTC Sense 5/6 looks great, FWIW

Abreu alone makes it all worth it

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 06:57 PM) Me either? I think Microsoft made a LOT of horrible decisions under Bamler, but purposefully trying to get people to stop using their products wasn't one of them. I believe Microsoft is in much better hands now. Aside from that, Android L *finally* looks like an OS I can take seriously, and no, I couldn't take previous versions seriously, as I personally believe they had horrendous UIs (and apparently Google agreed with me hence the change). I think the Holo UI, but it now looks well over 2 years old. It was time for a change and I was very hopeful that they would do a UI-focused update like they did. Apple has proven that design isn't some silly thing for the non-techie. QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 27, 2014 -> 09:11 AM) Their largest pieces of software used by most people is office, they are trying to take that to their hosted service instead of actually selling it on the desktop. They are selling more dumb computers or tablets which eliminates the full windows license. They are trying to get people away from on prem Active Directory by moving them to Azure. Essentially trying to have everyone use their service which directly competes with what Google does. I think the subscription model is a good move, if that's what you're talking about. Takes away the sticker shock - does anyone want to pay at least $120 for an office suite, outside of the people who would also be willing to pay much more? Right now, the $6.99/mo. personal subscription is worth it for the 1TB OneDrive storage alone - you couldn't get 1TB cheaper anywhere else. They're trying to maintain their market dominance of office programs by offering something (holy hell a lot of storage) that would lure people in regardless of whether they're sold on needing the Office suite. You probably know more about OnPrem vs Azure, but it seems like it's going to be making less and less sense for people to manage their own data centers. Whether Azure can out-Google Google is another thing, but if nobody is going to want OnPrem they may as well prepare. Much like how Google is trying to do office, even though they aren't nearly as good at it as MS. What I like about the direction of Windows is that they are going to be prepared for a world in which many fewer people are interested in a desktop or even laptop. They've now been building both software and hardware for hybrid-ish devices for a couple years and there's still not anybody doing this in earnest. Meanwhile, the Internet is being accessed more by mobile devices than laptops/desktops and that trend has not yet begun to slow down. If people are going to abandon the traditional "pretty big device with a hinge" or "computer on a desk" style of computing, MS is pretty far ahead of anyone else at offering an OS or form factor that might satisfy the needs of both portability/touch/small screen and hardware power/useful software/serious productivity. The thing the market hasn't yet decided is where they stand on phones/tablets/laptops. The phones are getting larger, the tablets are getting smaller, the laptops are getting smaller, the desktop screens are getting larger. Will we be wanting big-ish (9 to 11 inch) tablet/PC hybrids for everyday browsing and today-sized phones (5 inch)? Tablet-sized phones (6 to 8 inch) and laptops (13 to 15 inch)? Big phones and desktops? I doubt the mass market will continue wanting to purchase three different things, at least with any frequency. Right now, I think people are buying computers infrequently and phones/tablets frequently. We'll see if that's what people continue to do as their laptops age. QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 27, 2014 -> 12:26 PM) I did not particularly like later versions of Android despite being smoother/better than early versions. Android has always been lacking in uniformity and slickness, some of which was caused by 3rd parties such as Samsung or HTC re-skinning Android, and some of it was because Google was just all over the place on the design front, where programs often had settings in different locations, and it's overall feeling of lack of optimization. To be sure, there was nothing 'wrong' with later versions of Android, but to me, it was like using Windows. It worked, it did what it was supposed to do ... but it just wasn't very ... good, and if you wanted to make it good, it took a lot of customization and digging around. Ten years ago I would have been all over Android because of that ability to customize it into exactly what I wanted...I used to hack and tinker with everything, and it was great because it taught me the in's and out's of a device/operating system, and at that point in my life that was important to me. Even now I get the bug once in a while, but it fades quickly, and I just want whatever I'm using to work without hassle...and after a few days of making iOS or Android look unique, it gets old and I fall back to the, "Jesus, could you please just work when I try to do X, Y or Z, instead of me having to figure stuff out?" Android L, however, looks like it's approaching the uniform/optimized/fluid state I expect out of modern hardware/operating systems. After being on Android for a while now, when I use an iPhone for something my first thought is CAN I do x? Then, of course, given that I have hardly used iOS 7, I find it "non-intuitive" because I'm unfamiliar. I put that in quotes because it's easy to do all of the main functions on all of these mobile OSes, it's just a matter of whether it takes you 2 seconds because you know exactly where it is or 30 seconds because you looked through everything. One of my main beefs with iOS, and it continues to be with iOS 8 it looks like, is the launcher. Launchers on Android are often a way to customize the look of things (which I like to do sometimes), but it is also a way for me to set up specific workflows. I like having a search bar widget, a weather widget, and an agenda widget and just a few frequently used apps. Then on the next screen a few other things - a rotating Feedly headlines widget along with some of my news/sports apps. The rest? Out of sight in the app drawer. Notifications are probably my next highest priority - I think iOS 7 was a big improvement in this regard, but I honestly don't recall the details. Speaking of Apple and notifications, the notifications menu interested in Mavericks is just awesome. I'd be hardcore committed to Windows forever if they would implement that. Until then, I'm considering going MacBook Air for my upcoming computer purchase. Also thinking about Surface Pro 3 (really).

