prev <-> next
[2011-09-14 11:56:56] - daniel: no, i agree. it's just like false rape allegations, noise ordinances, HOAs or gridlock where, it's a human problem, and it's the only real way to fix it is to make better humans. which, i mean, we're working on, it just takes awhile and you have to phase out the old humans first - aaron
[2011-09-14 11:50:37] - aaron: lol, I get that its not a good thing but I'm not sure what the answer is since its basically for people to be less afraid of other people but thats a hard thing to accomplish. -Daniel
[2011-09-14 11:49:23] - daniel: yes, i think police can detain you for 24 hours on a whim. - aaron
[2011-09-14 11:48:59] - i think what would make me less upset, is if the guy who reported the behavior were subjected to the same treatment, because that only seems fair. but i understand why punishing whistleblowers would have negative effects as well, so i'm not sure how to remedy the situation. i guess the best solution is to be white on 9/11 - aaron
[2011-09-14 11:47:35] - -Daniel
[2011-09-14 11:47:33] - It does make me wonder on the rights concerning strip searches. When they are allowed / not allowed. I think that would be the objectionable part but the whole thing seemed to be over in a matter of a few hours which isn't ideal sure, but also doesn't seem like that bad of a thing. Aren't police allowed to detain you for like 24 hours on pretty much a whim already?
[2011-09-14 11:46:59] - http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=662176
[2011-09-14 11:45:38] - daniel: every passenger, that makes a lot more sense to me if they were genuinely worried about a threat, and not just trying to harass someone. - aaron
[2011-09-14 11:44:56] - daniel: if they were really nervous about some sort of 9/11-level attack, then how do they know they didn't have any weapons/supplies in their carryons? why didn't they empty the whole plane? why didn't they talk to the other passengers, or go through all 100-200 bags? she mentions when it happened another time, they emptied the whole plane and interrogated - aaron
[2011-09-14 11:42:49] - daniel: well, i'm angry/sad that a stranger would report a row of 3 non-white people just (probably) because of racial connotations, and i'm also angry/sad that the police wouldn't simply search their belongings and let them go. the strip search/jail cell seems really overkill - aaron
[2011-09-14 11:39:57] - g: Which part made you angry/sad? For the most part it didn't seem THAT bad. Its not great that someone decided they were being suspicious based on appearance but the FBI/police response seemed mostly an appropriate response. The strip search seems unnecessary and I think the 'bad' part but it doesn't seem terrible. -Daniel
[2011-09-14 11:26:37] - a: hmm. discontinuous disintegration - aaron
[2011-09-14 11:10:06] - there also needs to be a word for people who don't "svn up" or "git pull" enough. ~a
[2011-09-14 11:10:03] - aaron: maybe they set up the test users and are using their bank password as the test users password
~g[2011-09-14 11:09:25] - really it's just another word for "password" except the associations are different. ~a
[2011-09-14 11:09:23] - This made me angry and sad! http://shebshi.wordpress.com/2011/09/12/some-real-shock-and-awe-racially-profiled-and-cuffed-in-detroit/ ~g
[2011-09-14 11:04:07] - you could call it a "token" ~a
[2011-09-14 10:30:06] - there needs to be a special word for publicly known passwords for things like development/test environments. at work there are some people who are still like, needlessly protective of certain passwords which are shared by 6 different people, in a test environment, with no valuable data. and i think it's just because we call them "passwords" - aaron
[2011-09-14 10:22:51] - aaron: I assumed he HAD to be getting some sort of bulk discount (although I agree that it seems strange to think of it). My estimate was based off of... I think $6-8 cubes? So it sounds like my guess on the number of cubes is also lower. -Paul
[2011-09-14 10:07:20] - -Daniel
[2011-09-14 10:07:16] - aaron: My guesstimation was a 60x40 grid which was almost 29k. So even if we are both terrible at estimating cubes that still puts the ballpark cost of that project pretty high. -Daneil
[2011-09-14 10:02:02] - paul: i think i'd go higher, it looks like about a 35x80 grid of cubes (roughly) which at $12 per cube works out to like $33k. it's possible he gets a bulk discount on rubiks cubes, but i'm not sure. that seems like a weird thing to get a bulk discount on - aaron
[2011-09-13 17:46:20] - a: woo thanks adrian
I could have asked, but that wouldn't have been as fun 
-Daniel[2011-09-13 17:15:04] - aaron: that guy seems a little obsessed. ~a
[2011-09-13 17:14:25] - of course, lmk if it doesn't work. ~a
[2011-09-13 17:13:07] - daniel: "I'm still not cool enough to see the secret inner directories of wedding pictures
" you know you could have just asked! email sent. ~a[2011-09-13 17:12:09] - aaron: My guess is $12k. -Paul
[2011-09-13 16:42:04] - aaron: eeks, thats awesome! ~g
[2011-09-13 16:41:10] - a: Yay! Thanks! (p.s. give Daniel a password) ~g
[2011-09-13 16:32:15] - I'm still not cool enough to see the secret inner directories of wedding pictures
-Daniel[2011-09-13 16:26:51] - aaron: Whoa. That's nuts! I've bought both mine for ~$10, and maybe he gets a bulk discount? But... wow. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-13 16:08:25] - g: there you go. refresh the page! ~a
[2011-09-13 16:07:18] - g: yeah i have those in there too. hold on, let me regenerate that page. ~a
[2011-09-13 16:03:26] - a: you should have ended the 2011 thread of paul and me pics with a pic from our wedding
~g[2011-09-13 16:01:17] - yay paul paul is my paul! ~g
[2011-09-13 16:01:07] - xpovos: well that was depressing... ~g
[2011-09-13 15:58:47] - a: I am generally against tax increases as an attempt to reduce the deficit, as I see it as primarily a spending problem. If revenues increase due to non-tax-increase things (like higher employment), then I have no real issue with that. -Paul
[2011-09-13 15:57:12] - aaron pieper: what's the last name rule? ~a
[2011-09-13 15:56:01] - a: Well, if we are referring to the facebook conversation from the past, then I was just using the "increasing revenue" terminology that (I believe) you introduced as a way of talking about tax increases. -Paul
