prev <-> next
[2011-08-03 13:10:29] - xpovos: i'm intrigued that both you and miguel disagreed with his statement "we are not google's customers", but i guess it makes sense. he started out by saying something which certain people would disagree with, because it helped make his quote more memorable - aaron
[2011-08-03 13:06:58] - xpovos: I understand that. I guess I'm just still confused because this hardly comes as any sort of extraordinary revelation to me. - mig
[2011-08-03 13:03:25] - I think you both are missing what I took to be his main point. It's not so much who Google's customers are. It's clear to me that both we and the advertisers are. The question is: what is the product. The answer is our attention. The provide us data, we provide them attention (and more data), they sell that to the advertisers. -- Xpovos
[2011-08-03 13:01:35] - i thought it was a pretty interesting thought experiment and i think it would be more "mind blowing" for people who were just using the internet passively, and who weren't really "computer people" - aaron
[2011-08-03 13:01:03] - mig: right, okay. well a lot of people (maybe not us) take it for granted that google (the search engine) exists, and don't realize that if the search engine stopped being profitable, it wouldn't exist anymore. or by extension - that there are a lot of very useful services google could provide, but because they're not profitable, they don't choose to - aaron
[2011-08-03 13:01:00] - aaron: I guess that's a valid point, but I'm not sure who was arguing that google's sucess was solely attributed to their userbase. They obviously had to find a way to monetize it. - mig
[2011-08-03 12:57:01] - aaron: google the company may stay in business, because there's other areas that it does business again. I don't think it's a given that google the search engine would still exist if it had no users. - mig
[2011-08-03 12:56:16] - my previous statement is too hypothetical to make any kind of sense so i'm not really going to defend it - but yeah. basically, he was diminshing the user's role in google's success by pointing out that google doesn't get any money from us; they only get monetizable data - aaron
[2011-08-03 12:54:19] - mig: siva's main point was that we're not keeping the lights on; their advertisers are. if their advertisers continued paying them money (why??) and google had no users, google would stay in business - aaron
[2011-08-03 12:53:20] - (when i mistakenly used the word patron, and i was fishing for a different word; that's the word i was fishing for) - aaron
[2011-08-03 12:52:49] - oh! here's the word we were looking for earlier, "consumer". i think that's the word people traditionally use for someone who makes use of a public service (like i'm a consumer of firefox, or i'm a consumer of google's public e-mail services) - aaron
[2011-08-03 12:48:40] - and I guess if siva's main point is that google care's more about advertisers than us users ... well all I can say to that is, well duuuhhhhh. - mig
[2011-08-03 12:47:50] - mig: obviously siva is using a different definition, where "customer" is someone who pays for a service (the person buying the milk) which is the only reason his statement makes sense. if you expand that to be, "someone who has mutually benefitial dealings with someone else", then that statement no longer makes sense - aaron
[2011-08-03 12:46:45] - mig: yes, i understand that; so you think google has multiple customers; people who use its search engine are customers, and people who buy its search data are customers. that's fine, it's just not the traditional definition of "customer" i'm used to so it took me some time to understand. - aaron
[2011-08-03 12:42:23] - aaron: it does. And I'm not saying advertisers aren't google's customers either. - mig
[2011-08-03 12:39:27] - now that doesn't make sense to me; i think a dairy farmer's customers are the people who buy their milk. but, arguably, dairy farmers provide services to lots of people; they provide a service to their family, they provide a service to the animals they care for, so maybe they have multiple customers, does that make sense to you? - aaron
[2011-08-03 12:38:33] - mig: well, i know people rip on me for metaphors. but how about this one, i think dairy farmer's customers are its cows. they provide the cows with services, such as food and shelter, and in return the cows pay them in milk. if the dairy farmer had no cows, then it wouldn't receive revenue from selling the milk; so the farmer technically receives revenue from cows - aaron
[2011-08-03 12:35:06] - "google isn't receiving revenue from its users" not technically accurate. if google has no users it has no revenue from advertising. - mig
[2011-08-03 12:31:40] - Slashdot and other websites are I guess a little trickier to nail down, but I think I would ultimately say no. I'm certainly not "involved" with thoses sites in the same way I'm involved in google's services. - mig
[2011-08-03 12:31:29] - mig: right, so what about the other services i mentioned? what about like, free forums, or aporter.org, or stuff like that? you use these sites frequently, you use them to share stuff, but you're not contributing revenue, so in shiv's eyes you're not really a customer; you're just producing a product (mined data) which the web site can sell - aaron
[2011-08-03 12:30:28] - mig: sure, and maybe that mined data has value, but its value isn't realized until google sells it to someone. that "someone" is really google's true customer, i think that was his point - aaron
[2011-08-03 12:29:56] - aaron: google provides useful services to me that I consume on a regular basis. I use their email services, I use their data storage frequently. I'm using buzz and google+ to share stuff. I think that qualifies as a customer. - mig
[2011-08-03 12:29:23] - because that was basically his point; google isn't receiving revenue from its users, so users aren't really its "customers" just like i'm not really penny arcade's "customer". googly only receives revenue for licensing certain technologies to other big companies, or through advertising - aaron
[2011-08-03 12:28:09] - What google is doing with their advertising is hardly a new idea or anything revolutionary, just more technologically advanced and refined data-mining. - mig
[2011-08-03 12:27:52] - mig: out of curiousity though, what makes you consider yourself a customer of google.com? did you mean their search engine? do you consider yourself a customer of slashdot.org, or xkcd.com, or every other web site you visit? would it change your opinion if several of the sites shared an advertising network like "google adsense" which tracked your browsing? - aaron
[2011-08-03 12:27:00] - aaron: fair enough. So now that he's got my attention ... what exactly his is point? - mig
[2011-08-03 12:21:34] - mig: but if you were looking at dictionary.com you probably saw either the "word origin/history" or the informal "say, that kathy is quite a customer isn't she" definition. but sure i'll accept your point that some people perceive gmail users as "customers", obviously siva agreed, which is why he made that statement to break peoples perceptions - aaron
[2011-08-03 12:17:55] - http://jonathanturley.org/2011/08/02/what%E2%80%99s-up-wisconsin-is-the-koch-funded-americans-for-prosperity-playing-dirty-tricks-with-voters-in-the-badger-stat did anybody hear about a right-wing organization in wisconsin sending out fake absentee ballots to democrats, which included the wrong address and wrong deadline? how clever is that!! - aaron
[2011-08-03 12:16:57] - mig: yes that's right, some of the definitions do! so yeah like i said, depending on your definition, it's true or false. i didn't mean to imply that you're wrong, just that different people define the word differently, so whatev. it's just language. language is dumb - aaron
