prev <-> next
[2011-11-02 10:09:05] - a: Have you read about how cell phones and houses without landlines are ruining all these reverse 911 call situations? -- Xpovos
[2011-11-01 17:57:57] - paul: understood. so yeah, i guess my example is: i'm about to go to bed and the police need to get in touch with me. ~a
[2011-11-01 16:15:30] - Xpovos: I agree with you and Daniel. He's probably got a good point about what "apps" America is lacking, but his solutions were suitably vague and lacking on details that they seem fairly meaningless. -Paul
[2011-11-01 16:14:15] - a: Ok. I was just trying to give a concrete examp,le so people didn't think I was dealing purely in hypotheticals. -Paul
[2011-11-01 15:24:13] - Daniel: Yep... devil's in the details. But I'd be happier with EITHER of those propositions than the mess we have now. But I realize I'm outside the mainstream. I think one of the things I took away is that the fixes are hard. Healthcare obviously so. But improving competition? Or redefining the work ethic? -- Xpovos
[2011-11-01 15:20:22] - Paul: I thought his 'killer apps' concept was poignant enough. I don't expect someone to answer serious problems in under 2000 words. But, that might be the overly generalized again. I mean he picked 6 things everyone can get behind after all. I would think. -- Xpovos
[2011-11-01 15:19:50] - Xpovos: So I think most would agree on the principles in place its just what policies best encourage / allow those principles to go. -Daniel
[2011-11-01 15:19:00] - Xpovos: Things like fixing "crazily dysfunctional system of health care" are tricky because they are highly up to interpretation. A conservative could read that and go YES We need to get rid of regulations and allow inter state competition! and a liberal could read it and go YES we need to get a single payer system in place! -Daniel
[2011-11-01 15:01:05] - paul: i agree 100% with that sentiment. i just think your example is silly. if i don't answer my phone, my parents should assume that i just don't feel up to talking to them. they need not worry, as soon as i'm done being hungover, i'll give them a call. ~a
[2011-11-01 14:52:09] - Xpovos: I'm going to go with "overly generalized". It seems like the main point to the article is that (1) civilizations fall quickly (2) America might be on the verge (3) the rest of the world is catching up. Any kind of solutions offered seemed overly vague and lacking in specifics to me. -Paul
[2011-11-01 14:33:40] - xpovos: certainly a good read. the daily beast loves to surprise me from time to time. - mig
[2011-11-01 14:31:10] - a: Maybe, but the point is that I want a phone which is capable of receiving phone calls at all hours of the day. That's how an old fashioned land-line phone works, and I see no reason why I should have to take a step back with phones that cost many times more. -Paul
[2011-11-01 14:22:49] - I think most of this article can be agreed with by almost everyone here. Does that mean it's overly generalized? Or perhaps just right? -- Xpovos
[2011-11-01 13:59:07] - imo, the geniuses are just wrong here. turning off the phone every night is not the solution to this problem. i agree that "almost all battery problem are software based", but most new phones will tell you which apps are eating up your battery life. iphones do this too, right? ~a
[2011-11-01 13:57:14] - "my parents got worried when they couldn't get in touch with me one morning before I woke up" that's not a problem with your phone. that's a problem with your parents.
~a[2011-11-01 13:37:44] - doctor's = doctors. I can think of many times where I've gotten phone calls after getting into bed to go to sleep where I'm glad my phone was on for me to receive it. -Paul
[2011-11-01 13:36:20] - Not to mention that even people who aren't doctor's on call can need to have their phones working at night. I used to turn my phone off at night but my parents got worried when they couldn't get in touch with me one morning before I woke up. Also, what if there is an emergency and somebody needs to get in touch with you in the middle of the night? -Paul
[2011-11-01 13:27:15] - I use my phone as an alarm clock and don't restart it very often. I would be bummed at this point if I couldnt' use it as an alarm because it would make the battery life suck. -Daniel
[2011-11-01 13:17:36] - mig: the genius assumed the guy wanted his phone on 168 hours a week, and the guy assumed the genius wanted his phone on for only 16 hours a day. really when you're in the tech support industry you need to learn to express yourself as unambiguously as possible, something this genius i guess kind of sucked at - aaron
[2011-11-01 13:16:43] - mig: there was also a miscommunication, where genius meant, "you should turn your phone off some nights" and the guy interpreted it as, "you should never leave your phone on at night". or at least, that explains why the "doctor on call" question was a logical followup. - aaron
[2011-11-01 13:14:06] - mig: that's a good point, although simplifying the genius's point, his logic is basically, "you shouldn't use an iphone for an alarm clock because an iphone costs too much." the implication being that a cheaper phone is a better alarm clock. which i guess, given the battery problems, might arguably be true - aaron
[2011-11-01 13:12:49] - yeah he was kind of rude and condascending, but I don't think his suggestion was all that unreasonable. - mig
[2011-11-01 13:12:30] - paul: i'm amused by the implication that a cheap phone is a suitable replacement for an wristwatch/alarm clock/telephone, but an iphone is simply too elegant of a device to do anything except perhaps surf the internet and play angry birds - aaron
[2011-11-01 13:12:11] - paul: Let's take the assumption that leaving your phone on all the time deteriorates your battery life to be correct. If that's the problem he's having, the solution is to not have it on as much. At that point, you look at what you're doing with your phone and evaluating whether the convenience(alarm clock) outweighs the costs (worsening battery life). - mig
[2011-11-01 13:11:16] - paul: well, according to "apple logic" i guess that depends on the cost ratio between your iphone and your camera. if you got a good discount on your iphone (or maybe it was a present) then you should fix the camera feature on your iphone. if your iphone was expensive, you should buy a camera - aaron
[2011-11-01 12:20:20] - Aaron: Is the solution to a non-functioning camera on an iPhone to go out and buy a $5 disposable camera? -Paul
[2011-11-01 12:19:27] - Aaron: Yeah, that's what confused me. This guy goes on about how the Genius' are always nice, and gives examples about how they are patient with people... then the Genius he interacts with seems rude and unreasonable. Really? The solution is to turn off the phone at night and buy a $20 alarm clock? -Paul
[2011-11-01 12:12:37] - paul: 100, 200 tabs open - but it's kind of arrogant of an engineer to tell someone how to use their product. especially when it's something like the alarm feature that's built into the OS... - aaron
[2011-11-01 12:11:45] - if he'd been more like the second guy, and admitted, "yeah it's a software issue, these things typically get ironed out over time but in the meantime, try power cycling your phone every couple days" that would be a lot more reasonable. i'm sure firefox developers get the urge to lash out similarly at users who complain when firefox gets slow after they have - aaron
[2011-11-01 12:10:11] - paul: i think the guy's tone sounded really rude. and i don't think it's unreasonable, but i definitely have problems with my android phone maybe... once a month? where i notice stuff being slower, or my phone getting warmer, and battery life suffering? it seems to get better with age, as i guess they're updating the phone's software and stuff - aaron
[2011-11-01 11:58:03] - http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7-20128213-82/apple-genius-turn-off-your-phone-for-better-battery-life/ I can't tell how serious this article is. Sometimes it sounds sincere in it's over the top reverence of the Apple Genius', other times it seems to be veering into sarcasm. Is it really unreasonable to want to use your phone as an alarm clock? -Paul
