prev <-> next
[2010-05-18 12:51:30] - pierce: I'll accept that. Though I'd like to get to the point where you're not boggling. I'd prefer you to understand my position. I understand yours, I think. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-18 12:50:22] - pierce: i don't understand what you mean when you say that you "see... external regulation... of nutrition as a good idea". do you mean like mandatory nutrition? - aaron
[2010-05-18 12:48:42] - So this might end up being one of those things where we agree to disagree and I secretly boggle about the fact that you'd disagree with it. - pierce
[2010-05-18 12:47:05] - pierce: And that appears to be our fundamental disconnect. I know what's in it, and I choose to eat it anyway. The man providing it to me has almost no part in the transaction. I gave him money for a product. The nature of the product is between me and my stomach. When you legislate/regulate that, you're regulating me. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-18 12:46:41] - paul: among other things, by word choice. Burgers get heavy descriptions like "mouth watering" or "juicy" or "thick" while chicken gets light words like "crisp" or "fresh" or "tender". If you're looking for me to point to a smoking gun instead of something subjective then I can't help you because advertising is the art of manipulating subjectivity. - pierce
[2010-05-18 12:43:01] - Pierce: How do they position their chicken sandwiches as a "lighter" alternative to beef? -Paul
[2010-05-18 12:42:00] - xpovos: of course they'll choose the most effective marketing, that's why I'm not putting my trust in them to solve the problem. It why I see external regulation, not just of disclosure but of nutrition as a good idea. - pierce
[2010-05-18 12:39:36] - i hope restaurants get better about disclosure of nutrition info! i liked the idea of having it on the receipt. i wish restaurants would do that, i know they do in some places (california?) but only because it's enforced by law - aaron
[2010-05-18 12:39:14] - (in my view) - pierce
[2010-05-18 12:38:19] - Paul: depends what you mean. If you're asking if they ever said they were healthy, I couldn't say. But they definitely position their chicken sandiches as a "lighter" alternative to beef and knowingly taking advantage of a public preconception in order to do that more effectively amounts to the same thing. - pierce
[2010-05-18 12:28:10] - Pierce: Because I'll acknowledge that while you didn't outright say that, I feel like it has to be the implication of your statement, unless you are blaming McDonalds for people assuming that grilled things are always better than fried things. -Paul
[2010-05-18 12:24:33] - Pierce: Ok, I really wanted to stay out of this, but I'll bite. Are you saying that McDonalds has advertised their grilled chicken items as being healthy? -Paul
[2010-05-18 12:21:51] - pierce: They'll market them in whatever way increases sales the most. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-18 12:21:08] - pierce: Nutrition is not rocket science. I'm not asking the McDonald's customers to understand even what a calorie is or how it works in their bodies. It is extremely common knowledge that ~2000 will get the job done for (almost) anyone on any given day. Other facts are substantially less well known, true, but they're also substantially less important. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-18 12:20:26] - and that's even assuming that the disclosure itself is honest and straightforward. McDonalds discloses the nutrition info for the grilled chicken sandwiches, but you can't deny that they also market them in a way that takes advantage of preconceptions about "grilled" meaning "healthy" even though they're actually worse for you in some ways. - pierce
[2010-05-18 12:17:26] - xpovos: the reality is that there are too many potential dangers to reasonably disclose them all, and even if we did they're often so complex that we can't be reasonably expected to understand them. That's why I don't think disclosure is a sufficient or comprehensive mitigation strategy. - pierce
[2010-05-18 12:14:14] - Which is why I tend to be OK (even supportive) of information laws (disclosure of average calorie content, etc) and substantially critical of bans, like trans-fat and salt. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-18 12:13:23] - pierce: It's reasonable for their profits. The thought that McDonald's is serving you food to make you healthier is absurd. They're serving you food to make money. You choose the food to fulfill a basic need. It's up to you (collective, not specific) to know what that need is and how to best fill it. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-18 12:10:52] - also, the sugar and calories are usually proportional, although I acknowledge that the "reference foods" are really mostly for dramatic effect. - pierce
[2010-05-18 12:08:53] - xpovos: it's not unlike the super-size me approach. Spurlock supersized his meals at mcdonalds when he was asked if he wanted to. The availability and marketing of larger sizes are intended to make people choose them, which suggests that it's a reasonable choice when it almost never is. - pierce
[2010-05-18 12:06:55] - Paul: I kind of wanted a smller version of the worst item, that Cold Stone shake, but I don't think it's actually a chocolate chip cookie ice cream shake. I'd totally have a small one of those. I know it'd be a heart attack in a cup, but I did just eat the entire menu at a Brazilian steakhouse, so clearly, I don't value my life highly. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-18 12:04:30] - xpovos: heh heh yeah. they could also compare the snapple agave melon to two bananas, instead of two ice cream bars. obviously they picked the foods and comparisons they did for shock value - aaron
[2010-05-18 12:03:14] - Pierce: You got nauseous? I got hungry, especially when it got to the ice cream shakes. Mmmmmm. -Paul
[2010-05-18 11:54:43] - pierce: They purposefully pick the largest sizes of these drinks. That doesn't mean they're healthy, of course, but I think it belies a bias that they're searching for the biggest numbers. And the calories are more important than the sugars, though they seem to feel otherwise. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-18 11:46:23] - glad to see the low sugar monster drink getting its props. - mig
[2010-05-18 11:43:14] - pierce: wow 2,000 calories in one shake! that's impressive - aaron
[2010-05-18 11:39:00] - Pierce: After reading that, I want Nilla wafers and ice cream sandwiches. - Stephen
[2010-05-18 11:30:27] - http://worldmysteries9.blogspot.com/2010/05/harmful-drinks-in-america.html the most harmful drinks in America. I got nauseous just reading this. - pierce
[2010-05-18 11:29:37] - gurkie: june is in two weeks. ~a
[2010-05-18 10:54:32] - Stephen: JUNE? I didnt realize it was so far away! ~gurkie
[2010-05-18 10:39:20] - Stephen: still ramping up, not productive yet. Still much better than twiddling my thumbs! - pierce
[2010-05-18 09:18:45] - Pierce: How's Fannie Mae this week? - Stephen
[2010-05-18 08:33:16] - So I ordered a Droid Incredible this weekend...it's going to arrive in June
- Stephen[2010-05-17 16:55:29] - i do what i can!
