prev <-> next
[2012-03-12 12:55:59] - Wow I havent heard of a 403b or 457 before... Is the 403b for people who want to retire with 403 billion dollars?
~g[2012-03-12 10:16:23] - Xpovos: Thanks. I'll pass the info along. -Paul
[2012-03-12 09:34:08] - maybe he doesn't need that even. As long as RG3 performs similar to Newton, I think people will be excited enough that they won't call for shanahan or allen's head, regardless of this year's record. If there's dysfunction, and RG3 doesn't perfom, yeah this is probably their last year. - mig
[2012-03-12 09:31:00] - xpovos: i think 7+ wins and he keeps his job. But he'll probably have to make the playoffs in 2013 to not get fired. - mig
[2012-03-12 09:28:41] - Paul: We bought a case online. It's one of those wines. We went out to dinner and the waiter (my BIL, actually) recommend it, because he'd been given a bottle as a reward and had promptly downed it. We drank two that night, and I've had a few at other restaurants since. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-12 09:25:49] - Xpovos: Completely off topic, but Gurkie reminded me that I was supposed to ask you where you got your bottle of Spellbound. Some friends of hers were asking since they really liked the wine too but couldn't find it anyplace nearby. -Paul
[2012-03-10 09:13:14] - 3 1st round picks for RG3. At least it'll be easy to remember. I expect this also finishes at least three careers. Don't get me wrong, I think RG3 could be very good, and if he is even better, people will forgive this atrocity of a deal. But the Redskins win 6-8 games next year with RG3, and Shanahan will now get fired. He wasn't on the hot seat before. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-09 15:07:13] - paul: i spend a lot of time comboing warp with singularity and/or pull. it seems to be annoyingly inefficient though since warp doesn't burn through shields and armor as well as it used to, that may be a product of the difficulty, though. - mig
[2012-03-09 14:57:19] - I start off by making a combat drone, then tossing a sentry gun, and then alternating between overload and incinerate to take out guys while occasionally re-creating destroyed combat drones or sentry guns. -Paul
[2012-03-09 14:56:28] - I really think it might be the way I created my character. The game has been generally easy enough, and my cool-down periods short enough, that I could go through entire battles without shooting my weapon once and not feel bored. -Paul
[2012-03-09 14:54:28] - sniper rifle i mean. - mig
[2012-03-09 14:54:17] - yeah i'd drop the rifle. Shotgun is good for a vanguard because it works nicely at close range, but you probably want something more close range friendly as a backup. - mig
[2012-03-09 14:53:10] - paul: i'm playing it on normal too. the shotgun caps at 20 ammo and the sniper rifle caps at 10 ammo, so it could have just been my fault for choosing a loadout with not enough ammo available. - aaron
[2012-03-09 14:52:41] - paul: i mainly use the assault rifle, but even as a biotic on the harder difficulty levels you're going to regret not having a backup weapon since the rifle eats up a lot of ammo. - mig
[2012-03-09 14:49:41] - aaron: I'm also playing on normal, which seems pretty easy so far. I'm regretting not having tried it on insane first. -Paul
[2012-03-09 14:49:08] - aaron: I've switched it up a bit since, using shotguns and assault rifles and SMGs. Now, I am carrying around an SMG and pistol, but I still only use the SMG. Haven't had any ammo issues yet. I play as an engineer, though, and end up using my powers a LOT more than shooting. -Paul
[2012-03-09 14:47:52] - aaron: Yeah, the "carrying less weapons" mechanic seems a little odd. I started off carrying an assault rifle and pistol, but never used the pistol so I only carried an assault rifle for a while. -Paul
[2012-03-09 14:45:53] - a: Should they beat ones that don't? I'm assuming the ones that offer more care also cost more. To me, that's neither better or worse than a cheaper insurance plan that covers less. -Paul
[2012-03-09 14:42:53] - paul: to be running around with small arms anyways. but yeah just one frustrating "no ammo" boss fight which i had to play a few times to learn how to abuse the AI and melee combat, that's been the only bummer so far - aaron
