prev <-> next
[2011-01-13 13:51:34] - mig: Ah, I'd missed the middle finger when I first looked. It was more of a purple blur. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-13 13:43:25] - Daniel: It is speculation on my part, but I believe it's reasonable speculation if you assume that the government is going to try to cut costs because I'm not sure how else they could do it. I you want to make health care cheaper, then you have to enact rules and regulations which will hurt doctors' salaries. -Paul
[2011-01-13 13:31:12] - ... insurance. -Daniel
[2011-01-13 13:31:05] - Paul: I haven't heard anything like "doctors' salaries are capped or suppressed in some way" so unless you have that seems speculative. If the gov was able to get a public option passed then perhaps they could try to negotiate prices but since that failed it seems like doctors / insurance will continue to set prices just as they currently do. Just now more people will...
[2011-01-13 13:23:59] - http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Terrell-Suggs-sends-subtle-message-to-Pittsburgh?urn=nfl-306754 accompanying article. - mig
[2011-01-13 13:22:45] - xpovos: no real backstory, other than the usual ravens/steelers animosity. - mig
[2011-01-13 13:20:19] - Daniel: Well, I think increased demand would only lead to more doctors if the government didn't suppress costs in some fashion. If doctors' salaries are capped or suppressed in some way, the motivation for people to get into medicine is probably going to be reduced as well. -Paul
[2011-01-13 13:15:00] - mig: Backstory? I know BAL and PIT are major rivals, but I don't 'get' the shirt. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-13 12:17:06] - http://a323.yahoofs.com/ymg/ept_sports_nfl_experts__30/ept_sports_nfl_experts-951354776-1294866355.jpg?ymzu6YEDFbjKqCYa i must acquire this t-shirt. - mig
[2011-01-13 11:33:02] - I'm not sure whether I think waitlists would happen or not but I can follow at least how its possible they could happen. However in my head waitlists != rationed care. Maybe rationed in a triage sense where people with bigger problems might get bumped ahead of you? However in my head increased demand would eventually lead to more doctors even if slowly. -Daniel
[2011-01-13 11:25:26] - Daniel: And I'm not saying that is likely to happen. I'm just saying that IF you offer "free" coverage to everybody and you try to reign in the costs (to government, presumably), then I think you are going to have to have wait lists. If cost is no object (or not everybody is covered for free), then it's a different matter. -Paul
[2011-01-13 11:23:23] - Daniel: Honestly, I don't know. I'm not entirely sure about the specifics of the new healthcare setup, but I would second what Miguel says. I think the fear is that we start seeing waitlists places. -Paul
[2011-01-13 10:59:30] - daniel: it would depend a lot on how much demand for doctor services go up as a result of the bill. Being able to afford heatlh care doesn't matter as much if doctors are swamped by demand. - mig
[2011-01-13 10:45:19] - Paul: Is there something I'm unaware of that would prevent you from going to a doctor if you wanted to foot the bill under the new healthcare steup? I've interpretted the fear of "rationed care" as fear the gov would deny coverage of procedure x because of $ which is exactly what insurance companies do now which why I viewed it as a moot point. -Daniel
[2011-01-13 10:20:40] - Anyone following the news today that the 'suspect' of the shooting in AZ was under closer observation than has been admitted to date? Maybe we don't need more money spent on mental health care. Maybe we really do just need someone willing to do the unpleasant jobs. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-13 10:04:22] - Daniel: Well, I think it depends on the definition used. Right now, we pretty much only ration care based on how much somebody can afford, right? I think the people who voice concerns about rationing care are mostly ok with that, but are less ok with the government dictating how many doctor's visits you can get. -Paul
[2011-01-13 09:55:10] - I think talking about whether gov health care will cost more or less is a good discussion to have but it always irks me when people are afraid of rationed care when I feel like thats how it works already. -Daniel
[2011-01-13 09:53:49] - As neither a pro or con on gov health care but don't we already ration healthcare? Its just determined by companies in such a way to maximize profits. Aka a company denies an expensive procedure because they don't think it will have a good enough chance of doing anything. -Daniel
[2011-01-13 09:38:48] - My own simplistic view of things is that I don't see how you can, through regulation alone, cover more people for less cost without either rationing care or slowing medical advancement. -Paul
[2011-01-13 09:36:55] - http://jeffreymiron.com/2011/01/will-repeal-of-obamacare-increase-the-deficit/ Jeffrey Miron is a libertarian leaning economics professor in Harvard who has written about how reform won't end up saving any money. -Paul
[2011-01-13 09:35:40] - Aaron: Just wanted to go back to the whole "will health care reform reduce costs" topic for a minute... I agree that people who are a lot smarter think that it will, but there are also people who are a lot smarter who think it won't. -Paul
[2011-01-12 20:24:44] - "i guess maybe in another 3 or 4 world wars we'll see how the numbers work out" is that concession?
~a[2011-01-12 20:08:43] - xpovos: hmm, okay. makes sense. i guess maybe in another 3 or 4 world wars we'll see how the numbers work out
- aaron[2011-01-12 20:01:04] - simply that the Democrats are equally, or close to equally involved in the process of taking our nation to war. Hence not the party of 'anti-war', either absolutely or even on relative terms. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-12 20:00:32] - So, perhaps this illustration is overly biased to Presidential figures and in particular those that got elected. I may also be exhibiting some selectiveness. I'll blame it on the fact that I am limited in characters somewhat and can't write a 2000 word essay. But I'm also not trying to claim Republicans are pacifists...
[2011-01-12 19:59:14] - The Vietnam war was ushered in by Kennedy and then Johnson, Democrats. Though Nixon, Republican, certainly receives and deserves most of the blame since he was a founding father of the U.S. involvement and was there for the climax, as it were. He did defeat McGovern in 1972 on a campaign where the war was a prime focus, and McGovern (Democrat) was decidedly anti-war.