~a[2010-05-17 16:54:39] - a: you totally take all the fun out of Yahoo News. what's the point of a fluff piece if you break it down and stomp all over it.
-nina[2010-05-17 16:35:42] - a: I dunno, I think African people are still pretty cheap. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-17 16:28:27] - xpovos: exactly. my guess is that people like to use correlation to imply causation because it's cheaper.
~a[2010-05-17 16:26:48] - a: To Africa! -- Xpovos
[2010-05-17 16:05:33] - "the report hypothesizes that because women tend to be at the center of their family's social network" or, what is more likely is that women who are really happy with their lives have a much higher chance of hopping on teh internets. . . . the only way to actually prove causation would be to expose some women to the internet and compare them to a control group. ~a
[2010-05-17 16:00:54] - mig: sorry for this tired phrase, but correlation is not causation. internet users are happy; but that doesn't mean that the internet makes people happy. it could be that happy people tend to also use the internet. ~a
[2010-05-17 15:55:40] - http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100517/hl_time/08599198924400 the internet makes people happy. - mig
[2010-05-17 13:55:19] - vinnie: seems interesting. i don't think the minor advantage given by the scheme cards listed would offset a 3v1 or 4v1 game though, but maybe they just listed some bad ones - aaron
[2010-05-17 13:54:43] - xpovos: this format seems less random to me, and more unique. we'll have to see how it plays out. I was skeptical of planechase too and I don't think a lot of people ended up liking planechase so history is on your side - vinnie
[2010-05-17 13:49:23] - vinnie: I'm more skeptical of this than I was of Planechase. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-17 13:43:07] - new one-vs-many magic multiplayer format: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/91 seems like it has the potential to be really fun, if the initial reviews are good we should try it out - vinnie
[2010-05-17 13:04:33] - aaron: Absolutely you should watch it when you get home. It's intensely memorable. Music is OK too. I've commented elsewhere that it's a bit like a not-as-good Depeche Mode. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-17 12:36:56] - xpovos: vinnie let me borrow a hot chip CD a couple months ago, i thought it was pretty good. i'll probably like the video too - aaron
[2010-05-17 12:35:55] - xpovos: no, should i watch it when i get home? - aaron
[2010-05-17 12:19:43] - pierce: zerg might also be the faction that changed the most from the original, so there's a bit of a learning curve there. - mig
[2010-05-17 11:51:33] - aaron: Did you watch the music video that he linked to? The music video he just finished directing? -- Xpovos
[2010-05-17 11:40:50] - daniel: oh that would be cool! let me know when he comes down - aaron
[2010-05-17 11:33:36] - a: Thanks. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-17 11:28:47] - aaron: I promise I'm not ducking your games either. I don't think I'll be out of town again until the 4th of july. Stefan (the guy we played the f2f dip game with) thinks he is going to come to down to DC some weekend in June so maybe we could try the f2f again or get some peeps together for some other games. -Daniel
[2010-05-17 11:23:24] - daniel: cool! i played about seven games of dominion, i'm not sure how to balance the alchemy cards yet. it seems silly when only one card is in play that uses potions. i guess maybe it's OK. - aaron
[2010-05-17 11:13:00] - a: Looks like you guys had a lot of fun, sorry Travis and I missed it. If any of you all have any pictures from this weekend that you think Travis would enjoy seeing, can you pass them along to me? I might try to compile them and give them to Travis. Thanks. -Paul
[2010-05-17 11:07:36] - when liberals attack ~a
[2010-05-17 11:05:18] - Two games of agricola, one of puerto rico, two Game of Thrones games, one game of Balderdash, lots of Dominion, and plenty of munchkin. Busy but fun weekend. -Daniel
[2010-05-17 10:54:13] - xpovos: email sent. ~a
[2010-05-17 10:43:59] - a: I'll need to get a uid/pw. I might have had one before, but I've long since lost/forgotten it if I did. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-17 10:18:50] - http://gizmodo.com/5539417/why-i-steal-movies-even-ones-im-in i thought this was a pretty good article about piracy. it's from the point of view of a british actor/producer who is conflicted because he wants his show to earn money, but he's also a geek who understands the many advantages of piracy - aaron
[2010-05-17 10:00:44] - aaron/xpovos/vinnie/etc: golf 3d ~a
[2010-05-17 09:52:10] - aaron: polaroids are sooo expensive! that must have cost thousands of dollars just for that one aspect of the video. -nina
[2010-05-17 09:50:40] - Wow. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/05/tetris-shmups-and-shooters-the-best-of-starcraft-2-maps.ars -- Xpovos
