prev <-> next
[2010-05-12 13:51:07] - xpovos: I think I have a better understanding on the church's position (it's clear now my understanding was a little off), though IMO there's still some inconsistency with supporting fertility awareness and a blanket disapproval with all forms of contraception. - mig
[2010-05-12 13:51:01] - Xpovos: Yeah, from what I understand, my grandmother ended up in a similar situation. It led to my grandparents becoming cultural Catholics instead of practicing Catholics. - Stephen
[2010-05-12 13:48:08] - stephen: you can point her at the url. ~a
[2010-05-12 13:47:19] - a: Definition agreed to. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 13:46:54] - Stephen: Yeah. Sucks. One of my employees has a medical condition wherein if she gets pregnant again, she'll probably die. Personally, I'm all for her using contraception at that point, but technically, anything other than abstinence there is sinful. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 13:45:53] - temporal == temporary/transitory (of pertaining to time). ~a
[2010-05-12 13:45:28] - a: Correct, but it's also not contraception. It is fully open to life. And just because the thermometer says it's a 0.001% chance of getting pregnant today doesn't mean that she won't. Believe me. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 13:45:15] - I wish Meg used the message board (she teaches religion at a Catholic school). - Stephen
[2010-05-12 13:44:34] - a: Back to rule #1, it has to be matrimonial. Part of a Catholic marriage is a pledge to being open to life. If one parter reserves on that pledge, then they aren't truly married. That's the source of many annulments. But, the partner acting in good faith would not be sinning, no. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 13:43:55] - Xpovos: Really? I didn't know that. So I guess the Catholic solution for a married couple where one partner has HIV, for example, is abstinence? - Stephen
[2010-05-12 13:43:20] - a: I believe I mean the opposite, but we might be circling around our words. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 13:42:36] - xpovos: fertility awareness is temporal and a choice. ~a
[2010-05-12 13:42:12] - xpovos: so it has to be a choice? that's part of the rule? so if one of the partners is non-catholic, and doesn't give a choice, then the catholic partner isn't sinning? ~a
[2010-05-12 13:41:09] - xpovos: you mean the infertility is non-temporal. ~a
[2010-05-12 13:40:42] - Stephen: Closer, but still not correct. Use of contraception even in cases where procreation is impossible for other reasons (although unnecessary) would still be improper. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 13:40:00] - stephen: does the bible talk about technology? and how is fertility awareness not technology? ~a
[2010-05-12 13:39:48] - ... in addition to being outside of their control. Choice has to be made for sin as well. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 13:39:15] - a: No. Because the infertility (non-induced, e.g. contraceptive) is temporal. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 13:38:26] - a: So I guess the "rule" would be that something is bad if sex could result in conceiving but is blocked by technology (condom, the pill, etc.). - stephen
[2010-05-12 13:38:04] - First, all sexual acts must be marital acts. That's a separate issue, but important. Second, all acts must be open to the possibility of life as much as is practicable in the temporal circumstances. A post-menopausal woman, e.g., could not conceive for temporal reasons. Contraception is a physical or chemical/hormonal barrier to contraception. Not temporal. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 13:37:54] - ok, so then infertile couples are sinning. ~a
[2010-05-12 13:36:48] - a: Abstinence isn't contraception. Nor is only having sex when the woman isn't ovulating. Nor is having sex with someone who is infertile. - stephen
[2010-05-12 13:35:24] - Sex is multi-purposed, but the obvious purpose we're discussing is procreation. But that doesn't mean that the other purposes are negligible, or ignored by church teaching. Rather, they too are celebrated. The position of the church, though, is that it can only be the highest good (absence of sin for simpler terms) when all purposes are united. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 13:32:09] - so uhhh, i still don't follow anything. what "rule" do i use to figure out which type of contraception is good and which is bad? ~a
[2010-05-12 13:31:35] - It's not inconstant with the position of the church, but it does become inconsistent with the generally perceived purpose, as you're noting. But ultimately, this is the same point ~a is driving at . -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 13:30:31] - mig: Both. Though it's typically taught and used in an effort to avoid pregnancy. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 13:26:28] - xpovos: is 5) encouraged by catholics for couples having kids or for couples to avoid having kids? I would find it somewhat inconsistent with the position against contraception if it was the latter. - mig
[2010-05-12 13:21:25] - That felt like it had too many negatives in it. Silly contrapositives. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 13:20:57] - a: For most of these you appear to be arriving at something akin to "any missed opportunity for procreation is wrong", from the obvious points that failure to have sex results in non-pregnancy. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 13:18:52] - a: Hmm, interesting. 1-3 are all OK, of course. 1&2 are preferred and 3 is neutral, though really it's unrelated as you note. 4 would be a serious issue. 5 is OK and heavily endorsed and encouraged. 6 is a non-issue, but worth mentioning. I'm glad they're all in the same category, though, it makes things simpler. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 13:15:15] - "fertility awareness organizations continue to be predominately catholic, but some secular organizations now exist." (wp) heh. ~a