[2011-01-12 19:56:31] - Then Truman finishes off WWII with nuclear bombs and fights the Korean War. He was a Democrat. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-12 19:55:03] - Meanwhile WWI, the unsatisfactory conclusion of which according to many led directly to WWII, albeit years later, was helmed by Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat and the leader of the Progressive movement. His policy was non-interventionist, but he did get the U.S. involved in the war (IMO justly, but that's not the story here) after the Lusitania. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-12 19:52:22] - Well, WWII, arguably the biggest war of them all was Democrat led. You can claim that it was a necessary response to an unprovoked attack, but I'll counter with evidence that it wasn't completely unprovoked and that FDR was intending to get involved but needed public opinion on his side before he'd go, given the political capital he was expending on the New Deal programs.
[2011-01-12 17:43:56] - Aaron: Well, that's true. I suppose if you are looking strictly at budgetary matters like cutting spending, he might be a pretty solid fiscal conservative. I don't know for sure, though. -Paul
[2011-01-12 17:36:20] - xpovos: can you back that up? stick to stuff from after the 1900s if you don't mind, the parties have changed so much since then that i don't think there's much point in citing stuff before then - aaron
[2011-01-12 17:34:50] - like i remember hearing a lot about how there were budgetary problems, and he absolutely refused to raise taxes, explaining that costs were just way out of control. and he really put his foot down refusing to approve any budget which resulted in an increase of taxes. that's what i was hearing as of like, 2007, 2008 - aaron
[2011-01-12 17:32:54] - paul: ahh really?? everything i heard about it, it sounded like he was always cracking the whip, trying really really hard to get people to cut spending, and that other people just weren't willing to play ball. it may have been distorted, but i feel like my news sources are pretty unbiased on that kind of stuff - aaron
[2011-01-12 17:32:06] - paul: oh yeah!!! i think the idea was - the insurance companies will get less revenue per customer (because they will have to cover EVERYONE) but, they will have more customers (because insurance will be mandatory) but - now that the second part is up to debate, people are wondering whether the first part will be cost-feasible - aaron
[2011-01-12 17:31:42] - aaron: I think it might be fair to say they've had a better history of being ant-war recently. But not in general. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-12 17:31:20] - Aaron: Well, from what I've read, The Governator was hardly a "real republican" in terms of a small government type. -Paul
[2011-01-12 17:30:43] - paul: i disagree! i can see it totally ending up like the "bank bailout". there are a lot of smarter people thank you and me (sorry) who know a lot about economics and think it could save money if it goes forward as planned. i've heard on NPR that some crucial parts of it have already been unraveled to where the costs are going to ... hmmm... what was it.... - aaron
[2011-01-12 17:29:59] - Also, like Andrew said, often times things like war dwarf everything else (although the argument could be made that plenty of the wars were avoidable). -Paul
[2011-01-12 17:29:33] - paul: yeah, i'd be all in favor of like a "real republican" like, schwarznegger who's like - "okay guys we have to cut taxes and reduce federal spending", and actually sticks to his guns. we'll see. maybe obama will be a "real republican" and i will win my bet with you
- aaron[2011-01-12 17:29:15] - It's also hard pinpointing blame for spending. I think ObamaCare is going to be absolutely horrible in terms of out-of-control spending and the deficit, but I don't think we're going to see the effects for a few years, and we might have a different president by then. -Paul
[2011-01-12 17:27:32] - Aaron: Yeah, I mean, I certainly won't defend the Republicans in terms of their spending. Both Reagan and GWB spent tons. -Paul
[2011-01-12 17:26:15] - xpovos: i think the democrats have a better history of being "anti war", but my perspective might be distorted... desert storm, desert storm II electric boogaloo, and afghanistan, right? i know we have a history of like, some involvement in other areas like kosovo and stuff - but was it anything on that scale? - aaron
[2011-01-12 17:23:41] - Also, I think Republicans are more likely to cut taxes (and Democrats more likely to raise it), which makes it "easier" for Republicans to increase the debt. -Paul
[2011-01-12 17:23:19] - paul: as upposed to say, horse shit like this http://i.imgur.com/R9xYy.jpg
- aaron[2011-01-12 17:22:54] - paul: yeah, exactly. i mean, the picture it paints is pretty ambiguous which is one reason i think it's more fair. world war two happened. then world war two stopped happening. and 2010 sucked. other than that, the picture's kind of muddy. that sounds about right - aaron
[2011-01-12 17:22:51] - Paul: War is a pretty major factor on that graph, and naturally on expenditures both absolute and relative to GDP too, so that's not surprising. And neither party really has a long-term history of being anti-war. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-12 17:10:32] - Also, I think it's possible that who controls congress is just as important as who is president (although that appears to be on the graph). -Paul
[2011-01-12 17:09:38] - aaron: Well, not that I don't think Democrats are big spenders, but that only measures the national debt. Some presidents were probably cursed with bad economics times (decreased revenues) and others were probably blessed with boom times (increased revenues). -Paul
[2011-01-12 16:44:57] - http://lh3.ggpht.com/_Ek1QPFXmY80/S_qKLLZYxsI/AAAAAAAAFHk/xbegSMF-ENY/debt.jpg here's a chart tracking the national debt with various congress/president. we've talked about this in the past a few times; i'm definitely guilty of associating democratic presidents with low spending. this chart tells a more accurate story - aaron
[2011-01-12 15:43:01] - http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/cmwov/hey_reddit_what_tattoos_do_you_have/c0tpyls "don't ask me how i took this picture" - aaron
[2011-01-12 14:16:53] - Paul: glad to help out?
-Daniel[2011-01-12 14:07:14] - Daniel: Wow, you don't know the history of the message board, but it felt really weird for me to hear somebody say "not trying to pile on" and then take my side.
