prev <-> next
[2012-02-27 17:34:27] - http://www.hokiesports.com/football/schedule/ 2012 Virginia Tech football schedule was released, for those people who were wondering about it at poker this past weekend. -Paul
[2012-02-27 14:46:00] - mig: Fair enough, except for the roster spot issue. And that gets us right back to the Colt Brennan issue. Colt is someone else's pick, and a fan favorite. Taylor would be their pick, and probably not that highly respected, despite the VT connection. Don't get me wrong, I think Taylor is a much better pro QB than Brennan. But from a crisis management perspective.
[2012-02-27 14:43:43] - xpovos: As paul, mentioned, why not take a flyer on someone in the later rounds of the draft last year. Maybe take a chance on a Tyrod Taylor type? It couldn't have ended up any worse, at least I don't think it could've. - mig
[2012-02-27 14:41:55] - Inside all of this, there's one poor decision: overvaluing McNabb. There's a host of good decisions too, like drafting Trent Williams and rebuilding the D-line. The only other thing to have done, IMO, was keep Colt Brennan so that if McNabb didn't work out there was a fan favorite ready to suck for a year or two. They threw out the GOJF card for some reason. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-27 14:40:25] - mig: I agree, they should have kept Campbell. Let him be the fall guy a few more years. But that decision was ultimately linked with McNabb, a disaster, but excusable in a sense, and a great cautionary tale against taking a flying leap of faith on another QB. Beck/Grossman? There were no other options. Still aren't, really. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-27 14:35:57] - together I'm not sure I'm comfortable with those guys making any QB decisions unless it's a sure thing type deal. And even then... - mig
[2012-02-27 14:35:17] - xpovos: do I really have to list it out? let's start with immediatley ejecting jason campbell (who I think is fairly decent though I guess some would disagree), the whole mcnabb debacle. Entering into last season with Rex Grossman and Jon Beck as your only options for qb. Each taken separately you could just say, "oh that just didn't work out", but all taken ....
[2012-02-27 14:29:42] - mig: Botched how? -- Xpovos
[2012-02-27 14:25:50] - xpovos: I agree that fans should be a little more patient, but I think one fair criticism of the Shanahans is how they've botched the QB position since they've been here, which has put them in the lose-lose situation they are in now. - mig
[2012-02-27 14:21:23] - Paul: I think that kind of move backfires and gets the coach listed as a poor talent scout. Honestly, it's a no-win situation. The only solution is to win. Ws salve all wounds. Ls tear down great programs. Shanahan better find some way to win with Grossman/Beck (hint don't let them throw the ball). If Gibbs can win with Rypien, anything is possible. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-27 14:15:26] - Xpovos: But at the same time, I totally don't think they Beck is the answer and I'm not sure it's right to even go with Grossman for another year. I felt like they should've taken a chance on a late round QB last year so they could try throwing him to the dogs this year. -Paul
[2012-02-27 14:14:17] - Xpovos: I think I'm somewhere in the middle. I agree the team has a lot of needs and all those picks are too high a price to pay for RG3, and I feel like the fans need to understand that they are slowly rebuilding their talent level... -Paul
[2012-02-27 14:11:19] - Not saying Zorn was awesome or anything, but he did have moderate success. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-27 14:11:10] - Paul: I'd rather keep Beck. Yes, I know that is a poor choice, but it's the right one. If I have to take one of those four: Luck > Flynn > RG3 > Manning. Fans who call for Shanahan's blood are morons who don't understand how bad the team was and how good a coaching job previous guys did with sub-par players. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-27 14:07:48] - Xpovos: I agree it's too high a price to pay, but the Redskins DO need a QB more so than most teams. Luckily for them, there are a lot of options available (Luck, RG3, Manning, Flynn). -Paul
[2012-02-27 14:06:26] - Aaron: I haven't seen Scrubs as much as I probably should, so I'm not sure who Ted is, unfortunately. -Paul
[2012-02-27 14:05:01] - paul: i didn't recognize him - but supposedly Ted from scrubs is also in galaxy quest... i'll have to keep an eye out on my next viewing - aaron
[2012-02-27 14:04:15] - xpovos: In terms of wins and losses for this season, who the QB is may not matter, but I think the shanahan hive mind probably feels they have to do *something* at QB this year or they will be fired after this year. Redskin nation will probably start calling for blood if they're going to be subjected to another year of Grossman and Beck- mig
[2012-02-27 13:51:37] - I can't see trading up for RG3. Take him at 6, fine. IMO that's still overpaying, but it's a legitimate pick and need. Trading up at all for him is over-paying. Draft an O-linenman at 6, or better yet trade down for a couple. Doesn't matter who's at QB right now, except maybe Vick, who it seems is the one QB the Redskins nation never fell in love with. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-27 13:01:00] - mig: I've heard some ridiculous rumors about how much teams are willing to trade away for the #2 pick this year. Honestly, that sounds comparable to what I've heard about trades by the Browns and Redsksins. -Paul
[2012-02-27 13:00:05] - Xpovos: Yeah, and Alan Rickman and Tony Shalhoub and Justin Long and Kevin from Kids in the Hall.... -Paul
[2012-02-27 12:47:17] - redskins reportadly going to offer the rams this years 1,2,3 and next year's 1 to try and get RG3. Seems an awful lot to give up but they must be really desparate for a QB. - mig
[2012-02-27 12:09:06] - Sigourney Weaver, right? -- Xpovos
[2012-02-27 12:00:18] - i think i saw tim allen in something. (j/k) ~a
[2012-02-27 10:07:29] - aaron: Yeah, I noticed him the most recent time I watched it (a few years ago). The head Thermian has also been in a bunch of thing (Just shoot me, Veronica Mars, etc). -Paul
[2012-02-27 09:16:19] - john krasinski is in the movie jarhead. it was weird to see him in that serious role. ~a
[2012-02-27 09:08:35] - paul: did you ever recognize Rainn Wilson in galaxy quest? i just noticed him yesterday - i think this is the first time i'd seen galaxy quest since watching the office - aaron
[2012-02-25 23:06:31] - I'll send the email with the info to you and Adrian. -Paul
[2012-02-25 17:39:29] - Paul: After work? Sounds like fun. I'd like to try. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-25 15:33:53] - Got an email from the Paul campaign saying they are having a rally in Springfield this coming Tuesday (the 28th). Sounds like it's free. Anybody interested? -Paul
[2012-02-24 16:32:48] - aaron: My first answer wasn't funny, it was educational. They are mutually exclusive.