[2010-05-17 09:49:41] - vinnie: but yeah my favorite one was the guy juggling oranges... that would never work
- aaron[2010-05-17 09:48:51] - vinnie: heh yeah the ending was really dark!! i definitely expected some kind of twist, as opposed for the band to just be... dead - aaron
[2010-05-17 09:44:58] - aaron: catchy song, very cool video. though I wish at the end they would show that the band was just posing for another photo rather than... dead. for some reason, I find that funnier - vinnie
[2010-05-17 09:20:45] - pierce: are you playing other people online? you have to wait until it puts you in a league. (it goes practice, copper, bronze, silver, gold, platinum, pro) if it puts you in the copper or bronze league you'll do fine. i was put in gold for 2v2 because mark and i won almost all of our placement matches. i gotta say, gold sucks ass. ~a
[2010-05-17 00:46:24] - oof. I suck at starcraft 2. especially as zerg. - pierce
[2010-05-16 01:14:12] - vinnie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7eq4RFf0Sc&feature=related here's that CSS song i was telling you about. the video is pretty funny too - aaron
[2010-05-15 07:34:58] - a: i agree, i'm way in favor of cable companies needing competition for DVRs. if the price went up to $20/mo or if they started adding weird limitations (you can't fast-forward commercials) i'd be very grateful that an alternative exists. at the moment, the cable-provided DVRs give me enough service/convenience that i think it's a good deal - aaron
[2010-05-15 07:33:46] - xpovos: yeah i agree on all counts. people who want to do things like upload recorded stuff to youtube or back it up on their comp, cable boxes won't cover that. but yeah cost-wise i think the rental price makes more sense for most people - aaron
[2010-05-14 16:21:01] - a: But time value of money is real. $10 a month is easier, and $120 a year covers a good three years for most of the hardware requirements for such boxes, which will probably be outdated in 3 years. I don't think open PVRs can compete on price, really. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-14 16:19:29] - They want to control the data, we want to control the box. There's a disconnect there. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-14 16:18:50] - . . . the list goes on. basically i disagree that it doesn't make sense $-wise. $10 a month is $120 a year that you could spend on a device that does a million times more stuff than your cable-company's dvr does. ~a
[2010-05-14 16:17:44] - aaron: And with presumably substantial more function than a standard DVR. Well, not 'more' per se, but the kinds of functions that are obvious, but not readily sanctioned by content providers. Like transfer into standard formats to PC, burning to DVD for additional long-term storage, etc. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-14 16:17:38] - aaron: cable companies need competition for their dvr services. cable dvrs don't do channel skipping, or copying/viewing the video away from the device (over the internet), or video streaming, or picture viewing, weather, internet, etc etc. until recently they didn't have multi-room or internet-based-scheduling. ~a
[2010-05-14 16:10:21] - xpovos: but i agree, conceptually it seems like a device that should totally exist. a digital VCR which geeks can use as a "black box", they don't have to know how it works. - aaron
[2010-05-14 16:05:20] - xpovos: heh, it doesn't make a lot of sense $-wise. my DVR is like $10 a month. that covers the unit and the ability to watch two channels at once - aaron
[2010-05-14 15:59:26] - http://shirt.woot.com/ hehe this makes me laugh, but only good on friday... ~gurkie
[2010-05-14 15:52:14] - I get the feeling that there's an unmet market demand for open sourced, open architecture PVRs, like MythTV, that come pre-assembled and installed on functional hardware. Not everyone who likes PVRs and open source ideology is as technically savvy as we might be. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-14 15:32:34] - im regretting not turning on paul sooner, although I really dont know when I should have... I basically went from one enemy to the next to the next... ~gurkie
[2010-05-14 15:23:10] - a: 2010-2 is still going on... barely... paul and I have 16 each and mig + xpovos have 1 each... I think. ~gurkie
[2010-05-14 15:17:13] - are you in a game? ~a
[2010-05-14 15:16:41] - im totally going to forget to put orders in at some point... ~gurkie
[2010-05-14 12:48:16] - mig: ugh
- aaron[2010-05-14 12:45:04] - aaron: not a bad idea. Actually something like a speed run tourney would be really cool. - mig
[2010-05-14 12:42:42] - mig: yeah i totally agree. maybe they can use single player for tournaments </s> - aaron
[2010-05-14 12:29:21] - a: OK. Devil's advocate is good. And I don't have a solid connection. I just had to pay out the nose to get cable, because nothing else was functional at my new house.