-Paul[2011-01-12 13:51:28] - -Daniel
[2011-01-12 13:51:23] - Yeah not trying to pile on but I think I'm with paul re:money. Its nice to say free mental health care for everyone and as a nation we could afford that if we made it a priority, but as Paul said, that takes away from other things in the budget. Especially in the current climate where politicians are already dealing with deficits and trying to figure out how to balance $
[2011-01-12 13:35:23] - Pierce: So, you're of the opinion that the "right-wing nutjubs" have some responsibility for this shooting? -Paul
[2011-01-12 13:31:45] - Pierce: My point is that we don't have infinite money. Should we spend more on mental health? Sure! And let's spend more on higway safety and cancer and AIDS research and fluffy elephants for everybody! Why not? Simple: because we have to prioritize. It may feel nice to say we should spend more money on mental health, but where are we taking that money away from? -Paul
[2011-01-12 13:30:56] - And by yesterday, I clearly mean Saturday. Sorry, I haven't really slept much since then so it all runs together as one day. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-12 13:30:00] - The issue, noted by pierce below isn't that one side or the other, or both does it, but that it exists. Where we differ (pierce and I) is that I think it's unrelated to the incident yesterday and probably a healthy and proper thing given our other discourse options, and human history. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-12 13:29:13] - "You can buy pretty much anything you want short of an automatic with armor-piercing bullets" I assume you are talking about Arizona, because there are many places where it's virtually impossible to buy any sort of handgun in this country (although that's likely changing now). -Paul
[2011-01-12 13:28:21] - Pierce: How is it a cop out? What am I copping out of? -Paul
[2011-01-12 13:24:44] - pierce: I don't want to sidetrack it, but I hate our current tax system, so I don't think a "reasonable" tax system would cause my head to 'asplode'. And I'm willing to debate reasonableness and give some concessions where you might not think I would. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-12 13:14:35] - pierce: to be honest i'm trying really hard to play devil's advocate but i'm awful at it!!! i agree, i think the hatred and rhetoric is pretty unbalanced. - aaron
[2011-01-12 13:07:02] - aaron: you really think support for PETA's cause and PETA itself among democrats compares to support for the NRA and gun rights among republicans? I would really have to disagree with that. As for right-wing nutjobs, "now what" is that we condemn their tactics and give them some (albeit indirect) culpability for incidents like this one. - pierce
[2011-01-12 12:59:24] - pierce: most of these people have been screened and it's turned up - yeah. they're pretty crazy. now what? - aaron
[2011-01-12 12:58:19] - pierce: i think both parties are guilty of some things that are like unbelievably bad in other peoples eyes. right wingers have the NRA, left wingers have PETA. PETA's pretty bad, pierce - aaron
[2011-01-12 12:58:10] - daniel: access to free mental health care and screening, pediatric mental health care might've caught some signs early for this guy. making extended clips illegal would've mitigated the damage. more thorough background checks might have turned up some red flag here but I can't guarantee that. - pierce
[2011-01-12 12:56:59] - pierce: that article seems like it has some good points, it expresses what i was thinking pretty well. but in their defense, you could say like - there's no right-wing equivalent to the LGBTA. there's no right-wing people telling you that you have to accept your kids gay or straight and not try to teach them god's word. or whatever. - aaron
[2011-01-12 12:55:37] - ~ lol budgets ~
[2011-01-12 12:54:57] - aaron: I think that's the wrong calculus. I think we should be spending money on both and I think we're nowhere near the point where we can't afford both if we just put a reasonable tax system in place (cue mig/xpovos/paul head asplosion) - pierce
[2011-01-12 12:54:50] - Pierce: Yeah I'm not sure what you are arguing for - better gun regulation and better mental care in some way but I'm not sure in what concrete way those could have prevented this. What changes do you think could have altered his course? -Daniel
[2011-01-12 12:53:19] - because i kind of agree on paul with this one, i think we could spend like 30 million dollars and the net gain would be like, maybe eliminating two robberies. or we could spend 30 million dollars to save the lives of like 300 premature children for parents that don't have health insurance, or something. it seems like guns aren't that big of a deal in the big pictur - aaron
[2011-01-12 12:53:11] - aaron: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2011/01/lets-get-this-straight.html has some coverage. - pierce
[2011-01-12 12:51:51] - pierce: so you think the existing framework, if it was working correctly, could be improved enough to be more cost-effective than (as i think paul is suggesting) spending the money say, towards better infant care at hospitals or something? - aaron
[2011-01-12 12:49:59] - pierce: what high-profile republican figures use that rhetoric? i mean, this was a five-year old quote from glenn beck, i can't imagine any currently elected GOP politician using rhetoric equivalent on that level - aaron
[2011-01-12 12:49:58] - my point being, gun violence is not just about deaths but also violence and general safety. if 30,000 people died a year from cars that randomly explode, yes that might be small compared to other deaths but it's worth regulating simply to make for a safer society. the framework is in place to regulate gun sales and manufacture, we're just not using it right. - pierce
[2011-01-12 12:46:29] - paul: we're so far from the point of "diminishing returns", in my opinion. You can buy pretty much anything you want short of an automatic with armor-piercing bullets. As for the expenditures compared to deaths, I'll point out that stealing (by itself) never killed anyone. Does that mean we shouldn't waste our money making it illegal? - pierce
[2011-01-12 12:42:54] - "both sides are guilty" is such a cop-out. No one's saying there's never been a violent democrat, but I think it's a false equivalency to say "democrats do it too" when you have such high-profile republican figures using that rhetoric. More importantly, even if it's a perfect balance on both sides it's still valid to say it needs to be toned down. - pierce
[2011-01-12 12:41:07] - Aaron: Exactly. It would be one thing if crazy people were going on killing sprees every day, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Could more mental health care funding help? Maybe, but how many people is it going to save vs how much it could save being spent elsewhere? -Paul
[2011-01-12 12:38:50] - Aaron: Yeah, although it wouldn't surprise me at all if Republicans have more gun metaphors since they are generally more comfortable with guns. -Paul