[2011-09-13 15:54:49] - http://www.statesman.com/sports/longhorns/sources-texas-has-three-viable-realignment-options-1851020.html?page=2&viewAsSinglePage=true more conference alignment madness. Texas (and presumably Texas Tech) reportedly consider going to the ACC as an option should the big12 implode. not the most likely option atm, but the fact that it is an option intrigues me- mig
[2011-09-13 15:52:10] - http://media.mlive.com/grandrapidspress/photo/8905948-standard.jpg rubiks cubes... are actually pretty expensive... any estimates how much $$ this would set him back? at like $12 a cube? - aaron
[2011-09-13 15:50:37] - g: I think this article speaks to our commentary about unemployment. http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/sep/11/face-of-unemployment-changes-as-thousands-of-for/ although perhaps it's more negative than either of us is allowing for. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-13 15:27:14] - a: :-O the last name rule! - aaron
[2011-09-13 15:23:08] - paul: paul paul is paul essen. ~a
[2011-09-13 15:12:57] - paul: pretty sure you're "paul paul", he's using that to differentiate you from the other two pauls, while still keeping your first/last name off this message board (we have a history of avoiding last names) - aaron
[2011-09-13 15:10:18] - *** aaron <------- doesn't know where swaziland is but. probably somewhere in africa. i bet it's near... the TOP
[2011-09-13 15:09:48] - i would guess at least 90% of the human population is dumber than they should be, because of the embarassment that comes from admitting you don't know something, or the implied insult when you explain something someone already knows, usually stemming from situations like this where someone's like, "i KNOW where swaziland is, how dumb do you think robble robble" - aaron
[2011-09-13 15:07:17] - a: I also think it's misleading to say Rand Paul is "for" increasing revenues. My guess is that he's just using projected future revenues for his plan. Since his plan mostly focuses on spending cuts, I don't know if it's right to say he is taking a stance one way or the other on revenues. -Paul
[2011-09-13 15:05:19] - a: it's childish of you to take paul's quote where he was seriously trying to make sure you knew the difference between debt/deficit and use it against him. i can't think of a politer way of asking whether someone understands the difference between the debt and the deficit but he was just trying to avoid a misunderstanding, not belittle you - aaron
[2011-09-13 15:04:58] - a: I guess the confusion is coming from the fact that I still don't know who you are referring to when you say Paul Paul, so I have to guess. Since you referred to Rand Paul by name earlier, I assumed it wasn't him, but now you are accusing me of confusing the two, so I guess Paul Paul is a different name for Rand Paul? -Paul
[2011-09-13 15:04:09] - And from what I recall from that FB discussion, while you guys were talking about increasing/decreasing revenues, both of you really were talking about increasing/decreasing taxes, unless I was horribly mistaken. - mig
[2011-09-13 15:03:33] - a: Sure, Rand Paul is Ron Paul's pen name, right? Didn't he write Atlas Shrugged or something? -Paul
[2011-09-13 14:58:36] - projected ecnomic growth. - mig
[2011-09-13 14:58:27] - a: you're playing around with semantics here. I'm fairly certain when people say they don't want to increase revenues they are talking about the part that the governemnt actually has direct control over (increasing tax rates). All the summaries I've read about Rand Paul's plan mention that it does not contain any tax increases, and the revenue increases are based on
[2011-09-13 14:58:03] - a: I'm still not sure about the difference between paul, paul paul, and raond paul. Does that make me an asshole? -- Xpovos
[2011-09-13 14:57:29] - Particularly if that new $50-$80K job requires relocation and the same house I noted is underwater precluding an effective sale. This particular recession hits employment from three or four different directions. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-13 14:56:40] - g: Lowering your asking salary definitely improves the odds of getting hired. I would say that in most areas of the country people with the skills to make $100K a year who get terminated could probably quite easily get a job (somewhere) making $50-80K. The problem is the lifestyle choices (e.g. housing) made with the presumption of $100K/year. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-13 14:55:37] - "I'm sure Ron Paul would be all for reducing taxes" rand paul is for increasing revenues according to your link. I can't think of a non-asshole-ish way to ask this, but you do know the difference between rand paul and ron paul, right? ~a
[2011-09-13 14:54:52] - Going after the companies making these silly requirements seems more logical. Crusading against monster to me seems unproductive. - mig
[2011-09-13 14:54:11] - "Was this from the debate last night?" the conversation we had was on facebook. ~a
[2011-09-13 14:52:33] - I can't find much fault with monster on this one, they're just providing something that employers want to filter out. Would you rather job seekers time potentially get wasted by applying for a job with such a requirement and then getting a potentially awkward interview once that's found out? - mig
[2011-09-13 14:46:13] - i think it makes sense to filter on that just like education, or work history, or programming languages, or whether they went to a 2-year technical college or are eligible for a TS clearance... i don't know. i don't know which side i'm on, but i definitely think there's two sides to the monster.com story and i think they're both very rational - aaron
[2011-09-13 14:44:28] - while i think it's unfair to reject candidates based on their unemployment, i don't think it's illogical. employed candidates are by definition more valiable than unemployed candidates. and if a candidate can't rationalize why they were unemployed for a long period of time, it definitely raises eyebrows. - aaron