-Paul[2012-02-24 16:23:23] - i was thinking, "finding half a worm in your apple", but all these answers are funny - aaron
[2012-02-24 16:16:24] - aaron: three holocausts - vinnie
[2012-02-24 16:03:34] - Half of a worm? -Paul
[2012-02-24 16:02:06] - mig is worse, right? ~a
[2012-02-24 15:15:56] - this line of conversation is starting to get creepy. - mig
[2012-02-24 14:53:43] - Child sexual abuse? -- Xpovos
[2012-02-24 14:37:31] - aids is way worse. ~a
[2012-02-24 14:10:44] - aaron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward#Famine_deaths The Great Leap Forward? -Paul
[2012-02-24 14:04:45] - worse*
[2012-02-24 14:04:40] - g: yeah but you know what's worth than the holocaust? - aaron
[2012-02-24 13:43:24] - g: haha, audrey's joke? ~a
[2012-02-24 13:42:54] - sure, but it's also good to know about how many hours it spends in the air. ~a
[2012-02-24 13:40:11] - http://failbook.failblog.org/2012/02/24/funny-facebook-fails-finding-half-a-nevermind/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Failbooking+%2 ~g
[2012-02-24 13:40:07] - a: Wouldn't checking weather conditions and wind patterns around the time of the NY launch be more releavant? - mig
[2012-02-24 13:30:52] - they're updating it periodically on facebook. - mig
[2012-02-24 13:15:13] - a: http://www.masseffect.com/space/SFO/ Here is the map from the official site. -Paul
[2012-02-24 13:12:23] - mig: Where you getting the info? I found the official site to be sadly lacking. -Paul
[2012-02-24 13:09:24] - some foresty area in California? doesn't say. - mig
[2012-02-24 13:08:55] - i.e. how far from the takeoff point? i ask to see if it'll be a waste of time to see what's going on with the NY one. ~a
[2012-02-24 13:08:22] - mig: where did it land? ~a
[2012-02-24 13:02:28] - The ME3 copy in San Fransisco has landed. It's stuck atop a 150 ft tree and there's about 10 people trying to figure out how to bring it down. - mig
[2012-02-24 10:11:21] - yeah last time it happened there was an outcry, and it actually was copyright infringement. this time it's not copyright infringement. ~a
[2012-02-24 10:06:02] - xpovos: it would probably provoke much violent outrage if they did killswitch the books from the buyers, considering the outcry last time it happened. - mig
[2012-02-24 09:18:02] - well no, it doesn't affect purchased books. but it still affects customers (new customers) in many ways. prices will probably be lower for certain books, but prices might be higher for other books by writers that think they'll have a harder time selling ebooks. availability of some ebooks will be affected as well. ~a
[2012-02-24 08:55:15] - http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/amazon-pulls-thousands-of-e-books-in-dispute/ But the books are still available on the devices of individuals who purchased them, right? I mean, the kill switch has been revealed. So... this is just a supply-company dispute that doesn't affect customers at all, really, does it? -- Xpovos
[2012-02-23 13:52:12] - aaron: why didnt you warn me of his everlasting love for Ashley Bioware? you could have saved me some heartache... ~g
[2012-02-23 12:05:43] - The first Mass Effect 3 space launch went up this morning in San Francisco. You can track it at www.masseffect.com/space. -Paul
[2012-02-23 10:15:51] - http://gamingbolt.com/mass-effect-3-vs-mass-effect-2-hd-screenshot-comparison?pid=1424 the graphics look pretty insane in 3 but, they were already pretty insane in 2 anyway - aaron
[2012-02-23 10:12:11] - paul: yeah, at the time i was thinking it was scary because of how good the graphics were, and the possibility that it wasn't pre-rendered, but i forgot that the demo was already out so people already know how good ME3's graphics are going to be
- aaron[2012-02-23 10:08:34] - aaron: it's been customary for the last couple big releases for Bioware to release a pre-rendered longish cinematic. They had one for ME2 as well it just didn't get the TV coverage this one did. - mig
[2012-02-23 09:05:38] - sure. ~a
[2012-02-23 09:04:10] - a: Frisbee this weekend? -Paul
[2012-02-23 09:03:41] - aaron: Scary because all we see is fmv and no gameplay? -Paul
[2012-02-23 00:11:48] - paul: the thing that's really scary about that ME3 trailer is that they didn't really have FMV in ME2. but - i assume that ME3 trailer was just FMV and the real game won't be rendered like that.... because that would be silly - aaron
[2012-02-22 16:15:38] - g: before paul got into computer science, he used to herd sheep, and during his days as a male shepard he had a brief romantic escapade with Ashley Bioware, a female farmhand. it was supposed to be a secret but miguel ruined everything - aaron
[2012-02-22 13:56:13] - the http?