[2011-01-12 12:38:50] - paul: they've calculated that based on multiplying the (incredibly small) amount of radiation exposure from the new x-ray machines, and multiplying it by the (incredbly large) amount of travelers, the TSA is going to cause about 20 cancer deaths per year with their new security upgrades
maybe we could just "undo" that piece of legislation and call it even - aaron[2011-01-12 12:37:32] - paul: i paraphrased it as limbaugh saying like, "i think i could murder the president; i could see holding him up to the wall and squeezing the life out of him slowly" and miguel was like - i don't think limbaugh would ever say that. so yeah that's why i posted the quote - aaron
[2011-01-12 12:37:15] - Pierce: And if you carry that logic over to other things (car accidents, military deaths, suicides, etc), we're eventually going to run out of money very quickly. Not to sound too callous, but considering how few people die this way, maybe the money is better spent fixing something where hundreds or thousands more people die? -Paul
[2011-01-12 12:36:44] - paul: yeah, a little less graphic but more disturbing in a way because it's someone who actually held office. i definitely think both sides are guilty, we were just talking about how some rhetoric is more rhetorical and that specific quote came up (which i misattributed to limbaugh) - aaron
[2011-01-12 12:35:32] - Pierce: But does that mean that every time a crazy person tries to assassinate an elected official, we have to increase gun control and mental health care spending? I feel at some point there are diminishing returns. -Paul
[2011-01-12 12:34:17] - i just feel like your average handguns are below that threshhold - where it's relatively safe for people to have, because they can kill people slowly enough, and people can run away, and the police can get involved, and the "system doesn't break down" like it would if things like fully-automatic weapons or biological weapons were involved - aaron
[2011-01-12 12:33:06] - aaron: http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/11/former-rep-kanjorski-who-calle I don't know how meaningful it is to compare Dems and Repubs in terms of who has the worse rhetoric, but if that's what you and Miguel are doing, I wanted to throw this out to show both sides are guilty. -Paul
[2011-01-12 12:32:27] - stephen: that said, i think there's some substance to your argument. if nuclear weapons were freely available, and if he could have bought a nuclear bomb at the nuke store, and set off a nuke, the casualties might have been higher - aaron
[2011-01-12 12:31:16] - stephen: yeah unfortunately gun laws aren't easily plotted on a graph, there's just anecdotal data like "mexico has some of the toughest gun laws but ranks #6 in murders per capita" and stuff like that, which can look good or bad depending on who's arranging the data - aaron
[2011-01-12 12:30:59] - I don't know what level of gun regulation or mental health care might have prevented this incident and no one can prove such a "what if" scenario anyway. What I can say is that I think improving both of those things (read: more of both) would be both ethical and practical and likely would have at least mitigated it. The obvious example is the extended clip. - pierce
[2011-01-12 12:28:58] - mig: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Elected_officials ugh and yeah there are a handful of elected officials associated with the birther movement, thankfully it's in single digits but they do exist. some of the links (like palins) are pretty dubious but others (like vitters) are more concrete - aaron
[2011-01-12 12:27:43] - yeah, "he'd just go steal a gun or buy it on the black market" is pretty binary thinking. I think it's much more like what Aaron said, where it's a gradient and you have to look at the overall impact (and other countries' experiences are relevant here). The guy did have a criminal record, by the way, albeit for a non-violent drug offense if I heard it correctly. - pierce
[2011-01-12 12:25:25] - mig: again, thankfully, just some sort of weird self-appointed GOP spokesperson and not like, an actual guy in office whose opinions matter. but just an example of rhetoric which is more harmful than your average "they bring a knife we'll bring a gun" kind of vaguaries - aaron
[2011-01-12 12:24:42] - mig: http://mediamatters.org/research/200505180008 sorry, that quote was glenn beck. "I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong?" - aaron
[2011-01-12 12:18:43] - "There are two ways of obtaining an ownership license in Norway. The most common is through the process of obtaining a hunting license, the other is through a sports shooting license." we don't have anything like that here, right? ~a
[2011-01-12 11:49:33] - A few critical 'citation needed' locations, but overall an interesting article on a different country's take. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Norway -- Xpovos
[2011-01-12 11:47:27] - Assume a sword for a few minutes. He was tackled because he ran out of ammunition and had to reload. No sword-ammunition. Probably less significant injuries too, since people can run more effectively, but is that a successful trade off? All meaningless conjecture, in the end, I think. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-12 11:02:51] - As another way of looking at it - perhaps the relative 'ease' of acquiring a gun prevented him from going McVeigh style and building a big ole bomb so that we have only 9 casualties instead of a hundred. Completely unproveable but since we are trying to think about crazy people anythings possible. -Daniel
[2011-01-12 10:50:54] - a: I agree. I think he would either illegally obtain a gun, or use something else (knives, a bomb, etc). If we were lucky, he uses something less deadly and we get fewer fatalities. Maybe. -Paul
[2011-01-12 10:45:31] - a: Because from what I've read, he was turned down at a Walmart the first time he tried to buy ammunition (he was able to buy it later). I know it's not exactly comparable, but it shows he didn't let early setbacks stop him. -Paul
[2011-01-12 10:44:37] - paul: i think it's possible. also possible he'd attempt to use another weapon or his fists. ~a
[2011-01-12 10:41:42] - a: So you think if he wasn't able to legally obtain a gun, he would just give up on his desire to commit a murderous rampage? -Paul
[2011-01-12 10:38:36] - aaron: Precisely. Considering the number of crazy people in the country and the number of guns (legal and illegal), I think the number of times that this happens is "acceptable", not to sound too callous. -Paul
[2011-01-12 10:23:02] - aaron: Possibly not, but you could look at different societies' gun laws and correlate them with the number of murderous rampages per capita (and the number of murders committed per rampage). - Stephen
[2011-01-12 09:48:47] - the reason i would come up with different numbers is i feel people are generally lazy and easily distracted. if anything, i'm guessing crazy people are even more easily distracted than i am, and i'm pretty easily distracted. ~a
[2011-01-12 09:43:33] - aaron: interesting numbers. how did you come by them? i only ask because if i were making up numbers on the spot i'd probably come up with different ones.