[2011-11-01 11:48:54] - http://www.365black.com/ http://www.myinspirasian.com i thought it was interesting that, apparently, mcdonalds has recruiting websites specifically for black/asian people - aaron
[2011-11-01 10:05:27] - g: Ah, well, I could believe that too, except that I think that they had a bunch of people who were pretty reasonable on the video as well. I think they just went with the most interesting people. -Paul
[2011-11-01 09:54:35] - Paul: nah, I can believe they picked the craziest interviews of those who came to him... ~g
[2011-10-31 15:28:33] - g: Believe which? That he was going around looking for crazy people? -Paul
[2011-10-31 13:39:48] - Paul: I can believe that. ~g
[2011-10-31 12:16:37] - g: Sure, but my point is that I think these people approached him, and he wasn't going around looking for the craziest looking people to interview. -Paul
[2011-10-31 12:08:50] - paul: I didnt see this but I would expect that only interesting/amusing interview would be aired... ~g
[2011-10-29 15:30:38] - a: Also, do you have any reason to think the protesters were hand picked? It looked to me like he was staying in one place and letting people come to him. -Paul
[2011-10-29 15:28:59] - Hmmmm, I guess refreshing the page was a mistake... -Paul
[2011-10-29 15:27:49] - a: I feel like they SHOULD be mocked a bit for their combination of arrogance and ignorance. Did you watch the clip? One protester screamed at him that he was an idiot, while I felt like he was always cordial in return. -Paul
[2011-10-29 15:27:23] - a: I dunno, these people are blaming a group of other people that they largely don't know, for a myriad of things, and they feel strongly enough about it to camp out in this park and literally shout down somebody who is trying to discuss a different perspective. -Paul
[2011-10-29 15:26:43] - a: I dunno, these people are blaming a group of other people that they largely don't know, for a myriad of things, and they feel strongly enough about it to camp out in this park and literally shout down somebody who is trying to discuss a different perspective. -Paul
[2011-10-29 12:17:39] - a: A Machine Man option with Aronofsky attached. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-29 11:49:52] - well i'm not sure which part you think is cool. i especially like any company that produces a movie like "hard candy". ~a
[2011-10-29 10:47:11] - Well, this is cool. To me. Maybe no one else. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-28 19:22:02] - yeah, that's so weird that random protesters aren't experts in economics or debating. especially weird that the protesters were probably picked out and not random at all. i guess it's fun to poke fun. ~a
[2011-10-28 15:19:07] - mig: Heh, yeah. That part was amusing (and there were times I was amazed he could remain as calm as he did). After he told the woman he pays a higher percentage of his income in taxes than she said would be a "fair" share, she paused for a moment, and then said (for like the hundredth time) that the Bush tax cuts should be revoked. -Paul
[2011-10-28 15:17:13] - paul: I saw a clip of it on anderson cooper, which was kind of amusing. He kept asking the people, "What percentage of my income do you think my fair share should be" and no one would give him a answer and just kept shouting at him. - mig
[2011-10-28 15:08:27] - I especially liked the second one, which is around 18 minutes. It has a little bit of everything, and I think does a good job of showing how diverse the movement is. -Paul
[2011-10-28 14:58:04] - http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/27/peter-schiff-at-occupy-wall-st This is mostly for the fellow libertarians here, but Reason.tv had a good piece up where Peter Schiff went to debate people from Occupy Wall Street. -Paul
[2011-10-28 14:35:08] - mig: But no real gain, either. For me, I'm trying to determine if it's enough to get me to play WoW again. I've run the calculation several different ways. The final result is that the equations balance at $100 for one year's subscription to WoW. I'm not sure if that causes me to pull the trigger or not. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-28 14:33:54] - So which one gets stress-vomiting named after them? McNabb or Ryan? -- Xpovos
[2011-10-28 14:32:37] - xpovos: bummer, well if I do get CE then it's no big loss, considering there were other goodies also included other than D3. - mig
[2011-10-28 14:23:48] - "before everyone starts Cutlering, which is just laying on your back and watching someone in a different-colored shirt run past you with a football" Nice.
-Paul[2011-10-28 14:15:37] - mig: Non-transferable. I've been looking in case I could transfer it to Katie as I buy the CE myself. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-28 14:12:25] - someone on a podcast mentioned that there's a possibility that is kind of a member reward program (i.e. you've been funnelling money to blizzard for several years or so, here's some free goodies). something I think most people will appreciate. - mig
[2011-10-28 14:01:22] - Although i want the collector's edition for d3. I'll have to look to see if the free copy is something i can transfer to someone else or something. - mig
[2011-10-28 14:00:14] - xpovos: considering that I envision myself playing wow one year from now, it was an easy decision to make. - mig
[2011-10-28 13:59:07] - mig: What do you think of the "free diablo 3" for an annual pass in WoW deal? -- Xpovos
[2011-10-28 13:57:08] - http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Introducing-Tebowing-It-s-like-planking-but-du?urn=nfl-wp10549
[2011-10-28 13:47:37] - http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_dont_lie/post/Mark-Jackson-isn-8217-t-planning-on-working-man?urn=nba-wp9889 the combination of this headline and photo made me laugh. - mig
[2011-10-28 13:44:33] - aaron: Yes, that's a good analogy. We can always count on chess to lead the way for us for computer AI analysis. A database of opening moves is not AI. I'd argue it's SI (supplemental intelligence) that's certainly the way humans use it. But AI could recognize the patterns for checkmates, I think. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-28 12:39:00] - xpovos: that is, you're in a traditional chess endgame where you are trying to checkmate a king with a bishop and a knight - a "real AI" might be using minimax to derive a solution which gradually pushes the king into a corner, whereas a "fake AI" might just be referencing a mini-database of how to checkmate using certain pieces - aaron
[2011-10-28 12:37:17] - xpovos: i think i understand - so, you think that real AI needs to be rooted in machine learning? based on rules that the computer figured out on its own, and not based on things that the programmer put in explicitly? so, a minimax algorithm for chess is real AI, whereas a database of opening moves is not real AI? - aaron
[2011-10-28 10:18:39] - mig: former. i don't know anything about the berkely overmind. ~a
[2011-10-28 10:18:20] - g: Maybe she found her calling? -Paul
[2011-10-28 10:16:15] - a: do you mean the blizzard ai bots, or something like the berkely overmind? - mig
[2011-10-28 10:09:30] - Unless that database was built by the AI itself as part of a response to previous games' 'experience. I meant if it had been hard coded. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-28 10:08:39] - a: Without knowing more about them: yes. It could just be an issue of complexity, though, I don't know how deeply programmed they are. They appear to adapt strategies based as a response to game criteria that would be difficult to program. If they have some mini-database that says, "if you see him going 9-pool, counter with firebats", then not so much. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-28 10:02:10] - mig: yea I thought the anti police thuggery message would appeal to you and paul... ~g
[2011-10-28 10:01:19] - Paul: honestly I have no idea on the ethno blog, just got an email from her saying she had the opportunity to write for this site and did so... ~g
[2011-10-28 09:29:36] - g: police thuggery = teh bad. Certainly a message I can support. - mig
[2011-10-28 09:20:14] - xpovos: do you consider the bots that play in starcraft games to be real AI? ~a
[2011-10-28 09:15:12] - g: What's an ethno-blog? Sounds racist.