[2011-08-03 12:14:58] - xpovos: oh sure, i agree with that. no company is short sighted to be concerned exclusively with the demands of their customers. otherwise all of their services would be free
- aaron[2011-08-03 12:14:43] - aaron: some of the defintions in your dictionary.com link mention "dealings". Dealing with someone does not necessarily mean engaging in monetary transactions. - mig
[2011-08-03 12:09:44] - aaron: Google's shareholders might care more about the advertisers, but hopefully the management isn't so short-sighted. Focusing on the advertisers will result in product stagnation or worse and drive away the userbase, which will eventually drive off the advertisers as well. It is a three-way symphony. -- Xpovos
[2011-08-03 12:08:53] - mig: well, depending on whether you're using Collins World English Dictionary, Etymonline Word Origin & History, Merriam-Webster's Legal Dictionary, or an unsourced statement from Wikipedia as your source, the statement is factually either wrong or right - aaron
[2011-08-03 12:02:41] - aaron: Yes, google probably cares more about their revenue from advertising than us. But I think saying "we are not google's customers" is just flat out wrong. - mig
[2011-08-03 11:58:54] - i think it would throw me for a loop if someone used the term that way when money wasn't involved, but i guess it might be intuitive in some cases. i guess it's besides the point for xpovos's article though, which was basically that google probably cares more about its advertisers than its customers, since its advertisers drive its funding - aaron
[2011-08-03 11:57:55] - mig: that makes the definition a lot fuzzier! every definition i saw at dictionary.com mentioned purchasing stuff so i assumed that was commonly accepted. but sure, arguably you can be a "customer" of a library, or a "customer" of firefox or something like that. - aaron
[2011-08-03 11:52:29] - And honestly, the "price" we pay for google's service is the trend data through using their various services. So something is certainly being exchanged, and I wouldn't consider it any different than any other traiditional business/customer relationship. - mig
[2011-08-03 11:48:22] - I'm not going to say wikipedia is the true authority here, but just saying I'm not alone in the opinion that money doesn't have to change hands in order to be considered a customer. - mig
[2011-08-03 11:47:31] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customer "A customer (also known as a client, buyer, or purchaser) is usually used to refer to a current or potential buyer or user of the products of an individual or organization, called the supplier, seller, or vendor." - mig
[2011-08-03 11:46:55] - the masses of people who consume the advertisements aren't the customers; the advertisers are the customers. i guess there's other ways to draw the line as to what a customer is but it seems more arbitrary than the "money" definition - aaron
[2011-08-03 11:46:11] - Daniel: Yes, right place. He's the guy who I'm quoting. The quote isn't on the Wikipedia page, but if I'd linked to the page with the quote, it'd be hard to find. -- Xpovos
[2011-08-03 11:46:06] - i guess a more helpful way to think of it would be like, if you imagine those companies at the beach where you can pay pilots to fly overhead with an advert. the beachgoers who see the message obviously aren't customers. likewise for billboards, and by extension, people who listen to music on the radio, stuff like that - aaron
[2011-08-03 11:44:31] - It is an interesting viewpoint, I would say we are one of their products. I wouldnt dismiss the free functionality from being a product as well. ~g
[2011-08-03 11:19:34] - no, patron means something different too. i don't know what it's called if you make use of a free service. i guess you're not a customer or a patron but maybe there's a third word. or maybe dictionaries just need to update their definition of "customer" now that free services are more common?? not sure - aaron
[2011-08-03 11:18:42] - mig: the definition of "customer" is "a person or organization that buys goods or services from a store or other business", so if no money changes hand, you're not a customer, you're a patron. of course, it's possible that there's another commonly accepted version of customer that deviates from that one; but i don't know it - aaron
[2011-08-03 11:06:13] - Xpovos: I think in regards to Google (and other free services) its more a symbiotic thing than consumer/producer. We give them our time because they give us a service we value (searching a giant internet) and they use us to get crazy ad revenue for them. Seems beneficial to both sides. -Daniel
[2011-08-03 11:05:15] - aaron: Interesting viewpoint but I think it's inaccurate. I don't think money changing hands is a requirement to be considered a customer. - mig
[2011-08-03 11:03:40] - Xpovos: Does your link go to the right place? a wikipedia article on Siva Vaidanathan? If so I'm not getting it. -Daniel
[2011-08-03 10:48:59] - xpovos: i think i heard that quote (or something similar) a few months ago. if you're not paying money for a service (i.e broadcast television, facebook, google) then you're not really the customer; the advertiser is the customer and you're the product. it's an interesting viewpoint - aaron
[2011-08-03 10:47:35] - aww the World Sauna Championships sounds like such a good idea too, who could have foreseen it would end so abruptly and tragically - aaron
[2011-08-03 10:26:43] - "We are not Google’s customers: we are its product. We—our fancies, fetishes, predilections, and preferences—are what Google sells to advertisers." Discuss? -- Xpovos
[2011-08-03 10:06:08] - aaDaniel: Yeah, the comments were pretty bad. I didn't think of Sarah Connor, I really wish I had. Sometimes I wonder if a few of these people are confused about the 1x10^12 trillion vs the 1x10^18 trillion. If they think it's the 1x10^18 trillion, I think the vitriol is probably even sane. At the x10^12 level it's just entertaining. -- Xpovos
[2011-08-03 10:02:35] - daniel: oh man i wish i hadn't read those comments. "there is hope. sarah is coming to chew gum and kick rear, and she's all out of gum" god i hope she means sarah connor - aaron
[2011-08-03 10:01:55] - OMG! Picking top 10 is hard... That will take time. ~g
[2011-08-03 09:28:46] - Wow the comments are so much worse... -Daniel
[2011-08-03 09:23:20] - Xpovos: That lady seems kind of crazy. I suppose there is a certain entertainment value of someone freaking out so badly but its kind of sad how she views Obama and the gov. I think Bush was a giant bumbling idiot but I don't think he was a puppet for some cabal trying to undermine the US. -Daniel
[2011-08-02 17:54:03] - Xpovos: I mean, I guess we should be thankful that we didn't get any higher taxes (yet) out of it, but I really do feel like this agreement is a joke, especially considering the larger scale ideas that were being floated earlier. -Paul
[2011-08-02 17:52:29] - Xpovos: I think I agree with the general idea of the article you posted, if not the specific facts. I am absolutely shocked that the left is so disappointed with Obama and everybody thinks the Tea Party has scored a major victory. How exactly is it a victory when you raised the debt ceiling again and didn't even secure any actual cuts? -Paul
[2011-08-02 16:27:28] - Daniel: Thanks for the heads-up. I posted for the nomination process. It'll be fun to be in on the voting too. -- Xpovos
[2011-08-02 16:26:38] - I love the vitriol, if not the entire catalogue of arguments. -- Xpovos
[2011-08-02 16:24:21] - http://www.npr.org/2011/08/02/138894873/vote-for-top-100-science-fiction-fantasy-titles - Vote for your top 10 fantasy/sci fi novels -Daniel