~a[2011-01-12 09:26:14] - it's possible that out of five disgruntled people, one of the five would be lazy enough to be stopped by something as trivial as a gun law. but i think more likely you'd end up with three additional people who are now disgruntled by liberals taking away their guns - aaron
[2011-01-12 09:22:40] - stephen: i don't know if historically, anybody has ever said, "well i really want to go on a murderous rampage, but i can't buy a gun through the proper legal channels; so i guess i won't". that's a hard thing to prove. but, maybe. i don't think it happens a lot though - aaron
[2011-01-12 09:21:15] - paul: i agree. i think if there's too many of these incidents per capita per year, it might be the sign of an underlying problem. but just having one person out of 300,000,000 go on a murderous rampage every 3-5 years. i don't know if that's necessarily avoidable - aaron - aaron
[2011-01-11 22:20:08] - a: I can't prove my theory, but I wouldn't want to defend yours either. So, agree to disagree then, I guess. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-11 22:11:10] - "if he couldn't buy a gun, he'd steal one." i'd like to disagree with you on that point. if he couldn't buy a gun, he'd more likely not steal one, but instead obsess in some other way. ~a
[2011-01-11 20:25:15] - Yeah, other than a face-to-face interview with a psychological evaluator as part of the process for gun ownership, nothing would catch situations like this. And that kind of intensive check is expensive, and exceedingly unpopular with legitimate owners. And still wouldn't really be enough. If he couldn't buy a gun, he'd steal one. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-11 17:07:36] - If he didn't use an illegal gun, then I imagine it would've been a knife or something else. Best case scenario, is that maybe the death count is a little lower. -Paul
[2011-01-11 17:06:33] - Stephen: Would an extensive background check have found anything? I didn't think he had any criminal record, and I don't know if anybody keeps a "his school thought he was mentally unstable" list anywhere. Besides, I doubt not being able to legally acquire a gun would've caused him to decide to not kill people... -Paul
[2011-01-11 16:59:50] - Paul: You don't think extensive background checks before purchasing firearms would have made a tragedy like this somewhat more preventable? - Stephen
[2011-01-11 16:53:21] - I mentioned this elsewhere, but not here: I think incidents like this one are the occasional, unpreventable tragedies that we have to tolerate in a free society. Anything short of mandatory mental health screening and compulsory attendance of mental health institutions is going to make stopping something like this very difficult. -Paul
[2011-01-11 16:44:39] - Xpovos: Yeah I wasn't thinking parental neglect so much as family intervention. The college identifies someone they think is scary and tells the family. I think we are in general in consensus that gov shouldn't be able to forcibly commit someone without cause so I'm not sure what could have been done. -Daniel
[2011-01-11 16:40:02] - Daniel: By that point he was an adult, though. This isn't an issue of parental neglect. I'm extremely hesitant to suggest any kind of state intervention at the sings of mental illnesses: down that path lies madness. But certainly the proper response wasn't to push him away and 'hope things get better'. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-11 16:36:25] - aaron: that was amusing. I do have to point out that 2 wrongs don't make a right, however. - mig
[2011-01-11 16:35:20] - Aaron: Hahaha, that's pretty good.
-Paul[2011-01-11 16:34:39] - Stephen: I just worry about the alternative, with regards to mental health care in this country. From what I read, the biggest "problem" is that the government can't force somebody to be admitted to a mental health facility unless they commit a crime first. Honestly, I think that's probably a good thing. -Paul
[2011-01-11 16:29:38] - ignore it I'm not sure what else there is to do. -Daniel
[2011-01-11 16:29:11] - Xpovos: Yeah they said on npr this morning that his college gave the parents notice that he wouldn't be let back in w/o a letter saying he had received therapy (or something like that) because they thought he was a danger to others. I'm not sure "the system" can do a whole lot more than that. Once you clearly tell the parents -this kid needs help- and the parents...
[2011-01-11 16:21:26] - stephen: i agree totally although i liked this tweet http://i.imgur.com/UcNWH.png - aaron
[2011-01-11 16:18:08] - Stephen: Change tenuous to 'non-existant' and I agree with you. Many people were aware that this guy had problems. There were complaints and worries that he might go violent. And the reaction was: let someone else fix it. The sad part is that's probably the best reaction we've seen yet out of situations like this. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-11 16:14:24] - a pipe dream. - Stephen
[2011-01-11 16:14:19] - Paul: To me, the Arizona shooting is all about the sad state of mental health care in this country. Even though I do think the political dialogue in this country is unnecessarily nasty, crazy people are crazy, and the shooter's ties to the Tea Party are pretty tenuous. I wish fewer politicians used tragedies as platforms for their own agendas, but I know that's
[2011-01-11 15:55:07] - http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/11/reasontv-5-rules-for-coping-wi I know the arizona shooting hasn't been discussed much here (if at all), but I thought this video about how to react to the shootings was insightful. I actually was guilty of some of the misconceptions about Columbine. -Paul
[2011-01-11 14:19:07] - aaron: yeah, I liked the "but his name may have helped popularize it." part -Daniel
[2011-01-11 13:49:08] - aaron: I laughed at that part too. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-11 13:44:29] - daniel: "Thomas Crapper did not invent the flush toilet..." however he did come up with "the ballcock mechanism used to fill toilet tanks..." you can't make this shit up - aaron
[2011-01-11 12:50:54] - Paul: It was a week and a half ago? -- Xpovos
[2011-01-11 12:46:32] - Where did people see that on xkcd? The comic seems to have nothing to do with it. -Paul
[2011-01-11 12:36:30] - xpovos: yea at first I was going to say thats still short but then I realized that todays avg height and that of Napolean's time is probably significantly different... ~gurkie
[2011-01-11 12:25:12] - gurkie: I knew he wasn't as short as advertised, but still thought he was short. But the estimated height is not much shorter than the average for the time period, so it's still a misconception for me. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-11 12:13:44] - who knew napolean wasnt short... ~gurkie
[2011-01-11 12:11:53] - daniel: some of those are very interesting. ~gurkie
[2011-01-11 12:09:38] - a: I read it on xkcd, and then read the article. Most of it I knew, but some of it I wasn't familiar with. A few of them I held myself, though as a form of "I think this is true" rather than "this is true". -- Xpovos
[2011-01-11 11:28:25] - the link i posted? No I found it somewhere on reddit. -Daniel
[2011-01-11 11:26:02] - daniel: from xkcd?
