prev <-> next
[2010-04-13 12:43:20] - Paul: Yeah, cell phones are brutal. E-911 makes sense, but it ought to send shivers. -- Xpovos
[2010-04-13 12:35:19] - Probably should've put a smiley face there to indicate that I am at least partially joking. -Paul
[2010-04-13 12:34:54] - Xpovos: I figured I forfeited the right to privacy once I started paying money to carry around a device with me all the time that has a microphone, camera, and a GPS that is constantly reporting my location. -Paul
[2010-04-13 12:29:16] - Specifically, I don't much care about privacy anymore, no. There's very little that I can do to effectively protect certain public data. Instead of getting angry about it and demanding the beasts be put back into Pandora's box, I'm much more interested in seeing what can be done to have a safer/better society where those beasts are out. -- Xpovos
[2010-04-13 12:26:04] - I missed this morning's conversation. Yay! Morning meetings suck. I hadn't noticed my triple negative, but you got the correct interpretation, I think. Yes: Google invades privacy, but so do Apple and Microsoft, and both of them do so much more intrusively and forcefully than Google does, IMO. -- Xpovos
[2010-04-13 12:21:40] - Superman did have his Fortress of Solitude. And in that, in some versions, gives him access to a wealth of potentially dangerous information. -- Xpovos
[2010-04-13 11:29:08] - Although... doesn't Superman hang out in the upper atmosphere and listen in to everybody's conversations to try to find crimes in progress? -Paul
[2010-04-13 11:29:00] - the random comment today is funny. I thought it might have been referring to the Gates scandal in MA and I was like "that wasn't the opinion I held about that... and why was I signing with 'boing' so recently?" I'd forgotten about that incident at VT. - pierce
[2010-04-13 11:23:10] - ... similar to the point you are making. -Daniel
[2010-04-13 11:22:29] - a: it sounds like you are blaming the 'victim' in this case some. it seems the data is evil/made evil only through some secondary act (hacking/subpoena) and without that act is evil only for being tempting to those who want it. as an extreme example if a woman wears some super sexy outfit is she 'evil' for presenting a tempting target? i know its extreme but seems...
[2010-04-13 11:21:23] - a: still no. what makes it evil or not evil to store it indefinitely? proof by induction: (1) I think it's okay for google to have the data we're talking about for one second (N where N=1). (2) nothing about any given subsequent second makes it unacceptable for them to continue to have the data, so M where M=N+1 seconds. Therefore they can hold it indefinitely. - pierce
[2010-04-13 11:16:18] - granted, there's the situation where a third party with private information about you releases it on the internet and google picks it up, but in that case the evil action is the fault of the third party. like if your roommate threw away your wallet and google was the garbageman. - pierce
[2010-04-13 11:15:02] - pierce: ok i'll reword: what if google stored their information indefinitely, would that be going too far? ~a
[2010-04-13 11:14:19] - a: if you wish that, your wish can come true! just don't release your private information publicly, and don't use google products! hooray for solving the problem 100%! - pierce
[2010-04-13 11:11:28] - a: useful *only* to people wielding hacker tools and subpoenas (and by the way, not all subpoenas are evil)? I guess I don't really understand the question because google is organizing the data for their own purposes and that organization probably has a lot of overlapping utility for hackers. - pierce
[2010-04-13 11:10:31] - mig: yeah i just wish they didn't have so much information that could be useful to someone holding a subpoena. ~a
[2010-04-13 11:09:38] - a: you're right about it not making a difference. if superman writes down "note: pierce asked how to get from quaker lane to costco" after I ask him that, it's not evil. I don't know what that distinction was trying to show, since googleman will just write down what I told him and maybe make guesses based on that information. - pierce
[2010-04-13 11:08:45] - pierce: hypothetically, what if they stored the information indefinitely and organized it in such that it was extremely useful to people wielding hacker tools and subpoenas? you'd agree that would be going too far, even if they tried really hard to keep the data private? ~a
[2010-04-13 11:04:26] - pierce: (this may be a distinction without a difference) . . . you're not saying that, you're saying: "yo superman, how do you get from quaker lane to costco?" ~a
[2010-04-13 11:03:33] - a: once again, may I point out that it matters whether the information was public or voluntarily provided. the cell network thing in the dark knight was private information used without people's permission. it changes the "evilness" entirely. - pierce
[2010-04-13 10:59:47] - paul: haha. yeah the dark knight is a great example. super invasion of privacy used for good is still evil. ~a
[2010-04-13 10:58:02] - paul: fair enough. the census was a bad example. ~a
[2010-04-13 10:50:19] - As much as we want google/ms/apple/whatever to be completely noble and do the right thing by not complying, I can't really fault them if they would rather not face legal consequences. - mig
[2010-04-13 10:47:54] - a: also you're worried about subpoenas, just remember those are issued by the government, and usually with the threat of jailing people if they don't comply. - mig
[2010-04-13 10:46:06] - a: Also, I think you should be FAR more concerned about the census information than whatever google is collecting. The federal government has used that information in the past to determine who to round up and put in internment camps. Google hasn't done that yet to my knowledge. -paul
[2010-04-13 10:44:25] - Maybe instead of Superman, you should use Batman instead. After all, almost this exact thing came up in The Dark Knight. -Paul
[2010-04-13 10:41:14] - I think it's funny that we're using this metaphor of a records room but for some reason it's still superman running it. I guess having freezing breath saves money on server cooling. - pierce
[2010-04-13 10:37:11] - a: if I called superman seventeen times a day to be like "yo superman I'm going to costco just giving you the heads up" that wouldn't seem wrong to me. and if I posted my itinerary on a public wall, it wouldn't seem wrong to me. - pierce
[2010-04-13 10:32:44] - pierce: ok so superman writing down every place you go and putting it into a record room doesn't seem wrong to you? ~a
[2010-04-13 10:31:47] - a: google has not done A, because they collect public or volunteered information. you haven't convinced me that they do B, and I believe they take reasonable measures to offset the few cases of C they encounter. - pierce
[2010-04-13 10:30:29] - stephen: yeah, i don't mind the census because the questions are benign. the questions they ask on my tax forms couldn't be easily used to hurt me. mostly when i give the government information it's not half as private as the information i see myself giving to google on a daily basis. ~a