And even negligible now approaches infinity over time, which exists, since it's an open-ended promise--though EA found ways around that too. -- Xpovos[2010-05-14 12:29:11] - because that 1% is going to cause a major headache. - mig
[2010-05-14 12:28:28] - aaron: and actually a lot of the korean pro gaming community was a bit rattled by this, because they all pretty much use lan for their tournament. You definitely don't want to run a tournament with big money riding on it with an external element you can't control (in this case battle.net) even if it is 99% reliable. - mig
[2010-05-14 12:26:19] - aaron: right the actual gameplay is managed with some sort of p2p scheme, but the fact remains that if you're playing over battle.net as it is, that data has to get routed through the internet even if all the peers are on the same internal network. At least, as far as I know, maybe their client can distinguish the 2, and if so, I think that would be acceptable. - mig
[2010-05-14 12:23:49] - mig: iirc latency is a non-issue, since battle.net is only used for matchmaking, not for actually sending packets back and forth once the game starts - aaron
[2010-05-14 12:21:21] - xpovos: but we all do have a solid connection and a reliable carrier. bandwidth is already paid for and the load on blizard's servers is negligible compared to the increased sales they'll get. anyways i'm really playing devil's advocate because i think requiring that we use their servers is very very drmish and lame. ~a
[2010-05-14 12:16:30] - a: Maybe, if you have a solid connection and a reliable carrier, but even then, why burden the internet unnecessarily, or Blizzard's servers unnecessarily. Bandwidth costs someone something. Adding LAN support is 'free'. But there's the concern of piracy. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-14 12:11:50] - anyways, like I said, I was just curious, because it was a hot topic last year and I haven't heard really any final resolution one way or the other. - mig
[2010-05-14 12:11:04] - a: that is true, which is why I say it's a nice to have, not of super uber importance. - mig
[2010-05-14 12:09:08] - "it'd be nice not to have to do so over his internet connection and Blizzard's servers" but isn't the internet fast enough now (in latency and bandwidth) to handle such a tiny amount of traffic? ~a
[2010-05-14 12:09:06] - I guess console or nothing for them in that case. - mig
[2010-05-14 12:08:37] - aaron: yeah I feel really bad for any gamer in the military who's deployed, given that companies are now requiring even single player games to have internet connectivity while playing (assassin's creed 2 and command and conquer 4 come to mind). - mig
[2010-05-14 12:07:39] - a: Primarily multi-gamers in one location. The quintessential "LAN-party". Like some day we all get together at Paul's place to play, it'd be nice not to have to do so over his internet connection and Blizzard's servers. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-14 12:06:41] - mig/aaron: ok, fair enough. ~a
[2010-05-14 12:05:42] - as opposed to a mostly latency free internal network. - mig
[2010-05-14 12:05:28] - a: the best reason i heard was for passing time on military bases which are often disconnected from the internet - aaron
[2010-05-14 12:05:13] - a: if hypothetically, I would want invite 3 or 4 people over to play it at some get-together at the house, it's kind of annoying if everyone has to do it all through battle.net - mig
[2010-05-14 12:04:17] - it's obviously not something so utterly important that I would boycott the game or anything, but I'd still be disappointed if it was ultimately not in. - mig
[2010-05-14 12:04:17] - mig: why? ~a
[2010-05-14 12:01:59] - a: it's a nice to have. - mig
[2010-05-14 12:00:13] - mig: why is lan support important? in other words; what with the state of the internet why do we need to play as a lan game? ~a
[2010-05-14 11:53:26] - does anyone happen to know the status of SC2 and lan support? I've been looking all over and have not found an "official" announcement about it other than that they were "considering it" from a year ago. - mig
[2010-05-14 11:20:13] - *Sigh* Of course I meant that I BOUGHT it a few days ago, but haven't had the time to download them yet. Sorry, my mind is a bit pre-occupied right now. -Paul
[2010-05-14 11:14:22] - I downloaded the bundle a few days ago, but haven't had the time to even download them yet. -Paul
[2010-05-14 10:31:47] - a: oh i played the first couple levels of samorost and didn't like it. it was one of those "guess which objects we will let you click" games, kind of like gobliiins or the old school lucasarts games. sometimes those games are OK but i didn't like that one - aaron
[2010-05-14 10:23:34] - aaron: i only downloaded the games last night. i've played 5 minutes of world of goo, 5 minutes of samorost, and 5 minutes of aquaria. each of them was fun; but they're no fantasticcontraption
~a[2010-05-14 10:09:40] - a: what games do you like in the humble indie bundle? i've only played world of goo. i tried gish but it was buggy and wouldn't run. world of goo was buggy too (something about dual monitors) but i was able to work around it by messing with its compatibility settings in windows - aaron