[2012-02-22 13:55:29] - Anyone use <a href="www.gamersgate.com">Gamer's Gate</a> or heard anything (positive or negative) about them? -- Xpovos
[2012-02-22 13:32:21] - g: I believe it was Miguel who mentioned that, and he was referring to Bioware.
-Paul[2012-02-22 13:30:16] - paul: what is this I hear about you romancing someone named Ashley??? ~g
[2012-02-22 11:09:51] - mig: Well, I thought Ashley was really misunderstood. I talked to her a lot and never got the idea she was racist. I vaguely remember her saying she didn't trust the aliens on the Normandy, but that seemed reasonable considering they were also the only non-Alliance people on the ship. -Paul
[2012-02-22 10:52:20] - http://firesigntheatre.com/bvhtml/bdb/usplusad.swf
[2012-02-22 10:20:13] - paul: I guess. I don't think Kaiden was a very likable character either though. He admitted to manslaughter of a turian, don't forget. - mig
[2012-02-22 10:13:45] - mig: I'm surprised Bioware thinks the most popular option is a male Shephard who romances Ashley. Everybody on the internet seems to think she is racist and was glad they could kill her off on Virmire. -Paul
[2012-02-22 10:12:36] - Yeah, I've heard it's Ashley as well, which seems very odd for the reasons Daniel mentioned and the fact that it doesn't seem to look much like her. -Paul
[2012-02-22 10:11:03] - Amy: Thanks! -Paul
[2012-02-22 09:16:07] - g: Agreed. And because I'd forgotten about it, quite a shock to my system. Given some of the nastiness going on around here I wondered (very briefly) if maybe someone had planted something on my machine to try and get me fired. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-22 09:10:48] - xpovos: that is just a really bad naming job then ~g
[2012-02-22 01:23:29] - I think in bioware's mind the most popular choices among players are male shepard who romances ashley. - mig
[2012-02-22 01:10:27] - daniel: it's Ashley. - mig
[2012-02-22 00:57:47] - Paul: Who's the chick with Shepard? Long haired brunette? Ashley is the only brunette that comes to mind but she had short hair and is potentially dead in a lot of people's stories so that seems odd. Did they decided somewhere that Kaiden dying was cannon? -Daniel
[2012-02-21 23:58:00] - aaron: (yes i sent you a bday msg too but you'll actually have to open your fb to see it ,) ) -amy
[2012-02-21 23:57:27] - HBD, Paul! (Yes! In before midnight!) -amy
[2012-02-21 16:14:26] - Xpovos: Yeah, I was thinking that he would be facing a (theoretically) much weaker Obama and not be up against a nation tired of GWB, but maybe I spoke too quickly there.
-Paul[2012-02-21 16:10:04] - Paul: "can Santorum do much worse than McCain did last time around?" Yes. Absolutely. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-21 15:56:52] - aaron: I think he overstates things a bit (can Santorum do much worse than McCain did last time around?), but I can't disagree too much. -Paul
[2012-02-21 15:48:44] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rick-santorum-could-take-republicans-down-with-him/2012/02/20/gIQA8Af8PR_story.html how rick santorum could take the whole republican party down with him - aaron
[2012-02-21 14:26:33] - g: It actually had been sent to me by my boss, so totally legit. We're working on a pornography related mailing. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-21 14:23:31] - http://www.ign.com/videos/2012/02/21/mass-effect-3-take-earth-back-trailer-full-length Mass Effect 3 Take Earth Back trailer. Really psyched for the game now, and love the use of Two Steps from Hell music in the background. -Paul
[2012-02-21 14:10:56] - xpovos: umm yea not something that should be on your work computer... ~g
[2012-02-21 13:35:09] - That is not the file I wanted to find on my business laptop: "porn.jpg". Fortunately, though it was an accurate descriptor, it wasn't a bad thing. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-21 12:20:46] - a: I know, and I feel old too. Stupid body breaking down. Muscle strains never lasted for weeks when I was younger! -Paul
[2012-02-21 10:30:02] - 31? wow, paul is old. ~a
[2012-02-20 14:15:40] - hey, i'm taking a "class" online: cs 373. it should be super interesting, and i think you guys should sign up too. "Prerequisites: The instructor will assume solid knowledge of programming, all programming will be in Python. Knowledge of probability and linear algebra will be helpful". i don't know very much python. ~a
[2012-02-19 23:10:19] - Mass Effectors: http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=312 -- Xpovos
[2012-02-17 16:40:02] - oh yeah and mr. garrison teaches sex ed to the kindergartners, but his class is centered around things like creative sexual positions or how to put on a condom with your mouth (which he demonstrates on a vegetable)... the moral ends up being that it's better for parents to teach this stuff themselves rather than relying on the school system - aaron
[2012-02-17 16:38:23] - xpovos: Proper Condom Use was a south park episode where Mr Mackey teaches sex ed to the boys (but can't remember how sex works) and Ms Choksondik teaches sex ed to the girls (but makes them completely terrified of boys in the process) - aaron
[2012-02-17 16:33:05] - a: No, that was yesterday. Probably also Googling that would get me in trouble. Today was dolphins and STDs. Fact: STDs in animals are more well studied in domestic livestock than other species. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-17 16:30:28] - a: Haha, I remember that one. "Aw, she has TWO crutches now..." -Paul
[2012-02-17 16:28:40] - did you find out what it was from? it came out of the recent news story where rick satorum let some old-lady's false diatribe dribble out on camera because she was old. so stephen colbert let some old lady (actress) say some false things about rick santorum. it was excellent. ~a
[2012-02-17 16:13:57] - a: That lead to some Googling that will probably be hard for me to explain if it ever gets questioned... -- Xpovos
[2012-02-17 15:55:59] - i just thought maybe dolphins have a lot of stds. ~a
[2012-02-17 15:48:12] - ah haha yeah. ~a
[2012-02-17 15:42:29] - a: No, "You! You're my lover" = "Suprise! You have herpes!" -- Xpovos
[2012-02-17 15:33:27] - that in college rick santorum gave a dolphin a reach around? ~a
[2012-02-17 14:46:05] - Also: This game matches today's sub-title very well. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-17 14:18:43] - aaron: I haven't had a chance to watch much South Park. Some awesome episodes that I've missed, I know. Which one are you referring to? -- Xpovos
[2012-02-17 14:17:14] - a: I understand games aren't supposed to be that literal, but I think "games" like this intended to teach a lesson should be a little more based in reality. -Paul
[2012-02-17 14:14:48] - xpovos: i learned that from south park years ago! - aaron
[2012-02-17 14:11:43] - "This is why virgins shouldn't teach sex ed." QFT. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-17 14:08:48] - "anybody can rape you at any time unless you have a magical condom or abstinence card" you're being way to literal. you know that. right? ~a
[2012-02-17 14:03:47] - a: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektro Also, an Elektro is a real thing.