-Paul[2011-10-28 07:41:34] - a: I consider 'real' AI to be akin to a neural net; learning and improving on it's own. The AI I described below is static. It might have a good strategy, but it will be unable to adapt to any weaknesses that the strategy has--even randomly. That's purely strategic determinism because it's a simple game. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-28 02:58:26] - im seriously integrating the minimax core of my chess solver into the ant ai. ~a
[2011-10-27 23:03:49] - "real AI"? i guess it depends on your definition of real ai. ~a
[2011-10-27 21:44:19] - a: Interesting. I can see some of the strategy for the game itself, but I have no idea where to start on that kind of a programming challenge. I intuit that the simple answer isn't real AI, but deterministic. Probably three types. Defenders (mill about hills in tight clusters) Scouts (singletons for food hunting and data) and Attack gangs. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-27 19:35:57] - I posted this on facebook but check out my sisters opinion piece on Occupy Oakland http://ethnoblog.newamericamedia.org/2011/10/police-actions-unite-occupy-oakland.php ~g
[2011-10-27 16:43:30] - for those of you who like games, check out http://aichallenge.org/problem_description.php . . . i'm planning on playing around with this tonight. ~a
[2011-10-27 14:00:41] - a: i know, i only add those kinds of things when i have to. all together i think they work out to about 500-600k, and for a plugin that's a lot of code. sometimes what i do, is i'll add those utilities to my test classpath, and then just copy the relevant source code into my project as needed. it's not very java-ey but it addresses the scenario you're describi - aaron
[2011-10-27 13:38:12] - the problem i have is this: i work on a TON of super small projects (many of them are tiny plugins to relatively small android applications). it'd be dumb to add apache commons to all of them. ~a
[2011-10-27 13:30:42] - yeah, i wish i could press a button to have apache commons added to my project in eclipse&git. ~a
[2011-10-27 12:12:43] - a: which admittedly, is as easy as OutputStream out = null;try {out = new FileOutputStream(file);out.write(data.getBytes());} finally {try {if (out != null) {out.close();}} catch (IOException ioe) {}} but i still don't want to type it out all the time - aaron
[2011-10-27 12:08:09] - a: apache's commons-collections, commons-lang and commons-io all include a lot of very fundamental utilities like that which, imho, should really be a part of Java's core API. like... writing a string to a file? cmon who would ever want to do that - aaron
[2011-10-27 12:06:48] - a: org.apache.commons.collections.IteratorUtils.toList(myList); - aaron
[2011-10-27 11:08:19] - aaron: also, why is this not defined anywhere in Collections or Arrays or something: <T> List<T> iteratorToList(Iterator<T> iterator) ~a
[2011-10-27 11:05:13] - aaron: TOO BIG. actually, i always liked the idea of a laptop that was that size: barely small enough to fit in my largest pants pockets. i'm a big guy, so i have "deep pockets"
~a[2011-10-26 22:49:00] - http://i.imgur.com/ul5o9.jpg sony vaio pocket - aaron
[2011-10-25 17:24:37] - Aaron: Heh, yeah. It's definitely got twice as many words as it should and not nearly enough commas. Also, I don't necessarily think it's a good thing that presidents have all of this power, but I think the cat is well out of the bag there. -Paul
[2011-10-25 16:59:17] - paul: that's the most difficult headline i've tried to parse in a very long time. but that's interesting, i didn't hear about it when it happened. i understand your point that a president, even if he technically isn't allowed to do something, can "pull all sorts of strings" or whatever to accomplish what he wants - aaron
[2011-10-25 16:35:22] - Xpovos: yeah, that's pretty cool i guess. it's still in it's infancy though. so you're giving up a lot to get something pretty lame in return. ~a
[2011-10-25 16:32:35] - paul: true. But if that what was he was campaigning on, I wouldn't consider it to be an empty promise. Definitely overly abmitious, but not empty. - mig
[2011-10-25 16:30:57] - aaron: Andrew Jackson was a good example of a President who trod pretty heavily on the power of the executive. George W. Bush did too, though usually with retroactive approval from a complacent Congress rather than directly antagonistic, like Jackson. Abraham Lincoln, though, probably takes the cake. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-25 16:30:17] - Aaron: In theory, the president isn't supposed to have any direct say in what's law and what's not, but Obama basically overturned a law by telling the Justice Department to stop enforcing it. Some people said it set a bad precedent, but mostly people shrugged and did nothing. -Paul
[2011-10-25 16:29:12] - Aaron: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/02/president-obama-instructs-justice-department-to-stop-defending-defense-of-marriage-act-calls-clinton/ This isn't quite the same thing, but it's along the same lines. -Paul
[2011-10-25 16:27:32] - mig: Honestly, I see his proposed budget more as a statement of principles from him (this is how I would fix the government if I had the power) than any sort of campaign promise. -Paul
[2011-10-25 16:21:40] - xpovos: wow! i've never heard of the president doing anything like that, so i didn't even know it was possible. - aaron
[2011-10-25 16:21:25] - I guess I never try to underestimate what presidents can do, despite their theoretical limitations under the constitution. I'm sure a president Paul could do something roundabout like issuing executive orders taking away all the power from the department of education, compelling congress to have to do something about it. -Paul
[2011-10-25 16:20:00] - "Do you consider guantanamo bay still being open to be an empty promise by Obama?" hahahaha. . . . yes. ~a
[2011-10-25 16:18:25] - Ah, separation of powers... how I've missed you. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-25 16:18:01] - aaron: The President heads the entire executive. That is huge. Congress usually (at least in concept, not that it happens frequently) kills a department by removing funding. The President can kill a department by telling it to stop working. That might set up a fun challenge though, if Congress censures the President for failing to uphold their laws. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-25 16:17:35] - And if he was actually voted into office (please note the if because it's a big if), I would posit his promises would not be as unrealistic as you think they would be. - mig
[2011-10-25 16:16:49] - I guess this is just something where we have difference views on what "empty promise" means. I think intentions and effort matter, the "realistic" part is irrelevant to me. If Mitt Romney made these same campaign promises, I would agree that they are empty. I know of his time as the Mass. governnor, and his history of flip-flopping and empty rhetoric. - mig
[2011-10-25 16:04:59] - but yeah like paul said, maybe the president has the power to disband departments? ... that seems really huge though, it seems like the kind of thing congress would have to be involved with - aaron