[2012-03-09 14:42:08] - first time i've literally had to pummel a boss with my fists just because of weird gameplay design. i guess i'm supposed to either suck it up and take the reloading penalty, or just not carry a sniper rifle? i'm going to try the latter for awhile, i mean i'm a vanguard which is supposed to be the "in your face bruiser" class anyways, so i'm probably just meant - aaron
[2012-03-09 14:41:16] - paul: i'm playing ME3 too! i'm about 3 hours in, the only thing i don't like so far is getting to a boss fight with only a shotgun/sniper rifle - it seemed like the game was encouraging me to carry fewer weapons, so i thought i'd try it, but i quickly ran out of ammo and couldn't find any ammo drops - aaron
[2012-03-09 14:39:19] - "if insurance companies aren't instructed to provide preventative care, they won't" ok many of them will and many of them won't. since it's not an open market though, the ones that do won't always beat out the ones that don't. ~a
[2012-03-09 14:13:22] - a: Even if I grant you that point, though, can you at least admit that some companies actually go above and beyond what government mandates and that "if insurance companies aren't instructed to provide preventative care, they won't" is probably not right? -Paul
[2012-03-09 14:11:50] - a: Ok, so even though us and most of the people we know work for companies that give them non-government-forced extra benefits, we can safely say that most companies only do the bare minimum as dictated by the government? -Paul
[2012-03-09 14:05:07] - 15% of companies don't even have a 401k/403b/457 plan. ~a
[2012-03-09 14:04:08] - 60% of them have age requirements. 60% of them have vesting requirements. ~a
[2012-03-09 14:04:02] - (non anecdotes) No companies provide 401ks to non-fulltime employees. Avg contributions for companies that have 401ks are around 2% (weighted twards the higher paid people). Some require matching be invested in the company. 40% of companies that have 401ks require you to be on the job for 3 months (some require much longer timeframes). ~a
[2012-03-09 14:03:55] - nah i don't think so. (anecdotes again) people i know who work outside of the IT field get much worse compensation/benefits than we do. ~a
[2012-03-09 13:47:15] - a: "most businesses do not work this way" Why are you so confident in this? I know it's all anecdotal, but all we've done is come up with a bunch of examples of where employers aren't evil and out to screw over employees. Isn't it reasonable to think that maybe that's more of a rule than an exception? -Paul
[2012-03-09 13:44:05] - fair enough. not everybody is evil. most of the business decisions i make are to benefit the employees. but most businesses do not work this way. we're only speaking in anecdotes. ~a
[2012-03-09 13:40:09] - a: Either way, it doesn't change my larger point that at many of the places I worked, the employers did a lot of things which basically played no role in recruiting me to work for them and which I also don't think the government forced on them. -Paul
[2012-03-09 13:38:36] - a: I'm not saying you're wrong, but I slightly doubt that was the case for my situation. My employer had basically gotten rid of the match entirely during the darkest days of the recent recession and restored it once forecasts were rosier. -Paul
[2012-03-09 13:30:12] - a: The fact that 401(k) rules are complicated doesn't surprise me. And you're right, if I read them they'd probably make me (and Paul) angry. I will admit that not getting any 401(k) match at my previous employer and never getting any 403(b) match with my current has been ... disappointing. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-09 13:24:45] - for example, we follow the "safe harbor" rules. ~a
[2012-03-09 13:23:31] - "the government didn't force them to." . . . haha, that might be wrong. HCE, ADP, and safe harbor rules are complicated. ~a
[2012-03-09 13:07:12] - a: Sure, but I would be surprised if it were make-or-break (just like health insurance). Do I care if the match is 50% up to 3% or 50% up to 6%? No, but I've been at companies that have raised it, and as far as I know, the government didn't force them to. -Paul
[2012-03-09 13:04:03] - also 401k match is something employees do ask about before taking a job. ~a
[2012-03-09 13:03:44] - "I'm pretty sure companies aren't required to offer any kind of match on 401(k) contributions" they are if they're going to give it to their upper management. but there are tons of requirements i know now about 401k i didn't know before; these requirements probably would not make you happy.