[2011-09-13 14:39:43] - a: Was this from the debate last night? I'm guessing he was just using the terminology of those who favor raising taxes (raising revenues). I'm sure Ron Paul would be all for reducing taxes and, as a result, revenues, but probably only after spending was cut drastically first. -Paul
[2011-09-13 14:39:28] - g: and yeah the adjustment the part of people unwilling to take pay-cuts is a relatively small part of the article, but the quote you highlighted jumped out at me as topical (as well as the paragraph about the author's own unemployment experience). - mig
[2011-09-13 14:35:35] - g: that would be silly. I don't know the rules and stuff, but I would hope that the benefits would be capped. - mig
[2011-09-13 14:32:59] - also does it make sense that unemployment be based on your original salary? That means that some guy who currently makes 3 mil a year could still be making a mil a year on unemployment? Thats ridiculous! ~g
[2011-09-13 14:30:27] - mig: nah, paul said he didn't want to increase revenues. ~a
[2011-09-13 14:28:51] - that being said, people on minimum wage or near it cant really lower their asking price... ~g
[2011-09-13 14:28:30] - mig: also that article didnt mention her having a tough time with the pay cut adjustment just that she was unemployed for 3 years and has become an activist for unemployed people... I think that lowering what you are asking for is probably one of the first things you should do if you cant find a job. ~g
[2011-09-13 14:27:21] - mig: I think the ire is being placed on both... but their focus is on monster because its a feature that they enabled... ~g
[2011-09-13 14:26:04] - "Wiedemer takes a more expansive view of what a non-worker should expect, and seemed genuinely surprised at the idea that in a down market you’re better off lowering your asking price. " To me that makes her seem ... not so smart... ~g
[2011-09-13 14:25:58] - g: i don't get that either. seems kind of a silly requirement for a job (talk about catch-22). Though I think the ire should be better placed on the companies rather than mosnter itself. - mig
[2011-09-13 14:22:20] - DUDE! Monster.com lets people only look for currently employed individuals? That is messed up! Unemployed means you werent at fault right? If you are fired you dont qualify do you?? Maybe I am getting this confused. ~g
[2011-09-13 14:15:55] - g: some people are having a tough time making the pay cut adjustment. - mig
[2011-09-13 14:12:56] - xpovos: I guess my question then is, hypothetically if you are payed 100K now and get laid off... Look for a job and are listed as unemployed... How hard do you think it would be to find a job paying 50-80K and make yourself more hirable by taking a paycut? ~g
[2011-09-13 14:04:17] - g: People without degrees are definitely hit harder by unemployment, especially this time; and those same people tend to make less. However, there's a lot of skilled individuals unable to find jobs that are looking for much higher paying work than the ~$50K jobs. So, the median is probably a bit high, but not by more than a few percentage points, I'd wager. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-13 14:04:17] - g: well the housing bubble burst and the finanicial crisis that followed eliminated a lot of jobs that were in the "well-to-do" crowd, and a lot of those jobs I wager have not come back. - mig
[2011-09-13 13:59:15] - xpovos: do you think its people with "average" salaries that are out of work? I tend to think that unemployment affects poorer people more, but obviously I could be mistaken. It would be interesting to see the average salary of people on unemployment (based on their previous salary before being unemployed.) ~g
[2011-09-13 13:57:21] - hmmm who is paul paul??? is it my paul? ~g
[2011-09-13 12:39:09] - Interesting calculation. 6.3M more jobs at a median salary of $49,445 (BLS today) would be $311.5B more in salaries. Obviously there's a multiplier effect for GDP values, but thinking about that many people making an average salary 'only' being about a third of our federal deficit? Yikes. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-13 12:35:36] - mig: Just think of getting 6.3M more jobs then! (That's approximately how many jobs we'd need to reduce the unemployment rate from 9.1% to 5.0%). -- Xpovos
[2011-09-13 12:00:26] - a: i believe paul paul is on record for not increasing taxes. Revenues can increase without tax rates going up. For example, if 1 million people suddenly got jobs tomorrow, government revenues would almost certainly increase. - mig
[2011-09-13 09:43:12] - a: Also, who is your enemy (re: enemy of my enemy is my friend)? Is it Perry? -Paul
[2011-09-13 09:39:07] - a: Not sure which clips you watched (and I only managed to watch 3/4ths of the debate last night, will finish tonight), but I felt Romney came across very well (even though I don't trust him in the slightest). I'm a little surprised you liked what you saw and that Bachmann might not be as bad as you thought. Can you expand on what you liked? -Paul
[2011-09-13 09:37:23] - a: I believe Rand Paul has revenues increasing because of GDP growth and nothing more. I would surprised if he had any tax increases built in. I don't know who Paul Paul is or if he is on the record as benig against revenues increasing, but I doubt he would be against GDP growth. -Paul
[2011-09-13 07:11:53] - http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46114 TSA creator says dismantle, privatize the agency - aaron
[2011-09-13 00:33:43] - ron was pretty quick too in one of the clips they let me watch. ~a
[2011-09-13 00:32:36] - though maybe it's an example of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. ~a
[2011-09-13 00:32:01] - paul: (regarding your facebook comment) cnn.com only lets me watch clips. i have to admit i like what i've seen so far. before reading your facebook comment, and then going onto cnn.com, i was pretty upset by all of the GOP candidates so far. now i'm wondering if romney could win or if bachmann isn't as bad as i once thought. ~a
[2011-09-12 20:37:56] - paul: rand paul also has revenues increasing. paul paul is on the record as being against revenues increasing. ~a
[2011-09-12 16:48:42] - Daniel: Although I think those budget cuts being referred to might be from the budget battle and not the debt ceiling battle. -Paul