~a[2011-01-11 10:58:59] - Stepig: Thanks! -Paul
[2011-01-11 10:52:34] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions Interesting stuff in there. -Daniel
[2011-01-11 10:48:15] - Paul: I think Miguel's right. I know the reception will be over at 10:30, so earlier than most. - Stephen
[2011-01-11 10:38:49] - 2? 2:30? - mig
[2011-01-11 10:13:29] - Does anybody here know what time Meg's wedding is this Saturday? -Paul
[2011-01-10 16:57:13] - i think only weird human beings have that part of the brain. ~a
[2011-01-10 16:56:02] - vinnie: i think what kills me is the velocity, it just shoots at the french fries and splashes everywhere, and the robot swivels away, like "yeah that's right i'm awesome" - aaron
[2011-01-10 16:55:09] - daniel: yeah apparently normal human beings have some sort of part of the brain which is reserved for suppressing laughter. i don't think i have that - aaron
[2011-01-10 16:51:37] - pretty funny. I like how the ketchup is always about ten times as much as anyone needs - vinnie
[2011-01-10 16:33:48] - I watched the 2nd one aaron. Its pretty hilarious. If you had trouble on the first, don't watch that 2nd one yet. -Daniel
[2011-01-10 16:33:30] - aaron: it is. ~a
[2011-01-10 16:31:22] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcniyQYFU6M&feature=related supposedly this one's even funnier than that one but i don't have the courage to watch it at work - aaron
[2011-01-10 16:28:30] -
yeah, i'd say that video is nsfw for that reason alone. thank god i'm working from home today. the other related automato videos are great too! ~a[2011-01-10 16:26:19] - just such overkill. "can you pass me the ketch- OH GOD STOP WHAT ARE YOU DOING AAAAAAA" - aaron
[2011-01-10 16:25:23] - yeah - just as a warning, i laughed so hard at that video that some of my coworkers looked at me until i showed it to them, and they didn't think it was as funny - aaron
[2011-01-10 16:24:41] - haha! i want one. ~a
[2011-01-10 16:16:03] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C3D0rcFXrY heinz automato 4 - aaron
[2011-01-10 16:03:34] - Xpovos: No doubt the game would've been different had the Packers not been running the ball so well, but I think they still would've won. Rodgers didn't have an impressive game because he didn't need to. Besides, he should've had another 60 yards and a TD if James Jones hadn't dropped that easy TD pass before the half. -Paul
[2011-01-10 15:57:27] - As for the Seahawks, I'll turn that one around... I was the only one in the same pool who picked the Seahawks to win. Granted that's much less surprising than the Eagles/Pack, but clearly I saw it coming, or at least as a strong possibility. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-10 15:56:20] - Paul: IMO, if the Packers hadn't run the ball that well (agreed, the surprising part of the game) they wouldn't have won. Other than that the game played out about as I expected. Close, and decided in the last few minutes. But the Packer's ability to run the ball pushed the game in their direction forcing the Eagles to play catchup... not any team's strong suit. -- Xpov
[2011-01-10 15:55:48] - Pack vs the Pats (Pats winning) is my call. So I wasn't suprised the Eagles lost but the Saints one made me do a double take when I saw it on espn. -Daniel
[2011-01-10 15:52:39] - if the seahawks win next week and the packers beat the falcons (both not terribly unrealistic scenarios), the seahawks will host the packers in the nfc championship, now that would be bizzare. - mig
[2011-01-10 15:49:10] - Stephen: As for Vick, I was actually the only person in my pick'em pool that picked Green Bay to win, so I wasn't really too surprised by how that game went down (other than how well the Packers ran the ball). -Paul
[2011-01-10 15:40:11] - Stephen: I actually wasn't shocked that Seattle won, but I was shocked by HOW they won. No way I would've imagined they would've won a game where the Saints scored that many points. -Paul
[2011-01-10 15:25:27] - What? No comments about the Seahawks beating the Saints, or Obama's favorite second chance man losing? - Stephen
[2011-01-08 03:32:20] - vinnie: thanks for the invite. i spent most of the night laughing hysterically. -title
[2011-01-07 18:19:36] - gurkie: Angel is pretty!
[2011-01-07 15:54:23] - as an fyi, im not serious... I like the idea of good vampires trying to overcome nature better then creepy things trying to bring down civilization.... and I dont know why but I do find it scary. ~gurkie
[2011-01-07 15:53:33] - buffy is scary... the vamps are creepy. Why cant they be pretty like they are in Twilight? ~gurkie
[2011-01-07 15:47:52] - Stephen: I thought so too, since Buffy is essentially Firefly with vampires instead of in space. I figured she would like it even more since she adores Twilight and Eclipse and New Moon. She finds Buffy too scary, though. -Paul
[2011-01-07 14:59:12] - Paul: Gurkie might like Buffy/Angel. But I am biased. Also, I'm considering starting BSG since it's available via Netflix On Demand. It seems so non-sci fi, though. - Stephen
[2011-01-07 14:31:56] - Vinnie: It's actually the one show on that list that I haven't seen, but I want to. Gurkie and I watched the first half of the mini-series before she declared it boring and we haven't watched any since. Maybe I can come over and watch with you.
-Paul[2011-01-07 14:26:09] - Paul: OK, there's probably some of that. But it's in-character, at least from what I recall. I don't remember ever being upset or offended by it, despite disagreeing vehemently. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-07 14:22:52] - Paul: You should support liberal causes because they need your support. With your help over 100 different kids could have kites to fly but with out your help those children will immediately get cancer and die with in hours. Its up to you to help give those children cancer fighting kites. -SportsNight
[2011-01-07 14:19:53] - paul: I'm watching Battlestar Galactica right now, pretty good so far. really interesting story, though occasionally they'll have a not very good filler episode. did you like the show? - vinnie
[2011-01-07 14:17:19] - a: I finished S2 of West Wing, so I still have many to go - vinnie
[2011-01-07 14:13:32] - Vinnie: I might add it to the Netflix queue. Gurkie and I finished Deep Space Nine, and I don't know if I can convince her to watch Babylon5 / Buffy / Angel / Battlestar Gallactica, so maybe I can convince her to watch the West Wing. -Paul
[2011-01-07 14:12:35] - ... from a review of Sports Night I read. I think that sums it up perfectly. I find it a little annoying when shows dwell on telling me how important it is to support liberal issues. I think the afore-mentioned episode even had the guy listing all the reasons to support the different charities. -Paul
[2011-01-07 14:11:12] - Xpovos: "The series is achingly idealistic, which is hardly a sin, even if it occasionally steps into afterschool special/very special episode territory, as everyone seems to be trying to save the world or at least do right by the people around them. One episode even centers on one character's inability to give donations to all the charitable groups he'd like to support."