[2010-04-13 10:30:26] - a: I don't think you can just assert that we'd call superman evil for having a record room like that. I *don't* agree with that. it's only evil if (A) it was collected in evil ways, or (B) if it's used for evil purposes by superman, or (C) if he knowingly allows it to be used for evil purposes by others. - pierce
[2010-04-13 10:26:31] - a: that's not what "turning a blind eye" means. they have extensive security procedures, they have rigorously investigated incidents of espionage, etc. they're aware of the risks, they take reasonable (some would say extraordinary) measures to mitigate those risks. - pierce
[2010-04-13 10:25:34] - a: Cool. I can appreciate people's views when they are internally consistent. - Stephen
[2010-04-13 10:23:42] - pierce: but they're turning a blind eye to those things by merely putting all of that juicy information in one place. ~a
[2010-04-13 10:22:39] - a: well then the inside threats are evil, and the hackers are evil, and the subpoenas (if frivolous) are evil, but google's not evil unless it willingly turns a blind eye to those things. - pierce
[2010-04-13 10:22:12] - stephen: yes. ~a
[2010-04-13 10:21:55] - vinnie: i know. but in this case it doesn't matter how the power is used. if superman had a record room analogous to google data centers, then regardless of how he was using the room, we'd still call him evil. ~a
[2010-04-13 10:20:57] - a: I understand your concerns about the private sector collecting large amounts of information about people. Are you equally concerned about the government doing the same? - Stephen
[2010-04-13 10:19:15] - a: I was just picking at your "their database is too much power in one place". one could easily say that about superman. my point is just that it all depends on how the power is used - vinnie
[2010-04-13 10:15:38] - Sure, it could be dangerous, but so are things like medical records. I certainly don't think doctors are evil for collecting information about me, though. -Paul
[2010-04-13 10:11:49] - paul: well if you don't think it's evil, do you agree that it's dangerous? ~a
[2010-04-13 10:10:13] - a: I'm pretty sure I don't agree at all. Information can certainly be used for evil and it can certainly be immoral to obtain information from people without their consent, but I don't believe that the mere possession of voluntarily given information is evil. -Paul
[2010-04-13 10:08:09] - be back in an hour. ~a
[2010-04-13 10:06:40] - ah yes google and microsoft have things going for them: bill and melinda gates foundation for microsoft, and openness for google. ~a
[2010-04-13 10:05:23] - and for the sake of argument, even if you are right, that's not enough. there are still inside threats, hackers, and subpoenas. what of them? ~a
[2010-04-13 10:05:20] - they fight for things like net neutrality, when it might just be cheaper to make deals with the network providers to give google traffic the priority. they design their services in ways that run counter to their direct interests, such as using an open protocol for google talk and designing the google wave protocol so you don't even have to go through google. - pierce
[2010-04-13 10:04:42] - pierce: how do you know? ~a
[2010-04-13 10:03:09] - a: they only record and organize things that are placed in public view or voluntarily submitted through google's servers. they don't sell your information to advertisers, they use heuristics to figure out which advertisements to show you. - pierce
[2010-04-13 10:02:13] - paul: sure. of course it depends on specifics. i don't think the logs of the message board are evil. ~a
[2010-04-13 09:59:05] - vinnie: superman never tried to record and organize the private lives of every internet user of the world. if he had, we would certainly call him a creep regardless of his intentions. ~a
[2010-04-13 09:56:25] - a: I don't think the concentration of power alone is evil. it has the capability for evil, as well as the capability for good. so far I think google have used their power to neutral/good end. is superman evil? - vinnie
[2010-04-13 09:51:20] - a: So the mere possession of the data is evil? Even if people willingly give it up? -Paul
[2010-04-13 09:47:16] - paul: i'm sure google abuse's their data on small scales, but even if they didn't, someone else would. you can always get at the data if you have the will: subpoenas and hackers can cut through firewalls like butter. just having all of that data about all of us in one place is reckless and imo borderline evil. ~a
[2010-04-13 09:44:44] - a: Perhaps you can explain to me what evil things they do? -Paul
[2010-04-13 09:42:57] - pierce: "given the amount of raw information they have" that's part of it. the policies they have for retaining and organizing huge amounts of data about our private lives is dangerous. they use that private information to better advertise to us. the problem becomes the other uses of that data. their database is too much power in one place. ~a
[2010-04-13 09:34:43] - paul: thanks for the advice, but i already try pretty hard not to use microsoft and apple products. as for google, i haven't been trying very hard so maybe i consider them the least evil. i disagree with you though, they're all three damn evil. ~a
[2010-04-13 09:21:38] - Paul: I couldn't avoid Microsoft if I wanted to, and even Google is getting increasingly ubiquitous (I suppose I could use Bing to search, but how would I chat with people about Diplomacy?). - Stephen
[2010-04-13 09:14:56] - aaron: they apparently made a second cartoon about broccoli. I never saw this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByuZEB7px_c - vinnie
[2010-04-13 09:10:18] - a: After all, it's not like there are Apple death squads going out and killing people. Seems to me like if you don't like what one of those companies do.... just don't use their products. -Paul
[2010-04-13 09:09:14] - a: I wouldn't use the word evil to describe any of those companies, but in reverse order of how much I like them.... Apple, Microsoft and then Google. -Paul
[2010-04-13 09:08:10] - I agree with Pierce that Apple is less institutionally evil than Microsoft, but can get away with more because of its cult devotees. That said, I'd still say that Microsoft is more evil than Apple, partly because I am a cult initiate. - Stephen
[2010-04-13 00:38:49] - so my order is apple, then microsoft, then google in a distant third. - pierce
[2010-04-13 00:38:08] - to answer the question, I (entirely subjectively) think that microsoft's corporate culture probably lends itself more to abuses, but as their influence has diminished their actual capacity for evil has as well. apple is slightly less institutionally-evil, but is still riding quite a bit of cult fandom and not showing a lot of restraint with that power. - pierce
[2010-04-13 00:34:06] - google loves to invade your privacy? google loves to give you reasons to voluntarily give up your privacy, but other than the buzz rollout debacle it seems like they've actually been quite reserved in their invasiveness given the amount of raw information they have (and even that was just a failure to protect your privacy from third parties, not google itself). - pierce
[2010-04-12 22:42:14] - you don't care about privacy? i find that odd. ~a
[2010-04-12 22:36:31] - "not that microsoft and apple don't also love to invade my privacy." triple negative ftw.