-Paul[2012-02-17 14:03:34] - a: Sure, but I got the impression it wasn't really supposed to be a game as much as it was supposed to teach a lesson about safe sex... except that lesson is that anybody can rape you at any time unless you have a magical condom or abstinence card. -Paul
[2012-02-17 13:58:12] - "I think the whole point of the game was to trick students into carrying condoms at all times ... A pretty clever way to keep the infection rate down" really i think this guy got it. ~a
[2012-02-17 13:54:20] - sure i guess it's an awkward metaphor. but it's just a game; games rarely represent true life exactly. what is an elecktro from power grid? ~a
[2012-02-17 13:20:48] - a: I don't have a problem with the abstinence cards, but whether you have the condoms or cards, they're still treating all sex as basically rape.
-Paul[2012-02-17 13:17:22] - yeah they probably should have just left the abstinence cards out of it. "there were girls who objected because they thought condoms were evil for religious reasons." "well too bad, that's the game, now shut up and play" should have been the response. ~a
[2012-02-17 13:06:01] - paul: the fact that they used real condoms was also funny, one of the commenters pointed out that the best time to challenge someone for their condom, would be right after they had safe sex, just in case they happened to use it
- aaron[2012-02-17 13:04:22] - paul: well it's not really a "game", i think it was the same idea of how the "sugar baby" thing touches on the responsibility/burden of having a child, this "game" would have just touched on the importance of carrying a condom... after all you never know when someone is going to make you have sex! - aaron
[2012-02-17 12:47:25] - aaron: That sounds like a horrible game with very easily exploitable rules, and they only touched upon it at the end. -Paul
[2012-02-17 12:29:35] - http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/psnar/i_always_thought_this_was_bullshit_too/c3rykth funny story about sex ed - aaron
[2012-02-17 11:34:19] - a: Oh, sorry. I thought I had said yes. I should be good to go. We can ask Tim and Janie tonight. -Paul
[2012-02-17 11:28:49] - also mig and randy need to switch from "maybe" to "yes". only losers respond with "maybe". ~a
[2012-02-17 11:27:43] - i haven't heard from you or tim or janie or mark or glenn. ~a
[2012-02-17 11:25:59] - paul: 4 people so far. 5 if you're in. ~a
[2012-02-17 10:56:45] - a: Does it look like we're going to have enough people for frisbee this Saturday? -Paul
[2012-02-17 09:14:28] - a: Yeah, I don't know. I tried checking a number of place (IGN, the USAToday article, MassEffect.com) but couldn't find any mention of when they will be launched. Guess I'll just have to keep checking back every day.
-Paul[2012-02-17 09:13:07] - that is a cool promotion. when do they launch? i couldn't find anything about the date on their site. ~a
[2012-02-17 09:07:50] - aaron: I have no idea. Is it even possible to predict where they are likely to land? I don't even know how long they would be in the air. Hours? Days? -Paul
[2012-02-17 08:59:22] - Xpovos: Yeah, I would be very tempted to try tracking one down, but I imagine each copy is going to have dozens if not hundreds of people looking for it. -Paul
[2012-02-17 08:55:11] - paul: hmmm i think from new york the balloons are most likely to go north, right? i don't remember a lot about the weather patterns in this area but i don't think virginia is a likely resting spot - aaron
[2012-02-17 08:43:58] - Paul: I think that's actually a pretty decent promotion. Assuming no one brings a gun with them while geocaching. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-16 20:47:56] - http://ps3.ign.com/articles/121/1218934p1.html?utm_campaign=twposts&utm_source=twitter I totally want one of these. -Paul
[2012-02-16 16:06:33] - mig: it might also have to do with the fact that humans are "wired" to desire sex, while we don't have any kind of "base desire" for alcohol, so i'm more sympathetic towards people who really want sex but don't want to harm others - aaron
[2012-02-16 16:05:55] - aaron: i'm not sure why either, hence why I was asking. - mig
[2012-02-16 16:03:21] - mig: i'm not sure why that is and maybe it just has to do with american attitudes towards sex/alcohol, or maybe it has to do with the fact that it's putting more people at risk, or maybe because the number of people who have sex is greater than the number of people who consume alcohol - aaron
[2012-02-16 16:01:32] - mig: i understand the comparison, but to me saying "alcohol should be a luxury reserved for those who can afford it" seems logical, while "safe sex should be a luxury reserved for those who can afford it" seems cruel - aaron
[2012-02-16 15:46:28] - This hypothetical drug doesn't exist, and the right to drink yourself into a stupor (as long as you abide by certain rules) has been relatively unchallenged since prohibition. -Paul
[2012-02-16 15:45:17] - Well, in practical terms, I think the answer is rather obvious: There is a strong lobbying movement based around women's health/family planning/access to contraceptives (whatever you want to call it ) because it's been a political battlefield for the past few decades. -Paul
[2012-02-16 15:39:53] - mig: It's extremely unusual that one drink will get anyone drunk. And even more unusual that it will cause liver damage. Whereas first-time sex pregnancy is fairly common. So the difference people may be latching on to is 'binge'? I think people would be OK providing for a condom ration, or something. And then we head into Seinfeld territory. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-16 15:29:11] - would warrant the different attitudes. - mig
[2012-02-16 15:29:03] - consequences. Now, most people are very sympathic to the idea of subsidizing contraceptives through things like the insurance madnate, but probably would balk at subsidizing the cirosis wonderdrug for the drunk who likes to drink him(her)self silly every day. I find that strange, because I don't really see a difference between drinking and having casual sex that...