[2011-08-02 14:48:29] - mig: Interesting. I don't know if it's standard, either. I just know that after two interviews I was asked for my references last week, and I'm wondering when to start getting nervous. - Stephen
[2011-08-02 14:37:58] - stephen: In my experience I don't think they've ever bothered to contact my references. I guess your line of work may be different about it though. - mig
[2011-08-02 13:57:46] - How long does it normally take for a potential employer to contact your references? - Stephen
[2011-08-02 13:56:57] - aaron: ok, I didn't know what it was you were looking for - a streaming service that allows you to play whatever whenever, or true ownership of the music. sounds like we both want the first one - vinnie
[2011-08-02 13:46:09] - http://reason.tv/video/show/remy-raise-the-debt-ceiling-ra Not sure if anybody else would enjoy this, but I figure the libertarians here might get a kick out of it. -Paul
[2011-08-02 13:26:00] - I'd call it extremely mildly inappropriate. Not worth noting in the current environment. If everyone were squeaky clean I think it might be worth a very little press time. -- Xpovos
[2011-08-02 13:23:04] - g: plus, what's sketchier? the VP asking the secret service for rent on a rental property, or the VP giving the secret service a present? but, i don't think anybody here thinks it's inappropriate, just interesting - aaron
[2011-08-02 13:22:04] - vinnie: i'm obviously OK paying for a music streaming service, i already do. but until streaming services are ubiquitous, and can stream to my car, or to an airplane, or into outer space, i'll need to maintain some sort of supplementary offline music collection. plus, cmon. also spotify's probably not gonna have "kitty don't eat that tinsel" anytime soon - aaron
[2011-08-02 13:20:16] - mig: I read the title and correctly assumed it had been a previous rental property that they asked to rent... I dont find it inappropriate at all. And I find it humorous that they are like why would he need money. Compared to other jobs in this country the President doesnt make that much, I cant imagine the VP makes more... ~g
[2011-08-02 13:06:34] - though I own more than 500 CDs at this point, I actually agree with Paul. I would gladly trade them all for a monthly paid streaming service that has everything I want to hear. not sure how long it will take for that to happen, or even if it will, but I have hope - vinnie
[2011-08-02 13:01:08] - Mig: It does seem odd... -Daniel
[2011-08-02 12:55:23] - aapovos: Ownership of music isn't a big deal for me. I never got into buying CDs before college, and even now I don't often buy MP3s. I eagerly look forward to the day where streaming services are cool enough that I don't feel the need to own any music at all. -Paul
[2011-08-02 12:53:07] - http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/joe-biden-collecting-rent-secret-194812366.html i don't really care about this one way or the other, but I find it humorous. - mig
[2011-08-02 12:24:58] - daniel: that's right, to play them on your mobile device you need to pay a subscription fee. - aaron
[2011-08-02 12:06:09] - aaron: I haven't bought a CD in forever. I buy mp3's from amazon at this point. I guess spotify has the potential to stop me from that though if it gives me the ability to play a given song on demand. Though I think to run spotify on your phone you have to have a paid subscription? -Daniel
[2011-08-02 12:01:49] - also its chess that drives me insane, not the UI. ~g
[2011-08-02 12:01:39] - mig: nah, you click on the piece you want to move and click on the spot you want to move them to... no dragging. ~g
[2011-08-02 11:55:35] - g: is it a drag'n'drop interface? I've never liked using my UIs like that on my phone. - mig
[2011-08-02 11:54:07] - (not that I am losing to Paul or anything) ~g
[2011-08-02 11:52:37] - I dont know how you all play chess on your phones... That game drives me crazy. ~g
[2011-08-02 11:50:01] - aaron: Huh, I thought it was just an online repository and playlist manager. I'll have to check it out in more detail. -- Xpovos
[2011-08-02 11:49:43] - aaron: ah I thought you had but after re-reading it I dont think you did
~g[2011-08-02 11:36:19] - g: oh yeah, definitely. i hope i didn't say anything contrary to that - aaron
[2011-08-02 11:34:14] - aaron: books can be pretty explicit... and definately inappropriate for certain ages. ~g
[2011-08-02 11:27:38] - xpovos: but i agree, ownership of music is a big deal to me too, and i still continue to buy lots of CDs despite the existence of streaming services like spotify/pandora - aaron
[2011-08-02 11:27:11] - xpovos: spotify integrates with your music library. i've been a little frustrated with iTunes lately (mostly from a performance/UI standpoint) so i'm starting to use Spotify just as a way of playing songs out of my own library - aaron
[2011-08-02 10:55:59] - I like Spotify as a concept. I'm not sure I'd use it as much as my own personal music library, but I think there probably is a generational shift that I just wasn't caught by re: ownership of music. If that's the case I'd better be prepared for it with my daughters. -- Xpovos
[2011-08-02 10:49:50] - But, I'll grant she's gonna be an exception on books due to her position. But many parents will have at least some tangential idea of what their children are reading and with the tools now available that my parents didn't have (the GooglePedia) there's no reason they can't know the entire steamy history of whatever book I'm reading. -- Xpovos
[2011-08-02 10:48:47] - I dunno, my mom's a librarian, so when she saw I was reading Judy Bloom books, she kinda flipped. -- Xpovos
[2011-08-02 10:22:39] - mig: so i bet that's why books haven't been restricted; if your teenage kid reads some book that has some really inappropriate violent/sex scene, the parent won't find out because you can't exactly walk in on your kid reading something violent, and find out the same way as a parent - aaron
[2011-08-02 10:22:02] - mig: that's interesting. i guess the biggest consideration i hadn't thought about is the risk of accidental exposure; with music/movies/video games, it's very easy for a parent to walk in on a kid and be like - aaa!!! what are these titties doing everywhere!!! that can't really happen with kids reading books - aaron
[2011-08-02 10:20:03] - How do you find people on spotify? Is it through the facebook link or is there another way? I've used it mostly just when I want to listen to a specific song or set of songs, but I still use Pandora mostly because I'm to lazy to come up with my own variety. -Daniel
[2011-08-02 10:20:01] - xpovos: taking your kids to mcdonalds for apple slices is like... taking your kids to... hmmm - aaron
[2011-08-02 10:19:29] - paul: that's right, you link it with facebook. i'm not 100% sure if spotify is right for me, or better than pandora, but it does have a different feature set and it's extremely popular in some other countries so i figure as long as it's free, you know, why not try it out. but yeah, being able to play specific songs on demand is a useful service on its own - aaron
[2011-08-02 10:19:16] - Today's sub-title is entertaining, given yesterday's discussion. -- Xpovos
[2011-08-02 10:07:01] - aaron: The friends' playlists sounds interesting, although I wonder if any of my friends have similar tastes in music as I do. Do you get that functionality by linking it with facebook? -Paul
[2011-08-02 10:02:12] - It is by no means uniform. And I think most of it is probably handled by the specific publisher. - mig
[2011-08-02 10:01:53] - aaron: there's no "official" rating systems for comics/mangas that I know of. I've seen instances of graphic books being bound in plastic, but sometimes not. I've seen battle royale bound that way, but preacher (which has arguably worse content) you can just pick up and leaf through. Sometimes there's a sticker saying "not for children" and sometimes there isn't.