they love to invade your privacy? got it! ~a[2010-04-12 22:34:39] - a: i'll have to go with apple. it would be a tie between apple and microsoft except for the bill + melinda gates foundation which breaks the tie. i know google is evil except i don't care about privacy - aaron
[2010-04-12 21:35:52] - a: So, since, IMO, it boils down to Apple/Microsoft at current, I have to say that even though I dislike Apple's policies more, I think they're also doing more to innovate in the current environment, whereas Microsoft seems to have stagnated--although at a higher level than they were a few years back, at least. So, Microsoft? -- Xpovos
[2010-04-12 21:34:43] - a: Tough choice. Evil is a subjective term, and so it comes down a great deal to which of the items I like best. The problem with picking, say, privacy as best, is that it's not that Microsoft and Apple don't also love to invade my privacy. -- Xpovos
[2010-04-12 20:43:43] - poll: who is the most evil right now in 2010: google, microsoft, or apple. over-generalization summary: google: loves to invade my privacy. microsoft: loves to sue and hates openness. apple: also loves to sue and have total control over their users. ~a
[2010-04-12 20:32:11] - kaleb: yaaaay magfest! -amy
[2010-04-12 17:28:12] - vinnie: hmm yeah you're right, i was reading "the population" to mean the broader world population, not just the population of the campus. to the population of the campus that would qualify as terrorism i think - aaron
[2010-04-12 17:12:08] - aaron: there is an imminent threat, at least until it is demonstrated to be fake - vinnie
[2010-04-12 16:57:02] - vinnie: the difference being that i think it has to be backed by an imminent threat. 9/11 was inarguably terrorism because for several years afterwards, people were nervous there would be another attack. i don't know if those kinds of fliers or media coverage could have the same effect. i think a sense of imminent danger makes terrorism terrorism - aaron
[2010-04-12 16:53:40] - flyers or any information can be a form of terrorism. let's say the sniper shootings that happened in VA were faked but were reported as real by the media. it has the same effect on the population, I'd call that terrorism - vinnie
[2010-04-12 16:53:32] - Pierce: I think I would tentatively agree with that. -Paul
[2010-04-12 16:53:02] - pierce: i think terrorism can be used during wartime. for example, i would say that treating hostages a certain way would qualify as terrorism, even if it was all military personnel - aaron
[2010-04-12 16:47:50] - pierce: i think i would probably say that. I might go a bit further and say I would think that it's terrorism in most cases when the targets are civilians regardless of whether it's during wartime. - mig
[2010-04-12 16:46:06] - stephen: hmm yeah, i guess that could possibly be considered terrorism. closing in on a gray area. i wouldn't consider hate speech terrorism. even government-funded hate speech. - aaron
[2010-04-12 16:43:43] - aaron: I think a WWII era example flier of "Jews drink babies' blood and are destroying Germany" is less bizarre than super-explosive paper, and could possibly be considered terrorism. - Stephen
[2010-04-12 16:40:18] - stephen: sure, i guess that would count. i just didn't have enough imagination. the fliers could also be like, infected with communicable diseases, or made of super-explosive paper. but i assumed he was talkin about the typical "your wife is cheating on you while you're at war" kind of flyers - aaron
[2010-04-12 16:39:17] - aaron: depends on the content of the flier. If it has threatening content (do this or we will bomb and kill all of you), it wouldn't be much different than someone mailing a letter to an office building threatening to blow it up. - mig
[2010-04-12 16:39:07] - so would you guys essentially draw a distinction where "psychological warfare" is the term for using fear tactics against soldiers or during wartime, and "terrorism" is the term when it's civilians outside of nationalized hostilities? but otherwise they're mostly the same concept? - pierce
[2010-04-12 16:38:57] - other than that i agree with xpovos' definition (sorry, i guess i was responding to xpovos and not you, it got confusing because you got in between his two comments) - aaron
[2010-04-12 16:38:10] - aaron: What if the fliers advocated killing groups of people, some of whom would encounter the fliers? - Stephen
[2010-04-12 16:36:42] - paul: distributing fliers is not terrorism. or at least i can't imagine how it would be. because there's no terror. - aaron
[2010-04-12 16:36:16] - A more appropriate example might be Sherman's march to the sea. It can be justified on military terms, but it seemed to be psychologically impactful than militarily important. -Paul
[2010-04-12 16:33:26] - Xpovos: Heh, nice. I mentioned Dresden before seeing your comment. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings are also good examples, though. -Paul
[2010-04-12 16:32:31] - gurkie: there was going to be a tax on the legitimate tea but it was minor compared to the smugglers' markup. the only principled argument was with that minor tax, in that colonists paying for the taxed tea would've been an implicit acceptance of England's right to levy the tax - pierce
[2010-04-12 16:32:05] - *** Xpovos *sigh* newword: vietman.
