prev <-> next
[2010-11-04 10:23:31] - a: Progressive Tax System: I was going to say that the one area where there seems to be consistent, genuine disagreement between Rs and Ds is the tax system, so I agree with you there. I just happen to disagree with a progressive tax system.
-Paul[2010-11-04 10:22:14] - a: War: Rs are probably worse, but Clinton got us involved in Kosovo. Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush has been far worse, but at least you could make the argument that it was a reaction to something (9/11). Clinton really had no such excuse. -Paul
[2010-11-04 10:18:28] - a: Ok, let's address them in order: Free Speech? I actually consider Rs to be better than Ds here. Ds are champions of hate speech laws and campaign finance laws, both of which I consider to be big violations of free speech. What have the Rs done? -Paul
[2010-11-04 10:16:58] - Doesn't always work that way, but it sometimes does. - pierce
[2010-11-04 10:16:01] - Keep in mind also that what they claim their positions to be can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If more people voted dem specifically because they're seen as the pro-choice party, then they may be pressured to actually be more pro-choice as the Overton window shifts. - pierce
[2010-11-04 10:15:02] - paul: really you would argue that D is less pro-gay? That seems absurd to me, even if Obama was anti gay marriage I would still argue that overall the dems are more pro-gay. (if I wanted to argue with you) ~gurkie
[2010-11-04 10:14:38] - http://www.slate.com/BLOGS/blogs/weigel/archive/2010/11/03/ron-paul-to-chair-monetary-policy-subcommittee.aspx Ron Paul to Chair Monetary Policy Subcommittee. Awesome. -Paul
[2010-11-04 10:13:56] - I am pretty sure that Obama is pro civil unions which is distinct from Palin giving two examples of where they weren't going to prohibit something. -Daniel
[2010-11-04 10:08:48] - oh, also, a big local issue is infrastructure. dems usually like to spend money on maintaining roads, etc. ~a
[2010-11-04 10:06:50] - paul: ... they think the government shouldn't be restricting reproductive rights and stem cell research, they don't think it's the governments job to restrict abortion, i could go on. ~a
[2010-11-04 10:04:56] - paul: ok, fine. i vote democrat because: they don't want to protect me from free speech, they're much less likely to get me into a war i don't want to be in, they don't mind a progressive tax system, they're most likely to end don't ask don't tell, they're most likely to end restrictions on gay marriage/adoption, they are for setting restrictions on gun trade, ~a
[2010-11-04 10:01:56] - Daniel: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE49212F20081003 All I know is that during the election season, the McCain and Obama campaigns had virtually identical stances on gay marriage. -Paul
[2010-11-04 09:55:32] - paul: i'll let daniel answer that question. i'm too focused on our im conversation.
~a[2010-11-04 09:52:46] - Daniel: Well, in theory, Rs are for more economic freedoms than Ds (although I fully admit that sadly neither side lives up to their rhetoric). For instance: the freedom to hire who you want or sell/buy what you want or charge what you want. -Paul
[2010-11-04 09:48:36] - paul: Obama is pro civil unions (pretty sure on this) and I'm not aware of any R's that are. Obama hasn't straight up ended DADT because he is a politician but he seems like he is working towards it. I thought Holder at some point said the fed gov wasn't going after people in Cali? If they still are I haven't heard about it. -Daniel
[2010-11-04 09:46:24] - aaron: If divided gov leads to compromise then I could see that and how you want to run things down the middle. I worry we end up like California where the two parties refuse to work together. -Daniel
[2010-11-04 09:44:55] - Paul: I think services wise healthcare reform is the big one that springs to mind. Also I'm not sure that D's were able to provide many services over the last decade since they only had control for 2 years and spent that trying to keep economy from taking a dive and doing healthcare. -Daniel
[2010-11-04 09:43:08] - Paul: I think Dem's are more pro-gay/pro-pot than R's. R's are more pro guns than D's. What other personal freedom's are R's more in favor of than D's? -Daniel
[2010-11-04 09:41:25] - Paul: To me the Dems SEEM like the more intellectual side, even if thats not true they were able to convince me they were. That counts for me. Dems SEEM like their ideas are based on around helping people. R's SEEM like their ideas are based on the idea of getting out of the way (but only sometimes) and saying "Good luck!". -Daniel
[2010-11-04 09:36:09] - Daniel: I'm also curious what extra services the Democrats have provided in the past decade or so. I'm sure there are a few, but the Republicans have added a few as well. -Paul
[2010-11-04 09:34:24] - Daniel: I might give you pro-choice (with regards to abortion), but pro-gay and pro-pot? Is that why Obama is against gay marriage and has ended Don't Ask Don't Tell? And the federal government was pretty recently still going after pot smokers in California who had legally purchased it (according to state laws). -Paul
[2010-11-04 09:32:04] - a: You can't give me a reason to vote Democrat? Is that because you don't think I would buy any of your reasons or because you don't have any? -Paul
[2010-11-04 09:30:46] - Paul: If you are ok with taxes and want more services available to more people. I think oddly I also associate D's as the party of more personal freedom, shouldn't that be a R thing? But pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-pot(as much as that is) seems to come from the Dem side (in my head if thats wrong let me know about pot). Which side is pro-gambling? -Daniel
[2010-11-04 09:26:08] - paul: i can't. ~a
[2010-11-04 09:24:04] - Daniel: Of course, I would counter with, " Can anybody give me a reason to vote Democrat?"