[2011-09-12 16:42:33] - Daniel: The scary thing is that's completely leaving out entitlements as far as I can tell, which I believe most people agree are going to be an even bigger issue down the road. -Paul
[2011-09-12 16:41:31] - Daniel: YES, exactly. If you look at the US government like a family that is living beyond it's means, I think we get a clearer picture of the magnitude of the problem (spending more than 50% more than what we are earning, over 6x our salary in debt) and how pathetic our attempts to solve the problem have been. -Paul)
[2011-09-12 16:35:43] - relevant to budget discussions: http://i.imgur.com/d0RsV.jpg (hopefully accurate - though I'm not 100% on the numbers) -Daniel
[2011-09-12 16:31:57] - Xpovos: Although I think we basically agree. I would definitely be complaining a lot less if we had a believeable plan to balance the budget in 20 years. -Paul
[2011-09-12 16:30:57] - So some magic middle ground that prevents never ending deficits but allows for going into debt occasionally. The magic trick is preventing occasionally from becoming always which is what seems to have happened for the large part in the last couple of decades. -Daniel
[2011-09-12 16:30:38] - Xpovos: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/rand-pauls-balanced-budget-plan/ Rand Paul has a plan to balance the budget in 5 years. -Paul
[2011-09-12 16:29:34] - I support balanced budgets in general but I'm not sure I support a balanced budget amendment. Its like saying on a personal level you will never ever go into debt. And yet most of us have home loans or car loans or student loans so clearly we are ok with having debt on some level. The bad thing is when it goes nuts and you start to head towards bankruptcy. -Daniel
[2011-09-12 15:56:38] - I believe all of those things and don't think I'm a victim of cognative dissonance. But, that's the problem with cognative dissonance... you never know. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-12 15:56:04] - Paul: 16 years is still a very long time in politics. I don't think it's incongruous to say that the change has to happen over a period of time, that a ten year time frame estimate can help ease some of the shear of shifts, and that even our situation could probably be resolved within 20 years. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-12 15:45:18] - Xpovos: "In 1993, Canada’s federal debt was equal to 67 per cent of the country’s GDP. Just 16 years later, Canada’s federal debt had fallen to only 29 per cent of GDP." In 16 years, they were able make drastic reductions in their debt to GDP ratio, as opposed to the 70 years we're talking about before we even address our debt. -Paul
[2011-09-12 15:43:59] - Xpovos: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/39672 I'm not sure I entirely agree about not being able to turn huge things on a dime. Obviously Canada's economy is smaller than ours, but their results were impressive. -Paul
[2011-09-12 15:23:30] - a: Yes. Laws get ammended all the time by Congress, which is actually why a BBA has to be constitutional. Otherwise they just amend the amendment. There's absolutely nothing stopping Congress from passing a law that requires Congress to maintain a balanced budget and then either completely ignoring it or passing a new law reversing it. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-12 15:21:26] - Paul: I'm OK with the DCA/10 year process. Yes, it allows a lot of stupid financial tricks and gimmicks that obscure the facts and obfuscate that less is being done than it seems, but it's not without merit. Government is huge. And you don't stop or turn huge things on a dime. Attempts at instantaneous change results in inertial sheer. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-12 14:46:28] - a: well it's a little confusing, because while they call it a "balance budget amendment" some GOPers seem to imply it's just a simple matter of passing a bill and viola! we have a balanced budget. An actual consitutional amendment requires a whole lot more work than that. - mig
[2011-09-12 14:35:52] - xpovos: "Any balanced budget amendment that is ever going to be more than 'pay-go' will have to be Constitutional". are there "amendments" that are non-constitutional? i always thought that a "balanced budget amendment" was the same thing as a "balanced budget constitutional amendment". ~a
[2011-09-12 14:25:17] - Xpovos: Or real cuts have to be made for the budgets for next year, as opposed to promising cuts for budgets 10 years down the line. -Paul
[2011-09-12 14:21:10] - a: The difficulty, I think, is that current Congress cannot bind future Congresses. It's the sovereignty issue. Any balanced budget amendment that is ever going to be more than 'pay-go' will have to be Constitutional. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-12 14:21:05] - a: If you're saying things could be worse, then I definitely agree. I just think considering everything that happened during the standoff and how such a big deal was made of how the Republicans won and Obama lost, we got a laughably inconsequential deal which, again, I don't even consider to be real cuts. -Paul
[2011-09-12 14:19:29] - a: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/09/republicans-obama-should-endorse-balanced-budget-amendment/1 I'm all for a balanced budget amendment, but luckily that was one of the no-compromise things being pushed by the apocalyptic cult that Obama was able to prevent from happening.
-Paul[2011-09-12 14:16:22] - a: I just thought it was surprising that you thought it was a good start that we were planning on taking over half a century (under the rosiest of scenarios that I don't think anybody would even hope would happen) before we would even be spending less than we are taking in. -Paul
[2011-09-12 14:15:57] - no, i suggested a balanced budget amendment. ~a
[2011-09-12 14:15:33] - paul: assuming the balancing doesn't end there, yes i think that's a good start. if we turn the 70 years into 60 years, then the 60 years into 50 years, then i think yes we're moving in a positive direction. could it be faster, yes. could it be slower (or even go in a negative direction)? what do you think? ~a
[2011-09-12 14:14:54] - a: Sure, are you suggesting we pass an "Increase the GDP" amendment?