[2010-04-12 16:31:42] - Pierce: I'm sure I could probably think of exceptions, but my general definition of terrorism is that it has to involve civilians and to be in some way outside of an active war. The bombing of Dresden would definitely be a grey area that I might consider as an exception. -Paul
[2010-04-12 16:31:31] - mig: That implies we won the Vietman conflict? -- Xpovos
[2010-04-12 16:31:15] - paul: it's probably more accurate to say that history taught in public schools usually is pro-government filtered. - mig
[2010-04-12 16:29:49] - paul: not necessarily. see Vietnam. - mig
[2010-04-12 16:29:01] - would be terrorism, particularly if delivered on the back of violence. E.g. Bombing of Dresden, and other civilian targets during that selfsame war, up to and including Hiroshima & Nagasaki. -- Xpovos
[2010-04-12 16:28:26] - Stephen: Definitely agree. History is written by the victors, after all. -Paul
[2010-04-12 16:28:09] - pierce: I think demoralizing the military is probably a reasonable tactic: see dropping flyers and leaflets during WWII, e.g. The Inglorious Basterds route was immoral, in my view, but that's separate from the discussion. Whereas terrorism is almost always going to be directed at non-military/civilian populations. An attempt to demoralize them by psychological means...
[2010-04-12 16:27:57] - Pierce: I should've known as soon as I wrote, "I think most people would agree" that you would disagree.
-Paul[2010-04-12 16:25:59] - gurkie: the original tea partiers were actually protesting deregulation of the legitimate tea trade. England was going to allow the EIC to trade directly to the colonies, which would've increased the quality and decreased the cost compared to illegal smuggled tea. - pierce
[2010-04-12 16:25:33] - Stephen: South of Maryland too. Just, perhaps, less so, or at least with some occasional rhetoric and logic from an opposing point of view. -- Xpovos
[2010-04-12 16:23:55] - paul: I don't agree with that. it's a fictional example, but I'd call the Inglorius Basterds approach terrorism, even though they were targeting soldiers during wartime. the key is psychological warfare... it doesn't matter if you only kill 0.01% of your enemy if you demoralize 60% of them. - pierce
[2010-04-12 16:23:49] - Paul: If you talk to people who grew up north of Maryland, though, they've been firmly indoctrinated in the belief that the only cause of the Civil War was slavery, and you can't even begin to suggest otherwise. - Stephen
[2010-04-12 16:23:47] - Pierce: so Hancock was tied to tea smuggling? Wouldnt that make him in favor of the tax on tea... I mean if he was importing he should be against it but black market means you get to raise your prices and still sell if there are lots of extra taxes on something. ~gurkie
[2010-04-12 16:23:25] - Pierce: Slavery might've been the root cause of secession, and I'm sure there were plenty of generals and common soldiers who might've fought for it, but I find it hard to believe that the majority of confederate solders wanted to risk their lives so a bunch of rich plantation owners could keep their slaves. -Paul
[2010-04-12 16:21:47] - Pierce: Ah, that's the "valid comparison" you were referring to. I would probably agree to that, although I still think it's unfair to say that the confederate solders were fighting to maintain the tradition of slavery. -Paul
[2010-04-12 16:21:39] - Stephen: exactly my point. there's plenty of legitimate debate that could be had about the original tea partiers' motivations (Hancock's ties to tea smuggling, for example), but we don't because they're our heroes and they were fighting for what they believed in and to protect our homeland. - pierce
[2010-04-12 16:19:34] - a: I don't have a perfect definition, but I imagine most people would agree that terrorism usually occurs outside of an active war and/or against unarmed civilians. -Paul
[2010-04-12 16:18:43] - I think the problem is that in this country we're very firmly indoctrinated with the idea that it is noble to fight for your homeland or your beliefs. it's hard to just come out and say that that's wrong on its face, so I think Martin is taking a lazy rhetorical shortcut and falling back on the vague emotionally loading of the word "terrorism". - pierce
[2010-04-12 16:18:14] - Pierce: I wonder what Martin would say about those terrible American colonists committing economic terrorism in Boston Harbor. - Stephen
[2010-04-12 16:15:45] - "ell out to the world, Super Size Me Guy. Try your very best, Jamie Oliver. But ultimately, your attempts will mean nothing. Because as long as one American is still willing to stuff bacon and cheese between two pieces of chicken, your tyrannical healthy vegetables and fruit will never truly defeat our American spirit!" -- Xpovos
[2010-04-12 16:15:15] - paul: I know, that's what I agreed with. the confederacy was not an example of terrorism. the valid comparison is about how people act as apologists for violence and evil under the guise of "but they're fighting for what they believe in/their homeland." that applied to both the confederacy and terrorism. - pierce
[2010-04-12 16:11:54] - "Terrorism is, in the most general sense, the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. At present, the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism." wp ~a
[2010-04-12 16:10:55] - paul: what's the definition of terrorism we're using? ~a
[2010-04-12 16:08:01] - Pierce: I'm not sure I even think there's a valid comparison to be made. War fought for even the most evil reasons does not equal terrorism in my book. -Paul