-Paul[2010-11-04 09:23:25] - Daniel: The best reason I can think of for going Republican in this particular election is that a divided government generally tends to be less bad (according to my beliefs). -Paul
[2010-11-04 09:22:36] - "r's want more restrictions on what can can't be said" right, we must protect the children. "benefits don't outweigh the gains?" cap/trade measurably hurts big business "kill the the American Dream for a lot of people" not all r's buy into the american dream since many (most?) people are poor by choice. if you're poor by choice, you can't go from rags to riches. ~a
[2010-11-04 09:17:27] - are R's for private schools or more for charter schools? I could get a philsophical difference on that I suppose since its pretty much whats been happening in DC for awhile. Private would seem kinda dumb since they would then want everyone to pay for their primary/secondary education which would kinda of kill the American Dream for a lot of people. -Daniel
[2010-11-04 09:15:01] - Is the argument for R's that pollution regulation / cap & trade / whatever other environment oriented law is bad because the benefits don't outweigh the gains? -Daniel
[2010-11-04 09:13:54] - Immigration is a big issue I was forgetting about. How to define free speech I guess I could get - R's want more restrictions on what can can't be said I assume? -Daniel
[2010-11-04 08:58:07] - oh some other social issues that d/r disagree on, i forgot about: immigration, race issues, religious issues, terrorism, indigent people, environment, protecting the children, deviant media / free speech, the internets, though some of these issues are economic also. ~a
[2010-11-04 08:47:11] - there are plenty of economic reasons to vote for a republican too: lowering taxes on the rich and corporations, private schools, less regulation on polluting and/or dangerous companies/markets, basically less government almost everywhere. they like using the military to do stuff, but economically, they don't like funding it. ~a
[2010-11-04 08:42:35] - well there are other social issues too that dems and repubs often disagree on: guns, drugs, law and order, stem cells, war. ~a
[2010-11-04 08:38:39] - a: I guess my position more clearly is that when I think of the question "Why should I vote for a Republican" the only answers I can come up with are "I dont want gay marriage" and "I don't want abortion" past those I have trouble coming up with other reasons so anything past those two would be helpful. -Daniel
[2010-11-04 08:33:45] - a: Yeah I guess I 'get' the social reasons even if I don't agree with them. It just seemed that social issues weren't that big a part of this election. Which makes me think it was more about other stuff. -Daniel
[2010-11-04 08:31:14] - would you prefer the social reasons or the economic reasons? i'm guessing from your second message that you're looking for the economic reasons? ~a
[2010-11-04 08:22:15] - Or is it social issues alone? Or what? Again I'm not trying to stir up things I'm just not sure what a vote for a republican was a vote FOR or if it was just a vote against Obama. -Daniel
[2010-11-04 08:20:31] - Does anyone here have good sound reason for voting republican? I'm not trying to troll I just have a hard time coming up with any but I'm sure that people have them somewhere. Like people believe in the supply side / Reagen theory that if the rich are doing well then that trickles down to the rest of the economy so therefore people vote for them? Or something? -Daniel
[2010-11-03 16:47:02] - the economy recovered in '83 and Reagan gained massive popularity. Obama's fate really comes down to whether the economy recovers, just as Reagan's did - vinnie
[2010-11-03 16:45:40] - a: it may happen. I've read a few things that demonstrate the parallels between Reagan's first term in office and Obama's. recession at the start of first term, very low approval ratings at the midterm, big midterm pickups by the opposing party - vinnie
[2010-11-03 16:32:52] - yeah, i don't know, bush really raised the bar for two-term presidents. it's like - wow, if you don't get elected to a second term, that implies you were less popular than he was in 2004? - aaron
[2010-11-03 15:59:32] - Paul: I assumed and practically would have written in stone that Bush was going to be a one-term president. Then came 9/11. One day, one event can change almost everything. So, for now I'm not playing that game with Obama. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-03 15:56:11] - i was always under the assumption that obama would be a single term president. during the election, i thought whoever won (obama or mccain) would get blamed for the economic problems. ~a
[2010-11-03 15:43:32] - Xpovos: Yes, on both counts, I believe. At the time, though, I found the concept of Obama being a single term president to be laughable. Now... not so sure. -Paul
[2010-11-03 14:51:43] - aaron: Adjusting for the possibility of a single term, or inflation, or straight up? -- Xpovos
[2010-11-03 14:49:47] - xpovos: my bet with Paul was (vaguely) that the deficit would less during Obama's presidency than it did during Bush Jr's presidency. - aaron
[2010-11-03 13:06:23] - mig: I'll give him credit on those, then. I've been opposed to him since McCain-Feingold, though. I think voting record is important, clearly, but co-sponsoring a bill like that? -- Xpovos
[2010-11-03 12:59:43] - though i guess to be fair, I don't know anything about the guy who unseated him. I just heard about Feingold being booted out this morning. - mig
[2010-11-03 12:58:37] - he was also not a party-liner for the democrats and made a fair amount of votes in favor of free market principles (against TARP for example). - mig
[2010-11-03 12:54:33] - civil rights abuses, for clarification. - mig