[2010-05-12 13:13:30] - xpovos/stephen: 1. abstinence. 2. celibacy (basically #1). 3. playing video games / watching tv (really this is also #1). 4. withdrawal? 5. fertility awareness 6. infertile couples (which breaks the "sex is for procreation" from mig). ~a
[2010-05-12 13:03:36] - a: What do Catholics find ok that ends a potential (human) life? - stephen
[2010-05-12 13:02:42] - a: Before going too deep down that particular rabbit hole, let me see if I'm clear on what you mean. "lots of stuff ends a potential life that catholics seem to find ok." Spot me three examples so I can certain I know what you're talking about? I have some ideas, but I don't want to argue the wrong argument. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 13:01:30] - a: I thought (and this may be wrong, but I remember hearing it somewhere), that the opposition to contraception was more about the idea that sex should only be for procreation. - mig
[2010-05-12 12:57:57] - xpovos: ok, uhhh, remind me why catholics don't like contraception? i know that it ends a potential life, but lots of stuff ends a potential life that catholics seem to find ok. ~a
[2010-05-12 12:53:47] - a: Obviousness aside, I'm sure they'll do sufficient experimentation to determine likely timelines for reversal such that it's easy enough to repeat the procedure well in advance, or at least be aware--similar to hormone pills for females are at this stage. Though, obviously, I'm on the other side with regards to this technology. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 12:48:35] - nina: i'm worried that it won't be obvious when the effects have worn off. or what about side effects. but yeah, it's a neat concept if it works out. ~a
[2010-05-12 12:34:15] - a: in all seriousness, I think it's cool that the Gates Foundation is putting money into this research. In some circumstances it can take the birth control onus off of the woman. i just wonder what the male stigma would be on being called "infertile" even if only temporary. -nina
[2010-05-12 12:34:15] - xpovos: there's a point of diminishing returns, since the more annoying your ads are, the greater lengths people will go to to circumvent them. i find most web sites unusable without adblock. i have trouble reading while something's flashing or moving near the text - aaron
[2010-05-12 12:27:27] - a: ultrasound for contraception. hmm... maybe pew pew is better than snip snip. -nina
[2010-05-12 12:11:29] - But in this case the disturbance is temporary, as with those splash ads I described and vinnie also commented on, so I guess they're here to stay, since it's unlikely they'll cause sufficient angst to eliminate their use. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 12:10:30] - pierce: Well, I didn't see Wolverine: Origins, but that was due more to personal circumstances than any boycott based on suckage. So I'll grant the point. As for the previous: by mechanics here I'm specifically referring to the ability to click on a link to navigate a page. If clicking a link doesn't navigate, then the page's functionality is disturbed by the ad code.
[2010-05-12 12:02:14] - oh, unless you're referring to wolverine as the "third sequel" or are being sarcastic. - pierce
[2010-05-12 12:01:30] - xpovos: also, x-men 3 sucked but was extremely successful and far from killing the franchise (see also x-men origins: wolverine, which also sucked and was also fairly successful) - pierce
[2010-05-12 11:57:01] - xpovos: yeah, your rule doesn't really work. the expected mechanic of a page is to be able to view its content. any time you spend looking at an ad instead of content is interference, but ads wouldn't be useful if they didn't interfere a little. - pierce
[2010-05-12 11:53:56] - xpovos: I'd say rule #1 of ads is to get your attention, and rule #1 for websites having ads is to keep you coming back. I find those types of ads extremely annoying, but yet I still visit nba.com. I guess the ads aren't annoying enough yet to make up for the content I want to see, so I guess it's working - vinnie
[2010-05-12 11:38:05] - Rule #1 of ads, they can't interfere with the expected mechanics of the page on which they advertise. IMO, that includes auto-sound on, flashy splash graphics that cover the content (even briefly), and ads that have to be closed to view content. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 11:35:52] - I've been seeing new ads on pages that I find very annoying. They're essentially pop-ups, but they don't 'pop' until you click somewhere (anywhere) on the page. This could be to click-and-drag to scroll the page, or to click through to the second of three pages of an article, etc. It's creative, but really, really annoying. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 11:28:28] - a: I'm planning to plan (heh) a kd trip, probably sometime in june - vinnie
[2010-05-12 10:58:11] - I'd go for X-men again. Why isn't that awesome movie still in theaters? And why did they follow it up with a crappy third sequel, thus killing the franchise? -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 10:36:46] - paul: kd again. definitely. "I need to plan something , someone give me something to plan" hehehe. ~a
[2010-05-12 10:28:12] - pierce: Cool. Watch out for the source of that great sucking sound. They must have an impressive money devouring pit buried deep in their lair somewhere.