[2011-10-25 16:00:51] - mig: i don't think any of obama's goals were quite as challenging as ron paul's goals are. i probably would not think the president could get rid of the FED. that's the only reason why it seems like an empty promise to me. - aaron
[2011-10-25 15:57:15] - mig: actually i kind of think guantanemo was more of a "broken promise". i think obama really wanted to close it, but it was too hard and other stuff was a higher priority. but since closing guantanemo was feasible, i don't think it's an "empty promise" - aaron
[2011-10-25 15:43:15] - http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Big-12-bound-West-Virginia-ushers-in-the-end-of-?urn=ncaaf-wp8651 yikes ... in all likelyhood the big east is dead as we know it. - mig
[2011-10-25 15:23:55] - https://www.lytro.com/camera This looks interesting. Wish I knew more about the digital camera stuff to know if it really was interesting or if I'm being lead by the nose ring. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-25 15:04:38] - g ~a: i would agree to the sentiment that it's overly ambitious, but I think saying right off the bat it's empty promises is unfair. If he just sat on his hands and did nothing I would agree that it's an empty promise. Do you consider guantanamo bay still being open to be an empty promise by Obama? - mig
[2011-10-25 15:03:08] - g: A lot of things the President can do by himself through enacting or rescinding executive orders. It won't be 100% of the things he's promising to work for, but it'd be a pretty substantial list. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-25 14:59:59] - Also, does anybody know if the president has the power to create or disband departments? I'm reading about the DHS, and it sounds like Bush unilaterally "created" it, but there was also a bill passed by congress about it (maybe to fund the department?). -Paul
[2011-10-25 14:58:28] - g: I still think it's important, though, to put out something that is representative of what you believe and shows what you will be fighting to achieve, even if it might not be reachable. Does anybody think Herman Cain will really be able to get the income tax revoked? -Paul
[2011-10-25 14:52:07] - To me if you promise to do something and cant deliver its an empty promise. RP should be aware that he is unlikely to be able to accomplish his campaign goals, even if he manages to get elected. ~g
[2011-10-25 14:42:40] - a: I'm not sure, honestly. I absolutely believe that Ron Paul intends to try to do that if he becomes president, so I don't necessarily think of it as an empty promise, but I don't know how much power he would have to do it. -Paul
[2011-10-25 14:42:19] - a: if he made good faith efforts to work towards those goals, I wouldn't say it's empty promises. - mig
[2011-10-25 14:39:33] - paul: former. he says he's going to get rid of the dot, the epa, the doe, the doed, the dhs, the fed, etc, right? how exactly is he going to accomplish this? aren't these just empty campaign promises of a new sort? ~a
[2011-10-25 14:33:30] - Paul: Second to last most recent debate. Gingrich performed well and has bumped in the polls since then ahead of Paul by a point or two. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-25 14:29:03] - Xpovos: I'm trying to figure out when Ron Paul fell to 4th place. I thought he had been in 3rd for a while. -Paul
[2011-10-25 14:25:35] - Xpovos: Yeah, for whatever reason the media has decided that certain people are "contenders" (and it inexplicably includes Huntsman and Santorum) and others are "pretenders" (Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Gary Johnson). -Paul
[2011-10-25 14:15:10] - Heh. Between the second and third graphic: they skip right past not just Ron Paul (blatantly, but eh, we're used to that by now) but also New Gingrich! http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20125120-503544/herman-cain-tops-mitt-romney-in-latest-cbs-nyt-poll/ -- Xpovos
[2011-10-25 14:08:42] - Paul: For me the questions are content acquisition ones. It doesn't matter how many subscriptions they have now, or are projecting if they can't keep the content and at a reasonable price. E.g. losing Starz. People won't pay too much, but they won't pay anything for zero content. I think they'll get that worked out longterm, but the longer it goes ... -- Xpovos
[2011-10-25 13:53:36] - Xpovos: Possibly, but I don't see it going much lower. I think it's an attractive acquisition target at this price and the P/E is quite reasonable. I know Amazon is coming on strong, but there don't appear to be a lot of competitors and they are planning to expand into Europe. -Paul
[2011-10-25 13:32:29] - Paul: So will you be kicking yourself as it continues to plummet (say to $35)? I'm not sure where it's going, but it would not surprise me to see Netflix take a beating on this for a long time. A lot of investors are still analyzing this from a skin the knees vs. broken the legs point of view. Good luck, though! -- Xpovos
[2011-10-25 13:23:44] - About a year ago, I thought about buying Netflix stock at $100, but decided it was too expensive. I watched it skyrocket and almost hit $300 while kicking myself for not buying. Well, today, I bought some shares at $75.
-Paul[2011-10-25 13:23:17] - mig: i think it'll happen eventually. some day the people who were raised during the more drug-accepting 60's and 70's will be populating our senate seats and then we'll see real change. oh wait! fuck. - aaron
[2011-10-25 13:21:18] - paul: sure i think that's fine. i think as president it would be strange to submit a budget like that to congress, and that he should at least take a good faith effort to make it more palatable - aaron
[2011-10-25 13:19:12] - mig: whereas in the restaurant analogy, vegetarians can't follow up with, "ok, how about we eat at red lobster, but they also have vegetarian sushi on the menu, and the seafood doesn't smell bad" - aaron
[2011-10-25 13:18:26] - Like with marijuana, I want the more vocal congressmen to submit marijuana legalization bills. It brings the debate front and center and the more debate the better. - mig
[2011-10-25 13:17:29] - Aaron: Ok, well, what about this current situation, where the budget isn't being proposed to congress, but is being proposed to the American people as an example of your convictions? -Paul
[2011-10-25 13:17:23] - mig: hmm. i think you're right, the analogy doesn't necessarily hold up because a typical bill changes over time, so it's not unreasonable to submit a bill for vote which won't pass, anticipating that you might eventually reach a compromise - aaron
[2011-10-25 13:15:00] - aaron: i don't think that's a fair comparison. I think there is value in submitting bills for vote even if you know they won't pass. There's a difference between submitting something for a vote because you think it's the right thing to do. It initiates conversation and debate. I consider those good things. - mig
[2011-10-25 13:14:24] - Aaron: Haha, I suggest to the wife all the time that we go to Outback for dinner.