[2010-11-03 12:53:58] - xpovos: He has a great amount of respect from me being the only senator who voted against the Patriot Act, and was very consistent about speaking up against abuses by both Bush and Obama, which is something that democrats are sadly very silent about these days. - mig
[2010-11-03 12:49:10] - mig: Similarly, I'm thrilled to see Feingold get tossed out. I'm surprised you're disappointed. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-03 12:37:35] - mig: I'm fairly pro-Angle. She's obstructionist, conservative and extremely anti-establishment. Those all fit me pretty well. I would have liked to have seen her in the Senate along with Rand Paul. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-03 12:36:29] - aaron: On target with most of that. And amusingly put. What's your bet with Paul? -- Xpovos
[2010-11-03 12:35:52] - xpovos: Despite my distate for harry reid, I can't say I would have thought Angle would have been really all that much of an imporvement. His removal would have mostly been symbolic anyways. He's been damaged quite significantly as it is. - mig
[2010-11-03 12:33:56] - xpovos: I was dissapointed by a few things as well, notably prop 19, feingold, and to a lesser extent Grayson (but in hindsight, as a person he is a total asshole). - mig
[2010-11-03 12:32:52] - that's what happened right? i think heard the house of representatives turned red, the senate is blue (but maybe a lighter shade of blue or something) and the white house is still blue (obama's still a democrat?) - aaron
[2010-11-03 12:31:39] - over the past decade or two, whenever the house/senate/white house are controlled by the same party, stock markets/skyscrapers plummet and stuff so maybe having a divided house/senate/white house will help me win my bet against paul
- aaron[2010-11-03 12:30:28] - i was hearing a lot of buzz on NPR about, "oh, the republicans got a second chance and they're going to take this as a sign to return to their conservative roots; focus on lowering taxes, reducing the deficit, reducing gov't spending, etc" which is cool if they stick to their guns there - aaron
[2010-11-03 12:20:58] - mig: A lot of disappointing results. I had high hopes for Angle. I wanted O'Donnell to perform better, and absolutely no one is talking about Alaska since it was Republican and will be again, it's not a 'change', but Murkowski pulled off something really remarkable there. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-03 12:16:34] - fffffffffffffffffffffffff. - pierce
[2010-11-03 12:04:06] - so no post election thoughts from anyone? - mig
[2010-11-03 10:12:20] - haha, subtitle. ~a
[2010-11-02 18:54:05] - kird apes! - aaron
[2010-11-02 18:42:27] - oh, hehe! i found some of paul's pictures out on the internet: http://aporter.org/pics/password/paul/ paul, i hope you don't mind. ~a
[2010-11-02 17:15:04] - paul: it's almost over anyway, i don't want your blood on my hands
- aaron[2010-11-02 17:14:44] - paul: that's OK you can finish it - aaron
[2010-11-02 17:06:28] - http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2010/11/oral-arguments-in-violent-game-case-focus-on-nature-of-violence.ars Article about the California law that would punish stores selling certain content to children that was heard by the Supreme Court. -Paul
[2010-11-02 17:00:44] - aaron: Did you want to just finish up the diplomacy game on my behalf since you really didn't get a chance to do anything and it would just be bothersome to switch control back over to me? -Paul
[2010-11-02 16:24:16] - you could still do stuff like set burrow traps, but stuff like burrowing about to die units didn't work as well. - mig
[2010-11-02 16:22:05] - burrow micro was not practical in starcraft 1, since there were no units that could move while burrowed, and no units like roaches that got major regen while burrowed. - mig
[2010-11-02 16:20:43] - bunker micro was in sc1. so was burrow, right? ~a
[2010-11-02 16:12:49] - the stuff about bunker/burrow micro is irrelevant to the article since it's only talking about starcraft 1. but it does beg the question of whether or not top computers can beat top humans at SC2 right now - aaron
[2010-11-02 16:11:00] - daniel: yeah that's what i read; they were doing an SC1 AI tourney and the winner was someome who wrote a really good 10,000 APM mutalisk AI which involved firing + moving in certain ways so they avoided most attacks. but, the best human still beat the bot - aaron
[2010-11-02 15:58:53] - a: Right so eventually a computer ought to be able to do all those things to beat a top human player but currently I don't think they can. -Daniel
[2010-11-02 15:58:07] - yeah, i know about the cheating. but, there are lots of tricks that you could do with 10million apm that the insane ai does not do. i was reading some examples somewhere. rotating units in and out of a bunker, burrowing ailing units, blink tricks. the insane ai doesn't do these things. ~a
[2010-11-02 15:50:44] - a: Top humans beat the computer though I think is what its saying. Even with 10 million apm they aren't able process decisions fast enough I think currently. Insane AI in game wins by cheating. I think making the AI smart enough to beat a human straight up is harder. -Daniel
[2010-11-02 15:39:15] - i think the title is a little dumb, "Can a Machine Beat a Human at Starcraft?" of course it can with 10 million apm. the article was mostly about machines playing against machines though. ~a
[2010-11-02 15:02:55] - http://gizmodo.com/5679355/can-artificial-intelligence-beat-humans-at-starcraft SC2 the way forward for AI research? -Daniel
[2010-11-02 14:39:21] - http://a323.yahoofs.com/ymg/ept_sports_nfl_experts__28/ept_sports_nfl_experts-278360154-1288708471.jpg?ym3VbBED9KwbkBFI i figure redskins fans will enjoy this photo. - mig
[2010-11-02 12:41:43] - paul: was being sarcastic. ~a