-- Xpovos[2010-05-12 10:19:53] - a: they all sound like whine problems to me - pierce
[2010-05-12 10:16:01] - well it's good to know that none of these are wine problems. ~a
[2010-05-12 10:05:25] - a: I'm also having weird issues with the sound from time to time. - mig
[2010-05-12 09:55:41] - xpovos: I'll be contracting there. - pierce
[2010-05-12 09:53:27] - Pierce will be working for Fannie Mae? -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 09:24:08] - http://livefeed.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/05/fake-yoyo-trickster-fooling-tv-stations-video.html this kenny strass guy has gotten on at least seven news shows pretending to be a yo-yo master... he says he's from "zim zam yoyo" and then just throws the yoyos around and spins them around his head and stuff. poor news networks! - aaron
[2010-05-12 09:18:14] - a:yes, it's a known issue. you have to kill the process for now. - mig
[2010-05-11 23:58:39] - newest patch of sc2 has trouble closing (for me in wine and my coworker in windows). same for you guys? ~a
[2010-05-11 20:33:03] - "The BBC has an article about using ultrasound aimed at the testicles as a reversible male contraceptive"
pew pew ~a[2010-05-11 16:54:02] - nanny?
[2010-05-11 16:53:17] - fanny*
[2010-05-11 16:45:04] - Congrats on starting at Fannie on Thursday, Pierce!
[2010-05-11 16:40:02] - Xpovos: Don't feel bad. It's a piece of news that's highly relevant to most people that frequent this board. We don't all know Paul's dad, either. - Stephen
[2010-05-11 16:31:54] - i didn't know about it. ~a
[2010-05-11 16:21:07] - Ok, so you guys mostly knew about it, then. I feel bad bringing it up. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-11 16:16:19] - also sad that TJ lost that much money... My understanding is the money was primarily donations which she stole and unrecoverable by the school. (Most of this is based on info from Paul's dad rather than the article) ~gurkie
[2010-05-11 16:13:26] - yeah, I remember reading about that when she was first arrested. sad, really... both that she resorted to a crime that was so easily trackable (she wrote herself checks? really) to feed her gambling habit and that there were no safeguards in place to catch this and nip it in the bud before it got to $279,000. - pierce
[2010-05-11 14:44:52] - TJ Employee makes the news for the wrong reasons. Better than most of the reasons I'd normally post about, but still not good. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-11 14:18:28] - Yeah I think my phone was having trouble updating, I just got several at once. -Daniel
[2010-05-11 14:07:54] - daniel: yeah i got one. - aaron
[2010-05-11 13:43:09] - was there not an email sent out by the game when the turn processed? I didn't get one, kinda weird. -Daniel
[2010-05-11 13:15:22] - *** plaunve suspects adrian only moved to adriatic sea because it has his name in it
[2010-05-11 13:08:25] - http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/05/11/iphone.att.2012.mashable/index.html?hpt=T2 ~gurkie
[2010-05-11 13:04:54] - aaron: thats funny, I read through it a couple times thinking he meant factorials but started doing the math and said no... ~gurkie
[2010-05-11 12:50:44] - Bah! Fine! Take my crappy orders.
-Paul[2010-05-11 12:48:10] - a: now i find the sequence a lot less interesting - aaron
[2010-05-11 12:47:48] - a: i assumed you were referring to factorials. you shouldn't use exclamation points so liberally when talking about mathematics - aaron
[2010-05-11 12:31:53] - haha. my numbers are in oeis: oeis. i only got up to 1122772. apparently mathematicians are better at numbers than i am
~a[2010-05-11 12:18:52] - paul: google
[2010-05-11 12:09:51] - paul: goggle
[2010-05-11 12:04:20] - Paul: Toggle
[2010-05-11 11:10:33] - yaaaay!
[2010-05-11 10:54:43] - a: congratulations on your discovery, here is 1542! dollars - aaron
[2010-05-11 10:37:00] - gurkie: yep! isn't that weird? ~a
[2010-05-11 10:33:28] - a: does that mean all of the powers of 2 between 10 and 1542 do not start with the number? ~gurkie
[2010-05-10 17:49:59] - 26 starts with 6! 210 starts with 10! 21542 starts with 1542! yay
~a[2010-05-10 17:09:41] - yes, taking those dips in a car is a great analogy. it's like that feeling, but without the car. ~a
[2010-05-10 16:10:50] - a: The flying part does sound exceptionally fun. Taking some of those dips in a car where you never lose contact is a rush enough, actually jumping and under more controlled circumstances must be a blast. But, the flying, while fun is truncated by the far less fun collision at the end. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-10 16:06:51] - nina: i hate falling too. unless you count running off the bike once, and one scratched elbow, there were no falls on our trip (of eight people and two days). ~a
[2010-05-10 15:53:04] - aaron: lbp2! woo hoo! i'm all about the co-op games. -nina
[2010-05-10 15:52:34] - a: sounds like a lot of fun. something i don't have the courage to do, as i hate falling. a lot. but, fun nonetheless. -nina
[2010-05-10 15:44:29] - gurkie: that is correct. they are controlled jumps. sometimes they're called "rollers" or "dips" because the trail often has rolling hills / dips that cause you to lose contact with the ground when taken at speed. ~a
[2010-05-10 15:37:19] - a: than you could make it seem? at this point I am guessing you were airborne while flying down the mountain while mountain biking? ~gurkie
[2010-05-10 15:35:01] - stephen: sorry for the let down.