[2011-01-07 14:09:45] - paul: hmm you will find a lot of moments like that in West Wing. a lot of episodes have "morals", you could say. I would still give the show a try if you like Sports Night, it's got the same kind of dialog - vinnie
[2011-01-07 13:47:46] - But I haven't seen Sports Night, so I can't really compare the two. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-07 13:47:27] - Paul: I don't remember anything that would be as upsetting as that in WW. The characters often are coming for very different points of view about the same subjects, even if they all agree on the end goals. I think the characters are very strong. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-07 13:43:11] - a: We finished season 1, disc 2. Unless the previous season of How I Met Your Mother stops being on very long wait, we'll likely get the next disc next week. -Paul
[2011-01-07 13:40:31] - Vinnie: But I rolled my eyes and thought it was incredibly corny when literally everybody stood up and applauded at the end and treated him like a hero. Really? There wasn't one person there who didn't think blatantly disobeying your bosses orders AND throwing him under the bus was a jerk move? -Paul
[2011-01-07 13:38:46] - Vinnie: Interesting. I don't think I would mind the liberal slant, but I really do hate preachiness. Not entirely sure what the difference is, though. For instance, I don't mind that everybody on Sports Night seems to talk about being a Democrat and I didn't even mind the impassioned anti-confederate flag speech... -Paul
[2011-01-07 13:18:43] - vinnie&paul: what seasons are you on? ~a
[2011-01-07 13:11:50] - daniel: nah, I'm sure a lot of people like both shows. but Sports Night was only mildly entertaining to me, and so far I totally love West Wing - vinnie
[2011-01-07 13:07:21] - one thing I like is that even though WW focuses on a Democratic admin, it presents Republicans pretty fairly when they present them at all. also, there are a lot of stories about compromises and how politics isn't that clear-cut - vinnie
[2011-01-07 13:06:18] - paul: not sure, you might if you like Sports Night. it's character-driven but the politics are a lot more a part of the show than sports is to Sports Night. WW does get a little preachy at times, but not often in a political sense, more in a "here's the right thing for the character to do" sense - vinnie
[2011-01-07 11:33:18] - Xpovos: I think the key for me is whether every episode was centrally focused on politically charged topics, or if it's more of a character driven show with political elements thrown in. I'm able to tolerate Sports Night because it's more the latter. -Paul
[2011-01-07 11:27:55] - daniel/paul: the social network, a few good men (though he really only wrote the play it was based on), west wing, and sports night were my favorite of his. but, yeah he's done a few lesser known things. ~a
[2011-01-07 11:23:56] - vinnie: i like west wing better too. maybe not ~50x more . . . but, at least 0x more. ~a
[2011-01-07 11:13:52] - Paul: I really enjoyed West Wing, but I'm concerned some of the topical bits will lose their luster in the long run. But it's a series I've considered owning, and you know my politics, so--no worries there, right? -- Xpovos
[2011-01-07 11:06:54] - Vinnie: Do you think I would like West Wing? Keep in mind that I'm a little ambivalent on Sports Night. I find it funny, but I also find some of the over-the-top preachiness a little annoying (and not just the fact that it's shamelessly liberal). -Paul
[2011-01-07 11:03:57] - a: I don't think so, but like Daniel said, I'm not sure I would know if I had. -Paul
[2011-01-07 10:47:14] - vinnie: Is liking West Wing exclusive to liking Sports Night in some way I'm not aware of? -Daniel
[2011-01-07 10:37:59] - West Wing rulez. no offense to Sports Night but I like West Wing ~50x more than Sports Night - vinnie
[2011-01-07 10:21:35] - a: The American TV Series. -Paul
[2011-01-07 10:20:25] - a: Hasn't he done like a million things? So I assume I have but I don't know what things are his and what aren't. -Daniel
[2011-01-07 10:16:01] - daniel/paul: have you seen any of sorkin's other movies/shows? ~a
[2011-01-07 10:11:24] - I'm a fan of the american tv series Sports Night, got the DVD's a long time ago. I like to watch SportsCenter so a show centered around a SportsCenter like setup was right up my alley. -Daniel
[2011-01-07 10:09:44] - haha, the american tv series? or the british sports show?