-Paul[2011-10-25 13:11:40] - all it does is slow things down and waste people's time when you could be suggesting more realistic alternatives, giving you leeway to point fingers and say, "well we COULD be at red lobster right now if a certain someone wasn't so picky". - aaron
[2011-10-25 13:10:03] - paul: it's like that jerk friend who, despite being fully aware that two of his friends are vegetarian, repeatedly suggests to go to ruth's chris steakhouse or red lobster for dinner - aaron
[2011-10-25 13:08:18] - paul: no, i don't think there's anything wrong with advocating something, but i don't think there's a point (other than political punditry) in actually submitting a budget, or a bill, which has no chance of reaching consensus. it just seems disrespectful to me - aaron
[2011-10-25 13:04:16] - Aaron: Yeah, I could see the argument (although I don't know if I would agree) that he is for balancing his budget (and not the debt) because he has certainly advocated some tax increases to help pay for his spending increases. He's probably done a better job at balancing his budget than Bush did, at least.
-Paul[2011-10-25 13:01:07] - Is there anything wrong with advocating something which has a very small chance of happening? I'm sure 20 years ago we wouldn't imagine that the government would legalize gay marriage or consider legalizing marijuana, but look where we are now. -Paul
[2011-10-25 13:00:55] - paul: i think i was combining his campaign strategy of "here's some cool stuff which we can pay for in cool ways" with his recent bill of "i'm introducing over $1.1T or whatever spending cuts in this new budget" and they combined in my head to make me think he had been a longtime supporter of a smaller budget, which is incorrect - aaron
[2011-10-25 12:58:19] - all take a "balanced approach" with about 2/3 spending cuts and 1/3 additional tax revenue (although to his credit, the two tax increases i saw were from closing some insurance loophole, and a proposed tax on the incredibly wealthy) - aaron
[2011-10-25 12:56:35] - paul: as i do more research, i don't think obama's necessarily interested in cutting spending either. i think one goal of his is that each new bill which introduces cost (such as his health care bill) will have a way to pay for it. i think he also wants to balance the budget, but his approaches - aaron
[2011-10-25 12:52:42] - g: yes, but I'm of the opinion that congress as a whole does not take things seriously, so using the chance of passage as a measure of "seriousness" is something I would not agree with. - mig
[2011-10-25 12:50:41] - also aaron and miguel are using "serious" differently in describing a serious solution... One is serious in that it would solve the issue while the other is serious in that it has a chance of actually being implemented. ~g
[2011-10-25 12:49:03] - mig: the problem with an idealist as president is that while he may have great ideas, unless there is an idealist congress the idealist president will be ineffective. balancing is necessary for the govt to work. ~g
[2011-10-25 12:48:33] - a: Are you saying he isn't pragmatic in terms of what he can accomplish? Or in terms of whether his type of government would work? -Paul
[2011-10-25 12:47:42] - Aaron: I believe you asked what I think Ron Paul would do differently. Miguel suggested his budget with actual big cuts and I suggested he could exercise his veto power to influence the budget process. -Paul
[2011-10-25 12:46:58] - "we have way too many 'pragmatists' we need more idealists to balance them out" yeah that's almost exactly what i said. but, i doubt ron paul is the idealist we've been waiting for. ~a
[2011-10-25 12:46:11] - Aaron: No, no. I'm not saying what Obama should do, I'm saying that I think that based on what he HAS done, he has very little interest in cutting spending. I also think that your opinion that he has submitted lots of budget proposals with severe cuts is wrong. -Paul
[2011-10-25 12:43:40] - i think that's one thing that makes people excited about ron paul, even if they don't agree with everything he says, is his idealism. i really hope he doesn't (continue to?) get totally overlooked in the republican primaries - aaron
[2011-10-25 12:38:33] - a: we have way too many "pragmatists" we need more idealists to balance them out. - mig
[2011-10-25 12:30:55] - a: That's a great wikipedia article. Love it. -- Xpovos
[2011-10-25 12:25:36] - a: i'm sure ron paul already performs the "balancing act" somewhat. i think that as a president he'd also be OK at "balancing" and producing realistic budgets, and like paul says, maybe using his veto power more aggressively and stuff. - aaron
[2011-10-25 12:24:16] - a: hmm, i think if ron paul was <a>really</a> bad at the balancing act, he wouldn't have been elected in the first place. if every year he was just like, "i'm not renewing school budgets because i don't believe in public schools," "i'm not paying for firefighters because i believe in privatization of fire protection", there's no way he'd get re-elected. - aaron
[2011-10-25 12:21:55] - mig: that's a really interesting belief! i'm surprised you think that way. personally i think a president should make express his personal values in realistic ways which are likely to pass congress. but, i guess another viewpoint is that the president should just do whatever congress wants.... that's not a very useful president either though - aaron
[2011-10-25 12:21:08] - mig: you sometimes have to balance being a pragmatist with being principled. ron paul does this balancing act very badly. his scale is all-the-way on one side. ok, so maybe other presidents tend to balance too far in the other direction. but, you have to admit ron paul isn't enough of a pragmatist. ~a
[2011-10-25 12:16:05] - aaron: so yeah that's the measure of a good president. Fuck prinicipals, fuck standing up for what you believe is right. Just sit down with whatever congress wants. Gotcha. - mig
[2011-10-25 12:11:00] - mig: sorry, i guess you don't understand what i'm trying to say. i can't really explain it simpler. ron paul's solution is not realistic. congress would never pass his budget so there would be no point in even writing it down on paper. if all ron paul did during his presidency was draft bills/budgets like that he would be a bad president. - aaron
[2011-10-25 12:06:17] - aaron: yes it's a serious solution. unlike the other proposals it actually deals with the problem instead of pretending to. - mig
[2011-10-25 12:04:44] - "well, i really wish our president would outline more unreasonable budget proposals for congress to reject" - aaron
[2011-10-25 12:04:30] - mig: i agree that it's annoying that congress/republicans/democrats/etc in general can't reach a balanced budget faster, or can't eliminate our deficit even with a timeline as long as 10 years. i just think, when i'm thinking "what do i want the president to accomplish during his presidency", i don't usually think, - aaron
[2011-10-25 12:02:50] - mig: you think ron paul's solutions are "serious solutions", even if there's a 0% chance that they'll get passed? what's the difference between ron paul suggesting, "we'll cut department budgets across the board and be fiscally solvent in 5 years", and president aaron pieper saying, "we'll turn human waste into rocket fuel and harvest space gold from jupiter" - aaron