[2010-05-14 09:59:27] - a: Portal is an obvious choice. But also Torchlight I know is on there. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-14 09:54:36] - xpovos/nina/pierce: i got steam last year to play portal in wine. however, i'm almost never on steam anymore. i am excited that steam will work without wine soon but a lot of games i've been playing recently (nexius, humble indie bundle, sc2) are not on steam; they're on nothing. what games are you guys playing in steam? ~a
[2010-05-14 09:36:26] - I'm not on Steam. I'm on Impulse. I really like Impulse. But it seems that if I want to be in the gaming loop I'll need to get on Steam. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-14 09:17:11] - a: well you're right, the stuff on top that bothers me more than the sidebar. i'm pretty sure that's gotten bigger, and having two simultaneous "hey!!!! look at me!!" notices up top doesn't help - aaron
[2010-05-14 09:13:31] - if anything, the sidebar got smaller. ~a
[2010-05-14 09:12:57] - aaron: wikipedia already had a huge sidebar. ~a
[2010-05-14 09:08:30] - ugh first google and now wikipedia? what is with this trend of huge sidebars. - aaron
[2010-05-13 18:16:30] - I'm Riki tiki on Steam - pierce
[2010-05-13 18:02:41] - I just downloaded Steam for my Mac. Any one else using Steam? Will you be my friend? What is your handle? I'm super excited about my free Portal. -nina
[2010-05-13 17:53:15] - a: Sure, I agree that I wouldn't expect a new version of an operating system on the same computer to improve video performance.... which is why I don't know if it's worth upgrading. -Paul
[2010-05-13 17:51:54] - a: Hmmmm, that doesn't exactly describe the problem I was having (the video was fine... when it played), but maybe it's worthwhile upgrading. I wish Dell would come out with a release so I didn't have to lose my Dell Video Chat and codecs. -Paul
[2010-05-13 17:48:43] - though don't get your hopes up; his problem may not have been related to gma945. as an analogy, performance problems in microsoft's operating systems typically get much worse when you go (for example) from windows 98 to windows 7. in ubuntu, i think if performance stays the same going from hardy to lucid then we should declare a smashing success. ~a
[2010-05-13 17:44:49] - paul: bug 305054 fixed for the release of 8.10 specifically noting issues playing movies on gma945.
~a[2010-05-13 17:29:24] - a: I think Intel GMA945? -Paul
[2010-05-13 17:22:25] - which chipset? ~a
[2010-05-13 17:14:53] - a: Have you heard anything (or noticed first-hand) about any possible video performance increases? -Paul
[2010-05-13 17:05:44] - that probably is an exaggeration but i think you get the point. - mig
[2010-05-13 17:05:13] - Also I think there might be more serious injuries in football in one week then there might be in a half season of the other sports. - mig
[2010-05-13 17:04:33] - nina: well the sport of football as it is right now takes much more of a physical toll on the human body. There's a huge number of former players who have severe physical problems as a result of playing. The other sports, players do break down but even with the longer seasons, it's not as bad, and it's not nearly as horrible after effects. - mig
[2010-05-13 16:55:18] - mig: it's an interesting article, but I'm not sure why there's more talk about football (18 games) than basketball (82 games) or baseball (162 games). -nina
[2010-05-13 16:52:03] - Stephen: No apologies necessary. I love Florida, but the description of Miami was the reason I left. -nina
[2010-05-13 16:50:26] - paul: yes, i have 10.04 on two computers. in fact, this computer is 10.04. i wouldn't mind helping you install the nbr of 10.04 on your netbook. when are you free? ~a
[2010-05-13 16:42:26] - a: Have you, by any chance, installed Ubuntu 10.04 on any of your computers?
-Paul[2010-05-13 16:37:55] - gurkie: i already have it installed. ~a
[2010-05-13 16:35:46] - a: WOW! thats quite a new brand of linux... are you installing it? ~gurkie
[2010-05-13 16:01:39] - http://hannahmontana.sourceforge.net/
~a[2010-05-13 15:37:58] - http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-cushingmedicine051210 a pretty interesting article about the consequences of extending the NFL season to 18 games, and how the fan dogma surrounding performance enhancing drugs potentially could make it worse. - mig
[2010-05-13 15:06:52] - http://www.holytaco.com/9-real-life-levels-hell if you are lazy
[2010-05-13 15:04:36] - (stephen's link works if you omit the period at the end) - pierce
[2010-05-13 15:00:43] - Let me just tell everybody that Germany and it's subsidiaries (Holland, Denmark and Sweden) are a bunch of hell-holes. No need to take any vacations there. Just ask Russia about his Berlin vacation. -Paul
[2010-05-13 14:52:54] - Daniel: I hear Saint Petersburg is worth visiting, too! It's deserted this time of year. - Stephen
[2010-05-13 14:43:50] - Xpovos: I'm just trying to take a friendly vacation. I heard from my German and Russian friends that Paris was lovely this time of year. Thats all. -Daniel
[2010-05-13 14:37:52] - Sorry Nina: http://www.holytaco.com/9-real-life-levels-hell. - Stephen
[2010-05-13 14:21:32] - mig: Does it involve him going to England? Or declaring war on France? Otherwise I fail to see the irony.