[2010-04-12 16:04:27] - I think there's a valid comparison to be made, but in service of the argument that "fighting for what you believe in" is not noble on its own merits if your beliefs are unconscionable. that's the common thread, not that both were forms of terrorism. terrorism is something specific and the confederacy was not an example of it. - pierce
[2010-04-12 16:01:27] - "not once did confederate soldiers do any damage to civilians or their property in their invasion of the north." why do i find that hard to believe. ~a
[2010-04-12 15:57:01] - paul: while I do see that there are some similarities between the muslim/confederate situations, saying that both are the exact same, and hence, both are terrorists seems to be oversimplifying the situations. - mig
[2010-04-12 15:54:07] - a: I agree, Pierce/Nina/Xpovos should all come to basketball. -Paul
[2010-04-12 15:51:41] - nm, found it. ~a
[2010-04-12 15:51:26] - what's magfest? ~a
[2010-04-12 15:50:59] - pierce/nina/xpovos: you guys should pick an exercise that's more fun. running is boring. VERY boring. ~a
[2010-04-12 15:49:18] - http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/11/martin.confederate.extremist/ Were Confederate soldiers terrorists? I like some of Roland Martin's stuff, but I totally can't follow his logic here. -Paul
[2010-04-12 15:43:32] - I feel better overall when I'm exercising regularly, but I feel worse while exercising and later that day. - pierce
[2010-04-12 15:42:08] - kaleb: thats cool, remind me closer to when you are in town... January is way too far away. ~Gurkie
[2010-04-12 15:30:49] - i think i feel better after i exercise, but it's really hard to motivate to exercise. so, once i stop exercising, i feel crappier, less motivated to exercise, and it's a downward spiral from there. -nina
[2010-04-12 15:28:04] - I plan to attend MAGFest in Jan 2011. Already pre-registered. It's in Alexandria, so maybe I'll see some of you then? - Kaleb
[2010-04-12 15:24:31] - a: I always enjoyed my XC running because it was practically transcendental meditation. Unfortunately, it's not an easy habit to restart, especially given my lifestyle choices. -- Xpovos
[2010-04-12 15:15:11] - exercise shouldn't be done for getting in shape. exercise should be done for entertainment. then the getting-in-shape part comes for free. ~a
[2010-04-12 15:12:38] - gurkie: you must be doing the wrong exercises. i suggest a grueling regiment of skydiving. ~a
[2010-04-12 15:04:54] - I'm not sure if there's any connection for me, there seems to be many more variables that determine my mood. - mig
[2010-04-12 14:59:14] - aaron: exercise makes me tired and cranky... ~gurkie
[2010-04-12 14:50:42] - Aaron: About the only connection I can draw between my mood and exercise is that when I feel lazy, I don't exercise.
-Paul[2010-04-12 14:50:18] - also, the argument in legally blonde was "she excercises and excercise creates endorphins and endorphins make you happy and happy people dont kill people." ~gurkie
[2010-04-12 14:49:19] - aaron: correct me if I am mistaken but you have only noticed this since you started getting into a regular work out schedule right? ~gurkie
[2010-04-12 14:42:15] - aaron: Ah, I see. I think I tend to agree more with the Ex->En logical statement rather than the D->E one. Which might explain why I'm in not so great shape. -- Xpovos
[2010-04-12 14:37:21] - xpovos: yeah i am. but i mean i don't notice like, "yay that was a good workout. i feel good." i usually notice like, the contrapositive. "oh i feel crappy. i need to work out" - aaron
[2010-04-12 14:34:34] - aaron: I could be wrong, but it appears to me that you are saying the same thing the article is. -- Xpovos
[2010-04-12 14:26:30] - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7581683/Less-than-half-an-hour-of-exercise-a-day-helps-treat-depression.html has anybody else noticed this? i actually notice the opposite effect a lot more, on weeks where i don't exercise i feel more depressed. night and day. - aaron
[2010-04-12 14:22:58] - pierce: i know there's been reports of nutrition info being incorrect for some chains; but usually it's just related to portioning. like, a medium fry will have more fries than it's supposed to. - aaron
[2010-04-12 14:21:03] - paul: yeah i mean, back in college it was always PIU and sbarro's. mcdoubles are leaps and bounds better for you than the spinach strombolis i used to get at sbarro's. but adrian's probably right that bagels or pasta would at least serve the "carb loading" purpose better. if you just wanted to maximize energy and minimize "bad stuff" then pasta is the way to go - aaron
[2010-04-12 14:07:13] - aaron: I think I agree with what you're saying. A McDouble may not necessarily be considered "healthy", but it is probably more nutritional than a bagel with cream cheese or pasta (both of which really only hit two or three food groups). -Paul
[2010-04-12 14:04:52] - aaron: sorry if it sounded like I was piling on... I wasn't asking for the purposes of measuring your particular PIU pre-meal, I'm honestly curious whether mcdonalds' processes remove a significant amount of the nutrients from their food. - pierce
[2010-04-12 14:01:27] - aaron: gross ~gurkie
[2010-04-12 14:00:05] - pierce: well i'm just goin off the nutrition info i posted earlier but yeah, it does oK. meat is meat. cheese is cheese. it doesn't matter if it's cheese you scraped out from between a cow's ass cheeks, it's still got calcium in it - aaron
[2010-04-12 13:58:04] - anyway i'm not saying it's healthy, i'm just saying that alongside like, 1200 calories of french fries, or ice cream, or caesar salad, or bananas, or soda, or lasagna, or anything else, cheeseburgers are really not that bad. medium-high fat, medium-high protein. no sugar. - aaron