in my hobby's defense, flying through the air is way more fun than i could make it seem. ~a[2010-05-10 14:58:05] - a: I read your last sentence first, and was trying to figure out what "adult" activity would involve you going airborne. Then I read the first part of your post
- Stephen[2010-05-10 14:54:07] - it was excellent! i have a few pictures i'll put up on my site in a few minutes. . . . i was camping and mountain biking. the weather was a little rainy at nights when we were camping, but during the days it was dry. they have an amusement park for adults up there: last time i was that airborne was in 2005. ~a
[2010-05-10 14:52:47] - http://www.joystiq.com/2010/05/10/littlebigplanet-2-trailer-falls-to-earth/ lbp 2 trailer. looks like they're adding some cool stuff! - aaron
[2010-05-10 14:22:11] - a: how was PA? what were you doing out there? -nina
[2010-05-10 13:22:41] - aaron: yes, i have a source for that.[citation needed] ~a
[2010-05-10 13:18:40] - a: do you have a source for that - aaron
[2010-05-10 13:13:45] - from a name like anonymous, you know you're getting the best possible information. ~a
[2010-05-10 13:11:58] - gurkie: a bunch of the commenters... borz, Helen, ecobubble, anon, George Greece, yvris, Eleni, bernardina, etc... pretty much all of the commenters who live in greece think he's a stray (although some of them disagree on his identity) - aaron
[2010-05-10 13:11:23] - aaron: nm I searched greek protest dog, I see quite a few links to a different named dog, kanellos, but it has some speculation that he might be a stray ~gurkie
[2010-05-10 13:06:01] - aaron: what was your source for the legitamate information.... as stephen pointed out the initial article speculates that he is owned by one of the protesters.. ~gurkie
[2010-05-10 12:49:00] - gurkie: the collar and the tag show he's vaccinated by the municipal services - aaron
[2010-05-10 12:48:10] - gurkie: The article Aar linked guessed that the dog was owned by one of the Greek protesters. - Stephen
[2010-05-10 12:29:40] - aaron: if he is a stray why does he have a collar on? ~Gurkie
[2010-05-10 11:42:52] - aaron: rebel dog. . . awesome! -nina
[2010-05-10 11:25:05] - a: well played. - pierce
[2010-05-10 11:18:31] - pierce: "my precious 'science'". ~a
[2010-05-10 11:07:36] - a: if it's a paradox, then why hasn't the universe been destroyed now that the question's been asked? answer me that with your precious "science". - pierce
[2010-05-10 11:06:08] - Violence isn't the 'right' answer, maybe. But it certainly is an answer. It's like one of those math problems that you can solve by assuming all the variables are zero. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-10 10:59:01] - title: In most normal situations violence is not the answer. However there are a fair amount of situations where violence did pretty well. -Daniel
[2010-05-10 10:51:24] - title, i don't think there is an answer to "what is never the answer?"
it's like a paradox. i think the question should be "what is almost never the answer?". ~a[2010-05-10 10:43:51] - http://www.thisblogrules.com/2010/03/dog-that-hasnt-missed-a-single-riot-for-years.html/ at first i assumed this was photoshopped but it turns out it's a real dog in athens called "louk". he's a stray but 4-5 dogs like him come to every demonstration and always take the side of the demonstrators - aaron
[2010-05-10 10:07:06] - Daniel: Yeah, sorry. Except for one or two moves, I have no idea what I'm doing this turn, which probably isn't a good thing for Germany. -Paul
[2010-05-10 10:02:21] - a: both. - mig
[2010-05-10 10:00:54] - mig: people who do it intentionally or people who do it accidentally? ~a
[2010-05-10 09:56:58] - paul: i was trying to remember to buy some stuff at opening. oops. ~a
[2010-05-10 09:51:42] - pet peeve of the day - people who respond to mass e-mails with reply-all. - mig
[2010-05-10 09:45:52] - Holy crap, what a rally on the stock market today. -Paul
[2010-05-10 09:26:08] - Paul: It would seem you were correct. Several toggles quickly but couldn't make it all the way for a short turn. -Daniel
[2010-05-07 16:59:42] - Daniel: I keep waiting on you and Aaron to make your move.