[2010-11-02 12:21:16] - If you get injured serving our country, I don't think you should have to pay any taxes. I'm sure that's too broad of a statement, but I'll stick by it for now. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-02 12:20:49] - For me, the reason FOR voting for #2 (veterns) is that it provides extra protection against disability for them. The current law protects them if they are 100% disabled. This would expand that to a wider range of in-military disabilities. I can see Paul's point, but I'm still in favor. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-02 11:52:50] - a: Secondly, if everybody keeps on voting on these exceptions which they agree with, pretty much everybody is going to be excepted (except able-bodied middle class white males, possibly). -Paul
[2010-11-02 11:50:02] - a: Firstly, why? I guess I can understand disabled veterans, but old people? Why should those who theoretically should have the most money be given a tax break? -Paul
[2010-11-02 11:48:32] - I voted against exempting disabled vets from property taxes. I don't really understand why they should be treated differently from other people disabled on the jobs. I think I didn't vote on the old ass homeowners one, though, because I was more conflicted. - Stephen
[2010-11-02 11:38:54] - not sure how I feel about 1 and 2, seems like a very minor impact and probably won't ever personally affect me. #3 is a bigger deal but it sounds like a good idea - vinnie
[2010-11-02 11:04:33] - fair enough. but, but, they're exceptions for things i agree with! ~a
[2010-11-02 10:47:28] - a: We complain (or at least I do) that the tax code is no complicated and taxes are so high, but we're also eager to approve all these exemptions which are going to raise the general tax rates. -Paul
[2010-11-02 10:45:00] - a: No, not dumb, just a difference of philosophy, I think. I generally don't favor making the tax code more complicated and adding endless exceptions for various special interest groups. -Paul
[2010-11-02 10:14:57] - xpovos: i understand. more staff i guess has an impact on small localities. ~a
[2010-11-02 10:13:25] - paul: but why? i gave my (uninformed) reasons. are my reasons dumb? ~a
[2010-11-02 10:10:19] - a: Haha, you are almost voting the exact opposite of what I voted on the ammendments (not that it suprises me). -Paul
[2010-11-02 09:51:20] - a: Interesting to note that #3 isn't actually increasing the size of the rainy day fund. Just permitting it to possibly get bigger (as opposed to needing to spend or return the excess monies). -- Xpovos
[2010-11-02 09:46:27] - It's hardly earth-shattering if #1 passes, but I can see too much negative for too little positive gain. I understand that in states like ours there's a serious discrepency between NOVA 'low means' and Bedford 'low means', but this seems like trying to swat a fly with an oversized novelty flyswatter. Too big, and not really the point of the object. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-02 09:45:02] - a: I'm generally in favor of localized decision making. I don't like it here because it's going to be extra work (more staff, or more work for the current staff) for relatively little gain. The important aspect of the provision already exists. Low-means seniors are exempted. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-02 09:30:39] - xpovos: weird, why no on #1? you don't like localized decision making? or do i clearly not understand #1? ~a
[2010-11-02 09:30:24] - Why no on the first one if you dont mind me asking? -Daniel
[2010-11-02 09:30:06] - i feel like i have so much power! . . . deciding the answers to these questions for a dozen people around me who aren't voting today. ~a
[2010-11-02 09:29:29] - I plan to vote no, yes, yes. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-02 09:27:12] - yeah, without reading any explanation for or against these questions, #3 is the only one i'd consider voting "no" on only because i feel it'd probably take money away from other things that i like more. ~a
[2010-11-02 09:23:37] - a: I think the downside would be increased taxes but I think those are all things I could see myself voting yes on as well. -Daniel
[2010-11-02 09:20:57] - 1. "permit localities to establish their own ... limitations for ... tax relief for [old ass] homeowners" whatever, sure. more localized decision making? that's good, right? 2. "property tax exemption for ... veteran[s] ..." lower taxes for disabled veterans? why not. 3. "increase the ... size of the ... rainy day fund" sounds good to me. ~a
[2010-11-02 09:16:18] - vinnie: Jinx. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-02 09:15:43] - a: http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Election_Information/Cidate_Lists_Ballot_Issues/Proposed_Amendments.html
[2010-11-02 09:15:38] - a: Alexandria votes on district 8 representative and these three proposed amendments http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Election_Information/Cidate_Lists_Ballot_Issues/Proposed_Amendments.html - vinnie
[2010-11-02 09:14:32] - i do not. but the site i went to didn't even have the text for the amendments. ~a
[2010-11-02 09:12:43] - a: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/eb/upcoming.htm. oh wait, you probably don't live in Fairfax County, do you... - vinnie
[2010-11-02 09:12:29] - well, i found voterinfo.sbe.virginia.gov, but i fear there's better information out there. ~a
[2010-11-02 09:04:27] - where's information on what is on the ballot today? ~a
[2010-11-02 09:03:30] - i bet. it's painful to write for too. microsoft is holding back the web developers as much as they're holding back the users. ~a
[2010-11-02 09:01:18] - Oh. Dear. God. I'm using IE 7.0. I haven't used IE for browsing beyond a page or two in years, it's actually painful. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-01 20:32:15] - lol: #35. yay. ~a
[2010-11-01 19:13:52] - also, some non-rush information would be nice too. optimizing rushing doesn't seem like an interesting way to make the game better. ~a
[2010-11-01 19:13:03] - i just wish he'd run the same on the other two races. ~a