[2012-02-16 15:28:22] - paul: well, interesting thought, but not really that either. my line of thinking was more like this: having sex and drinking are both for the most part voluntary acts done for pleasure's sake (with the exception of frat/military hazing and sexual assult of course). Both actions have side effects and aside from couples who want children, they are undesirable...
[2012-02-16 15:26:16] - http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/story/2012-02-16/Asian-stereotypes-appearing-in-coverage-of-Knicks-Jeremy-Lin/53120426/1 I wonder what level (if any) it is appropriate to refer to Jeremy Lin's ethnicity, or if people should just enjoy all the other amazing parts of his story. -Paul
[2012-02-16 15:10:37] - mig: Ok, I didn't know which direction you were taking it. Obviously I think it's bad law, bad morals, bad constitutionalism and a slippery slope, so you don't have to win me over. Because it's really not that far a stretch to go from: it's mandated coverage to mandated usage. Esp. something like your hypotehtical drug. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-16 15:08:12] - mig: I feel like this is closely related to the individual mandate slippery slope with Obamacare that nobody seems to want to answer. If the federal government can force you to buy health insurance, then why can't it force you to buy broccoli? -Paul
[2012-02-16 15:01:34] - xpovos: yes, it's only somewhat related to the Catholic/Obama conflict, but I'm thinking about this in much more general terms. - mig
[2012-02-16 14:46:11] - I'm sure there'd be lot's of grousing about forced coverage for this narrow use anti-cirrhosis drug, similarly my cousin was asking me about Viagra last night. Is forced coverage of Viagra something they'd fight about? Grouse, yes. Fight (to the extent of threatening to shut down hospitals), no. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-16 14:44:26] - mig: The analogy doesn't work because there's no real double effect. The Catholic bishops are upset not because they're being asked to subsidize behavior they believe is sinful, but because they are going to be forced to commit an action which they also deem sinful in order to subsidize sinful behavior. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-16 14:31:30] - paul: ok let's change that "goal of society" to "role of government", since it's more direct. - mig
[2012-02-16 14:30:15] - mig: Well, I'm always wary of saying something should be a "goal of society", because I don't know for sure what that entails. I don't think that the government should force companies to provide it to their employees, though.
-Paul[2012-02-16 14:27:12] - paul: in the sense that they are both potential consequences of certain actions .... yes, i guess i am. - mig
[2012-02-16 14:13:23] - mig: I'm going to go ahead and throw this out there for fun, but are you comparing babies to cirrosis of the liver?
-Paul[2012-02-16 14:11:19] - So, in essence, one could drink as much as he or she wants, and they take this drug to prevent the long term problems of cirrosis and other such bad things. Given how much people tend to drink, should it be a goal of society that everyone have access to this wonderdrug, to the point where it's mandated in insurance coverage? - mig
[2012-02-16 14:10:56] - So, there was some banter on the radio this morning about the whole catholic/contraception/abortion thing, and a thought exercise emerged in my head. Let's propose this hypothetical scenario: imagine that was this super wonderful drug that was developed that negated the damage to the liver from alcohol consumption.
[2012-02-16 13:06:13] - a: Wow, really? That's an impressive streak. I don't see any further news on the internet, except a rumor that it might be a family emergency. I hope everything is alright. -Paul
[2012-02-16 12:57:25] - nope. but, i hope everything is ok. it's the first time he's ever missed a show in ~1000 episodes. ~a
[2012-02-16 12:23:58] - a: Did you have tickets to the show? -Paul
[2012-02-16 12:10:09] - wtf oh no! ~a
[2012-02-16 10:49:27] - g: I'm sure it's easier to adopt as a single parent than a gay couple. But only because people are morons. Oh, God, this post is going to look bad if it comes up in the random post years from now. Context, people! -- Xpovos
[2012-02-16 10:35:39] - mig: I was actually thinking of one of the legal benefits SSM would provide. I am not sure how state & federal laws would interact on this matter. ~g
[2012-02-16 10:34:16] - xpovos: My understanding is that it is easier to adopt as a single parent then to adopt as a gay couple. Hence if the couple splits or if the parent who was on the legal forms passes away then the other parent has no legal rights. ~g
[2012-02-16 10:19:35] - mig: Sure, although I can't imagine that they would need to talk to your landlord for three years.