~a[2012-03-09 12:57:25] - a: I'm pretty sure companies aren't required to offer any kind of match on 401(k) contributions, but many that I've worked for do, even though I would never turn down or accept a job based on 401(k) matching. -Paul
[2012-03-09 12:55:55] - a: Another example: I was at one company where the owners ended up selling the company and gave all their employees a (not insignificant) one time bonus. Totally unexpected and unnecessary, but they did it anyway. -Paul
[2012-03-09 12:54:42] - a: I don't know why so many people think this, but in my experience most companies aren't entirely made up of evil upper management trying to screw their employees over in whatever ways they can imagine. I think in the long run it makes sense to try to make your employees happy, even if it means spending a little more. -Paul
[2012-03-09 12:53:11] - a: Well, I have looked at the health insurance offered by companies, but I admit it's probably never swayed my thinking. On the other hand, I haven't ever checked to see if companies provide free breakfast foods to their employees (mine does) or raffles for sports tickets (ditto). -Paul
[2012-03-09 12:44:37] - do companies (other than eucleo) even provide this information to prospective employees? would the employees even read it if they did? ~a
[2012-03-09 12:44:17] - "employers have incentive to not go for the worst health insurance available" i agree with this to a point. people aren't going to care about this! are people seriously going to look at what coverage the health insurance companies that a new employer contracts to before taking a job? have you? ~a
[2012-03-09 12:24:23] - a: I'll agree that health insurance isn't as open a market as some others in our country (almost entirely due to the government), but I still think companies have incentive to provide better services and employers have incentive to not go for the worst health insurance available. -Paul
[2012-03-09 12:22:28] - a: Sure, and I doubt I'll be able to bring you to my way of thinking, but I think I can convince you that "if insurance companies aren't instructed to provide preventative care, they won't" is wrong. -Paul
[2012-03-09 12:16:10] - i think it needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis. if it's a huge health issue (like setbelts/airbags/preventative health-care) and companies are doing the wrong long-term thing for the general welfare (subjective, i know), congress should at least consider instructing private companies to stop fucking up. ~a
[2012-03-09 12:12:27] - iow, i do think companies should be compelled to provide seatbelts/airbags. ~a
[2012-03-09 12:12:18] - "airbags and seatbelts", ok after i said what i said, i realized that it wasn't actually true. i think in many cases, companies will be compelled (by the market) to provide awesome services like airbags and seatbelts. some times, though, companies suck and don't give a shit about their customers. ~a
[2012-03-09 12:06:55] - a: "i don't think congress should force private companies to provide certain services" I guess it depends on where you draw the line, but what about things like airbags and seatbelts? -Paul
[2012-03-09 12:06:12] - a: That was me slightly disagreeing with Andrew saying that the debate hasn't changed much since then. -Paul
[2012-03-09 12:05:12] - for the record, i don't think congress should force private companies to provide certain services, but i'm not 100% sure that's the whole story. ~a
[2012-03-09 12:03:20] - "the debate is whether congress should force private companies to provide certain services" ~a
[2012-03-09 12:01:51] - a: Started all of what? The stuff today was just Andrew's link about how Davy Crockett realized that it was wrong for Congress to give out charity, basically. -Paul
[2012-03-09 11:59:56] - Paul: I think the issue is that the customer isn't the end user, it's the end user's employee. But the customers (employers) do have a different set of goals in acquiring service, so the insurers provide different coverage levels based on those desires. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-09 11:59:31] - ok, can we start the debate over? what's the root issue that started all of this? ~a
[2012-03-09 11:57:50] - a: I'm pretty sure I had this exact discussion with Pierce before, and I totally don't understand how you can believe that. By your logic, shouldn't all insurance companies all provide the exact same, bare-minimum service then? -Paul
[2012-03-09 11:56:10] - mig: Yeah, there's already one mission I've done where I can't imagine how it could turn out if any number of things happened in previous games, and so many side missions seem to involve people who could've died in ME2. -Paul