[2010-11-01 19:12:27] - very, very nice. "...this is the type of non-obvious optimization that genetic algorithms excel at" so true. ~a
[2010-11-01 19:03:13] - http://lbrandy.com/blog/2010/11/using-genetic-algorithms-to-find-starcraft-2-build-orders/ using genetic algorithms to find starcraft 2 build orders - aaron
[2010-11-01 16:20:50] - Which either says something about the current, or about our individual expectations, or as I'm sure most of you would want to point out, something about the current situation and system. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-01 16:20:13] - My own (created after reading, so less pure) thought experiment results were 50, 29, 15, 4, 2. Which is most surprising to me because 1) I'm pretty laissez-faire. 2) The numbers were there in front of me (even if I tried to ignore them to create 'my ideal') and I was still way off of the current... -- Xpovos
[2010-11-01 15:53:41] - a: It's asking for inferences about science from the general public, probably over the phone with minimal coaching... I'm scared of the results, frankly, because I know how people are. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-01 14:49:24] - aaron: Definitely, because everybody should know how prosperous they are, and most people are not in the top quintile. -Paul
[2010-11-01 14:36:54] - yeah i'm with paul; i don't it's that think people are misinformed about how poor average people are. i think they're misinformed about how rich the richest people are. and that's just because the numbers involved are so large that they're meaningless to us - aaron
[2010-11-01 14:35:39] - xpovos: "2th 20%"? i doubt the scrutiny of your study
~a[2010-11-01 14:17:15] - Xpovos: Consider some ultra-prosperous nation where even the poorest of the poor can afford fancy clothes, a nice house, plentiful nutritious food and a few luxury items. Does it matter that at the opposite end, somebody can afford 100 houses and thousands of luxury items? -Paul
[2010-11-01 14:15:45] - Xpovos: I have no idea how to answer your question on what an "ideal" division of wealth would be, but I think it's important to understand that just because the bottom quintile has such a small sliver of total wealth, it doesn't automatically mean they are dirt poor and in desperate need of help. -Paul
[2010-11-01 13:57:35] - Xpovos: Yeah, I knew reality was very different from my ideal, although the differences were ever starker than I'd thought. - Stephen
[2010-11-01 13:56:00] - Xpovos: 35, 25, 20, 15, 5 seems reasonable, if not "ideal". I'm not sure what I'd want to be ideal. - Stephen
[2010-11-01 13:48:25] - a link on the side of your link: poisoned halloween candy: it doesn't actually happen "Halloween [is] among the safest days of the year" ~a
[2010-11-01 13:44:06] - so . . . the wealthiest 20% pay most of the taxes because they hold most of the wealth? ~a
[2010-11-01 12:48:37] - http://www.good.is/post/americans-are-horribly-misinformed-about-who-has-money This examines the breakdowns not just of current perceptions (boring) about those quintiles, but also about the ideals. Much more interesting. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-01 12:47:40] - E.g. Pure and functioning socialism would be 20,20,20,20,20 and absolute slavery/despotism (or even in some definitions absolute monarchy) would be 100,0,0,0,0. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-01 12:46:26] - Thought experiement and a link. Do the thought experiment before clicking the link, so as to prevent bias. Consider the population of the U.S. and the wealth of the U.S. Consider how it is distributed. Divide this into quintiles. What is your 'ideal' percentage of the wealth to be contained in each quintile? -- Xpovos
[2010-11-01 12:44:38] - Echoing a portion, and then rebuilding what pierce said, I don't think any of us are owners, we're just perhaps less renters than others. His point is more to the paperwork side of it, mines to the finances. The bank still owns the vast majority of my house, e.g. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-01 12:44:36] - i know you're making a joke. but i feel i own my house. i also have this huge debt that's totally related. and if i were to, say, stop paying down that debt, bad things would happen to my house. but that still doesn't change the ownership of my house. ~a
[2010-11-01 12:41:59] - It's quaint that you guys still believe in the concept of "owning" a house after this recent foreclosure debacle.
- pierce[2010-11-01 12:26:48] - being a non-owner really doesn't matter, right? owners are fully capable of selling their current house. ~a
[2010-11-01 12:16:59] - paul: i put the game on hold until mitch comes back, he's on vacation right now. - mig
[2010-11-01 12:16:56] - axpovos: Well, my link was mostly directed at the non-owners in our midst.
-Paul[2010-11-01 12:16:25] - I'm confused, did no turns in the Diplomacy game get processed while I was gone? -Paul
[2010-11-01 12:15:47] - a: usually those are not considered botched raids. - mig
[2010-11-01 12:07:15] - paul: which icon is for death of a violent offender? ~a
[2010-11-01 12:00:57] - Paul: Get 'em to knock off another 100K and it's almost affordable. Then I'd just have the lame commute issue to work around too. After that, though... no, no... it'd still be a town house. -- Xpovos
[2010-11-01 11:49:39] - http://www.cato.org/raidmap/ A map of botched SWAT raids in the US, including the infamous Detective Jarrod Shivers/Ryan Frederick "you're a piece of shit" raid.
-Paul[2010-11-01 11:26:16] - i don't think tonya or miguel were the problem for me. it was the lame commute. instead, find me a non-lame commute? ~a
[2010-11-01 09:35:11] - http://www.zillow.com/homes/12525-North-Lake-Court-Fairfax-VA-22033_rb/ For those of you who always wanted to rent a room at my place but couldn't because Tonya and Miguel were renting all my guest rooms... now you can do the next best thing and be my neighbor!