-Paul[2010-05-07 16:40:33] - Paul: Clearly we are all coming for you. Duh. -Daniel
[2010-05-07 16:31:33] - Daniel: Considering the seeming lack of alliances so far, I'm surprised so many people have toggled so far. I feel like I've only really concluded negotiations with a few countries right now. -Paul
[2010-05-07 16:28:40] - Daniel: Not if I have anything to say about it!
-Paul[2010-05-07 16:27:19] - half of 2010-06 has toggled already. could it be a short turn?! -Daniel
[2010-05-07 15:48:11] - stephen: i would crack a joke about white americans posing as like, canadians and stuff? but actually i remember that happening post 9/11 too. it's fun to pretend! - aaron
[2010-05-07 15:21:48] - http://img.thedailywtf.com/images/201005/errord/Hmmm.jpg lol. - mig
[2010-05-07 15:18:48] - Stephen: I'm also confused because he seems to have strong gun control tendencies. -Paul
[2010-05-07 15:17:43] - Stephen: Yeah, I was a bit surprised by that as well. My guess is that he shares a lot of fiscally conservative viewpoints with Ron Paul/Campaign for Liberty/etc and they just ignore his socially conservative views. -Paul
[2010-05-07 15:10:51] - Paul, Adrian: How is Bob Marshall a libertarian, a tea partier, or anything other than an extreme social conservative? He's best-known for guns, gays, and God, not taxes. - Stephen
[2010-05-07 14:51:51] - a: He did tend to stray a bit off topic at times, for sure, like with the CIA bit. I wouldn't be surprised if some illogical stuff slipped in. We can watch the video sometime.
-Paul[2010-05-07 14:51:42] - I went to high school with one of Bob Marshall's kids. I'd still never vote for him. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-07 14:14:48] - Well this is sad, but I'm not surprised. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64655Y20100507 - Stephen
[2010-05-07 14:07:52] - paul/mig: if we watch paul's recording i might be able to point some of them out. i'll admit i'm mostly remembering the first two guys, but i vaguely remember paul saying a bunch of stuff that was either illogical or stuff i disagreed with. ~a
[2010-05-07 13:56:53] - a: I would agree that Bob Marshall seemed to have some straw men, but I don't remember there being many with Ron Paul's speech. -Paul
[2010-05-07 13:53:07] - a: straw men? like what? - mig
[2010-05-07 13:48:09] - "was free for me" := "wasn't free for me" oops. ~a
[2010-05-07 13:47:18] - plus i often find myself on the libertarian side of the democratic party so it's not like their platform is really all that disagreeable with my views. ~a
[2010-05-07 13:46:28] - so, since they often said stuff that nobody would disagree with, i found myself agreeing with them on a lot of things. and since they misrepresented their opponents, i found myself agreeing with what they were saying at face value (but still knowing it disagreed with my world view). ~a
[2010-05-07 13:45:22] - i didn't go to the event beforehand because it was free for me. i liked bob marshall's speech and ron paul's speech. the other guy was worthless. but even bob marshall and ron paul both heavily used straw men to make their points . . . they would misrepresent their opponents' views and they would also say stuff that nobody would disagree with. ~a
[2010-05-07 13:35:13] - Despite not being Adrian, I'll go ahead and give my opinion: I thought the turnout was a little low, the speeches were hit-or-miss, and the private event beforehand was a little boring (although that was entirely my fault). I am still glad I went, though. -Paul
[2010-05-07 13:28:10] - i'm interested in adrian's opinion. - mig
[2010-05-07 13:26:10] - signed, - pierce
[2010-05-07 13:25:55] - oh hey how was ron paul? free marketeriffic?
[2010-05-07 12:23:54] - bud sadly, i really should have just looked for myself. ~a
[2010-05-07 12:23:19] - former. ~a
[2010-05-07 12:15:25] - a: Which, the truth that kid gloves were made of kid (junior goat) or the falsehood (a reasonable and common misinterpretation due to changing language)? -- Xpovos
[2010-05-07 11:43:36] - pierce: wtf? where did you read that? ~a
[2010-05-07 11:30:14] - pierce: yeah! that's what i thought too. - aaron
[2010-05-07 11:18:01] - even though I am not opposed to leather, I am retroactively horrified to find out that "handling with kid gloves" refers to baby goat leather. I always assumed it just meant being gentle, as if you were dealing with a child. - pierce
[2010-05-07 11:13:56] - Pierce: Better than the actual one.
-Paul[2010-05-07 10:54:04] - paul: thank you, I am a great mental picture, aren't I. - pierce
[2010-05-07 10:29:17] - a: I find it interesting to also look at who controlled congress at the time. I believe Reagan, GHWB and Obama have all had more of a Democratic congress to deal with during their administrations, while Clinton had more of a Republican congress and GWB seems split right down the middle (if I'm reading the table I am looking at correctly). -Paul
[2010-05-07 10:20:26] - a: I thought so too, which is why I am perplexed. I don't care enough to look up deficit statistics and others, though.