[2011-08-02 09:41:58] - paul: i don't think we have a rating system for books! well, maybe comic books/manga? i'm not sure. i think books are much less graphic by nature than movies/video games, but i don't think you can argue that they're less graphic than music. maybe books should have some sort of generic "explicit content" sticker like music - aaron
[2011-08-02 09:39:34] - paul: well, the first thing i did with it is search for lady gaga's single "born this way" so i could listen to it. then i saw roger braunstien had compiled a playlist of 100-200 of his favorite grime songs, so i listened to some of that. i don't use last.fm much, but i know you can't do those two things on pandora - aaron
[2011-08-02 09:14:30] - Aaron: I see you've activated a spotify account. I just activated mine last night. Only had a few minutes to play with it, but I'm already wondering what makes it so much better than something like pandora or last.fm. -Paul
[2011-08-02 09:12:43] - Aaron: Do we have a rating system for books? As far as I know we don't. Also, do you think books are covered under the first amendment? -Paul
[2011-08-01 19:44:01] - paul: yes, i think movies/music/books/video games are all similar, they all have a target audience and parents should understand whether it's age appropriate material for their kids. beyond the existence of a simple warning label/rating system, i don't have strong opinions about whether it should be enforced or not - aaron
[2011-08-01 16:53:41] - Daniel: Sure, but my point is that the threat of enforcement can almost be as bad. All the government had to do was "consider" regulating comic books or music or video games in order to scare those industries into doing something they otherwise wouldn't have. -Paul
[2011-08-01 16:31:42] - Paul: "but I don't think that absolves the entity that enforces those policies" - no one is enforcing anything though. Thats my point. If someone is enforcing it then we are well past considering. If you are listening to an idea and evaluating it you are not enforcing it. -Daniel
[2011-08-01 16:26:10] - I like the idea of having ratings so that parents have a cheat sheet towards what is in that game. Then again I don't really play video games so I wouldn't want to bother learning what each game was about and what was included in it before buying it for a kid... ~g
[2011-08-01 16:01:39] - moral busybodies. - mig
[2011-08-01 16:01:32] - I'll just add a caveat that at this point I wouldn't advocate abolishing the ESRB, and I will at least note that it is certainly morphed into something useful for parents over all the years. I'm just saying I don't believe it was fundamentally necessary to create it in the first place because the issues that caused it into creation were just manufactured outrage by
[2011-08-01 15:59:54] - Aaron: Tangental question, but do you consider books and video games to be similar with regards to what we are talking about? -Paul
[2011-08-01 15:56:06] - Daniel: I somewhat disagree. Sure, some (most?) of the blame goes towards the people advocating certain policies, but I don't think that absolves the entity that enforces those policies. Both are to blame. -Paul
[2011-08-01 15:55:35] - Honestly, with the wealth of information we have on all the products we have in this day and age, there's no fucking excuse parents have to be uniformed. - mig
[2011-08-01 15:54:39] - as far as I'm concerned if parents are concerned about the media that their children are consuming then ultimately it's up to them to make sure they don't get their hands on "teh bad stuff". Sure it's great if the video game industry helps them out a bit, but I don't believe they are obligated to do so in any way. - mig
[2011-08-01 15:52:13] - aaron: No misrepresenation. I still hold that opinion as well. - mig
[2011-08-01 15:51:01] - mig: iirc you believed ~10 years ago that there wasn't any harm in kids seeing any kind of violence/pornography/hate speech at any age (although i may be tremendoulsy misrepresenting your opinion so please correct me) in which case i think you're kind of an outlier for this particular topic. but, suffice to say, most parents want a ratings system to exist - aaron
[2011-08-01 15:48:34] - mig: yes, that's true, I guess AO games are "more legal" here than they are in australia. that said, i think certain things (like video game ratings) have to be mandated by a not-for-profit company (such as government), or they'll be too corrupt or maybe too fragmented. at least, that's my opinion. - aaron
[2011-08-01 15:46:58] - aaron: I don't know what would happen in abscence of government. Though perhaps I would argue that there was no issue to begin with. I personally don't think a ratings system for games, while perhaps helpful in some ways, is necessary at all. - mig
[2011-08-01 15:44:59] - just as a recent example, it is illegal to sell Mortal Kombat over in Australia, and it will actually get confisicated by customs if you try and bring it into the country. - mig
[2011-08-01 15:42:47] - you can still purchase AO games here. In Australia they are illegal to sell in any form(at least they will be until towards the end of the year). - mig
[2011-08-01 15:42:17] - mig: but i think i understand your point - the government shouldn't have even threatened to become involved in the private sector - that, in the absence of government, video games would have eventually developed their own ratings system organically which would be superior to the ESRB? - aaron
[2011-08-01 15:41:37] - Paul: I think you should be annoyed at those supporting causes you don't like rather than entities whose job it is to listen to people and decide on a way forward. It seems like you are getting mad at people for listening and not those doing the talking. -Daniel
[2011-08-01 15:40:35] - mig: well, for all intents and purposes certain video games are effectively banned here, as you can't purchase "AO" ratings in any retail stores that i know of. rating video game content isn't a constitutional function of government, but given when the constitution was written i'd be tremendously impressed if our forefathers exhibited that level of foresight - aaron
[2011-08-01 15:28:34] - aaron: yeah I would have a problem with that for 2 reasons: 1) rating video game content is not a consitutional function of government. 2) judging from what's been happening in Australia with their government mandated rating system until very recently, you could have very well seen certain video games be effectively banned here. - mig
[2011-08-01 15:27:59] - Daniel: Sure, but what about cases where there's not as convenient of a scapegoat? I guess I could be annoyed with Michelle Obama, since she has made obesity her issue, but I feel like she has mostly been pushing voluntary solutions. -Paul
[2011-08-01 15:05:57] - Paul: Be annoyed at Tipper Gore then? -Daniel
[2011-08-01 15:01:13] - Daniel: Even if it's just a committee trying to gather info, I feel like it's justified being annoyed because of the power the government can exert just by looking into an issue. If I recall correctly, all Tipper Gore had to do was call a hearing to scare the RIAA into putting labels on their CDs. -Paul
[2011-08-01 14:54:12] - On a different note this is more activity than I think the board saw all of last week combined. So welcome back
-Daniel[2011-08-01 14:49:09] - Paul: Maybe we are just using the word consider differently. if you translate "If the governemnt decides Happy Meals to be a public threat, then therer are serious consequences" then I agree with your stance I think. If you translate it to "If the government is trying to decide if Happy Meals are a public threat..." then I think my point stands. -Daniel
[2011-08-01 14:48:53] - oh okay, that's cool. so it sounds like the government explicitly said, "look, please find a way to regulate yourselves, here's your time frame. after that point, if you don't have regulations in place, we'll step in". did you have a problem with that? i think that seems really reasonable - aaron
[2011-08-01 14:47:21] - system." - mig