-- Xpovos[2010-05-13 14:20:07] - i don't officially yet but probably will. -Daniel
[2010-05-13 14:05:21] - and there's some irony involved. - mig
[2010-05-13 14:05:04] - a: he has a new job apparently. - mig
[2010-05-13 13:31:23] - what news? ~a
[2010-05-13 13:30:05] - pierce: nah, I am working from home today, tomorrow I will head in. ~gurkie
[2010-05-13 13:28:22] - gurkie: did you end up going into the office? - pierce
[2010-05-13 12:29:06] - pierce: uneventful could be good
at least there werent bad events... ~gurkie[2010-05-13 11:08:50] - gurkie: uneventful so far - pierce
[2010-05-13 11:00:54] - pierce: how is fannie? ~gurkie
[2010-05-13 10:50:11] - *** vinnie forgot about that we can use "/me"
[2010-05-13 10:46:09] - *** pierce didn't hear the news
[2010-05-13 10:44:56] - mig: Woo! -Daniel
[2010-05-13 10:40:25] - daniel: i just heard the news
- mig[2010-05-13 10:32:19] - mig: ahahahaha. lovely - aaron
[2010-05-13 10:11:57] - Words I never expected to read: "volumetric phallometer". -- Xpovos
[2010-05-13 09:29:32] - the big deal of this "feature" is that it can circumvent your privacy settings on that particular post. So something that was meant to be only posted to your friends can actually end up being posted completely out in the open to all of facebook. - mig
[2010-05-13 09:23:09] - Same works for FBI, CIA, and most anything, actually. So, you could write, "The FBI and CIA are a bunch of NARCs and trample freedom" and it would probably appear on all three, FBI, CIA and NARC. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-13 09:22:04] - aaron: Facebook has a new feature where if you post something, in this example, Obama, the post appears on a page dedicated to Obama. So, my "Test Obama Test" message briefly showed up on the Obama page after I posted it because Facebook's simple algorithms figured it was related to Obama. I then immediately deleted it, and it was removed from my own space and Obama's.
[2010-05-13 09:18:46] - xpovos: test obama test? - aaron
[2010-05-13 09:05:13] - mig: Not yet. I think they're keeping it on the dl. I did confirm it showed up on the Obama page, though. So, it's not paranoia anymore. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-13 08:50:56] - xpovos: did you get a call from the secret service about your TEST OBAMA TEST message? - mig
[2010-05-13 08:48:06] - a: True, even a temporary/partial deletion. I'm kind of considering that myself, what with my own facebook paranoia growing. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-13 08:42:45] - paul: google
[2010-05-13 08:37:22] - xpovos: unfriended or deleted her account. ~a
[2010-05-13 06:51:01] - a: They may have unfriended you. Which explains the phenomenon, but doesn't alleviate all forms of paranoia. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-13 00:20:12] - one of my facebook friends disappeared. what happened? paranoia? ~a
[2010-05-12 22:06:08] - a: As far as I've been able to learn, this was totally legitimate. Hey, but now I have a job! -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 16:46:39] - a: ziing! - aaron
[2010-05-12 16:40:19] - aaron: "celibate... or abstinent?" neither. they're allowed to have sex with boys. ~a
[2010-05-12 15:55:14] - mig: Number 5. I'll work on getting a better source. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 15:48:12] - xpovos: oh really? i guess that was explained incorrectly in catholic school then. - mig
[2010-05-12 15:46:16] - mig: Deacons can't marry. Married men may become deacons though. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 15:44:43] - aaron: priests cannot marry. though not to be confused with deacons, who can marry. - mig
[2010-05-12 15:43:13] - aaron: Correct. But, as a fun example, an Anglican (Episcopalian) priest who is married and converts to Catholicism can stay married and still be a priest providing he gets proper approvals. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 15:28:47] - xpovos: wait... celibate... or abstinent? priests can't wed right? - aaron
[2010-05-12 14:50:57] - title: Augh, zombie popes! -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 14:50:41] - That was me, obviously. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 14:50:17] - nina: You could start with the Chatechism and then progress on to the Code of Cannon Law. By the time you're done with those, I think you'll have the gist, plus plenty of additional relevant sources.