Jeff Goodman - Bulls are tonight's big winner

Eaton in June - .326/.402/.483 11.9% BB%, 16.9% K% 143 wRC+ This is a lot like how he looked in the minor leagues. I hope it sticks and I hope all he had today is a cramp. Please, someone tell him to quit stretching for first base.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 11:12 PM) I agree with a lot of this but Iguodala has been a clearly superior player to Deng and Gordon and he went after both. You should really look at the numbers. Iguodala always seemed more promising talent-wise but he took a while to come around and even at his peak there's not an easy argument to be made that he was better than Deng. Iguodala hasn't averaged over 14 points since 2009 and I won't take easily to an argument that he's a superior defender to Deng (I could go with a wash, they are about as different as two different elite defenders at the same position could be). He's had a bit more staying power than Gordon, who fell off pretty quickly after being one of the more explosive scorers around in a time where the league wasn't scoring much. Hard to argue that he's been better than Iguodala, but given that I'd prefer Deng at SF during that time period it's not such a bad thing that we went with a true guard there. There are shades of gray and context-dependent things so it's valid that you brought up Iggy

Paxson's first draft was 2003. 2003 - Hinrich. No good today, but he was a really nice player for a long time. There wasn't anybody obviously better that went later. Good pick. 2004 - Gordon at 3 and Deng at 7. The only player I could have really criticized them for passing up on by taking Gordon at 3 was Deng, who they got at 7. Duhon in 2nd round was a rare contributor from that part of the draft. Great job here, considering the only great player in the draft went 1 overall. These guys and Hinrich turned the franchise around. 2005 - No first rounder, traded this first rounder for Luol Deng. Brilliant deal as we were picking 21st in 2005. 2006 - The big whiff: Tyrus Thomas. Made worse by the fact that we got essentially nothing in return for moving down two slots because Viktor Khryapa never had any real semblance of value. This is a big, big mistake. Moved from 16 to 13 to grab Thabo Sefolosha, which was a good enough move. Nice player and later spun him off for another mid-first pick. 2007 - Joakim Noah at 9. Arguably the second best player from this draft, more conservatively 3rd (making Al Horford better). Both those players were selected earlier. We got this pick by trading Eddy Curry and Antonio Davis to NY, getting Mike Sweetney, Tim Thomas, Jermaine Jackson, the Thabo Sefolosha pick the year before, and an option to swap picks with NY (we did - moved from 23 to 9). Great deal, great pick. 2008 - Derrick Rose. If you complain about this one, you're just being a dick. The only other players you'd want from this draft are Westbrook, Love, and Brook Lopez. Westbrook would be the most defensible pick there in hindsight, but indefensible at the time and this is not to mention the time it took for Westbrook to remotely compare to Rose. We also took Omer Asik at 36, a pretty excellent 2nd round choice. 2009 - James Johnson at 16 and Taj Gibson at 26. Johnson qualifies as a miss, but the fact that we traded him for a first rounder is noteworthy. Jrue Holliday, Ty Lawson, Jeff Teague and Taj Gibson are the main players to fret about not getting at 16. Gibson is an awesome selection at 26. Not wanting a PG at 16 is rather forgivable as well. 2010 - No picks. Our 17th pick, which was used on a foreigner that hasn't come over, was traded for another foreigner that hasn't come over, and we traded that guy with Kirk Hinrich to Washington. These are the hazards of going for the big name players. With that said, there really isn't a player worth a s*** taken at or after 17. Lance Stephenson in the middle of the second is the next best guy after Paul George at 10. 