[2011-08-01 14:47:17] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esrb#Background_and_history "Hearings on video game violence and the corruption of society, headed by Joe Lieberman and Herb Kohl were held in late 1992 to 1993. The result of the hearings was that the entertainment software industry was given one year to form a working rating system or the federal government would intervene and create its own
[2011-08-01 14:46:48] - In thinking about this I think for me there is a large distinction between a committee (or anything made up of many people) and an individual. A committee's job is to consider things. Things brought up by their members. How can you be annoyed at a committee if one of its members introduces a motion to kill all babies which is considered and then defeated? -Daniel
[2011-08-01 14:46:06] - Daniel: Ah, I guess I can see your point. I think it's part of the price you pay when you are talking about an entity as powerful as the government which deals with threats of force. It's not like somebody considering where to eat dinner, or what movie to see. If the government considers Happy Meals to be a public health threat, then there are serious consequences. -Paul
[2011-08-01 14:41:34] - daniel: i don't know what the timeline is on the ESRB and stuff, but was the government ever talking about passing laws on selling video games to minors? maybe that's a good example. is that a good example? - aaron
[2011-08-01 14:40:18] - Mig: Is there anything that says the gov was in a "do this or we will do it for you" mode? That at least would make more sense to me. And perhaps it comes down to semantics but if they are in a "do it or we will" mode I wouldn't call that "considering it". -Daniel
[2011-08-01 14:40:16] - Daniel: I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying I shouldn't get annoyed with the government because some members of the government might not support the types of regulation that we're talking about? -Paul
[2011-08-01 14:38:31] - going over the rhetoric from government peoples it's hard to not see it as the latter in regards to fast food/obesity issues. - mig
[2011-08-01 14:38:21] - daniel: you can't think of anything that's so extreme, you'd hold it against someone for even considering it?? to me, food regulation is pretty reasonable, it makes me content knowing there's at most 12 insect legs in any given jar of peanut butter. but, i can understand why people with stronger opinions might be outraged at certain ideas being considered - aaron
[2011-08-01 14:37:20] - daniel: well there is a difference between considering something and taking a "do this or we'll eventually do it for you" stance. The government often takes the latter approach and that's something I personally find objectionable. - mig
[2011-08-01 14:33:45] - which to me*
[2011-08-01 14:33:26] - Because the act of considering it was in and of itself a weapon, which to mean says that even considering something would have to be considered, But then wouldn't that become the weapon? and on and on... -Daniel
[2011-08-01 14:32:27] - No I think we are on the same page there. You should speak out, but there is only something to speak out on if its being considered. Paul seemed to be saying that it shouldn't be considered in the first place. -Daniel
[2011-08-01 14:31:45] - Mig: If one doesn't want people to consider something that seems in line with censoring that opinion. One should participate in the process and lobby / support their position. That assumes people are encouraged to consider things though. -Daniel
[2011-08-01 14:29:22] - are we only allowed to speak out against dumb laws when they are actually passed? - mig
[2011-08-01 14:28:36] - daniel: who said anything about censoring? When someone in government says (s)he is considering some regulation that you find to be objectional, wouldn't you speak up against it? I'm no political scientist, but I think that's how represenative democracy is supposed to work... - mig
[2011-08-01 14:27:47] - Also Minority Report. Its pretty much the movie on this subject. -Daniel
[2011-08-01 14:26:09] - Paul: Or the whole would have to censor the parts such that anything that was deemed to make people unhappy would never come up. I dunno, it seems pretty unreasonable to me to get mad at people for considering something when they might decide against that something. -Daniel
[2011-08-01 14:25:16] - Paul: I think it makes sense to be annoyed at the people pushing the agenda you don't want. It still seems unfair to be annoyed at a larger body for even considering something when it doesn't have full control over what all of its parts do/think. Otherwise you are blaming a whole for the actions of a part that it can't control. -Daniel
[2011-08-01 14:17:40] - maybe gurkie's actual argument is more like, "kids will throw out the apples, and the caloric difference between a full serving of fries and half a serving of fries isn't significant enough to have any health impact. and the percentage of kids who eat the apples is statistically insignificant". that argument makes more sense to me, although i still think it's false - aaron
[2011-08-01 14:16:06] - daniel: i mean, it seems trivial to demonstrate that it affects how kids eat. it seems tautologically true. keep track of what 10 kids eat with the new happy meals, and what 10 kids eat with the old happy meals. i literally can't imagine how they could both give you the same results. so, maybe i'm trivializing gurkie's argument - aaron
[2011-08-01 14:14:16] - daniel: gurkie thought the change wouldn't affect how kids eat; i disagreed on that. paul thought that the change was being put into place because of government pressure, and i disagreed on that. they both seemed to think it would cost mcdonalds more money, and i wasn't 100% sure either way on that. i think those were the biggest 3 disagreements we had - aaron
[2011-08-01 14:04:47] - g: I think it involved replacing either sugar or flour with something else? -Paul
[2011-08-01 14:01:08] - Paul: oooh I like that idea, they brought yummy brownies... but I dont know if Daniel can make them he did something funny with them once... I think. ~g
[2011-08-01 13:52:34] - Daniel: Well, it's different degrees of annoyance, of course, but if I don't want the government doing something (requiring McDonalds to include apples in happy meals), then I also don't want them to consider forcing McDonalds to do it either. -Paul
[2011-08-01 13:50:52] - daniel: absolutely I would be annoyed. Becuase the implication there is if they don't do something that the government wants they will make them do it by force. There is an implied threat there and I'm not a fan of self-regulation done under those circumstances. - mig
[2011-08-01 13:50:25] - Daniel: I don't think it's unfair at all. What if I told you that I was considering not inviting you to poker unless you brought my brownies every time you came over... and then you "independently" decide to bring brownies over every time you come to poker... wouldn't it be fair for you to be annoyed with me? -Paul
[2011-08-01 13:46:15] - Paul: That said I'm not interested in defending gov regulating food or not, just the idea that you shouldn't get mad at someone for thinking about something before they actually do it. Its like Minority Report! They taught me that lesson! -Daniel
[2011-08-01 13:44:52] - Paul: That seems slightly unfair to the gov. If they consider some regulation and then the body self regulates you get annoyed at the gov anyways? That means they can't even consider something. What if they considered regulations and they were shut down? I think getting annoyed at something before it happens is not the best way. -Daniel
[2011-08-01 13:35:12] - in hopes that the government wouldn't step in to regulate. I'm guessing McDonalds is hoping that as long as they appear to be making voluntary steps to offer healthier foods, the government will back off with regulation. -Paul
[2011-08-01 13:34:19] - Daniel: "Paul is worried the gov is making them do it even though the gov doesn't make them do it and McD's says its not the gov?" As for that, I'm with Miguel. Just because the law isn't on the books now doesn't mean there isn't government pressure on companies. The comic book code is a prime example of an industry taking steps to regulate themselves...