[2010-04-12 13:56:17] - aaron: is mcdonalds meat a good source of those things, though? I'm no whale biologist, but I'd assume their meat is low-quality enough and processed enough to mitigate any health benefits. - pierce
[2010-04-12 13:45:23] - ideally, you're right, two-and-a-half bagels would arguably be better, although none of these alternatives have any of the dietary benefits of meat (protein, iron, calcium) - aaron
[2010-04-12 13:42:51] - a: i don't end up feeling tired. i'll have to look at 250g of pasta some time and figure out if i can eat it. but if it's between 1200 calories of burgers, and 500 calories of breakfast - i get waaaaay more energy from the former - aaron
[2010-04-12 13:41:53] - stephen: right, so 40g of fat would be closer to normal. 60g isn't awful. - aaron
[2010-04-12 13:36:15] - stephen: that's a great point. metabolizing calories from fat is very difficult. i think you end up just feeling tired. ~a
[2010-04-12 13:34:17] - aaron: 60g fat for 1200 calories means about 50% of the calories came from fat. That's not generally within anyone's dietary guidelines (but taht said, it's not like you are eating like that every day). - Stephen
[2010-04-12 13:33:05] - oh breakfast? i think a bagel+lightCreamCheese is like 500 calories. ~a
[2010-04-12 13:30:33] - 250g of pasta + sauce is 1200 calories. ~a
[2010-04-12 13:29:42] - a: ideally it would be, what, 4 cups of oatmeal? that would be ideal but i can't choke it down. i've tried a couple times... did you ever see seven? it was kind of like that - aaron
[2010-04-12 13:28:37] - a: nah burgers work good. 60g fat isn't bad for 1200 calories. it's not good but it's not terrible. you're right that high-calorie low-fat would be better, but there's not a lot of foods that i can eat 1200 calories of - aaron
[2010-04-12 13:09:27] - pierce: urgh... I totally missed that... oopsies. but do remember the episode ~gurkie
[2010-04-12 12:58:38] - aaron: usually i like pasta, or subway, or something. if i don't have time to eat a meal, i usually resort to PowerBar or Clif Bar. ~a
[2010-04-12 12:57:57] - aaron: i hope you're kidding. if you want energy for PIU, you don't want to down 60g of fat! the 3000mg of sodium isn't so horrible because you'll sweat half of that out. i think you want something that is high in calories/carbs and low in fat. ~a
[2010-04-12 12:44:25] - vinnie: it doesn't sound like something he wants, but he does. -amy
[2010-04-12 12:28:06] - aaron: it sounds like something you want, but you don't - vinnie
[2010-04-12 12:23:12] - pierce: that doesn't sound like something i want - aaron
[2010-04-12 12:22:59] - that sandwich is conceptually grosser than it actually is. there's a lot of sandwiches that just shove in more patties; in this case, you're actually losing a component off those burgers - vinnie
[2010-04-12 12:15:51] - aaron: wouldn't it save time to order a mcsextuple instead? - pierce
[2010-04-12 12:14:08] - gurkie: yeah, hence the title. - pierce
[2010-04-12 12:09:00] - i was wondering what might be inside of the chicken bun... more meat x_x but i guess it only has one more chicken patty than a regular chicken sandwich with bacon and cheese on it? so it's kind of like a... whopper or whatever that burger is that has 2 patties in it. with bacon. -amy
[2010-04-12 12:05:12] - a: yeah exactly, nothin wrong with burgers and sandwiches, they have some nutritional content. i usually have three of these before i play pump it up, to load up on calories/carbs so i don't run out of energy. - aaron
[2010-04-12 12:01:06] - wasnt that on 30 rock.... the meat sandwich idea... ~gurkie
[2010-04-12 11:33:41] - The calorie count is low, all things considered. The sodium count, though, is the killer for me. I already have high blood pressure, that sandwich might well give me an aneurism. -- Xpovos
[2010-04-12 11:29:13] - a: Sure, it's high, but it's not ridiculously high considering how ridiculous of a sandwich it is. -Paul
[2010-04-12 10:51:35] - yeah they talked about that sandwich on weekend update (snl). imo, 32g of fat is a little high considering it'll be bought with fries and a coke (30g+60g fat+sugar). ~a
[2010-04-12 10:32:03] - http://www.cnbc.com/id/36191290/ KFC is offering a new sandwich where the bun is fried chicken. Honestly, the nutritional information doesn't seem that bad to me. Must be a small sandwhich.
-Paul[2010-04-12 09:25:27] - i have a motorola droid phone and like it. my last phone was just a regular cell phone so this is a big step up so i cant compare it to owning an iphone but everyone else ive seen with a droid likes it as well. -Daniel
[2010-04-12 09:23:20] - aaron: #3 and #4 applied to the nexus one only. also it's the only phone "backed" by google. ~a
[2010-04-12 09:21:48] - aaron: I understand. I kind of feel the same way now. I'm about halfway through my contract, and already I'm looking forward at the next generation of Android phones trying to see what I'm hoping for come into being. Not quite yet. -- Xpovos
[2010-04-12 08:49:30] - a: alright but there's other android phones right? i was waiting for a "really good" android phone to come out. i understand the advantages of android, i just wanted to get a good android phone if/when one came out - aaron
[2010-04-12 08:20:21] - a: Neither do a lot of Android phone users. But it does matter to me, I have a very hard time typing on my wife's phone. -- Xpovos
[2010-04-10 21:52:49] - yeah i'm worried about not having the physical keyboard. the iphone users don't seem to mind. ~a
[2010-04-10 21:19:06] - I'd miss my physical/hardware keyboard. But I need more powerful hardware. My G1 is having difficulty keeping up. -- Xpovos
[2010-04-10 16:24:27] - no way. the next version of ubuntu is going to be maverick.