-Paul[2010-11-01 09:10:54] - Stephen: Thanks! -Paul
[2010-10-30 16:53:03] - oh also, I thought of a sign for Pierce (a day too late): NOlbert - vinnie
[2010-10-30 16:52:31] - daniel: gurkie has all the books. I read the first 2 and part of the third before realizing I wasn't going to like the series as much as the first book - vinnie
[2010-10-30 09:09:46] - Very true. ~a
[2010-10-30 06:38:41] - a: But at least in that example (assuming I'm looking at the right one) it still gets you to the right page, you just have to self-navigate to the section. Not perfect, but sufficiently functional. -- Xpovos
[2010-10-29 16:30:41] - it worked. ~a
[2010-10-29 15:32:24] - a: I added you I think adrian but nothing happened so not sure. -Daniel
[2010-10-29 15:21:23] - hey, people going to the rally tomorrow: add me on google latitude. adrian.porter.htc at gmail.com ~a
[2010-10-29 15:01:04] - Welcome home, Paul and Gurkie! - Stephen
[2010-10-29 12:17:41] - actually a lot of things break it. try not to use any punctuation after the "#". you can see on thread0010 a link with punctuation after the "#". i never finished implementing that. ~a
[2010-10-29 11:38:03] - Good. The only thing that breaks it is my own idiocy. I like that. Madrasah#Misuse_of_the_word -- Xpovos
[2010-10-29 11:36:38] - Interesting parallels between Madrash#Misuse_of_the_word and Know Nothing#Platform. *(note this is also an attempt to test some link capabilities) -- Xpovos
[2010-10-29 11:27:08] - Daniel: You asked me at poker. Or at least, a related question. But, no, I think most of the time we don't talk about the books we're reading here. Just the newspaper articles. -- Xpovos
[2010-10-29 11:25:58] - Based on the lack of results in the search it looks like maybe the answer is no. -Daniel
[2010-10-29 11:05:30] - http://aporter.org/msg/?action=search&search=Wheel+time genre
[2010-10-29 10:55:20] - Can't remember if I've asked previously, anyone else here read Wheel of Time books? -Daniel
[2010-10-29 09:19:20] - I pay for pandora. I listen to at work through my phone and a lot at home so I feel like its a pretty good deal for 3$'s a month. -Daniel
[2010-10-28 23:10:56] - Katie has a subscription. I probably would've, but it's verboten at work. So my usage isn't enough. Though I agree with Aaron that I'd feel good paying for such a quality service. -- Xpovos
[2010-10-28 20:04:13] - 36/year (3/month) not horrible. i love their service, but i don't think i use it nearly as much as you do. ~a
[2010-10-28 19:21:49] - a: pandora subscriptions are really reasonable, i think something like $20 a year. no commercials and higher quality, also it makes me feel good for paying for such a nice service - aaron
[2010-10-28 18:51:26] - god i wonder if you could integrate this player into other players . . . or skip commercials? ~a
[2010-10-28 18:47:46] - also "sudo apt-get install pianobar" for aaron and miguel (hey, do either of you guys still use debian or ubuntu?) ~a
[2010-10-28 18:43:53] - bah. this is so cool! minimalistic pandora client. ~a
[2010-10-28 18:06:48] - Sheesh, why has Alan Silvestri done so many movie soundtracks that I've managed to collect? I mean I understand if I had more Trevor Jones... -- Xpovos
[2010-10-28 17:32:19] - xpovos: oh yeah, i didn't mean to imply that those factors were genetic - i just meant that those factors were non-obvious to people at the time, in the same way that a genetic factor would be non-obvious to us today. - aaron
[2010-10-28 16:38:28] - The other points are much more an environmental factor... though the witchcraft one is a little of several kinds of environmental, and possibly some bizarre intrinsic ones. I'm definitely in agreement that there are a wide variety of environmental factors that can cause, or help cause, our brains to filter data different. Psycho-active pharmacology, woo! -- Xpovos
[2010-10-28 16:32:20] - aaron: Right, which is why I'm not going to dismiss the possibility entirely. For those reasons, and my own quite admittedly minimal nowledge of how the brain works; even inside of modern science. I think your first statement is the one that's going to be closest to true, but also the one least likely to be beneficial. -- Xpovos
[2010-10-28 16:26:42] - xpovos: "there's no way choosing to make hats instead of neckties could have an effect on whether or not you go crazy" or "there's no way choosing to live in salem instead of washington could have an effect on whether you believe in witches" they both make sense in a way but the brain is very opaque to us - aaron
[2010-10-28 16:23:36] - xpovos: but i think there could definitely be a more direct correlation, when you look at things like mercury poisoning, or the salem witch trials in the past, sometimes peoples brains are affected by weird forces beyond our understanding at the time which can fundamentally affect our decision making - aaron
[2010-10-28 16:22:30] - xpovos: well theoretically how about if some forms of mental retardation were genetic, and if family members of mentally handicapped people trended towards liberal values, wouldn't it follow that if you were person X's grandchild you might have a 51% chance of being liberal? i know those are a couple iffy ifs but they're pretty easy for me to swallow - aaron
[2010-10-28 16:19:58] - daniel: yeah exactly, i could definitely see transitive effects like that, where genetics affects your IQ, social status, mental/physical health and transitively affects your political affiliation, or the political affiliation of those around you - aaron
[2010-10-28 16:19:15] - aaron: I think it's possible, but extremely unlikely. Clearly genetics affects how our brains can process information, as it's an obvious player in intelligence, with some post-birth debates, but I can't see how it sets up filters so that certain information is better or less well received. That just doesn't seem to fit into genetics as I understand it. -- Xpovos
[2010-10-28 15:27:55] - aaron: also I was kidding. ~a
[2010-10-28 15:24:18] - c
[2010-10-28 15:23:08] - I think you could make a case like: genetics can make you more likely to trust others which could make you more likely to be a dem (easier to accept big gov) but thats still a bit of a stretch. If they are implying a more direct link that would seem a stretch. -Daniel
[2010-10-28 15:16:58] - xpovos: you don't think people could be genetically predisposed one way or the other? obviously environmental/cultural factors weigh in heavily but i definitely think genetics would play a role in something like that - aaron
[2010-10-28 15:15:24] - aaron: I think it's pretty bogus.I mean,how do we explain people who are more solitary in nature in high school and still liberal, then?And the idea of genes controlling something like that seems a stretch.I'd wager that the majority of our worldview comes from our parents, yes, but via indoctrination rather than genetically.Still, it was amusing and post-worthy. -- Xpovos
[2010-10-28 14:41:29] - xpovos: that's interesting, i think i remember there being some research into a "theism gene" also - aaron
[2010-10-28 13:13:20] - a: so would deporting religious people, or deporting men
- aaron[2010-10-28 12:50:20] - Clearly, the answer is that Paul and I didn't have enough friends in high school. -- Xpovos
[2010-10-28 11:34:26] - mr. house is Rene Auberjonois who played Odo in DS9, and michael dorn makes an appearance as well. - mig
[2010-10-28 11:32:54] - !