[2011-08-01 13:32:51] - counter to that philosophy. Maybe it has to do more with WoW being a subscription based and D3 not being so... - mig
[2011-08-01 13:32:26] - xpovos: i guess the real $ auction house is of a bit interest to me because it's a polar opposite to the approach that they take in WoW. In WoW, they've consistently maintained that they do not want users to pay extra money for tangible in-game advantages. Given that there probably will be some sort of competitve laddering in D3, I find this type of auction house to be
[2011-08-01 13:32:00] - Daniel: Hehe, I was just thinking the same thing, sometimes I'm not sure if Aaron is arguing the position I think he is. I don't think it's a good idea, but I guess it's ok for them to give it a try. -Paul
[2011-08-01 13:29:34] - Daniel: Ive been partaking and I just asked myself that same question... I think my point is that I dont think that this change will necessarily have any impact on how healthy kids eat. ~g
[2011-08-01 13:29:20] - Aaron: Not at all, in fact there are state specific laws that affect McDonalds (the San Francisco ban on happy meals being the most notable). I'm just saying that the federal government (in the form of the FDA) is also perfectly able to regulate McDonalds. -Paul
[2011-08-01 13:29:05] - daniel: well, while the government doesn't make mcdonald's do anything (yet) the threat has been there for a long while. Certainly many of the anti-obesity crusaders have been lobbying for either lawsuits or regulations on fast food for some time now. - mig
[2011-08-01 13:27:59] - aaron: Id argue that they dont make more money. ~g
[2011-08-01 13:25:49] - Aaron and Paul are having a discussion over apples at McDonalds but I'm not sure what each of their positions are. Paul is worried the gov is making them do it even though the gov doesn't make them do it and McD's says its not the gov? Aaron thinks its good they have apples for the kids. That right? -Daniel
[2011-08-01 13:23:26] - g: yeah, i'm not 100% sure on the french fries v apples thing. you're right, packaging costs money and refrigeration costs money, it could go either way, i don't really have enough information. all i can say is, anecdotally, i can buy apples for cheaper than i can buy french fries right now. but, that's not necessarily relevant to mcdonalds' situation. - aaron
[2011-08-01 13:23:02] - mig: that too... I more meant the franchise cost though. A lot of people want to get into owning franchises because they tend to be almost gauranteed money makers. Some are expensive to own for example to open Noodles & Co you need I think 3 million in capital and commit to opening 5. ~g
[2011-08-01 13:22:01] - g: so you're right, it's not fair to assume that subway is more widespread because they're healthier. maybe they're just widespread because they make more money, and they're less difficult to operate - aaron
[2011-08-01 13:21:31] - g: it takes way less people to operate a subway too, i've seen a subway open with only 1 person, sometimes i'll only see 3-4 during a lunchtime rush. mcdonalds is always staffed with a minimum of 3 people, and a busy mcdonalds will need like 8-12. so you're right i think subway is just more profitable for other practical reasons - aaron
[2011-08-01 13:21:29] - aaron: I would think that apples are a lot more expensive than fries... to begin with you are going apples v. potatoes then you are processing both but individually packaging apples whereas fries you put in a huge container and then just fry up in large batches... ~g
[2011-08-01 13:20:37] - g: that wouldn't surprise me. You don't need a full kitchen, so you can open one with smaller space, and you don't have to employ as many people. - mig
[2011-08-01 13:20:11] - paul: "only 11% want apples" isn't true. the article says only 11% order apples instead of fries. maybe the other 89% don't have a preference, or maybe they don't understand that the option is available, or maybe they're just too lazy or hurried to ask - aaron
[2011-08-01 13:20:10] - NYC was looking at banning salt in restaurants, but that did not go over well with consumers or restauranteers... ~g
[2011-08-01 13:19:10] - I could be wrong but I think Subway franchises are a lot cheaper to open than McDs... ~g
[2011-08-01 13:17:04] - paul: are they? i'm honestly not sure. i think if you go to the supermarket, and buy a pound of apples, it's cheaper than a pound of french fries. probably like 3-4 times cheaper, really. there's a lot to be said for the machinery, cooking, manual labor involved in preparing french fries, stuff that doesn't matter for pre-packaged apple slices - aaron
[2011-08-01 13:15:44] - paul: i'm not sure i understand; you don't think there would be state-specific regulations impacting mcdonalds' happy meals? given that none of these laws exist in the first place, to my knowledge, i guess i'm unsure now exactly what you're predicting. i thought it was something along the lines of existing state-specific trans fat bans - aaron
[2011-08-01 13:11:46] - "McDonald's says the new directives are "absolutely not" related to impending regulations that will force the industry to curb the marketing of junk food to children and post nutrition information on menus". Somehow I don't believe that. -Paul
[2011-08-01 13:11:10] - http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2011-07-26-McDonalds-apples-happy-meal_n.htm It just seems a little suspicious that that only 11% of people seem to want apples with their meals, yet McDonalds seems to think it's a good idea to make this change. -Paul
[2011-08-01 13:09:30] - Aaron: That's part of the costs I was referring to. Aren't apples more expensive than french fries? -Paul
[2011-08-01 13:04:38] - aaron: Why would it be made on a state-by-state basis? Apparently the federal government is just as able to dictate these things as state and local governments. -Paul
[2011-08-01 13:01:56] - Mig: NPR says more Subways than McDonalds. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/08/134335815/subway-overtakes-mcdonalds-with-more-than-34-000-global-locations -Daniel
[2011-08-01 12:57:47] - and certainly there is some appeal for healthiness. I can't even begin to imagine how much money the whole Jared campaign was worth to subway. - mig
[2011-08-01 12:55:54] - aaron: I don't know if subway has outnumbered mcdonald's just yet but it is definitely catching up. - mig
[2011-08-01 12:46:35] - Hmm. It's lunch time. I'm going to go to McDonald's now... -- Xpovos
[2011-08-01 12:45:54] - aaron: Oh, OK. I think I might have had your argument backwards then. -- Xpovos