~a[2010-04-10 13:32:53] - paul: yes, see #4. ~a
[2010-04-10 10:00:11] - a: You've tried a droid phone before? -Paul
[2010-04-10 09:59:39] - Xpovos: I heard the rumor. Don't care much if it's true, but I appreciate the bounce in stock price.
-Paul[2010-04-10 09:34:52] - aaron: 4. it's similar to the motorola droid (if you've never tried one, it is a very cool phone) except it has better hardware, is simpler, and doesn't have a hardware keyboard. 5. the underlying system is a lot more open to tinkering. 6. i'd be much more likely to actually write an app for android than iphone. 7. lots more reasons but i have to go to a meeting. ~a
[2010-04-10 09:32:38] - aaron: it's an android phone made by htc and sold by google (gsm is out; cdma coming out soon). why is it cool: 1. the android app store doesn't have apple's draconian and closed off bullshit. 2. android apps are written in java, not objective-c (objective-c is yuck). 3. it's the same size and shape of an iphone but with hardware that's like 2 years newer. ~a
[2010-04-10 00:55:11] - a: the "nexus one" on verizon? can you tell me more about it? why is it cool - aaron
[2010-04-09 21:10:01] - Paul: Rumor on the street: HTC is going to buy Palm. -- Xpovos
[2010-04-09 16:59:03] - a: It is not an android phone. I didn't expect anybody to necessarily be interested in it but it just seemed like too good a deal to not pass along. -Paul
[2010-04-09 16:53:11] - also, the palm pre doesn't appear to be an android phone. at least it's not here: list of Android devices. ~a
[2010-04-09 16:51:25] - paul: no! i'm waiting for the nexus one. i'm willing to wait a few more weeks. ~a
[2010-04-09 16:47:06] - http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/01/verizon-mobile-hotspot-on-webos-devices-now-free/ For people on Verizon who were looking into getting a smartphone, Verizon is offering an awesome deal on the Pre Plus with mobile hotspot (for free). -Paul
[2010-04-09 13:34:21] - ok well nevermind then. - mig
[2010-04-09 13:33:45] - oh wait, i misread that
[2010-04-09 13:33:37] - they aren't all red, either in ff or chrome. - mig
[2010-04-09 13:03:20] - mig: but it does matter. that does break it: http://aporter.org/tmp/test.html see how they aren't all red? ~a
[2010-04-09 12:53:49] - a: as long as you aren't using it within actual css defintions, I don't think it usually breaks it. - mig
[2010-04-09 12:49:25] - pierce: i don't think you're allowed to use <!-- ... --> in css files (html and xml only). and i was doing that. in css, you use the c style /* ... */ for comments. ~a
[2010-04-09 12:25:19] - both chrome and FF 3.6 seem to function correctly for me (unfortunately). - mig
[2010-04-09 11:55:25] - a: FF 3.6
[2010-04-09 11:47:00] - a: what was the problem? - pierce
[2010-04-09 11:39:42] - daniel: i noticed a problem with the css. what browser do you use? the problem didn't seem to affect the ff and ie users. ~a
[2010-04-09 11:38:45] - amy: nothin'. watchin' the game, havin' a bud - plaunve
[2010-04-09 11:37:50] - plaunve: oh hey dude(tte?) must have missed you yesterday but i'm glad you're still here!!! what's up?? -amy
[2010-04-09 11:26:38] - a: I see the crazy colors now. However I didn't see them until just a bit ago. Perhaps someone changed them to black before I read through his posts since I don't always check as much throughout the course of the day. -Daniel
[2010-04-09 11:20:36] - a: oh, I didn't pick up on it. sorry, stressful day. - pierce
[2010-04-09 11:20:24] - unless he was kidding. ~a
[2010-04-09 11:20:15] - except i was serious about what "i don't see any color" was all about. ~a
[2010-04-09 11:19:40] - pierce, i was kidding. ~a
[2010-04-09 11:16:40] - a: oh come on, publicly configurable colors are a really nice feature and this is a one- or two-day joke at best. you can give plaunve a more palatable color if you really insist and I won't revert it anymore, or you could just wait for the joke to die (which it basically has) and scroll off the page. - pierce
[2010-04-09 11:09:00] - daniel: i can't tell if you're joking or not, but it's a hideous color. really, making me wish we hadn't made the colors publicly configurable. if you aren't joking, could i ask what browser you're using? it seems to be following the standards, and ie8 and ff seem to render it correctly (though really that's a mixed blessing). ~a
[2010-04-09 11:01:29] - http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/09/john.paul.stevens.retires/index.html?hpt=T1 Justice Stevens retires. Get ready for the battle of the next Supreme Court nomination. -Paul
[2010-04-09 10:46:19] - aaron: i guess I stand corrected, I thought he was doing worse in polls pre 9/11 (something I recall most media outlets making observations about). - mig
[2010-04-09 10:29:30] - mig: this chart at least shows him above 50% until his re-election, even his pre-911 numbers - aaron
[2010-04-09 10:27:29] - daniel: yes, it's a subtle color, it almost looks black to me too - plaunve
[2010-04-09 10:26:56] - aaron: bush's ratings were actually pretty terrible. Then 9/11 came. - mig
[2010-04-09 10:26:09] - paul: i was just referring to the gradual decriminalization of it in a few places, i can't remember the details - aaron
[2010-04-09 10:18:53] - What color were yall complaining about with plaunve? I don't see any color. -Daniel