[2011-10-25 12:02:01] - No one, not even on the republican side (aside from the 2 dr. pauls) has proposed anything like that. Even the maligned severe heartless budget cutting Paul Ryan plan had overall spending increasing. - mig
[2011-10-25 11:57:05] - I personally might be satisified (and perhaps pleasently surprised) with a budget proposal that just freezes spending overall (and while I might not prefer it, maybe adjust it for inflation). Is that really too much to ask to simply just spend the same amount you spent the year before? - mig
[2011-10-25 11:50:43] - A 10 year budget proposal that leaves us with an $8.4 trillion debt is not a serious solution. - mig
[2011-10-25 11:49:55] - aaron: what we have been saying is the things he has been proposing do not deal with the problem of our deficit and debt in a serious manner. - mig
[2011-10-25 11:49:10] - List of United States presidential vetoes#Barack Obama ~a
[2011-10-25 11:48:59] - obviously the ideal would be the "grand gesture" followed by general consensus by congress, and widespread budget cuts. but that's not really within the president's control i don't think, he can't make congress agree with his budget - aaron
[2011-10-25 11:47:58] - mig: but i understand why the "grand gesture" followed by finger pointing approach might be a better approach. i think that's basically the republican approach to the budget, where they were cutting a lot of random things like planned parenthood and NPR and then finger-pointing when their budget didn't get passed - aaron
[2011-10-25 11:47:09] - mig: sorry, i guess we still don't see eye to eye on the "budget cut" thing. i guess your ideal president would probably just submit very aggressive "1 trillion dollars in cuts right now" kinds of budgets which everybody would reject, and maybe that would be better. i feel like a gradual, more conservative budget is better because it might actually get passed - aaron
[2011-10-25 11:45:37] - paul: i don't really know what kinds of things barack obama has been vetoing. you and miguel seem to think he's rejecting a lot of things related to budget cuts - is he vetoing stuff like that? or is he just not vetoing anything at all? - aaron
[2011-10-25 11:44:46] - paul: i think i understand. you think barack obama should submit more aggressive budget proposals, and use his veto power more aggressively. you acknowledge that this would be a "hand wavey" gesture and result in nothing happening, and his budget proposals would be rejected, but you think that would be more significant than what obama is currently doing - aaron
[2011-10-25 10:42:44] - Virginias should not be taxed because California can't keep it's own house in order. - mig
[2011-10-25 10:42:15] - g: and that may well be true, states may spend more but that's would be dealing with state budgets and not the federal government. Part of the point of a ron paul budget is to make states more autonomous. You want to have a big free-wheeling spending state government like California, go on right ahead, just don't expect the federal government to bail you out. - mig
[2011-10-25 10:29:33] - mig: okay, I was just curious. ~g
[2011-10-25 10:28:33] - on a different note... I am beating paul in both my fantasy football leagues right now! (by 1 spot in each) YAY ME! ~g
[2011-10-25 10:27:56] - the bursar page only goes up tot 12 credit hours but it's easy math to figure out the total for 16. - mig
[2011-10-25 10:26:58] - g: it is a common argument made by libertarians. - mig
[2011-10-25 10:26:04] - For fun I compared how much I paid to virginia tech for fall semester 2000, my bill ended up being $4,500ish for 16 credit hours. That same semester would cost me a little over $6700 today. Even adjusting for inflation that seems like quite a spike. - mig
[2011-10-25 10:25:37] - mig: are you saying you could argue that, or that its a common argument? ~g
[2011-10-25 10:19:31] - a: there is an argument to be made (which you may or may not agree with) that the ed department loan programs are a part of why education costs have been skyrocketing, thereby having the perverse effect of more students needing those loan programs due to price spikes. - mig
[2011-10-25 10:16:21] - mig: and you are right a lot of spending is on software, consultants, development and thats just the side I see. If it just goes to state then its cutting the federal spending but may be offset by raises to state spending... which some states (i.e. CA) can not afford ~g
[2011-10-25 10:14:48] - mig: thanks for the voting info... I didnt remember how that worked
~g[2011-10-25 10:04:54] - g: i believe budgets are passed no differently than any other legislation. It would have to go through the house (only needs a majority) and then the senate (in theory you only need a majority, in practice you need 60/100 to pass anything). - mig
[2011-10-25 10:04:32] - i guess dewey wont be getting his 5500 in financial aid. ~a
[2011-10-25 10:02:37] - g: I think you're right that there is a close to zero chance that his budget gets passed unless there is a lot of turnover in congress. I do think that the president can have a strong influence on the budget process if Congress knows they'll be facing a veto. -Paul
[2011-10-25 10:01:08] - goes to their staff. - mig
[2011-10-25 10:01:01] - g: that's a good question. I would think that some functions would either be privatized or left to the states themselves. Not everybody has to be "fired" per se. And even if the plan decided to do something like have a lifetime severance benefit or something, just looking at the ed dept, it's budget is 56-60 billion. I don't think anywhere close to all of that
[2011-10-25 10:00:09] - Aaron: What do I think Ron Paul would do? Miguel is already touching on this, but I think he would submit budget proposals with real spending cuts and would veto any budgets that increase spending. I understand Congress is supposed to have the power to draft budgets, but the president can do a lot of things in terms of proposing and vetoing bills. -Paul
[2011-10-25 09:57:43] - also to pass a budget I assume congress has to sign off on it, with a 66% vote? I forget what voting is required... I am not sure that he could get his budget passed. ~g
[2011-10-25 09:56:16] - while part of me really just doesnt want to get involved... I am not sure that eliminating entire depts is credible... What happens to the federal employees that work for those departments? Govt doesnt fire people so would they still be paid and incorporated into other agencies? ~g
[2011-10-25 09:53:59] - specific reforms listed to social security and medicare/medicaid. - mig
[2011-10-25 09:53:42] - aaron: it was linked before but ron paul has proposed a budget that claims to cut $1 trillion next year alone. The plan is much more credible in terms of budget cutting because it actually eliminates entire departments, zeros out funding for foreign wars and financial aid, and actual
[2011-10-25 09:50:20] - Aaron: So that at least one of your claims is true. Otherwise, I'm sorry, but I just can't agree. -Paul