-Paul[2012-02-16 10:14:02] - mig: sure. ~a
[2012-02-16 10:09:17] - mig: Fire away as needed. Let me know if you need contact info. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-16 10:07:37] - is it ok if I list some of you as contacts for this security clearance thing I have to fill out? Apparently I have to fill out all this junk again. - mig
[2012-02-16 10:06:50] - aaron: It feels like it. But I'm not sure. Maybe I've just gone too long without reading real satire. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-16 10:04:16] - xpovos: satire. - aaron
[2012-02-16 09:59:34] - a: Yeah, the fact that "Happy Birthday" is copyrighted is one issue, but I knew that already. The fact that the copyright is enforced is another, and frustrating. But I can't blame Warner too much, they're just taking the free money. The website, though... I'm really not sure if it's serious or trolling. Or if it's a nice piece of satire. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-16 09:40:45] - they had a Sports Night episode about this. one of the characters got billed thousands of dollars for singing happy birthday on the air. ~a
[2012-02-16 09:32:31] - This website is worthy of at least level 2 fry eyes. http://www.unhappybirthday.com/ ::fryeyes:: -- Xpovos
[2012-02-16 09:14:49] - Paul: Well, yes. I mean, quite possibly 90% of that saga, but it's hardly the only woeful situation in life. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-16 09:13:55] - Xpovos: Just some? -Paul
[2012-02-15 15:54:11] - Paul: Ah, yes. The EA account for Madden. The source of some of my woes. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-15 15:49:10] - mig: I don't remember. I think I had to create an EA account for Madden, but I don't remember if that was before of after Mass Effect 2 either. -Paul
[2012-02-15 15:41:02] - mig: Yeah I thought about the demo but I was in the same boat as Paul where I figured it was close enough that I could wait and the demo probably wasn't going to change my mind on purchasing it or not. -Daniel
[2012-02-15 15:35:23] - did it require creating an EA specific accoutn or was it tied to your Xbox-live account? - mig
[2012-02-15 15:34:43] - paul: yeah the cerberus network thing was a bit of an annoyance to unlock with the code entering and the subsequent downloading of the things it unlocked. I imagine it was probably just as annoying on a console. - mig
[2012-02-15 15:28:52] - Xpovos: I don't think I can join a complete EA boycott until/unless they get rid of Bioware at least, and probably a few other gaming studios as well. -Paul
[2012-02-15 15:27:25] - mig: I don't know if the Xbox version required an EA account, but I thought I had to do something that annoyed me. Maybe it had to do with the Cerberus Network? I'm trying to avoid the demo, because I figure the game is close enough that I'm going to try to hold out and avoid spoilers until then. -Paul
[2012-02-15 15:21:57] - mig: Yes, ME3 will require Origin. It's been ranted on. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/9359-Dear-Origin-You-Stink I'm about ready to join the complete EA boycott. But EA would barely notice. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-15 15:20:45] - part of the demo involves a portion in the middle of the game with shepard at about level 13 or so, which gives the opportunity to play around with the skills system for the various classes, which I found somewhat interesting. - mig
[2012-02-15 15:18:52] - mass_effect: the ME3 demo was released yesterday on all platforms. Minor annoyance was that the PC version required an EA Origin account(meaning the actual game will as well) to download and play. I don't know what the deal is on other platforms. It's fairly short (I finished it in under about 45 minutes and a good chunk of that was dialogue). - mig
[2012-02-15 14:52:36] - g: is that due to federal regulations or state ones? If a couple in a state that legally recognized SSM and had the child taken away when the spouse dies ... then yeah I can see it as being a problem on the federal level then. - mig
[2012-02-15 14:49:37] - g: If they can't adopt together, why were they allowed to adopt separately? If your criteria for adoption is heterosexual nuclear family... gah. Brain hurts. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-15 14:48:02] - mig: I think parental rights is a big one... There have been a lot of cases where one dies and the child is taken away from the other since often times they can not adopt together. ~g
[2012-02-15 14:43:40] - "The Gingrich Faith Leaders Coalition is Newt Gingrich's official advisory coalition on issues pertaining to life, marriage, and religious liberty" "Lord knows Gingrich needs as much advice about marriage as he can get." - mig
[2012-02-15 14:43:12] - http://www.reason.com/blog/2012/02/15/several-fearless-christians H&R post that amused me quite a bit today. - mig
[2012-02-15 14:38:12] - In both cases, the real issue is that they both wanted to use the government as a weapon to enforce their views on everyone, even those who don't hold them--it's for their own good. Theocratic candidates. Santorum has the added disadvantage of being an idiot fiscally and a war-hawk. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-15 14:37:15] - Santorum, to me, is like Huckabee was 4 years ago. An absolutely terrifying political figure who has way too much support for me to be comfortable. The difference is that with Huckabee, I thought he was a likable enough guy, but that he was wrong on the social issues. Santorum is an ass, but he's right on most of the social issues. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-15 13:17:56] - aaron: I kinda agree, in an opposite way. If Ron Paul or Gary Johnson can't win the presidency, then I would probably prefer an Obama that I 90% disagree with rather than a Romney/Newt/Santorum that I 80% disagree with just because I like how the Republicans in congress have more backbone when a Democrat is in office. -Paul
[2012-02-15 13:16:22] - aaron: "to be honest i'd rather have a 'centrist republican president'" Alan Alda played a centerist republican candidate in the west wing. it was interesting because they put forth a bunch of traditional republican views that democrats have trouble disagreeing with. ~a
[2012-02-15 13:13:41] - and looking at the whole position of a politician is hard. ~a