-Paul[2011-09-12 14:14:08] - a: Ok, so even in the rosy scenario laid out before, we would still be growing the debt (beyond interest) for another 70 or so years before we starting even trying to pay it down. You think that sounds like a good start? -Paul
[2011-09-12 14:12:56] - paul: I can't think of a non-asshole-ish way to ask this, but you know that an increasing GDP can lessen the impact of a non-increasing debt, right? ~a
[2011-09-12 14:11:27] - paul: yes, i know the difference. ~a
[2011-09-12 14:11:14] - paul: we could pass a balanced budget amendment. ~a
[2011-09-12 14:10:38] - a: and while it's a start, the next step is going to have to include talking about SS and medicare in some capacity. And for all the whining about republicans not willing to compromise, I have seen very little willingness on the democrat side for even just discussing the issue at all (aside from some non-commital 'I'll consider it' from Obama). - mig
[2011-09-12 14:10:16] - a: I can't think of a non-asshole-ish way to ask this, but you do know the difference between the deficit and the debt, right? -Paul
[2011-09-12 14:09:40] - "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." -DCheney
[2011-09-12 14:08:53] - a: Think of it this way, even if we assume the cuts are real, and they happen as laid out, and nothing else happens to change things (like, say, social security or medicare blowing up), we're still looking at like 70 years before we would eliminate the deficit alone (meaning the debt will only be increasing because of interest). -Paul
[2011-09-12 14:06:23] - a: Maybe, but we're talking about a start which is 10 years down the road, and it's a start towards making our annual spending meet our annual income. The debt will still be increasing, the cuts still aren't "real", and I doubt they'll even happen anyway. -Paul
[2011-09-12 14:04:23] - and even the 900B number you quoted is 90B out of a 1000B deficit. still, 10% of the way there is pretty sweet. ~a
[2011-09-12 14:03:59] - and aren't deficits project to increase even with the "cuts"? - mig
[2011-09-12 14:03:48] - a: I would guess Xpovos and I are on the same page in that the "cuts" are not real cuts, and even if they were, they aren't large enough to make a difference in the deficit, let alone the debt or entitlements. -Paul
[2011-09-12 14:03:20] - "only 150 billion" HAH. ONLY 150B. 150B out of a 1000B deficit is a good and measurable start, right? ~a
[2011-09-12 14:02:00] - Xpovos: Well, right, like you said, they are not "real" cuts in that it's just cuts in the projected increase in spending. It's all accounting tricks, down to calling it $1.5 trillion in cuts over 10 years. That's only $150 billion in cuts a year out of a budget of $3+ trillion when we take in around $2 trillion. -Paul
[2011-09-12 14:01:36] - i guess the bananas thing is a modification of the eels lyric? ~a
[2011-09-12 13:59:43] - "compromise which is going to result in no spending cuts of significance" . . . ok, so does that jive with xpovos's most recent comment? ~a
[2011-09-12 13:58:59] - http://www.google.com/search?q=%22bananas%20tell%20me%20i'm%20the%20shit%22 . . . weird. ~a
[2011-09-12 13:57:39] - a: I think the debt ceiling standoff was a "political" victory for the Republicans in that they can claim to have beaten Obama by preventing tax increases and can tell the ignorant public that spending will be cut. In reality, I think the Republicans chickened out and gave in to a gutless compromise which is going to result in no spending cuts of significance. -Paul
[2011-09-12 13:56:21] - Paul: Technically "additional" ($1.5T/10 years) cuts. I know we basically agree that the cuts already agreed to aren't real cuts, but there are ostensibly some cuts ($900B/10 years). So it's not all the super committee, if you take the politicians at their word. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-12 13:54:11] - a: I'm grumbling to myself over here. I concede the point. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-12 13:52:19] - well based on the fact that "super" is in the name, i'm sure the super committee will solve all of our problems. ~a
[2011-09-12 13:51:53] - "meaning of a word or phrase that is suggested or implied, as opposed to a denotation, or literal meaning." wiktionary ~a
[2011-09-12 13:51:49] - a: It ended with no tax increases and an agreement to create a "super committee" which will come up with ideas for spending cuts in the future. -Paul
[2011-09-12 13:51:13] - "that's purely psychological. Not semantic" exactly my point. connotation == psychological. ~a
[2011-09-12 13:50:34] - xpovos: "Acting as if you are entitled is very different from actually being entitled" of course, logically that is true. what matters more though is the connotation of the latter rubs off on the former (imo). ~a
[2011-09-12 13:50:28] - a: I think we're overstating a bit what happened during the standoff. There were no tax increases, but there were also no spending cuts. For some reason everybody considers that to be a major victory for the Republicans, but I consider it to be just a terrible compromise where they kick the can down the road. -Paul
[2011-09-12 13:50:04] - I think an argument can be made that giving people things makes them feel as if they should always have them could be made (entitlements [positive] -> being entitled [negative]) but that's purely psychological. Not semantic. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-12 13:49:48] - "Do you think there was a compromise during the debt ceiling standoff?" how did that end exactly? my memory is failing me. ~a
[2011-09-12 13:49:14] - a: I'm going to agree with mig (shock, I know). Acting as if you are entitled is very different from actually being entitled. We frequently ascribe the negative connotation you're thinking of towards attitudes that come from expecting things to be given to people; not the process by which we do give things to people. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-12 13:48:51] - paul: i understand the distinction. i agree the GOP doesn't want the government to burn down; but, they dislike compromise, and imo that will push us in the direction of collapse. ~a