-Paul[2010-05-07 10:19:11] - it'll be interesting to see what Obama's per-year percentage comes to at the end of his term. - pierce
[2010-05-07 10:17:30] - a: oh i get what you're saying now. arite - aaron
[2010-05-07 10:16:18] - a: 4% is less than 9% - aaron
[2010-05-07 10:09:35] - hah, interesting! gwb had less %/year change in the debt than either of the other recent republicans before him. rr=14%/year, gb=12%/year, bc=4%/year, gwb=9%/year. bo=15%/year. ~a
[2010-05-07 10:05:47] - "or if he was just referring to the past 3 years or so". he did say "obama" in the sentence you're referring to. ~a
[2010-05-07 10:00:11] - a: Like I said, I didn't consider the correlation (which apparently you don't even consider it a correlation?) to be particularly meaningful. I was just trying to explain what I thought you might've been talking about last night. -Paul
[2010-05-07 09:54:36] - a: Apparently. Maybe he was talking about the deficit or something else. I don't know. I'm guessing it was not just a false statistic, but probably just referring to something else. -Paul
[2010-05-07 09:54:10] - paul: your graph doesn't show that there is a relationship between gold vs dow. there isn't even an inverse relationship. you've just shown that the percent change in the relationship per year has been (relatively) constant. which seems meaningless to me. also, i have trouble figuring out why you would put a ratio on a logarithmic scale. ~a
[2010-05-07 09:48:11] - paul: except that is false. ~a
[2010-05-07 09:46:25] - Pierce: What if we claim to have already seen it? - stephen
[2010-05-07 09:45:54] - a: Well, I wasn't necessarily trying to make a point, I was just trying to explain what I thought his point was. I thought he was talking about how the debt (not deficit) had gone up the same amount in one year as it had gone up in X years previous (where X was something like 10 years). -Paul
[2010-05-07 09:41:38] - all: just fair warning that when season 1 of Community comes out on DVD, I'm going to kidnap you all and force you to watch it Clockwork-Orange style. - pierce
[2010-05-07 09:40:52] - really you and he should have made the point that the change (in $ or %) per year under obama has been greater (though i would have agreed with that point). ~a
[2010-05-07 09:38:53] - paul: or if he was talking about the deficit. ~a
[2010-05-07 09:14:54] - a: Now I'm wondering, though, if the speaker who made the comment about the debt's huge increase was actually referring specifically to Obama or if he was just referring to the past 3 years or so. -Paul
[2010-05-07 09:13:08] - a: Yeah, I had read that article. Crazy that some stocks went from $40 a share to a penny a share for like a minute. -Paul
[2010-05-07 09:12:09] - a: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Longtermdowgoldlogtr1800.png Here is the correlation that I was talking about last night. -Paul
[2010-05-07 09:10:47] - a: Did it have something to do with gold's correlation to the dollar or the stock market? -Paul
[2010-05-07 09:09:48] - a: While it looks like the debt has only gone up a little over $2 trillion so far during Obama's one plus year in office. -Paul
[2010-05-07 09:09:26] - what was the other bet? ~a
[2010-05-07 09:09:17] - paul: yay! ~a
[2010-05-07 09:08:46] - a: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np According to this website, it looks like you were right. The debt went up a little under $5 trillion under Bush's entire 8 year administration (although it was mostly concentrated near the end, so it was probably due to the bailouts more than the war). -Paul
[2010-05-06 21:52:54] - This is so cool. Perhaps even cooler is that my wife sent it to me. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-06 18:06:56] - xpovos/paul: a story about the selloff today. seems a little weird to be true. it is also surprising that there are no safeguards to protect against this kind of problem. ~a
[2010-05-06 16:57:59] - i heard that shopping area got a new mexican restaurant. ~a
[2010-05-06 16:37:32] - Paul: I was watching that, but Google Finance screwed it up for me. I saw the graph dip very sharply, but the numbers stayed the same. So it looked like it was only down ~200 points. By the time I refreshed we were back up to -400ish. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-06 16:17:43] - xpovos: this is a little different though. interesting stuff. - mig
[2010-05-06 16:12:24] - xpovos: A little. Go Lib Dems! I suppose I'm hoping for an L/LD coalition, but I don't see any coalition government lasting very long. - stephen
[2010-05-06 16:09:56] - xpovos: I tend to stay with domestic stuff. Most of the political stuff that comes out of the UK is usually depressing to read about. - mig
[2010-05-06 16:08:00] - Xpovos: Nope, sorry, I was too busy watching the dow temporarily drop by 1,000. -Paul
[2010-05-06 15:11:44] - Anyone else enjoying the political theatre of the UK election today? I like that their polls are open until midnight their time. Makes for a better shot at turnout for them, and prime-time entertainment for us. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-06 14:24:57] - mig: Well, considering that my current computer lasted a good 7 years and still works pretty well for most tasks, I'm hoping that if I get a new computer, it'll last me another 7+ years with only the occasional video card upgrade and possible memory expansion. -Paul