[2012-02-15 13:13:14] - a: but also, to be honest i'd rather have a "centrist republican president" whose ideas are 75% close to mine, than a "liberal democrat president" whose ideas are 100% close to mine, simply because of the kinds of reforms it might bring to the republican party (and hence to america) - aaron
[2012-02-15 13:12:20] - still it's all moot. paul won't win the nomination. ~a
[2012-02-15 13:12:01] - a: I understand (and agree) with your point that Obama has been better on gay rights than he sounded as a candidate. My point wasn't to say Obama was bad for what he said, just that I think you have to look at their whole position/actions on issues rather than a few soundbites. -Paul
[2012-02-15 13:11:59] - i'm not 100% sure i'd vote for obama, which is something. basically obama (despite his first campaign) is the establishment. the pauls are non-establishment, and i know i don't have to agree with a politician on everything to vote for them. ~a
[2012-02-15 13:11:39] - aaron: "well look, everything you guys have put out for the past 15 years has been total unwatchable garbage, but at least you're trying really hard this time" i agree with that sentiment. ~a
[2012-02-15 13:09:21] - a: On the surface, it makes some sense to say being against the Civil Rights Act = being pro-segregation, but I think it's reasonable to be against stuff like DOMA and the Civil Rights Act because of the rights they take away without being against the "rights" they provide. -Paul
[2012-02-15 13:09:01] - a: to be honest if i voted for ron paul it would be for kind of the reasons that i saw "the dark knight" it's like, well look, everything you guys have put out for the past 15 years has been total unwatchable garbage, but at least you're trying really hard this time. you're probably right, and my personal beliefs are probably more in line with obama's - aaron
[2012-02-15 13:09:00] - well that's just one more instance of the paul's being bad politicians. saying you're against the civil rights act of 1964 for any reason will get you booed.
~a[2012-02-15 13:07:28] - a: One more analogy: The Civil Rights Act of 1964. I think Rand Paul got in trouble for saying he would've voted against it (or something) because it tramples on the right of voluntary association. Most everybody took it as him being for segregation, though. -Paul
[2012-02-15 13:07:11] - mig: you're right, i heard about that. and ron paul was AGAINST him on that too! wow. ~a
[2012-02-15 13:06:42] - paul: "Employment Non-Discrimination Act should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity." (re obama) ~a
[2012-02-15 13:06:20] - paul: that's ture, but wasn't he also telling the DOJ to stop enforcing DOMA a while back? change of heart, maybe? - mig
[2012-02-15 13:05:27] - paul: i know, but he helped repeal DADT, so i'm somewhat conflicted. ~a
[2012-02-15 13:05:23] - a: my bad, yeah, pro-doma - aaron
[2012-02-15 13:04:30] - you mean pro-doma? they're pro-doma and doma technically helps states rights, but it singles out SSM. ~a
[2012-02-15 13:04:00] - a: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html First phrase for both Obama and Biden is: "Opposes same-sex marriage" -Paul
[2012-02-15 13:01:17] - a: to answer your question yeah, i'm wary of paul's stance on some issues like gay marriage/abortion/etc, but, it's my understanding that "the pauls" are against stuff like DOMA mostly because it tramples on states rights - not because they're opposed to gay marriage personally - aaron
[2012-02-15 12:59:39] - well of course, and as you know i strongly agree. but it'll probably fail. so in this situation, he's not arguing for SSM. ~a
[2012-02-15 12:57:43] - a: Right, and I think Ron Paul's ideal solution is to just get rid of the legal definition of marriage so nobody is discriminated against (homosexuals, polygamists, etc): "Matter of fact, I'd like to see all governments out of the marriage question. I don't think it's a state function, I think it's a religious function." -Paul
[2012-02-15 12:57:33] - mig: i really don't know for sure. national-health-insurance? parent rights? death? sometimes federal laws affect these things. ~a
[2012-02-15 12:54:28] - Out of curiosity, aside from being able to file jointly from taxes, what are the benefits from the federal government of being a recongized marriage? It seems just about everything that's important is handled by the states, but I don't know for sure... - mig
[2012-02-15 12:53:53] - paul: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010. ~a
[2012-02-15 12:51:06] - well hell i'm against government forcing people to change their beliefs. that's not the point. there is a legal definition of marriage and it (in some cases) specifically discriminates against people who want to marry intragender. that's what we're (and the pauls) are discussing. ~a
[2012-02-15 12:49:30] - a: Also, I have to ask, do you consider Obama to be anti-gay rights? Because I am pretty sure he was against gay marriage as a candidate and I think he hasn't changed his position as president despite some of his actions. -Paul
[2012-02-15 12:48:38] - a: And that's why I go back to Ron Paul seeing it as a big/small government issue. He thinks marriage is between man and woman, but is ok with people who think otherwise. What he is against is government basically forcing people to change their beliefs. -Paul
[2012-02-15 12:46:12] - a: What do you mean by "legal right of SSM"? If you mean forcing everybody (churches, insurance companies, states, etc) to recognize the marriage, then I would agree he is against that, but I think he has no problem at all with any of those organizations voluntarily recognizing SSM. -Paul
[2012-02-15 12:45:08] - ok, maybe you're right on that one. ~a
[2012-02-15 12:44:32] - a: "someone who is pro-doma is anti-gay rights" I don't think it's that simple in the same way that I don't think people who are against the Patriot Act are anti-America or pro-terrorist. -Paul
[2012-02-15 12:42:47] - paul: "so long as they didn't 'impose' their relationship on anyone else" that implies to me that he's against the legal right of SSM. ~a
[2012-02-15 12:42:45] - a: I think you're taking the quote "I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected" differently than I am. I think he means it has to be protected from the government forcing the definition to change for everybody (and I think the rest of the evidence supports this) rather than it has to be protected from gay people marrying. -Paul