[2010-05-12 14:45:19] - nina: Doubtful. It's extensive. I'll see what I can find you. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 14:44:20] - Whereas celibate priests is a tradition, but changeable, because it's not rooted in matters of faith or doctrine. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 14:44:15] - xpovos: is there an official document with all the Catholic Traditions? -nina
[2010-05-12 14:43:38] - stephen: your booze juice got onto gizmodo. not sure if you'll be able to restock anytime soon. http://gizmodo.com/5537099/turn-your-juice-into-booze-in-48-hours-flat -nina
[2010-05-12 14:43:30] - For example, it is Catholic Tradition that Mary is perpetual virgin. Most other Christians don't believe that because it isn't scriptural. Many Christians believe that Christ may even have had siblings. But, as noted, it's Catholic Tradition, and an unchangeable one at that. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 14:42:00] - nina: The sources are natural law (philosophy and metaphysics), Tradition (capital t, but related to the lower case one) and Scripture, which is the obvious one. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 14:39:16] - xpovos: so what are the other sources of the rules? -nina
[2010-05-12 14:35:35] - So, my curiosity raised... 264 dead popes. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 14:33:51] - nina: Not always. There are multiple sources for the rules, and some of them are flexible (able to be changed), others are not. I often wonder what would happen when a pope would decide to change one of the unchangeable ones, but so far, we have 210 or so dead popes, and zero rule changes of that nature. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 14:33:35] - nina: in theory yes, though I think the nature of how a pope gets elected makes it unlikely that they often issue earth-shattering proclamations. - mig
[2010-05-12 14:32:19] - xpovos: if we're in danger of neither then there shouldn't be a law in either direction. ~a
[2010-05-12 14:30:59] - xpovos: the rules you're talking about are interpretations of the bible through the pope, right? so the rules can change at any time? -nina
[2010-05-12 14:30:35] - a: Philosophically, I'd say you're probably spot on. Practically speaking we're in danger of neither, though. But that's politics, again. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 14:28:57] - xpovos: well i strongly disagree with there being a natural law that prohibits unnaturally interfering with procreation especially in times where the species is significantly more in danger of overpopulation than underpopulation. ~a
[2010-05-12 14:27:42] - a: Essentially, it's philosophy. State of nature is nasty brutish and short, and that sort of thing. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 14:26:44] - wp -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 14:25:10] - what's a natural law? and how do i propose elimination of natural laws? ~a
[2010-05-12 14:23:36] - a: There's natural law support for an anti-contraception policy, but it's not as strict, certainly. For example, I think it'd cover the probably death by pregnancy and HIV cases mentioned earlier. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 14:22:20] - pierce: Definitely a deeper topic, and not one I'm qualified to get into, but withdrawal without ejaculation wouldn't be considered a marital act even, I don't think. It's probably still sinful, but for different reasons. I'd have to go to a more educated source to discuss it properly. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 14:21:21] - a: oh i agree. setting catholocism aside, the line gets a lot blurrier. i mean, anthropologically speaking it is kind of breaking the rules. i think it's a little iffy for that reason alone - aaron
[2010-05-12 14:20:41] - Attempting celebacy inside of marriage would probably be sinful, since sex is a natural part of the marriage generally and both spouses should submit to the other in those regards. But, it's also Catholic belief that Mary was and is perpetually a virgin. So, Joseph wasn't gettin' any, making their marriage celebate. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 14:19:18] - aaron: Appears I mis-stepped. It was bound to happen. The word I was looking for was chastity, not celibacy. Things I learned about years ago... *sigh*. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 14:19:16] - catholicism aside, i'm not sure what's morally wrong with unnaturally interfering with reproduction. ~a
[2010-05-12 14:18:32] - a: well, "unnaturally" was in quotes because i meant, like, modifying your body, or taking drugs, or a robotic implant or something like that? that's all not OK, but NFP is OK because it's "natural". withdrawal would be OK except that it's explicitly mentioned as not OK - aaron
[2010-05-12 14:17:57] - pierce:
~a[2010-05-12 14:17:20] - aaron: but FA would be an "unnatural" method the way most people practice it. - pierce
[2010-05-12 14:16:48] - aaron: withdrawal fits your definition, so it doesn't need an "exception". also fertility awareness breaks your rule if it's allowed/encouraged. ~a
[2010-05-12 14:15:32] - xpovos: (at least not strictly speaking... it's not "spilling seed upon the ground") - pierce
[2010-05-12 14:15:26] - xpovos: yeah i'm OK with the explanation that, you shouldn't do anything to "unnaturally interfere with reproduction"... except for withdrawal since that's explictly mentioned. it seems pretty internally consistent to me. more so than most of my moral values anyway
- aaron[2010-05-12 14:15:15] - aaron: abstinence is temporary. celibacy is permanent abstinence (wow i couldn't spell any of those words without spell-check). those are the definitions i was using. ~a
[2010-05-12 14:14:24] - errr. that was supposed to be for aaron. ~a
[2010-05-12 14:14:17] - xpovos: the definition i was b. ~a
[2010-05-12 14:14:09] - xpovos: if you withdraw but don't ejaculate that's not onanism. - pierce
[2010-05-12 14:13:54] - nina: a lot of stuff in catholic doctrine isn't spelled out in the bible, but is considered the natural conclusion of something that is. - pierce
[2010-05-12 14:13:02] - xpovos: i wasn't sure if i was confusing words so i checked wikipedia which says celibacy is either a) staying single their whole life or b) abstaining from all sexual activity, so i don't understand the concept of "celibacy within marriage" unless you're referring to abstinence - aaron
[2010-05-12 14:12:47] - nina: Sin of Onan. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 14:12:29] - aaron: I'll count that as a moral victory for me, then, and probably let it rest. I'll regroup and see if I can get better answers for you (and ~a, and pierce, I guess) on NFP. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 14:12:18] - aaron: withdrawal is mentioned in the bible? -nina
[2010-05-12 14:09:26] - xpovos: everything you're saying makes sense to me except i don't understand the distinction between withdrawal and NFP at a practical level. except that, withdrawal is explicitly mentioned in the bible - aaron
[2010-05-12 14:09:18] - aaron: Probably, but also a physical one. Unless you're hoping for quantum physics to let your sperm tunnel into the uterus.