[2011-08-01 12:43:41] - in the UK the meal size is 6 nuggets. also, the US has larger serving sizes for french fries and sodas. so, that kind of flies in the face of the whole "restrictions enforced by the american government are forcing fast food to be healthy". unless of course, the UK is being even more restrictive, which is totally possible. i don't know much about food in the UK - aaron
[2011-08-01 12:42:23] - xpovos: yeah i've heard that! it's one reason i think my point actually holds water. i think if mcdonalds cares about gov't regulation, they will seriously push a different happy meal in the states, than in other countries. here's a corresponding anecdote, one of my buddies from the UK came to visit and was baffled by the existence of a 10 nugget meal, apparently - aaron
[2011-08-01 12:41:20] - paul: i don't think it will win them customers this year? but image is really important. i think someone told me that subway restaurants outnumber mcdonalds in the US. some people care about eating healthy, but an even greater percentage care about pretending to eat healthy - aaron
[2011-08-01 12:40:09] - Aaron: state-by-state comparison has issues, the head office wants uniformity, so there's a push towards lowest common denominators. Country-by-country comparison has other issues: primarily cultural. I can buy beer with my meal in a German McDonald's. -- Xpovos
[2011-08-01 12:38:59] - paul: hmm, what do you think the cost is? i guess since it's one extra kind of food - there's probably cost in the packaging and shipping, refrigeration, as well as decreased efficiency putting the meals together. are those the costs you mean? because there's costs in making french fries too. i don't know if one is inherently cheaper than the other - aaron
[2011-08-01 12:37:10] - gurkie: that's fine, i wasn't saying your anecdote was false, just that it was anecdotal. i think when i was a kid i threw out my apples too, because they weren't pre-cut and they were hard to eat with braces. but i definitely would have eaten them the way mcdonalds serves them. but maybe i was a weird kid - aaron
[2011-08-01 12:35:58] - paul: hmm, well that theory seems easy to disprove. if they were worried about lawsuits or gov't regulation, then wouldn't the changes be made on a state-by-state or country-by-country basis? so maybe we'll see different happy meals in the U.S than we see in mexico/canada? - aaron
[2011-08-01 12:25:56] - Aaron: Sure, out of the hypothetical 5 million kids who eat at McDonalds every day, it would only take 1% to affect 50k people, but I just wonder if it could be worth the cost. Is it going to win them new customers? -Paul
[2011-08-01 12:25:04] - Uh-oh. Someone was paying attention to our trip to the Outer Banks. I mean, we still count as D.C.- area adults, even if we're in NC, right? http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-DC-Adults-Top-Alcohol-Abusers-in-Country-126507408.html -- Xpovos
[2011-08-01 12:20:45] - Daniel: Yes, NYC was talking about salt and I think they followed through. And gov't intervention is govt' intervention, whether it's local or federal, it's still government. -- Xpovos
[2011-08-01 12:19:02] - Didn't NYC talk about limiting the amount of salt that food could have? Am I making that up? -Daniel
[2011-08-01 12:18:37] - Ah yeah I remember NYC doing some stuff like, I was thinking fed gov and couldn't think of anything where they had regulated food like that. -Daniel
[2011-08-01 11:56:10] - oh that's right, san fran did ban happy meals. - mig
[2011-08-01 11:54:58] - Daniel: Yes, lots. Although I think the difference is (appropriately) local vs. federal governments. But check out NY and San Francisco for some of the most progressive in terms of regulating the content of food at restaurants for 'increased health'. -- Xpovos
[2011-08-01 11:54:18] - daniel: yes. I'm not sure if it was nationwide or like in NYC, but I think there was some laws either banning or restricting the use of transfats in foods. - mig
[2011-08-01 11:48:19] - Paul: Does the gov regulate that kind of thing anywhere outside of schools? -Daniel
[2011-08-01 11:40:38] - Aaron: McDonalds has been doing pretty well the past few years despite the negative PR. I don't think they necessarily feel pressure to make their menu healthier from consumers, I think they're worried about lawsuits or government regulations. -Paul
[2011-08-01 11:19:32] - The AH issue is going to get a lot of talk, because that's 'new'. But the rest is just as big a deal, IMO. I played a D2 mod more than I played D2, which is saying something. And I guess we can't be surprised by online only after Starcraft 2, the reality is that SC as an RTS is very different from Diablo as an ARPG/loot simulator. RTSes are inherently more MP. -- Xpovos
[2011-08-01 11:08:16] - Aw... mig beat me to it. Oh well, here's a link to Shamus's take on it anyway. So the news this morning is that Diablo III will have no modding whatsoever, it will be online-only, and it will have an integrated auction house where people can buy and sell in-game items for real cash money. -- Xpovos
[2011-08-01 11:05:51] - Its going to be interesting to see the reaction to D3 since I think that gamers will have to balance their desire for a new, anticipated Blizzard title vs their dislike of persistent internet connected DRM and the idea of a for real money AH. -Daniel
[2011-08-01 11:05:06] - aaron: plus while I didnt put the source in for my anecdote it was an article on CNN while yours was something you made up. ~g
[2011-08-01 11:04:23] - aaron: my point was that just cause McD's puts it in the happy meal doesn't mean kids will eat it. ~g
[2011-08-01 11:00:44] - or well, my bad, not totally "free to play" but at least, it won't have a subscription cost - aaron
[2011-08-01 11:00:18] - mig: i thought the whole "plex" idea from EVE online was pretty ingenious. but, i guess that model doesn't really make sense if the game is f2p like Diablo 3 is going to be (right?) - aaron
[2011-08-01 10:44:28] - An interesting development, as they've taken the complete opposite approach when it comes to WoW. - mig
[2011-08-01 10:42:54] - http://games.slashdot.org/story/11/08/01/148212/Blizzard-Reveals-Diablo-3-Real-Money-Auction-House diablo 3 to feature a real $ auction house for items. - mig
[2011-08-01 10:05:19] - http://abcnewsradioonline.com/world-news/chinese-couple-sells-all-three-kids-to-play-online-games.html so apparently it's illegal in china to sell your kids in order to play WoW? that sucks, guess where i'm not moving to - aaron