[2011-09-12 13:47:18] - a: As for whether I disagree.... I'm not sure. How do you count compromise? Republicans have broken ranks to get Democratic bills passed. Do you think there was a compromise during the debt ceiling standoff? -Paul
[2011-09-12 13:45:44] - a: You also said "seems like a good way to watch the government burn down" in response to "hopefully we could at least agree that the Republicans weren't doing it just to watch the government burn down". -Paul
[2011-09-12 13:45:15] - mig: disagree. see definition #2. regardless, the connotation holds. ~a
[2011-09-12 13:44:07] - being entitled and the word entitlements aren't the same thing. - mig
[2011-09-12 13:44:01] - Aaron: Yeah, that's what I mean. There's too many Republican politicians who refuse to entertain the thought of cutting defense spending, which is ridiculous. I'm guessing the Democrats aren't much different, but Democrats often aren't clamoring for spending cuts in general. -Paul
[2011-09-12 13:43:29] - paul: i said what i meant. drawing a line in the sand and refusing to find a compromise is (in general) what the GOP has been doing the last few years. do you disagree? ~a
[2011-09-12 13:42:25] - xpovos: "Sounds like a pretty good connotation to me" i agree with the author. when i was very young, my parents often told me i was acting like i was "entitled" to things when i was being spoiled. an anecdote, i know, but that's how connotations start i think. ~a
[2011-09-12 13:37:47] - paul: "too enamored with defense spending", do you mean, they treat it as sacred and they're not willing to make cuts to it? because if so i agree, although i would say that's "both sides of the aisle", i haven't seen democrats pushing hard for defense spending cuts (have they?) - aaron
[2011-09-12 13:36:43] - a: Are you saying that the Republicans just want to see the government burn, and that's the only reason they do the things they do? -Paul
[2011-09-12 13:36:08] - a: Except the only thing they weren't willing to compromise on was tax increases and in the end, we ended up with virtually no spending cuts, so it sounds like they were pretty open to compromise elsewhere... -Paul
[2011-09-12 13:35:05] - a: I didn't finish the article, so I'm unaware of any bad connotation around the word 'entitlements'. It means a thing or program to which a citizen is entitled just for being a citizen. A right to vote is an entitlement. Sounds like a pretty good connotation to me. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-12 13:32:48] - Aaron: I don't trust non-tea party Republicans at all on spending cuts, and I am still withholding judgement on whether to trust the tea party Republicans at all on spending cuts. -Paul
[2011-09-12 13:32:48] - paul: "hopefully we could at least agree that the Republicans weren't doing it just to watch the government burn down" drawing a line in the sand and refusing to find a compromise seems like a good way to watch the government burn down. ~a
[2011-09-12 13:31:45] - Aaron: Definitely agree on those points. Even when it was getting really to the last second of the debt ceiling debate, I never believed the Republicans were going to end up getting any real substantative cuts, and far too many are still way too enamored with defense spending. -Paul
[2011-09-12 13:30:08] - Daniel: Well, that goes back to the whole "no compromise on tax increases". We could argue over how reasonable it is (I'm slightly in favor of the no-tax increase line in the stand), but hopefully we could at least agree that the Republicans weren't doing it just to watch the government burn down. -Paul
[2011-09-12 13:28:18] - "entitlements" (the name) is something also mentioned in the article. why would you pick a word with such a bad connotation? ~a
[2011-09-12 13:24:40] - aaron: I completely agree. The entitlements are the third rail, but they need to be in the discussion--but we haven't really been able to have a discussion at all. Meanwhile, the point that Democrats can agree with most of the Tea Party on is that any Republican insisting on cutting spending and not being willing to cut DOD is a liar. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-12 13:24:23] - aaron: won't a primary key index the field? . . . and won't adding a primary key to the u.s. government index the payroll taxes? ~a
[2011-09-12 13:24:15] - if obama's suggesting a tax increase on people making $250,000 a year or more, and he says it's going to increase tax revenue by $60B/yr, or something; and if republicans are suggesting cutting NPR to save $10M/yr, it's like. okay, i don't necessarily agree with either of those? on principal? but at least one of them makes sense
- aaron[2011-09-12 13:20:18] - paul: even if everything else they're proposing is logical and effective, it's like... it's like if you're talking to a programmer, and they're like "yeah, we need to improve performance of our database; i'm going to eliminate some triggers, add a primary key to some of our fields, and shorten the column names" - aaron
[2011-09-12 13:17:18] - it still bugs me that republicans bother putting petty stuff like Planned Parenthood and NPR on the chopping block, as though the $10 million in federal funding for NPR was really breaking the government's back. i still feel like republican approach to "government cuts" is more about grandstanding and appealing to their base rather than accomplishing anything - aaron
[2011-09-12 12:59:06] - Paul: Well we will see what comes of this whole super committee business but I think everyone thought the compromise was much smaller and less effective than any other deal out there. -Daniel
[2011-09-12 12:58:10] - Paul: I think if they were reasonable about reducing the debt why not take Obama's deal with bigger spending cuts and moderate taxes? That seems a reasonable prudent approach to me. I get that we don't want to end up like Greece, but their response was do it our way or we screw the american economy. -Daniel
[2011-09-12 12:56:38] - Daniel: Besides, the argument could be made that such drastic action is necessary, because for all the talk about how irresponsible the Republicans were and how they kicked Obama's ass on the compromise... there were really no spending cuts to speak of that came out of it. -paul
[2011-09-12 12:53:46] - Aaron: Nice.