[2010-10-28 11:32:46] - daniel: 2. - mig
[2010-10-28 11:32:26] - Mig: There is a star trek person in New Vegas? -Daniel
[2010-10-28 11:29:19] - it seems that former star trek actors have been appearing in all the video games I've been playing, I think pretty much every game I've bought this year has at least one of them in it. What's up with that? - mig
[2010-10-28 10:40:59] - yeah, except, deporting muslims would lead to less terrorism in the united states. ~a
[2010-10-28 10:38:50] - aaron: Or the mods and upmod commentators are a more or less eqally-vocal minority to the idiotic majority. -- Xpovos
[2010-10-28 10:00:31] - daniel: oh i see now, i run firefox with noscript which i guess hid the comments as well. reddit's upmodded comments are usually good though, i think it shows that the ignorant/hateful people are just a very vocal minority - aaron
[2010-10-28 09:43:34] - Yeah it's looking like the spammers are getting through the filters again
~a[2010-10-28 08:45:59] - anon: Wow 3D porn clips! Thats amazing! So glad you choose to contribute. I'm a big fan of tzyq as well. He's done some great work. -Daniel
[2010-10-27 15:50:37] - If you scroll down from that article I saw a bunch of comments and several were about how clearly the answer was deporting muslims and what not. Comments on reddit / digg didn't make me sad even when they aren't trying to be smart or anything. But yeah a lot of sites (youtube) have terribad comments. -Daniel
[2010-10-27 15:45:21] - daniel: comments on the internet are saddening, in general. - mig
[2010-10-27 15:37:36] - daniel: comments? i don't see any comments - aaron
[2010-10-27 15:34:43] - comments on CNN website are saddening. -Daniel
[2010-10-27 15:12:30] - http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/27/virginia.plot.arrest/index.html?hpt=T1 one of my coworkers was getting all this e-mail from her housing cluster asking why FBI vans were all throughout her neighborhood; turns out she lived 2 doors down from this guy - aaron
[2010-10-27 14:17:35] - Today I Learned - Daniel
[2010-10-27 13:51:02] - does anybody know what the acronym "TIL" means? in a reddit context? like "TIL: my tech level is 12/5 compared to this guy" or something - aaron
[2010-10-27 13:50:28] - vinnie: yeah dan harmon is in a million channel 101 shows... oh that's awesome! i never watched community, it's cool to see dan branch into something mainstream, i love when people have a silly independent project that somehow leads to an actual career - aaron
[2010-10-27 13:19:27] - aaron: heh dan harmon is the guy who created Community - vinnie
[2010-10-27 12:34:43] - xpovos: hey you know if you're still scrambling for costume ideas... - aaron
[2010-10-27 12:05:53] - aaron: Why do you links always terrify me? -- Xpovos
[2010-10-27 12:04:40] - aaron: I read the page a day as it came out. It was good for art, but a little rough. But Max has done some good re-writes, and I'm sure it'll get more by Hollywood writers, before being filmed. But getting Aaronofsky to direct? That's huge. -- Xpovos
[2010-10-27 11:43:03] - xpovos: i haven't heard of machineman before. i only hope it's half as captivating as jack black in computerman - aaron
[2010-10-27 11:24:06] - Daniel: And there's the third type. So I've used all three (that I know of) today. hrefs, wiki links (double square brackets) and straight URL which gets transposed to a link with the same name as the target. -- Xpovos
[2010-10-27 11:22:19] - Wow. http://www.maxbarry.com/2010/10/26/news.html -- Xpovos
[2010-10-27 11:22:18] - yeah i think you have to do the href thing for web links. for wikipedia links you can do the square bracket wiki-style links - aaron
[2010-10-27 11:21:41] - daniel: it's an a href tag. - mig
[2010-10-27 11:14:09] - typing*
[2010-10-27 11:13:35] - when yall embed links is there a more convienent way or are yall just typeing out the whole href tag? -Daniel
[2010-10-27 10:53:39] - pierce: This one's for you, care of Citizens United. -- Xpovos
[2010-10-27 09:57:37] - xpovos: i am part of a three-person company (i'm the CFO for now) and we have a contract to write software for the government. i'm a little short on the details, but it'll not be all that much different than what i'm doing now. ~a
[2010-10-27 09:52:06] - i know, right? not totally coincidental though: the actor was drawn to the movie because of the political themes . . . and was probably drawn to the actual bomber for similar political reasons. ~a
[2010-10-27 09:51:58] - a: Congratulations! That's very exciting, and probably pretty scary, I know. What's your business going to be? Coding, probably, but anything more specific? Or are you just going to self-contract? -- Xpovos
[2010-10-27 09:49:49] - a: That's a freaky-as-hell coincidence. I mean, particularly given the film/graphic novel's overt Guy Fawkes and Gunpowder Plot references. -- Xpovos
[2010-10-27 09:41:48] - stephen: thanks. i fear i have a lot to learn. ~a
[2010-10-27 09:38:02] - no way. in v for vendetta, the actor that played the chief inspector was, in real life, married to a woman who actually bombed the Old Bailey. ...the very same building destroyed at the beginning of the movie. ~a
[2010-10-27 09:21:16] - a: Good for you! I hope you are a good boss. - Stephen
[2010-10-26 18:37:33] - xpovos: i've been unable to get to the message board at work because of various crazinesses recently . . . for those of you who i haven't talked to in person, after 8 years of service i've tendered my resignation at work. come the fifth of november (remember, remember the fifth of november) i will be working full time for my new employer: me. ~a
[2010-10-26 16:36:40] - Hmm, Paul goes to Japan, the message board goes suspiciously quiet. -- Xpovos
[2010-10-26 15:38:22] - CRAP! Gary Numan was at the Black Cat on 10/20 and I just found out now. -- Xpovos
[2010-10-26 08:09:17] - If you have to write a "dear john" to someone named john. Do you start the letter off with "dear john"?