2011 - Jimmy Butler at 30: great pick. We traded our 28th pick for Nikola Mirotic. Jury's out on him, but the very fact that Chad Ford says he'd be a top 6 pick in today's draft makes that sound like a pretty good deal and a wash at worst. 2012 - Marquis Teague at 29. I won't call it a "whiff" given the expectations for a 29th pick, but no positive points here. Best players we missed (that we know of so far) are Draymond Green at 35 and Khris Middleton at 44. 2013 - Tony Snell at 20. I don't want to make too many proclamations about this given how little sample we have for him or anyone else, but I don't yet feel too bad about anyone else that got by. To Tony's credit, he has at least not yet ruled out the possibility of him becoming a decent rotation player. He could go either way IMO. It's a pretty good run IMO. Given the overall success rate of first round draft picks, we've done pretty damn well. One big miss, but several big hits and we didn't f*** up our biggest opportunity when we picked first overall. You can say what you want about it being obvious in 2008, but if you let 30 teams draft there you wouldn't have had 30 Derrick Roses. Countless examples of #1 overall picks being pretty much s***ty ballplayers or paling in comparison to players taken later.

Of players under Bulls control, there are some nice floor spacers: -McBuckets -Dunleavy -Mirotic -Snell Guys we had around last year and wouldn't be that hard to get back: -Augustin -Fredette And I think Jimmy will end up being an asset in that regard as he gets better and pares down his shot amount with the team around him improving. I don't think it would be too difficult to bring in some other shooters on the cheap as well. Disappointed to see some of the good shooting wings off the board early in the second, though

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 10:13 PM) What leverage does Toronto have? Lowry is a FA. This is a S&T, not a normal trade. Edit: Sorry, i looked like an ass with my initial response. If that's the going rate, I'd take him on the Bulls. Seriously.

On a side note, I'm really excited to see what we get from Mirotic

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 09:56 PM) Ric Bucher ‏@RicBucher now Now hearing that Norris Cole would also be part of the Lowry-to-Miami deal. Norris Cole and late first rounders at best for Lowry? That's an awful deal

The real questions are what lie ahead once FA kicks off. I can't figure out Anthony Randolph at all. A lot of ability, has wowed a few times in the NBA, but never any playing time outside of spot starts. Also, I'd love any of Cleanthony Early/GR3/Joe Harris

Why in the world would Toronto do that just on the hope of getting an inferior player in Bosh back

Good lord is our political process f***ed up

I'm not a huge fan of Shabazz, honestly. Seems like the typical undersized guard that goes off in college and is forgotten as a pro

GarPax have been masters of the mid-round and the fact that the good version of McDermott makes perfect sense for this team means I think there's a good chance we get the good version of him.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 07:52 PM) Isnt the cap only an issue if they get Melo or Lebron? They just picked McDermott, not a SG who could play with those guys. Instead of a rookie, well get some average old player. It just doesnt make sense. He is a much more realistic option for 4 than 2. With scorers of Rose and Melo's caliber, there's a ton of value in having a dead-eye shooter on the court to spread the floor

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 03:30 PM) Microsoft's corporate direction is to get software OFF of users devices, starting with rolling everyone off of office. They are playing right into google's hands. I don't know exactly what you mean by that

There's only one stat to look for with Beck - strikeouts. He'll never cut it if he can't increase the strikeouts significantly

Can someone fill me in here - they have almost, but not all, of the emails? Or none? Why can't they get the emails from the recipients? How do they know which ones are missing? Can the NSA help?