[2010-04-09 10:16:16] - "title must be <= 60 characters and pierce if i'm not mistaken - vinnie". hmm. /title pierce - pierce
[2010-04-09 10:15:08] - stephen: but here's the compelling twist ending... have you guessed the name of plaunve's planet? IT WAS EARTH! DON'T DATE ROBOTS! - pierce
[2010-04-09 10:12:33] - zombieplaunve: You died on the way to your home planet. Ergo, you are on a spaceship. I'm not convinced that a zombie can operate a spaceship, so I don't fear you. - Stephen
[2010-04-09 10:06:52] - stephen: you will never be rid of the plaunve. - zombieplaunve
[2010-04-09 10:02:06] - yay! Plaunve died! - Stephen
[2010-04-09 10:01:22] - Aaron: Legalization of marijuana? -Paul
[2010-04-09 09:48:49] - might as well credit the obama administration for the legalization of marijuana and the progress in stem cell research while you're at it - aaron
[2010-04-09 09:47:20] - stephen: i hardly think it's fair to credit the previous administration for not using a technology that wasn't available to them at the time
- aaron[2010-04-09 09:45:01] - anyway remember bush's approval ratings started out well above 50% too, the media still has 3 or 7 more years to get fed up and annoyed with obama, then you can have your more biased articles about how obama is murdering citizens - aaron
[2010-04-09 09:42:46] - and this administration has been more in favor of assassinations (let's be honest, that's what this is) and unmanned drone attacks than the previous one. - Stephen
[2010-04-09 09:41:57] - aaron: No, you're understanding the issue correctly. There has been a list for several administrations, most likely...but I think a lot of people on the left had expected Obama to be more of a liberal in terms of national security issues. - Stephen
[2010-04-09 09:34:47] - so supposedly there has always been a "list of suspected terrorists the CIA is authorized to kill", and now there is a US citizen on it? so were people outraged when the republicans went public with this list? it's probably existed for a couple decades right? - aaron
[2010-04-09 09:33:55] - stephen: and unless i'm misunderstanding the situation, the CIA has always had a "hit list", the only newsworthy aspect of this article is that he's the first US citizen on it right? - aaron
[2010-04-09 09:33:25] - aaron: The headline isn't suggesting it's a good thing, but I think the tone is far more neutral than it would have been had the article been written in 2007. - Stephen
[2010-04-09 09:31:08] - stephen: people are upset by this too, that's why it's news. maybe i misread the headline. i didn't think the article was trying to spin this as a good thing - aaron
[2010-04-09 09:23:59] - I'm with Miguel, people would have been outraged if the Republicans had gone public with the fact that we have a hit list. - stephen
[2010-04-09 09:23:40] - Aaron: The CIA is not generally allowed to kill American citizens who aren't in the middle of committing a crime. And the cleric didn't kill 12 U.S. soldiers himself - we don't summarily execute people in the U.S. for conspiracy to commit murder. - Stephen
[2010-04-09 09:19:55] - the only thing i find surprising about the story is that the president is even involved in this kind of decision - aaron
[2010-04-09 09:18:12] - mig: i'm not sure what the big deal is. the CIA is allowed to kill a lot of american citizens...? police kill american citizens every day. for much less serious crimes, than killing 12 US soldiers. that seems like a pretty big deal - aaron
[2010-04-09 08:13:48] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040604121.html?hpid=topnews obama asserts the power to kill US citizens who he deems to be "terrorists". Imagine the outrage if Bush had done this... - mig
[2010-04-08 20:19:11] - which one of you bastards left an expired coupon in my baño! ~a
[2010-04-08 19:07:41] - blizzard just announced the collector's edition for starcraft 2. if CE stuff and the goodies that it comes with is your thing, gamestop is already taking pre-orders on it. Typically these things sell out fairly fast, so you might want to pick one up sooner rather than later. - mig
[2010-04-08 17:36:46] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/05/guy-gets-ticket-30-second_n_525091.html Apparently a man in Australia got a parking ticket 30 seconds after parking. Here is his letter asking for it to be waived. -Paul
[2010-04-08 17:07:05] - a: the current color for plaunve is as much a part of plaunve as plaunve is a part of it. do not question the tao of plaunve or you will know what it is like to be plaunved. - pierce
[2010-04-08 16:54:13] - i even tried to change the color and pierce undid my change.
~a[2010-04-08 16:52:11] - leave plaunve alone!
- vinnie[2010-04-08 16:38:46] - plaunve: your color is as nice as your name... ~gurkie
[2010-04-08 16:37:07] - i'm with stephen. it hurts my eyes. ~a
[2010-04-08 16:26:56] - plaunve: i like my color - plaunve
[2010-04-08 16:23:02] - plaunvee: (intentional misspelling to avoid pierce's damn color) yes there is a pierce variable. it makes the "[rc]" link blue (or whatever your default is) when someone posts to the wiki. more info ~a
[2010-04-08 15:55:32] - xpovos: ah scorekeeping, yes that is fun. - mig
[2010-04-08 15:40:38] - Paul: Probably not. I'd have to think about it some more, though. -- Xpovos
[2010-04-08 15:38:23] - Xpovos: I was thinking about getting $50 seats. Too much? -Paul
prev <-> next