~a[2011-01-07 09:49:55] - a: You will be happy to know that Gurkie and I have been watching Sports Night. -Paul
[2011-01-07 09:19:59] - FWIW, I'm changing my email address to stephen.j.huey@gmail.com. I'm going to be slowly transitioning from my old gmail account, but the old one should still be valid for a while. - Stephen
[2011-01-07 09:19:21] - paul: yes. - mig
[2011-01-06 23:16:38] - a: *Shrug* Not sure if there is a better way. -Paul
[2011-01-06 21:35:26] - paul: as opposed to what? ~a
[2011-01-06 17:28:07] - mig: Random SC2 question for you: When you kite, do you just use right clicks and 's'? -Paul
[2011-01-06 16:50:45] - Paul: Agreed, but he's only going to get the big bucks if he goes in the first few rounds anyway. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-06 16:38:00] - Xpovos: If Williams fell out of the first few rounds, I would totally draft him. I think he definitely has the skills and wouldn't be worried by the single injury he has sustained. -Paul
[2011-01-06 16:33:34] - mig: I don't know, all I know is freshmen can't declare. -Paul
[2011-01-06 16:27:57] - I guess the collective bargaining thing has a lot of college guys spooked that they'll miss out on a shot at a big rookie deal. I don't think Williams would go otherwise. He had a good freshman campaign but was really hampered by injuries this year. If I were a NFL scout I'd pass on him for now, even though personally I think he's beastly. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-06 16:23:05] - http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/16548/nfl-draft-lures-hokie-running-backs looks like williams is going. He was indeed redshirted at some point. - mig
[2011-01-06 16:19:14] - paul: if he's a true sophomore he can't. don't you have to be 3 years removed from high school to declare? - mig
[2011-01-06 16:17:39] - mig: Losing Tyrod does suck, but we all knew it was coming and there isn't much we can do about it other than hope Logan Thomas can step up. I thought Williams was a true Sophomore, but I also heard that he might bolt for the NFL too. -Paul
[2011-01-06 16:16:29] - mig: Yeah, I'm excited to see what Wilson can do with a heavy workload, but I always prefer having two good RBs in case of injury and for special teams, especially when one is more of a speed back like Wilson is. -Paul
[2011-01-06 16:14:31] - the roster lists him as a sophomore but I don't recall if he was redshirted one year or not... - mig
[2011-01-06 16:08:09] - Paul: even if Williams declares as well (isn't he a true sophomore though?), there's still David Wilson. We seem to always have an above average/very good set of running backs, so I'm not all that concerned. Who's going to be the QB next year is probably the biggest concern I think. - mig
[2011-01-06 16:02:30] - http://www.hokiesports.com/football/recaps/20110106aaa.html Darren Evans (VT starting RB this year) will declare for the NFL draft. Here's hoping Ryan Williams sticks around. -Paul
[2011-01-06 15:59:20] - title: yes even you - vinnie
[2011-01-06 15:57:21] - games at our place on Friday, any time after 8. too lazy to send an e-mail but everyone here is invited - vinnie
[2011-01-06 15:23:17] - http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/excf2/im_falling_but_im_fabulous/ does anybody else remember this "slippery when wet" sign from gurkie's condo? i'm glad i'm apparently not the only one who thought it was really really funny - aaron
[2011-01-06 12:44:46] - I was telling Paul that I played the Zombie Apocalypse mission in SC 2 last night. Damn, that was fun. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-06 11:08:21] - a: sorry "google image search" - aaron
[2011-01-05 22:52:05] - gis? ~a
[2011-01-05 17:02:30] - i was really surprised there weren't any GIS results or anything, but i guess it was probably like - the mid 90s - so the internet hadn't really taken off yet - aaron
[2011-01-05 16:59:28] - xpovos: boxes of girl scout cookies used to come printed with the slogan "the girl comes first in girl scouting", which i didn't really "get" when i was younger but all my friends insisted was really, really funny - aaron
[2011-01-05 15:24:18] - stephen: google is very scary. ~gurkie
[2011-01-05 15:18:45] - gurkie: What, afraid to google it?
Yes. - Stephen[2011-01-05 15:18:07] - stephen: thats with honors? ~gurkie
[2011-01-05 15:09:38] - aaron: Next up, Virginia bans a university license plate that says "cumlaud" because it is overly sexual. - Stephen
[2011-01-05 14:44:43] - aaron: Against my better judgement I attempted to use the google to help me with your girl scouts quote. I'm sure the thought police will be here for me soon. In the meantime, since my search was negative, can you shed some light on your intended meaning? -- Xpovos
[2011-01-05 14:44:20] - aaron: umm what slogan are you talking about??? ~gurkie
[2011-01-05 14:39:38] - aaron: it appears to rhyme with "could somebody please remove these cutleries from my knees?" something posted just earlier from a flight of the concords song. ~a
[2011-01-05 14:18:01] - stephen: yeah seriously, "eat" -> "sex"? i mean these are probably the same parents who would defend the "girl scouts ejaculate early" slogan or whatever but they think this one is too graphic? - aaron
[2011-01-05 14:04:56] - nina: Yeah. I guess I am naive or something, but the child molestation didn't come to mind at all until the DMV pointed it out. - Stephen
[2011-01-05 13:11:34] - a: the subtitle, "could somebody please remove these message board entries from my history", and obviously they didn't get removed, and now they're getting more attention - aaron
[2011-01-05 13:09:55] - stephen: the funny thing about it is that they aren't sure if they're offended by cannibalism implications or child molestation implications. -nina
[2011-01-05 13:08:41] - stephen: you can read the letters that the DMV sent this guy, too. http://jalopnik.com/5724684/virginia-dmv-revokes-worlds-greatest-license-plate -nina
[2011-01-05 11:32:13] - aaron: i don't get it. ~a
[2011-01-05 11:26:22] - Stephen: I'd seen the plates, photos of them have made the rounds on the internet. I think I saw it in person once too, but that could be a false memory. Regardless, I was surprised they got through, but having gotten through they shouldn't be revoked. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-05 11:22:32] - Stephen: aaaw thats funny..~gurkie
[2011-01-05 11:15:12] - delicious! http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-breaking-news/virginia/va-dmv-eatthe-plate-offensive.html - Stephen
[2011-01-05 11:01:37] - lol@subtitle - aaron
[2011-01-04 17:38:51] - Paul: That's neither spamming, nor friend. But I do see your point. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-04 17:31:32] - Xpovos: Not necessarily. It depends on if it's short term vs long term outlook. The past two places I have worked are very careful to not market too heavily to customers because they don't want them unsubscribing. -Paul
[2011-01-04 17:07:59] - It bothers me for some things more than others. It's etiquette vs. economics again. Of course, in most cases that's why etiquette exists, because the pure market economic action/reaction is repugnant. -- Xpovos
[2011-01-04 16:51:22] - a: yeah they did the same thing with the engagement ring thing, i think friend spamming is just not as much of a turnoff for some people. glad it bothers you guys too - aaron
[2011-01-04 16:45:30] - a: Haha, I wasn't planning on going and wanted to even less after getting spammed (and I can't even find out how to remove myself from the invite list in facebook), but I was convinced into going after hearing about the relatively light turnout so far. -Paul
[2011-01-04 15:59:22] - it wasn't intentional. i was planning on going before i started getting spam in my email and facebook about it. since then i removed it from my calendar and forgot about it. regardless, i think it only affects paul. were you planning on going? ~a
prev <-> next