[2011-10-25 09:49:52] - Aaron: You said Obama had submitted so many budgets with severe cuts, and your proof is a single budget proposal (which didn't even get passed) that had insignificant cuts in the best case. I'm not discounting the past two years or discounting budget proposal, I'm just asking for either one example of severe cuts or multiple examples or budget proposals... -Paul
[2011-10-25 09:32:31] - I don't doubt the budget proposals have cuts to individual programs, but the overall net effect of all these budget proposals is that overall spending increases. I don't see how you can read the overall numbers any other way. - mig
[2011-10-25 09:25:00] - is it too much to ask to have a budget where you actually spend less the following year (even if you do it by adjusting for inflation)? - mig
[2011-10-25 09:23:23] - aaron: have we not gone through again and again about how these budget proposals do not actually cut anything? - mig
[2011-10-25 09:20:11] - paul: if ron paul were president, do you think he'd "do something concrete"? it sounds like you think the president has options other than stuff like, enacting stuff like the "pay-go law", or drafting budgets, or assembling committees or advising congressmen or something. what do you think a "concrete president" would do? - aaron
[2011-10-25 09:17:05] - paul: well it sounds like you're discounting any budget proposals, and it sounds like you're discounting anything that's been done in the past two years, so sure. i guess i agree that if you discount any budget proposals, and committee formations, and additionally discount anything he did after 2009 he hasn't "done anything concrete" to cut spending - aaron
[2011-10-24 17:52:40] - Aaron: I gotta run, now, though. Sorry. Ttyl. -Paul
[2011-10-24 17:51:49] - Aaron: Hmmmm. I'll be honest, the thought that Obama had ever done anything concrete to cut spending (before the Republicans made him start considering it after last election) is fairly unbelievable to me. I can't think of anything he has cut, and plenty of new spending (Stimulus, Libya, etc). -Paul
[2011-10-24 17:47:33] - Aaron: I'm not sure if that link really backs your point. They seem to be pretty lukewarm to whether Obama has delivered... -Paul
[2011-10-24 17:47:30] - paul: i'm just thinking about the budget proposals i've heard since he became president, like the legendary "obamacare" bill for example, which was offset by cuts in medicare and other places - aaron
[2011-10-24 17:43:19] - Aaron: "every budget proposal he's submitted has included spending cuts" Every one? Including from years past? Are we talking about cuts to certain programs or cuts to the whole budget? In relation to GDP? Or just flat dollar amounts? -Paul
[2011-10-24 17:41:23] - paul: it was pretty much what he campaigned on, the idea that every new program would be offset by spending cuts, and i feel like he's held to it (even if congress weaselled around it that one time) - aaron
[2011-10-24 17:38:56] - paul: well obviously "a crusader for severe spending cuts" is a little hyperbolic but i think every budget proposal he's submitted has included spending cuts, i always hear the dollar amounts like "50 billion" or "500 million" on NPR and i never really know how significant they are. but every proposal i've ever heard from him, has included cuts - aaron
[2011-10-24 17:34:37] - Aaron: As for inflation, I actually think it's easier/simpler and less misleading to express things in inflation adjusted dollars because it makes it easier to compare, so we're probably in agreement there (although I don't know how I feel about referring to a non-inflation-adjusted spending freeze as a spending cut). -Paul
[2011-10-24 17:31:33] - Aaron: The budget is confusing enough already, and the majority of people hardly pay attention to this stuff anyway, so we don't need to mislead them more.
-Paul[2011-10-24 17:30:44] - Aaron: Right, right, and I don't like those tricks where you shout that you are cutting $x trillion dollars in spending and then whisper the part where it's over 10 years, or talk about smallest percentage of federal budget in X years just because everything else is getting bigger... -Paul
[2011-10-24 17:28:41] - Aaron: "i hope you didn't think that i was arguing" I actually wasn't quite sure what you were arguing.
I just took exception to the idea that Obama had for years been a crusader for severe spending cuts. -Paul[2011-10-24 17:27:57] - paul: you're right, which is why media covers spending cuts with simple numbers like , "1.1 trillion dollars" and not confusing terms like "900B inflation adjusted dollars" or "0.5% of GDP". i think he was just using "percent of GDP" in his speech because it made the cuts sound really impactful - aaron
[2011-10-24 17:27:13] - Aaron: And I think that is often abused by people who are trying to make it sound like they are cutting spending when they really aren't (like the spending cuts from the debt ceiling standoff). -Paul
[2011-10-24 17:26:10] - paul: yeah, i think inflation-adjusted-dollars makes more sense than GDP for my personal finances - but, i'm not used to dealing with a country's economy, maybe there's some really good reason to use GDP instead of IAD in that case? i'm not sure - aaron
[2011-10-24 17:25:33] - Aaron: I think the vast majority of people, when told about spending cuts, would assume that the government is actually spending less absolute dollars on something instead of just spending less money as a percent of GDP (which could easily still be more absolute dollars). -Paul
[2011-10-24 17:24:51] - paul: sure, that sounds believable. i hope you didn't think that i was arguing that obama had like - directly reduced spending from 2009 to 2011 or anything like that. all of his budgets are for like 10-12 years, even if they did get passed we wouldn't see any impact for a long time - aaron
[2011-10-24 17:23:51] - Aaron: I'm definitely for looking at spending with respect to GDP, as I do think it's a useful tool, I just think it's misleading to refer to spending cuts as a percentage of GDP unless people are VERY obvious about it because it has a very different connotation to me. -Paul
[2011-10-24 17:21:15] - Aaron: That info is from (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2000_2015USb_12s1li011mcn_F0xF0fF0sF0l). If I am reading that correctly, it looks like the best that can be said is that Obama cut spending by around 1% one year before increasing it about three fold more the year after. -Paul
[2011-10-24 17:19:40] - Aaron: Well, it's a little hard for me to find the information (and I also don't know which fiscal year budgets we should attribute to Obama), but here is federal spending (in $billions) for 2009 on: 3517.68, 3456.21, 3818.82. -Paul
[2011-10-24 17:15:55] - paul: right, and i disagree. i think "spending cuts" means you are buying less stuff. if the government literally just wanted to spend less money on something, they could just print less money. but i wouldn't consider that a spending cut
- aaron[2011-10-24 17:13:52] - paul: hmm, no. talking with miguel earlier, i think the more important consideration is "inflation adjusted dollars", not necessarily GDP. i'm not sure why %GDP was chosen here but i'm not an economist - aaron