[2010-10-25 17:18:54] - This is still my favorite Louis CK video. Though, even he seems to think that it's not just white people who are doing pretty well right now. -- Xpovos
[2010-10-25 17:16:06] - Daniel: Sorry for the wall of text. I don't think I'm precisely saying that you need to consider ideas/policies in a vacuum. But, certainly pierce contention that certain ideologies have to be more closely scrutinized because of a certain kind of history is worrisome to me. -- Xpovos
[2010-10-25 16:54:17] - also Louis CK is awesome. -Daniel
[2010-10-25 16:53:39] - is the summary here that Xpovos wants to consider ideas/policies in a vacuum on their own merits and pierce says you need to consider them with historical context included? Just trying to get a grasp on all that text. -Daniel
[2010-10-25 15:11:26] - anon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY
[2010-10-25 15:00:53] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9CSnlb-ymA
[2010-10-25 14:55:28] - I can't prove I'm not racist; n+1 notes the burden of proof issue at stake there. I can't even try to prove a negative. And if you go looking you'll find sufficient evidence that I'm at least pro-me, and pro-people-like me, which has to be enough to say that I'm anti-people-not-like me, which is to say: racist. Hell, maybe I am even truly genuinely racist. -- Xpovos
[2010-10-25 14:53:37] - Which I suppose takes us back to your original point, that of 'my' (using me as a placeholder for those like me, not me personally) imrpoved current position because of a heritage of racist activities which leave me at the very least more capable of taking advantage of those situations, if not outright reaffirming some racism, right? -- Xpovos
[2010-10-25 14:51:49] - pierce: Instead of focusing on a goal that supposedly ensures that blacks are 'hurt' (actually 'not helped') at a greater rate than blacks. Let me focus, as I do, on goals that 'help' me (actually 'not hurt') at a greater rate than anyone else. Practically objectivist. Hardly racist. -- Xpovos
[2010-10-25 14:44:19] - pierce: Wooo... obviously, I disagree. Hold me accountable for my own racism, not for the racism of my elders--which I'm willing to admit. Lee Atwaller says "racist", I believe him, for now at least. But I neither have to acknowledge a non-existent economic heritage of advantage nor scrutinize my politics for a non-existent underlying racism. -- Xpovos
[2010-10-25 14:39:24] - ...whether that outcome be race-based, gender-based, religion-based, etc. - pierce
[2010-10-25 14:38:23] - there's nothing magical about race as the context of that belief, it's just a clearly irrational basis for any policy. if a seemingly rational policy is used in the defense of an irrational outcome, then that policy deserves greater scrutiny. - pierce
[2010-10-25 14:35:55] - in other words, even though a policy may be economically or sociopolitically amazing (and I'm not saying they are), that policy deserves a higher standard of scrutiny if it has historically been used in racist ways. - pierce
[2010-10-25 14:34:09] - just to mix things up: in much the same way that I think even a non-racist white person must acknowledge the racist heritage of his or her economic advantages, I think ostensibly race-neutral policies such as states' rights and limited government must, in practice, suffer the burden of their racist political heritage. - pierce
[2010-10-25 14:09:10] - pierce: I enjoyed reading your article for perspective, but it's a bit off, too. Yes, he acknowledges the 'counterpoint', but misses a lot of important stuff along the way. Omitted in an effort to have a more cohesive whole? Or omitted because it paints a wider swath of racism than he wants? -- Xpovos
[2010-10-25 13:52:42] - I was definitely shocked by the unfiltered bias of the WSJ article. It wasn't necessarily pro-TP, or anti-NAACP... but it was very blatant in what it was, which was both of those, without really touching either. -- Xpovos
[2010-10-25 13:39:26] - I'll also counter with this post which goes into the history of "limited government" and "states rights" positioning as a dog whistle for racist sentiments, yet acknowledges the counterpoint that people may genuinely hold these positions on their merits. much more balanced and nuanced article, in my opinion. - pierce
[2010-10-25 13:22:48] - pierce: noted, and that's certainly a fair critcism of the piece. - mig
[2010-10-25 13:22:10] - hence my subverting his words... I'd argue that a better use of his limited time and resources would be to help starving children in Africa, but in reality he's capable of doing more than one thing and it's not really my place to tell him what his own priorities should be. - pierce
[2010-10-25 13:20:33] - There's very little detail in this op-ed though, so I can't really say much about whether there's an "unhealthy obsession" from the NCAAP, though I have certainly noticed that obsessions from the mainstream media. - mig
[2010-10-25 13:20:27] - mig: I understand that, but his closing argument is about "how they find the time" and I'm saying you can find the time even if there are other things that may be a better use of resources. it's a fallacious argument in addition to the other flaws in the editorial. - pierce
prev <-> next