[2012-02-15 12:42:00] - "there is a difference between being anti-gay rights and not being pro-gay rights" agreed. but someone who is pro-doma is anti-gay rights. ~a
[2012-02-15 12:41:01] - a: Right, and he also said he supported the right of gay couples to marry. -Paul
[2012-02-15 12:38:56] - a: Well, I think there is a difference between being anti-gay rights and not being pro-gay rights. I'll grant you that Ron Paul may not be pro-gay rights in the tradition sense of using government to advance gay marriage, but I still don't think it's fair to say he is anti-gay rights. -Paul
[2012-02-15 12:38:41] - "Ron Paul sees gay marriage as just another big government/small government battle" except his words suggest otherwise. "I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected" is inconsistent with this is "just another big government/small government battle" ~a
[2012-02-15 12:35:43] - I think maybe the disconnect here is that I think Ron Paul sees gay marriage as just another big government/small government battle and not some cultural battle that is good/evil that has to be fought/supported via the government. -Paul
[2012-02-15 12:35:01] - paul: "it should be allowed but shouldn't be forced on others" that's fine, but DOMA specifically singles out same-sex marriage. which is anti-gay rights imo. ~a
[2012-02-15 12:33:55] - explicitly supported section 3. He did support repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell (and I think he's been the only GOP candidate who has), so I don't think you can put him squarely in the anti-gay camp. - mig
[2012-02-15 12:32:28] - a: the DOMA support is puzzling to me yes. I know I've heard him say in the past he was against the federal government defining marriage in any way whatsoever, so maybe this is a change of opinion or something. I could see his support of DOMA as mantaining the whole marriage thing as a strictly state rights issue (section 2), but I'd be troubled if he ...
[2012-02-15 12:28:25] - a: I thought you and I agreed that just because abortion is legal, that doctor's shouldn't be required to perform them. I see Ron Paul's stance on gay marriage as similar, in that it should be allowed but shouldn't be forced on others. -Paul
[2012-02-15 12:26:33] - a: I don't think it's at all unreasonable to be respectful of same-sex marriage while also not wanting to impose same sex marriage on those who are against it. I think of it like our discussion about abortion at Miguel's place during poker... -Paul
[2012-02-15 12:22:19] - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2101354/Food-police-reject-preschoolers-homemade-lunch--favour-chicken-nuggets.html Another nail in the coffin of any chance of me sending my children to public school. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-15 12:13:33] - a: No, the act could allow states to not recognize different sex marriages from other states in addition to same sex marriages from other states, I just don't think that's a problem anywhere. Again, I'm not saying that is what it does, though. -Paul
[2012-02-15 12:12:07] - paul: yes? otherwise the act does nothing, right? ~a
[2012-02-15 12:10:51] - xpovos: "other than the right to marry" the right to legally-marry has many many other implications. marriage affects health insurance, parenting, taxes, death, and probably tons of other things i'm not thinking of. ~a
[2012-02-15 12:10:00] - a: "so now states are required to recognize different-sex marriages, but not same-sex marriages?" Does the Defense of Marriage Act say that? I honestly don't know. -Paul
[2012-02-15 12:08:44] - a: So, more broadly, other than the right to marry, what other rights would homosexuals want that they are currently denied? Does Paul stand for them? Almost certainly. So, he doesn't stand against marriage, and stands for other rights. This is at least nominally pro-homosexual rights. Right? -- Xpovos
[2012-02-15 12:08:40] - a: My interpretation of "must be protected" (and I have no backing for this right now)? I think he means institutions who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman should be allowed to continue believing that without the federal government saying otherwise. -Paul
[2012-02-15 12:08:33] - so now states are required to recognize different-sex marriages, but not same-sex marriages? how is this pro-gay-rights again? ~a
[2012-02-15 12:06:57] - a: From what I've read about his more in-depth discussion on the topic, he supported the Defense of Marriage Act because: "The act allows a state to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries" (from the wikipedia article). -Paul
[2012-02-15 12:06:19] - paul: oh? so what does "must be protected" mean? what does defense of marriage act mean? ~a
[2012-02-15 12:03:18] - a: It means he isn't in favor of people imposing THEIR beliefs on marriage on anybody else, which goes along with pretty much everything else that was stated in that article. He personally thinks marriage is between a man and a woman, but doesn't want to impose that belief on others and doesn't want others imposing their beliefs on him. -Paul
[2012-02-15 12:02:09] - "Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected. I supported the Defense of Marriage Act" ~a
[2012-02-15 12:01:21] - he is anti-same-sex marriage. he says it all over the place. the only time he seems pro-same-sex marriage is when it's non-state-recognized. ~a
[2012-02-15 11:59:18] - he supported the defense of marriage act (even though he wasn't in congress). ~a
[2012-02-15 11:59:03] - a: Your second question, and it's quoted statement, have a lot of double-negative type of talk going on confusing the matter. Simple version: Paul opposes legislation opposed by people in favor of homosexual marriage. Is that pro-gay rights, not in itself. But it's a nice corollary to everything else. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-15 11:56:18] - xpovos: "Paul has also said that at the federal level he opposes “efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman.” " hmmm? this is pro-gay rights somehow? ~a
[2012-02-15 11:54:52] - paul: of course i left out tons of stuff. the link is there for everybody to read. "so long as they didn't 'impose' their relationship on anyone else". what the fuck does that even mean? do different-sex marriages impose their relationship on anyone else? ~a
prev <-> next