[2012-03-09 11:52:07] - paul: if insurance companies aren't instructed to provide preventative care, they won't. this isn't an open market. if people don't like their insurance coverage, they can't just shop around for a different company, so companies have no free-market compulsion to provide coverage for these things. ~a
[2012-03-09 11:39:37] - paul: yeah i think they might have outdone themselves in the replayability factor. I feel like there are so many different outcomes on things that happened so far based on what happened in ME2, and some decisions made so far in ME3 seem to have some real pros and cons behind them. - mig
[2012-03-09 11:21:45] - Xpovos: Right, which I guess is kinda my point. I think Crockett and Bunce basically lost that debate because I think very few people think it's NOT the job of congress to do these things. -Paul
[2012-03-09 11:11:33] - Paul: That's a totally different debate, though. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-09 11:04:32] - Xpovos: Instead, the debate is whether congress should force private companies to provide certain services or whether they can force people to buy products from private companies. -Paul
[2012-03-09 11:04:01] - Xpovos: Maybe. In some ways, though, I think the debate has shifted radically, though. I'm not sure many people would seriously entertain NOT having congress spend the $20k for those people. -Paul
[2012-03-09 10:48:25] - Paul: I doubt it will convince anyone anymore, but I was surprised by the nature of the debate being relatively unchanged in 150 years. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-09 10:18:03] - mig: Wow, impressive. I haven't lost track of time yet, but the hours definitely fly by faster than I expect when playing. I'm also getting worried that I'm going to want to reply this game at least 3-4 times. -Paul
[2012-03-09 09:50:26] - I think I was up until 4 playing it last night without realizing how late it was. - mig
[2012-03-09 09:49:55] - So, just out of curiosity, who here has been playing ME3 during all their free-time the past few days? -Paul
[2012-03-09 09:32:16] - Xpovos: I had heard that story before, but I think it's definitely one that more preaches to the choir. I can see it opening some eyes to people who lean that way, but I'm not sure it will change any minds. -Paul
[2012-03-08 16:55:36] - I'd take Peyton over Schaub. Nothing against Schaub but I don't think of him as special or elite. -Daniel
[2012-03-08 16:23:02] - From the Department of The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same: http://www.fee.org/library/not-yours-to-give-2/ -- Xpovos
[2012-03-08 13:22:15] - Daniel: Not sure which is more surprising, the Wizards beating the Lakers or Nick Young with 6 passes, let alone assists. -Paul
[2012-03-08 12:42:53] - g: not surprising, Jerry Jones probably has not fallen out of love with Romo. The Texans are kind of in a difficult situation if they want Peyton. Schaub willl be an unrestricted free agent after this year, so if they blatantly go after Peyton and don't get him they risk Schaub not wanting to be there when he's up for re-signing. - mig
[2012-03-08 12:35:46] - what I read said the cowboys and texans were not interested. ~g
[2012-03-08 12:16:18] - that article also mentions Denver. Man, how weird would that be, Peyton Manning working for John Elway. - mig
[2012-03-08 12:14:04] - xpovos: it does indeed have legs. - mig
[2012-03-08 12:13:18] - mig: Intriguing. I hadn't heard that one, but it has legs, because Kyle wants Schaub back, I'm sure, and Schaub would love playing for the Skins, I'll bet. Back to Kyle, plus he's a local boy. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-08 12:11:50] - The most intriguing scenario, which also is one of the most far fetched, is Peyton signing with the Texans, and the Texans dealing Schaub to the Redskins (and presumably sign an extension with them). - mig
[2012-03-08 12:07:21] - mig: It's all fun speculation, but I seriously think any team that gets him will be disappointed--he'll be above average if he plays, but that's in question and he won't be as good as he was. For that reason I really hope the Redskins don't take him. But maybe this takes some of the pressure off the RG3 debate? -- Xpovos
[2012-03-08 12:03:44] - even with the cap room that they have. The Cowboys, I could see that happening. Dez Bryant and Peyton could make an explosive combination. - mig
[2012-03-08 12:01:56] - xpovos: From what I can tell that's only speculation from random people. The truth I think is that there just isn't any good fits. The Eagles aren't going to dump Vick (even if they wanted to, capwise, it's impossible). Obviously the Giants are content with Eli. THe Redskins are in such a horrid state that I can't conceive him wanting to sign there ..
