Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Tablet Advice


Johnny Rockets

Recommended Posts

So my 8 year old daughter wants an I-pad for Christmas but she is 8 so she is not getting one. I would however like to get her a tablet in the $200 range if there is one that is good that would be easy to use and somewhat durable. She uses my iphone constantly downloading apps and watching youtube videos and such. That is really all that I would need the tablet to do, but would like something that if it lasts, she can continue to use as she gets older.

Was thinking about the Nexus 7 but I honestly don't know sh*t about them. What tablet would work similar to what she is using my iphone for and would be the best bang for the buck?

Thanks in advance for the help and the most helpful post will win absolutely nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can get the "old" kindle fire (ie last years model) for less than 200 new, I'm sure less than that used. I have one and it would be fine for an 8 year old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kindle Fire huh? Great....I noticed they have different versions. Is this the one I am looking for?

http://www.ebay.com/...119625854&ps=54

This is on the link Zod provided, might interest you:

Kindle FreeTime - a free, personalized tablet experience just for kids on the new Kindle Fire. Set daily screen limits, and give access to appropriate content for each child

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is on the link Zod provided, might interest you:

Kindle FreeTime - a free, personalized tablet experience just for kids on the new Kindle Fire. Set daily screen limits, and give access to appropriate content for each child

Interesting thanks. Truth be told I probably won't bother restricting anything. If I let her go to public school, free range internet can't be much worse right?

(kidding...I was just about to look up how to limit access)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...