[2011-10-24 17:12:26] - Aaron: That's not quite the point I am trying to make. I'm saying that to me, "spending cuts" means you are spending less money on something. Period. It doesn't mean you are spending less money on something as a percentage of something. I feel like that is a misleading way to get people to think that the government is spending less money on something. -Paul
[2011-10-24 17:11:16] - paul: i don't know, obviously back in 2008 when he was campaigning he made proposals related to spending cuts, particularly energy and defense spending, and then in 2010 apparently he put out a 131 page proposal highlighting $1.2T in cuts (again, mostly defense spending) i don't know if any of that is redundant with this bill which didn't get passed or what - aaron
[2011-10-24 17:09:40] - Aaron: So you're saying that if last year you spent $10 a month going to see movies, and this year you spent $15 a month seeing movies but your salary increased 60%, you would say that you cut your spending on movies from last year? -Paul
[2011-10-24 17:07:35] - Aaron: And which didn't even include "severe" cuts (although I know we disagree on that). -Paul
[2011-10-24 17:07:01] - Aaron: You said "he's proposed so many budgets which had such severe spending cuts". I thought you were referring to some history of past budgets including severe spending cuts rather than just his most recent one which I believe was clearly influenced by the Republicans demanding spending cuts, which didn't get passed... -Paul
[2011-10-24 17:04:51] - paul: otherwise you just look at a graph, and you're like, "well, yeah the deficit is going up. that's bad. but it's always been going up. why does that matter?" and you can use things like %GDP to show that - well yeah, but now it's increasing as a percentage of our national income and that's very scary - aaron
[2011-10-24 17:03:50] - paul: i guess you're looking at it like, "can we make the deficit zero? why not?" but the way real people look at it is like, "how bad is the deficit? can we make it better?" and they use things like GDP to try to express how "bad" the deficit is - aaron
[2011-10-24 17:03:21] - Aaron: Well, inflation is another thing, I was more addressing your point which (I think) was trying to explain discussing spending cuts vs GDP. -Paul
[2011-10-24 17:02:35] - paul: oh sure, i understand. arguably, any deficit greater than "0" is by definition an indication of a broken government. so even though a budget proposal brings the deficit closer to 0, if it's like $10 or whatever, it doesn't matter because spending is still greater than revenue - aaron
[2011-10-24 17:01:02] - paul: i guess i can look for other budgets that he's proposed which included cuts.... i don't know... is that what you want? you think there's literally only one? - aaron
[2011-10-24 17:00:16] - Aaron: I'm not saying it's not important, just that I don't see what it has to do with a budget discussion where we are trying to bring our costs in line with revenues. Unless you think we can grow the debt forever, then we have to get spending under revenue. Period. It's not a matter of getting loaves of bread under guns, or something like that. -Paul
[2011-10-24 17:00:12] - paul: hmm. sorry, i still don't really follow... you don't think inflation or GDP matters? is your argument that, like, a $1.4T deficit in 2011 would be equally as bad as a $1.4T deficit in 1811? sorry... i'm a little confused - aaron
[2011-10-24 16:56:56] - Aaron: Oh, ok. So we're talking about the budget he just proposed (and which got voted down)? I thought we were talking about earlier budgets since you had said Obama had proposed "so many budgets" with severe cuts. -Paul
[2011-10-24 16:56:04] - paul: aren't programs like disasteer costs, security programs, aren't those "people costs"? you really think it's the money that's important, and not, for example, how many guns you can buy for the money, or how many loaves of bread you can buy for the money? - aaron
[2011-10-24 16:55:08] - mig: you're right! another consideration is that the $1.1T isn't inflation-adjusted either, so i guess it's arguably more like $930B in cuts by "today's money" - aaron
[2011-10-24 16:52:49] - Aaron: We're talking about the government spending more money than it takes in, not how efficiently it uses gas or employees. It could be the most efficient government on earth, but it'll still go bankrupt if it spends more than it makes. -Paul
[2011-10-24 16:51:56] - Aaron: Because we're not talking about workforce cuts or stuff like that, we're talking about spending cuts. It's not the number of people or ships or anything that matters in discussions about the debt and deficit, it's the money. I'm not even sure how this talk about a person being able to do the job of 2 people is relevant. -Paul
[2011-10-24 16:51:42] - mig: yeah. oops, fixed in firefox 8 apparently, which is due for release in about 15 seconds - aaron
[2011-10-24 16:51:27] - firefox has a bug where the URL bar no longer displays "http". that's probably considered a feature.
~a[2011-10-24 16:51:14] - Table S-6 has the figures adjusted for inflation. Total outlays in absolute numbers are still increasing after 2012. - mig
[2011-10-24 16:49:42] - sorry, firefox has a bug where the URL bar no longer displays "http" so i guess i can't copy and paste links here anymore. ahhaha! time to switch to chrome i guess - aaron
[2011-10-24 16:49:04] - I think you might need an http:// in the href maybe? - mig
[2011-10-24 16:47:41] - <a href="abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/obama-details-his-balanced-plan-to-reduce-the-deficit/">abcnews article</a> (i guess i messed up my hyperlink?) - aaron
[2011-10-24 16:47:04] - paul: the budget proposal i linked earlier has the raw numbers, this <a href="abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/obama-details-his-balanced-plan-to-reduce-the-deficit/">abcnews article</a> dumbs it down a little so you don't have to pore through tables - aaron
[2011-10-24 16:45:04] - aaron: Where are you getting those numbers, and over what time period? I 'm having trouble finding anything which indicates that we'll be spending any less money 10 years from now. Also, I feel like it's premature to talk about 10 years down the line when we don't even know if Obama will have any authority even two years down the line. -Paul
[2011-10-24 16:39:40] - paul: or maybe not GDP, but at least inflation-adjusted dollars - aaron
[2011-10-24 16:38:47] - paul: i disagree. i think in the real world, these cuts are things like "we have 2 less people on staff" or "this guy can do two people's jobs" or "we require 6,000 gallons less fuel per year shipping stuff overseas". for those kinds of costs, why do you think GDP is a misleading measure? it seems more accurate to me - aaron
[2011-10-24 16:38:32] - mig: Year 1: income 200$ spending 100$ or 50% of income. Year 2: income 200000 spending 110$ or much less% but I dont want to do math. So there is an increase in absolute number of dollars used but decrease in % of income spent. -Daniel
[2011-10-24 16:37:20] - mig: if i consumed 800 gallons of gas driving to work in 1990, and reduced it to 400 gallons of gas in 2000, i would express that as a "spending cut". if my company had 6 janitors in 1990, and 4 janitors in 2000, i would express that as a "spending cut". in both cases, it's pretty likely the amount of dollars spent would have gone up, but it's still a cut - aaron
prev <-> next