[2011-08-01 10:03:39] - paul: another theory is that all of the local mcdonalds franchises would disregard the happy meal changes passed down from corporate; they'd throw the apple slices in the garbage and continue serving fries in happy meals. i don't know. what is your theory for how mcdonalds' change wouldn't affect kids' diets? - aaron
[2011-08-01 10:02:47] - paul: i mean, one theory is that 5 million parents every day who take their kids to mcdonalds, would independently say, "and instead of apple slices, can you give my kid a larger portion of fries" and all of the restaurants would have a mechanism in place to comply. - aaron
[2011-08-01 10:01:58] - paul: i understand the point that it's "hard to force people to eat something they don't want". but i can't imagine that such a sweeping change would have no positive effect, or a negligible positive effect on kid's diets. i mean, it's possible? but i'm just not clever enough to imagine it - aaron
[2011-08-01 10:00:44] - paul: i think it's a good idea. i think mcdonalds is experimenting with it because of the takeoff of seemingly "healthier" fast food chains over the past 10 years - stuff like starbucks, panera, chipotle have started springing up as competitors and mcdonalds was getting lots of negative PR over their unhealthy menu. i don't think it has to do with gov't pressure - aaron
[2011-08-01 09:55:13] - daniel: yes, i used it yesterday. i went to pandora.com and there was a banner up top which said, "Pandora One listeners - preview the all NEW Pandora website" - aaron
[2011-08-01 09:06:18] - aaron: I think the point is that it's hard to force people to eat something that they don't want. I'm fine with McDonalds experimenting with this, but I don't think it's a good idea and I worry that it's only being tried because of government pressure due to the current anxiety over obesity. -Paul
[2011-08-01 08:51:07] - aaron: Do you actually see the new pandora version? I saw some stuff about it but I haven't seen it yet and I'm a subscriber person. -Daniel
[2011-08-01 07:46:49] - more interestingly, it relies on HTML5 over flash and provides more ways to interact with the site socially, stuff like leaving comments, seeing what your friends are listening to or sharing tracks/stations with your friends - aaron
[2011-08-01 07:45:33] - http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/12/new-pandora/ pandora's also experimenting with a new interface which is currently available to pandora one subscribers. it makes it a lot less clunky to do things like edit your stations or view song information, which used to pop up in a new window - aaron
[2011-07-30 13:41:07] - g: idk maybe it's true, but regardless, what's your point? even if it is true, it means kids will be eating less french fries in a happy meal, so they'll eat less calories of junk per day. that seems good to me too - aaron
[2011-07-30 13:38:48] - g: that's a cool anecdote. how about this one, at schools they have been feeding the kids pizza, and in general the kids just pick the vegetables off the pizza because they like those the most - aaron
[2011-07-30 13:37:22] - http://www.spotify.com/us/hello-america/ oh! wasn't i telling you guys about spotify? apparently they're experimenting with it in america now - aaron
[2011-07-29 11:41:51] - g: I wasn't either! - Stephen
[2011-07-29 11:31:48] - aaron: My diet is still driven by convenience. -Daniel
[2011-07-29 11:31:26] - Stephen: I wasnt a big fan of Evan... ~g
[2011-07-29 11:30:57] - aaron: Id agree with you but, at schools they have been feeding the kids fruit with their meals and in general the kids just throw it out rather than eating it. ~g
[2011-07-29 11:02:29] - for a lot of people (kids especially) their diet is driven by convenience so small changes like that can make a difference in a lot of people's lives - aaron
[2011-07-29 11:01:42] - gurkie: that happy meal article was cool though, i know they've had apple slices as an option but now it'll be included in all happy meals. i think it's a cool change - aaron
[2011-07-29 10:53:16] - g: I am apparently one degree removed from Evan Kasperzak (the Broadway SYTYCD guy from a few seasons ago). - Stephen
[2011-07-28 15:59:40] - Paul: Yeah I think so, or at least as far as I know so. -Daniel
[2011-07-28 14:43:36] - Daniel: I'm out of town right now and not getting back until Saturday. Not sure if I will be home in time for poker, though. I was thinking on passing. You think you two could make it next weekend? -Paul
[2011-07-28 09:00:44] - Paul: Poker this weekend? If so Andrea votes Saturday but I suppose thats your call. -Daniel
[2011-07-27 15:57:40] - http://www.javacodegeeks.com/2011/07/funny-source-code-comments.html now to read the non exerpted version, yea I screwed up the spelling there... ~g
[2011-07-27 10:46:14] - Yea the article said its the value of the things you own minus outstanding debts... So house/car values, bank accounts, retirement funds minus mortgage, outstanding payments on car, loans, etc... I dont think my networth is as high as I would like ~g
[2011-07-26 18:47:37] - Stephen: Wealth is networth (book value). Income is revenue stream. Cashflow is what really matters, though. -- Xpovos
[2011-07-26 16:25:59] - g: Apparently Asians used to have more wealth than white families, but that changed between 2005 and 2009. I'm honestly not sure how wealth is defined, though, since it seems to be totally unrelated to income. - Stephen
[2011-07-26 16:25:02] - g: There was a video about that, yeah. - Stephen
[2011-07-26 16:10:24] - stephen: seriously, whats with showing white, black, and hispanic and leaving out the asians! We are important too... Plus then I can calculate what 3/8 asian and 5/8 white should have and see if we are above/below the median income... ~g
[2011-07-26 16:09:15] - Stephen: wait really? there was one on that? ~g
[2011-07-26 16:08:51] - http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/police/news-releases/2011/072611slasher.htm creepy ~g
[2011-07-26 16:00:52] - g: How about families that are 3/8 Asian? How much wealth do they have on average? - Stephen
[2011-07-26 16:00:24] - g: I know! It should really be the CNN video about the granny chasing the naked man with a bat. - Stephen
[2011-07-26 15:46:43] - I also find it sad that the second most popular article on CNN (right now) is about Happy Meals getting a makeover. ~g
[2011-07-26 15:45:44] - I find this sad: http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/26/news/economy/wealth_gap_white_black_hispanic/?npt=NP1 ~g
[2011-07-26 12:27:05] - a: nah that part was done without me
~gprev <-> next