[2010-05-06 14:19:15] - Paul: i don't use it, but I typically change components on my desktop often enough that I don't usually worry about HDD failure(Usually I get a new mboard and various other things once every 2 years). Or I may just be lucky and not had an incident like pierce did with his HDD.- mig
[2010-05-06 14:00:22] - Does anybody here know if RAID 1 offers the same performance increases during reads as RAID 0 does? I'm doing more research for my new desktop and I'm trying to figure out if RAID makes sense. -Paul
[2010-05-06 13:43:43] - xpovos: well yeah, I was referring to that specific one where the photo was taken. - mig
[2010-05-06 13:39:01] - mig: http://donpablos.know-where.com/donpablos/cgi/selection?map.x=0&map.y=0&mapid=us&place=22030®ion= -- Xpovos
[2010-05-06 13:37:38] - mig: There are still some Don Pablo's around. They did shut most of them down, though. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-06 13:31:20] - mig: yes don pablos... ~gurkie
[2010-05-06 13:23:40] - a: those desert things were pretty delicious, somewhat sad that the place doesn't exist anymore (that was Don Pablo's right?) - mig
[2010-05-06 13:21:02] - daniel: don't get too excited. - mig
[2010-05-06 13:18:50] - a: I will admit I also LOLed when I read that.... Although I didnt picture it... ~gurkie
[2010-05-06 13:17:10] - that not a pinecone link requres a pw? oO top secret pics of miguel? -Daniel
[2010-05-06 12:56:32] - blah blah eliminate govt blah blah anarchocapitalistic society - cato
[2010-05-06 12:55:29] - Stephen: Yowza, that's 77 minutes and a video. Sorry, you're on your own there.
-Paul[2010-05-06 12:52:57] - all morning i've been laughing at the visual of miguel eating a pinecone. not a pinecone ~a
[2010-05-06 12:28:54] - you also forgot blah blah blah cut taxes blah blah cut spending. - mig
[2010-05-06 12:28:08] - cato: This one is about domestic spying and civil liberties. I doubt they want domestic spying programs to be less regulated
- stephen[2010-05-06 12:21:00] - stephen: "blah blah free market, blah blah blah oppressive government regulation, blah blah blah major parties are complicit, blah blah ponies." - cato
[2010-05-06 12:18:03] - Paul: How do you feel about listening to http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=6218 and preparing a summary for me? - stephen
[2010-05-06 12:17:20] - xpovos: i'm reschmoodling my mortgage this year so i have to figure out my withholding again. i'm just going to guess though. it doesn't matter too much. if you're off, you just owe a lot of money or get a lot of money back. but i don't think the penalties are punitive, it's just like, an interest payment - aaron
[2010-05-06 12:17:03] - xpovos: yeah it is. As much as I love Ron Paul it's just really excruciating to hear him speak sometimes (he tends to stutter a lot). - mig
[2010-05-06 12:16:13] - xpovos: tax guy, $120. totally worth it - aaron
[2010-05-06 12:11:47] - Stephen: Wow, neat. I listen to Cato Institute podcasts all the time at work but it's never been FOR work.
-Paul[2010-05-06 12:10:35] - Stephen: As much as I like Cato's ideals, they tend to lapse in public speaking capacity. It's remarkable how few libertarian and libertarian-leaning people can adequately elocute their positions on complex subjects. So, in other words: Sorry to hear that. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-06 12:08:45] - I'm not stupid, I don't think (save perhaps for Diplomacy), and I've been doing my own taxes for years, usually without the aid of any computer programs or tax preparers, so I'm familiar with the way the IRS talks. But seriously, the *instructions* for the form 1040 are 175 pages long! I always knew our tax laws were too complex. Now I know it. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-06 12:07:13] - After buying a house, I am now mired in such fun topics as: adjusting my w4 witholdings, which leads to: why does the child tax credit count for two allowances per child, and attempting to determine how much I estimate I'll be itemizing this year, which in turn leads to all kinds of questions about what counts as deductible. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-06 12:04:50] - pierce: i find the drug policy link relevant because while not directly linked to marijuana, It was in my opinion, a negative development in the overall war on drugs. - mig
[2010-05-06 12:04:24] - libertarians: You will be pleased to know I am listening to a Cato Institute podcast for work. - Stephen
[2010-05-06 11:51:31] - well if you want to wade through the google you can find some more examples. The are some pre Holder annoucment raids on there, but DEA raids in CA and other states that have legalized medical marijuana have still been going on. - mig
[2010-05-06 11:47:03] - *say -nina
[2010-05-06 11:46:49] - there's a reason they saw you don't want to see how sausages and laws are made. -nina