-Paul[2011-09-12 12:50:08] - Daniel: You can call them stupid or ignorant or misguided (which I have certainly done in the past), but it seems really disingenuous to say they are doing what they are doing just because they want to see government burn (or whatever his point is). -Paul
[2011-09-12 12:47:14] - Daniel: But I guess that's one of my major problems with the article. He's saying the Republican party is an "apocalyptic cult" that is guilty of "political terrorism" (among all sorts of other dramatic things) because he is either unable or unwilling to see their motivations. -Paul
[2011-09-12 12:43:49] - Daniel: I think it's also worth noting that it's not just "less gov spending at all costs" for the hell of it. Most people also agree that if we don't cut spending soon, we're looking at a future like Greece's. -Paul
[2011-09-12 12:36:42] - Paul: I guess I was defining "positive outcome" as avoiding default since most people were in agreement that would be bad for the economy and they didn't seem to care about that. I agree they would say there were doing something positive since their positive is "less gov spending at all costs" -Daniel
[2011-09-12 12:27:25] - Daniel: I am more in agreement that they weren't looking for a compromise either, although I think they were willing to compromise on things EXCEPT for tax increases. -Paul
[2011-09-12 12:25:48] - Daniel: I think if you polled the tea party Republicans during the debt ceiling showdown, the vast majority of them (all of them?) would disagree with the statement that they aren't trying to achieve a positive goal. -Paul
[2011-09-12 12:24:31] - http://i.imgur.com/xWweh.gif newest changes for the blu-rays; alderaan shoots first - aaron
[2011-09-12 12:24:21] - Daniel: I guess where I disagree with you (and the author) is that I'm guessing the Republicans aren't really not trying to reach a positive goal, it's just not the same goal you are going for. -Paul
[2011-09-12 12:23:18] - a: Oh, I wasn't making a statement one way or the other... I was just wondering. It seems like there are nicknames for nearly all of the major controversial pieces of legislation of the past decade... it's just a question of who gets to name it, I guess. -Paul
[2011-09-12 12:20:25] - Paul: I think his point on how do you deal with someone who doesn't care about reaching a positive outcome is especially good because when I think about how I would try to deal with congressional Repubs especially the tea party ones I'm not sure how I would since they don't seem to really care about achieving a positive goal or compromise. -Daniel
[2011-09-12 12:19:30] - Paul: I thought it was interesting and I think for the most part I would agree with most of his points. Dems are idiots a lot of the time but I think i side with them more than the Republicans who seem to basically want to watch the gov burn down. -Daniel
[2011-09-12 12:17:39] - "I wonder if democrat bills have a tendency to have wordier names than Republican bills" you're probably right. ~a
[2011-09-12 12:03:32] - a: Other side = Republican Party. What was I right about? -Paul
[2011-09-12 12:02:24] - a: Yeah, I'm a little surprised this was written by somebody who used to be a Republican staffer. Not because he disagrees with what is going on, but just in terms of how it is written. It really seems like it's written by a liberal (based on the words and terms used). -Paul
[2011-09-12 12:02:20] - yeah, you're probably right. "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" that's kind of wordy though. ~a
[2011-09-12 12:01:19] - "other side"? which is the other side? ~a
[2011-09-12 12:01:08] - a: You mean the part about naming bills correctly (Patriot Act vs Healthcare Reform.... whatever)? I thought that was a little interesting. I wonder if democrat bills have a tendency to have wordier names than Republican bills. -Paul
[2011-09-12 11:59:33] - a: "Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult" I know it's done for dramatic effect, but that kind of talk makes me tune out, especially when it's followed up by no facts, just a bunch of other opinions about how evil the other side is. -Paul
[2011-09-12 11:58:44] - some of the language looks like it was written by a dem though. "[Obama's] $4-trillion deficit reduction package did perform the useful service of smoking out Republican hypocrisy. The GOP refused, because it could not abide so much as a one-tenth of one percent increase on the tax rates of the Walton family or the Koch brothers." i agree, but it seems biased. ~a
[2011-09-12 11:57:56] - a: I also thought it was a little... over the top, I guess? Even when I strongly disagree with somebody on almost every issue, the worst I usually think of them is horribly misguided or just ignorant. I can't remember ever thinking that somebody wanted to kill America or cause an apocalypse or whatever. -Paul
[2011-09-12 11:57:40] - i didn't read it all. but there's a lot of good stuff there. it contains some interesting stuff about what the Dems are doing wrong. ~a
[2011-09-12 11:40:56] - a: Did you read it all? Does it go any further than "Tea Partiers are crazy and radical and the Republican party has been taken over by them"? -Paul
[2011-09-12 11:38:46] - a: TLDR?
I read about a third of it before moving onto other stuff (work to do and all). Maybe I missed the good insider stuff, but the stuff I read seemed to be standard complaints that I have read in a lot of other places (Republicans are more crazy and detached from reality than usual, hostage taking, etc). -Paul[2011-09-12 11:26:47] - paul: what do you think of the article? ~a
[2011-09-12 10:38:28] - Paul: I didnt finish the article but I thought it was interesting to see a former republican "insider"s perspective. For all I know he is just claiming to have the connection, but if true interesting to see. Maybe I will finish it later. ~g
[2011-09-12 09:32:25] - Daniel: Besides that it's an interesting read.
-Paul[2011-09-12 09:11:36] - Daniel: What do you think of the article? -Paul
[2011-09-10 23:39:34] - Interesting read about the republican party. It is not a positive article. http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779 -Daniel
[2011-09-10 17:46:18] - IN!
~a[2011-09-10 16:36:23] - Paul: I think we are interested to. -Daniel
[2011-09-10 13:49:23] - and the salad bar is supposed to be very good... Not just salad I think
~g[2011-09-10 13:48:13] - Note on the Texas de Brazil option for veggies -> if you just get the salad bar the price is about half... ~g
[2011-09-10 00:58:58] - paul: i'm interested - aaron
[2011-09-09 18:56:45] - Anybody here interested in going to Texas de Brazil next Tuesday (September 13th) for dinner? Maybe around 7pm? -Paul
[2011-09-09 18:19:02] - aaron: i think it's cool you got 2.3 though. i have a device here that uses 3.0
~a[2011-09-09 16:20:30] - I disagree, obviously: "a state has no interest in the rights of its individual citizens sufficient to justify such an invasion of federal sovereignty. (Virginia v. Sebelius)" -- Xpovos
[2011-09-09 16:07:03] - they don't release updates for every phone at the same time. it's possible my phone will never get 2.3. ~a
[2011-09-09 15:18:58] - a: did you download the android 2.3.3 update last night? it seems like it made my phone a lot more responsive/less laggy. also i can use "quotes" now! (before, they would always come out like" this" instead) - aaron
[2011-09-09 14:01:12] - Aaron: Google reader is just a website that serves as an RSS aggregator. -Paul
[2011-09-09 13:51:41] - paul: no i don't know anything about that, is google reader another app? i found this on reddit, it's probably making the rounds on the internet today - aaron
[2011-09-09 13:36:12] - paul: hey, i just looked in the most likely spot to find a rosy review, didn't say it was going to be credible. - mig
[2011-09-09 13:28:59] - Aaron: Somebody is reading what Miguel shares on google reader.