-- Xpovos[2010-05-12 14:08:20] - aaron: Celibacy within marriage is not abstinence, though. It's refraining from sexual activities other than mutual marital acts. So, no masturbation, adultery, contraception, etc. Celibacy for non-married persons is abstinence since that is their required sexual position. Is that clearer? -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 14:08:08] - a: I think xpovos is saying that it's okay because it relies on a natural temporal phenomenon rather than an external decision on your part. I don't agree that that's consistent with the "having sex means you should be open to life" principle since you're still using external and unnatural methods (i.e. thermometer) to reduce the probability of pregnancy. - pierce
[2010-05-12 14:08:03] - xpovos: isn't withdrawal arguably a temporal barrier?
- aaron[2010-05-12 14:06:43] - The odds make it akin to contraception in the chance of procreation, but it's not contraception, which reduces those odds, regardless of temporal concerns, by means of physical barrier. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 14:05:56] - a: Cool, we're making progress then, at least at the logical level. Let's continue. Fertility Awareness (I'll abbreviate as NFP) is not sinful because it isn't a contraceptive. To be a contraceptive, it has to be quite literally, against conception. There is nothing in NFP that is against conception except the natural cycle of the woman reducing the odds to near zero.
[2010-05-12 14:05:34] - aaron: ah yes i didn't think of that. still i think you're referring to just 2. 1 and 3 are ok unless you're basically doing 2. ~a
[2010-05-12 14:04:23] - xpovos: oh i thought that's what you meant by "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" - aaron
[2010-05-12 14:03:44] - xpovos: ok i think i understand everything now. everything, that is, except fertility awareness. you said it wasn't contraceptive, but you didn't say why it wasn't contraceptive. you said something illogical about how foolproof it was (illogical because it also applied to stuff you consider sinful). ~a
[2010-05-12 14:02:50] - aaron: Awesome. #3 video games is sinful once I'm married. Katie'll love it.
-- Xpovos[2010-05-12 14:02:04] - a: But getting back to the couple who already has 8-9 kids, while creating life is good, it's not always the greatest good. Sometimes, and frankly because of our fertility, most times, it's better not to. If every woman had every child she possibly could, that would be an ecological disaster. That's not a greatest good. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 14:01:48] - aaron: no, they're not sex, so they're ok. ~a
[2010-05-12 14:01:01] - a: assuming i understand what xpovos said earlier, i think 1, 2, 3 are sinful if you're married - aaron
[2010-05-12 13:59:53] - xpovos: yes. instead of playing video games / being celibate, you could be creating life. ~a
[2010-05-12 13:58:52] - a: 1 2 and 3 are ending a potential life? -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 13:58:40] - xpovos: yes that was a typo, thanks. ~a
[2010-05-12 13:58:13] - a: to *not* use contraception, you mean? And yes, which is why abstinence is the only permitted thing in that circumstance. It's like the Catholics with 8-9 kids example. Should they really be having that many kids? Only if they can support them. If not, then their procreative act is sinful too. Just not in terms of sex, but in terms of responsibility -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 13:57:14] - xpovos: except you're ending a potential life. ~a
[2010-05-12 13:56:18] - a: 1,2 and 3 are permitted because they are the natural state. Physically akin to items at rest. So, yes. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 13:56:10] - xpovos: "anything other than abstinence there is sinful" wouldn't it effectively be suicide to use contraception? i guess the lesser of two sins is still a sin? ~a
[2010-05-12 13:55:17] - Ah, mig had beaten me to it. Sorta. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 13:54:58] - a: Clearly not, because condoms aren't 100%. Regardless of that, even. Condoms are physical contraception. Which gets us right back to that temporal thing we were talking about. -- Xpovos
[2010-05-12 13:54:31] - xpovos: and just so i'm clear on our discussions, #1, #2, and #3 are permitted because none of them involve sex, right? ~a
[2010-05-12 13:53:19] - xpovos: I think it's a little odd to say fertility awareness is "fully open to life". Like condoms, for instance, it's an attempt to game the percentages to get the desired outcomes. Condoms aren't 100% effective either. - mig
[2010-05-12 13:52:36] - xpovos: "it's also not contraception. It is fully open to life. ...a 0.001% chance of getting pregnant today doesn't mean that she won't." you're saying it's not contraceptive because it's not 100% foolproof? so condoms that aren't 100% foolproof are permitted? i'm not sure why fertility awareness isn't contraceptive. ~a
prev <-> next