[2010-05-06 11:44:48] - pierce: hehe. ~a
[2010-05-06 11:44:17] - mig: i think signing something into law is a pretty big deal. but it's not like he wrote it. and vetoing something has serious repercussions you seem to be ignoring. regardless it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. ~a
[2010-05-06 11:43:52] - mig: that really seems like cherry-picking your sources, except you couldn't find any cherries so you're eating a pinecone. - pierce
[2010-05-06 11:42:28] - mig: really? you're taking the fact that he didn't veto the entire stimulus on the basis of its funding of one program that has no clearly described link to marijuana laws even in the press release from the Drug Policy Alliance, as definitive evidence? that and a news report that reads like a twitter feed and doesn't list what crimes they were raided for? - pierce
[2010-05-06 11:34:52] - pierce: the first link details part of the stimulus package which obama signed into law. I do find that relevant. - mig
[2010-05-06 11:34:49] - mig: besides that if you're going to hold him responsible for things like this simply because they're happening "on his watch" shouldn't you also credit him with things like legalization of medical marijuana that happened in DC this year? or is obama only responsible for the bad stuff - aaron
[2010-05-06 11:31:16] - mig: went to your first link. ctrl-f. "obama". 0 results. your second link is so sparse on details that it's hardly a counterpoint. nowhere does it say that the place was raided for marijuana distribution. maybe it was, and maybe obama personally pulled the trigger on the raid, but none of that is shown. - pierce
[2010-05-06 11:31:12] - mig: and i didn't say you couldn't blame obama. i said it wasn't fair to
- aaron[2010-05-06 11:30:03] - mig: who knows if that's true or not but it is a possible explanation for why that dispensary was targeted. i'm curious what kind of charges were filed against them - aaron
[2010-05-06 11:28:47] - mig: as far as that second link, not that i put too much stake in anonymous comments or anything but assuming the comment by 'Ed McCann' is accurate, it sounds like the dispensary was raided for things other than marijuana - aaron
[2010-05-06 11:27:07] - aaron: he signed it into law. I sure as hell can blame him. - mig
[2010-05-06 11:26:33] - mig: because one company in a trillion dollar stimulus bill had two scandals at some point? i'm not sure if it's fair to blame obama for that one - aaron
[2010-05-06 11:20:21] - - mig
[2010-05-06 11:20:15] - or this.
[2010-05-06 11:14:00] - pierce: I would be less skeptical of Obama's stand were it not for things like this. - mig
[2010-05-06 11:06:26] - subtitle: 11 words that blew my mind. ~a
[2010-05-06 11:01:10] - aaron: Well, at least pit bulls can grow larger to be credibly threatening.... as opposed to a Corgi. -Paul
[2010-05-06 10:57:22] - paul: oh okay. pit bulls are ugly - aaron
[2010-05-06 10:55:24] - pierce: i didn't know he spoke out in favor of medical marijuana during his campaign. i think miguel was referring to how, like, there was some guy who suggested legalizing marijuana to solve the economic crisis, and obama chuckled and said that wouldn't work - aaron
[2010-05-06 10:52:16] - mig: it's ironic that you're calling for him to take a stand for "real" change by making empty statements, while you ignore changes he made that actually do have "real" effects. - pierce
[2010-05-06 10:49:41] - a: http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/feb/23/family-questions-swat-drug-search-that-led-to/ This article linked to on the other page actually offers more information. Apparently the corgi was shot, but not killed, and there was a pit bull which was killed. -Paul
[2010-05-06 10:48:18] - mig: like this? Obama can't legalize marijuana. He can think it's ridiculous to assume it will be legalized for recreational use. But he has taken a stand on the issue, maybe not to the full extent of his power, but probably to the full extent he can get away with without being seen as waging a pro-pot crusade. - pierce
[2010-05-06 10:47:21] - mig: heh well it has to be change that his party wants, or he wouldn't get elected on the democratic ticket - aaron
[2010-05-06 10:43:29] - aaron: assuming those are the only two options? i'd rather he humored us than be dismissive. ~a
[2010-05-06 10:41:22] - paul: shooting the dog was a mistake. it would be hard (but possible) for them to claim otherwise. right? ~a
[2010-05-06 10:41:08] - aaron: or he could actually take a stand for real change. - mig
[2010-05-06 10:33:24] - a: I would guess because they couldn't find evidence? Not sure why the dog would cause charges to be dropped. That could be seen as implying they made a mistake. -Paul
[2010-05-06 10:33:24] - mig: personally yeah i'm disappointed obama's not like, avidly pro-legalization, but he's representing a party which has a lot of hillary clintons in it. given the two options, i'd rather he be dismissive rather than humor us - aaron
[2010-05-06 10:27:37] - ahh. weird. i wonder why the other two charges were dropped. because of the dog? ~a
prev <-> next