I got a chuckle out of the notion that the government would hold Goldman Sachs's feet to the fire over something

Here's what I'll say about Embiid - I think there's a disturbingly high bust potential, but I'd still endorse the Bulls giving their left nut to draft him

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 12:46 PM) Reality states he is a 26 year old waiver claim. Let's not confuse him for a top prospect. Hopefully, he does well, but expectations should be low. Reality also states that he's clearly the #6 starter in the system. Given that #5 is Scott Carroll, I'm not a big fan of jerking #6 around so that we can get a lefty out every other night. The last season Surkamp started at full strength, he won the AA pitching triple crown. He now has a better K/BB, K/IP rate in AAA. Nobody said he's Jesus Christ, but there's a good chance we'll need him in our rotation at some point. As someone who has pitched and watched a handful of pitchers have their development sidetracked by bouncing between rotation and bullpen (Santiago), it's just a stupid move IMO. There are more stupid moves to be made, to be sure. Hopefully, likely not a big deal. I still think it's wrong and unnecessary.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 08:49 AM) In what way? Hosted software? Maybe. Microsoft and Google are locked in a cloud software battle that Apple will never participate in since they want to control all aspects of the user experience. But make no mistake, when it comes to personal devices, Apple is still what companies aim for. Yes, I don't think Google is as worried about Apple because Google (I think) is content with a world where Apple has its own corner of the market selling their own devices. Google started out by being the eminent web service, but now sees that intimately intertwined with being the default software provider. Just like it has long been Microsoft unless otherwise specified on PCs, Google sees a convergent mobile-tablet-PC web-software world as one in which they want to be the dominant force. They want people to say about Microsoft and Apple what many people say about Apple now (though not nearly so much as they used to, and for good reason): "I just want all my favorite programs/services/apps to work." If you've pretty much only used Chrome, Gmail, Google Search, Google Drive, Android, etc., suddenly those are the things you can't live without. I'd imagine we may eventually see Google with a fairly "closed" ecosystem, which will be pretty interesting since I see no interest in making hardware. For now, though, Microsoft is on all but 15% of personal computers and that gives them a big advantage. Google wants to snuff out any additional advantages Microsoft could get, such as allowing people to continue using half-baked Google services on Windows Phone or W8 Metro. I'm totally dumbfounded as to how this will all sort out. I think all three companies are doing a fabulous job right now, but Microsoft is clearly the one with the most troubling trajectory. Apple has never gone for total market domination, so their success is a little more difficult to measure...but I think they're doing fine if not better than ever. The low end of their personal computer line is better than it has ever been. They still own the high end of the tablet market and are winning the upper echelon of the US smartphone market. Still, Google seems to be doing best and it sort of scares me. There's got to be a dystopian novel/film/comic where the same company sells everything. The worst part is that it's hard to say that Google is doing anything especially wrong; as far as giant companies go, they don't seem any more evil than anybody else. Perhaps less so. Still, we are entrusting a lot of stuff to them between our personal information and a growing number of services that power our everyday lives. I find myself rooting for Microsoft as the underdog, which is sort of hilarious. They've kind of branded themselves that way of late, too. "Get away from evil Google and Apple! Stick with the little guy, Microsoft!"

If I'm Paxson, I call up Phil Jackson and just start speaking in code. "So, Coach, who do you like in this draft? Oh, Wiggins? Of course. Who are, say, your 15-20th favorite players? Oh, interesting. Wait, wait slow down I'm writing this down."