-Paul[2011-09-09 13:28:21] - Actually, it's not even the that he insults people, because I would be more ok with that, it's because his insults are so blatantly straw-man like, "Mitt Romney declared that he would seek a replacement for Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman, essentially because Mr. Bernanke has tried to do something (though not enough) about unemployment". -Paul
[2011-09-09 13:25:07] - http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/08/not-every-human-problem-deserv california gov jerry brown vetoes fines for kids skiing/snowboarding without a helmet, "not every human problem deserves a law" - aaron
[2011-09-09 13:24:12] - mig: I don't know about others, but Krugman just seems a little too partisan to be taken seriously. Maybe he has some good points, but the fact that he sandwiches them in between random insults about Republicans just lessens his credibility too much for me. -Paul
[2011-09-09 12:24:35] - mig: i'm disappointed he used the phrase "both a tragedy and an outrage" without coining the portmanteau "outragedy" - aaron
[2011-09-09 11:15:42] - paul: if you're looking for a positive review Paul Krugman has you covered. - mig
[2011-09-09 11:12:39] - a: I would say the 4 biggest sources are: CNN, Google News, Reason Magazine and the Cato Institute. -Paul
[2011-09-09 11:00:28] - "bias of where I get my news". where do you get your news? ~a
[2011-09-09 10:25:47] - there was a talk of "closing loopholes" while cutting overall rates, which seems sensible provided it's both and not just the former. - mig
[2011-09-09 10:22:51] - transcript (for reference!). - mig
[2011-09-09 10:16:10] - paul: from a quick skim reading, it's a mixed bag. There were some unobjectionable ideas (an acknowledgement that medicare was unsustainable was a bit refreshing) mixed in with some terrible ones, and the ending just made me cringe ("look at all the wonderful things government gave us, if not for us you simpletons would be livinig in the dark ages!"). - mig
[2011-09-09 10:00:48] - paul: i'm reading through the transcript and getting really annoyed at the "pass this bill nao" repetitions. - mig
[2011-09-09 09:35:15] - Anybody have any thoughts on Obama's job speech last night? I missed it thanks to a combination of Tae Kwon Do and football, but I've heard the reviews are bad. I'm wondering if it's just the bias of where I get my news or if it really was a disappointing speech. -Paul
[2011-09-08 22:19:17] - i'd prefer to be buzz killington than your character, mig. 'til death ~a
[2011-09-08 20:58:29] - well now we know who a really is. - mig
[2011-09-08 16:59:41] - g: sending it to a small subset is over-fill - vinnie
[2011-09-08 16:51:54] - a: caveat that, a small subset of friends or close coworkers I wouldnt feel inappropriate. ~g
[2011-09-08 16:51:16] - a: she not he, and she sent it to the whole company. A subset I wouldnt consider bitter or inappropriate at all... The whole company I feel like is overkill. ~g
[2011-09-08 16:14:33] - haha buzz-fill - vinnie
[2011-09-08 15:55:36] - wiki wars!
[2011-09-08 15:54:20] - sorry to be a major buzz-fill but i added it. old version here.
- aaron[2011-09-08 15:04:17] - a: Yeah I don't really care, I was just curious. Vinnie does seem to have good precedent that the other bullets are unsourced as well. -Daniel
[2011-09-08 14:56:49] - true, but all the popular culture bullets are like that - vinnie
[2011-09-08 14:55:40] - haha, no not exactly. i misunderstood what the sentence was saying. still unsourced though
~a[2011-09-08 14:54:54] - a: hmm I don't think I understand why it needs to be removed. that counts as Wikipedia being its own source? - vinnie
[2011-09-08 14:54:34] - it's unsourced material which can be readded if a reliable/reputable source is added to verify/validate the content. ~a
[2011-09-08 14:52:24] - a: Why remove it? Is it not an instance of money laundering in popular culture? -Daniel
[2011-09-08 14:48:13] - sorry to be a major buzz-kill, but i removed it. old version here. ~a
[2011-09-08 14:35:21] - lol @ the last bullet point in the Popular culture section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_laundering - vinnie
[2011-09-08 14:28:00] - it's only mildly bitter IMO. did he send that email to everybody in the company or a subset? ~a
[2011-09-08 14:14:23] - My brain just exploded. CR quoted Rebecca Black. That may not mean anything to people, but it's outside my comfort zone of memology. -- Xpovos
[2011-09-08 13:51:28] - http://www.toofab.com/2011/09/07/toddlers-and-tiaras-costume-hooker-julia-roberts-pretty-woman-video/ and http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/15/conference-aims-to-normalize-pedophilia/ Commentary? -- Xpovos
[2011-09-08 11:34:56] - xpovos: I think both... I mean termination of the CEO by phone is a bit cold, but then the fact that she emailed that VERY BITTER SOUNDING email out is also a little insane. ~g
[2011-09-08 11:34:16] - eeks I want this http://www.thinkgeek.com/homeoffice/kitchen/e845/#tabs ~g
[2011-09-08 11:31:29] - aaron: cool. i'll send out an email. ~a
[2011-09-08 11:31:20] - mig: if i never did social things on weekdays, my life would be a lot more empty. ~a
[2011-09-08 11:15:09] - g: Which part is wow? Termination of the CEO by phone or the e-mail? -- Xpovos
[2011-09-08 10:49:01] - Wow the previous ceo of yahoo was fired and sent an email to the employees saying "I am very sad to tell you that I’ve just been fired over the phone by Yahoo’s Chairman of the Board. It has been my pleasure to work with all of you and I wish you only the best going forward." ~g
[2011-09-08 10:19:39] - a: sure i'll do it anyway - aaron
prev <-> next