[2012-03-08 11:56:11] - g: Scuttlebutt I heard was that he wouldn't sign for an NFC East team--didn't want to compete against his brother for a playoff spot. Miami seems the most likely place, IMO. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-08 11:49:06] - redskins are talking to peyton manning... as are a bunch of other teams~g
[2012-03-08 00:17:46] - Paul: From espn's recap on the wiz-lakers game tonight "Nick Young, who usually passes the ball only with great reluctance, had four of his career-high six assists." lol -Daniel
[2012-03-07 23:01:09] - Paul: I'd be interested in a couple yeah. -Daniel
[2012-03-07 17:29:42] - Daniel: Thanks for the heads up, although I already bought some. Interested in going to any games? -Paul
[2012-03-07 17:28:24] - Xpovos: Agreed, easily one of my favorite Democrats. -Paul
[2012-03-07 16:29:04] - mig: I'll miss Kucinich. He's a rep I respected, even though I rarely agreed with him. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-07 16:17:43] - dennis kucinich apparently got the boot from congress by losing his primary yesterday. Apparently gerrymandering forced him and another current rep to face off each other for their "new" district. - mig
[2012-03-07 13:11:15] - a: my bad, it's fixed now - aaron
[2012-03-07 13:09:47] - xpovos: oh not bad!!!! - aaron
[2012-03-07 12:52:58] - Paul: http://www.travelzoo.com/local-deals/Washington-DC/Entertainment/13076 You mentioned nationals games at some point. Apparently you can get tickets cheaper for the next 21 hours roughly. -Daniel
[2012-03-07 10:02:53] - aaron: all of the photos i see from you are 2011. ~a
[2012-03-07 09:47:37] - nina: Tell them to scrap the "What's Hot" bar. It's freaking annoying! -- Xpovos
[2012-03-07 09:38:18] - paul/g/aaron: i'm heading to SXSW and will be checking out a panel of the Google Execs who're behind Google plus. It'll be interesting to hear what they say about it's future. -nina
[2012-03-07 08:56:01] - Cato article, so know that the source is biased, but I was amused by this none-the-less. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/03/05/americans_resisting_obamacare_113368.html -- Xpovos
[2012-03-07 08:42:41] - aaron: Rounded up to 41%. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-07 08:03:00] - paul: what percentage of the vote did ron paul get in virginia? - aaron
[2012-03-07 08:02:41] - a: i put up some new photos there last week - aaron
[2012-03-06 18:39:32] - a: looks like a few of my friends still do... but not many of them
~g[2012-03-06 17:32:17] - does anybody (besides you) use that social media site anymore? ~a
[2012-03-06 15:48:32] - paul: I think a was being sarcastic... ~g
[2012-03-06 15:44:56] - a: A social media site created by google to compete with facebook. -Paul
[2012-03-06 15:44:29] - a: I think the Democratic primary was still very much undecided back then, if memory serves. -Paul
[2012-03-06 15:29:59] - a: Yes, in Virginia, the primaries are usually held the same day and in the same location. With Virginia's rules, you can vote in either, but only one. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-06 15:22:53] - what's google+? ~a
[2012-03-06 15:22:36] - paul: i voted in the 2008 democratic primary. there were tons of people there. maybe the Rs were voting the same day? ~a
[2012-03-06 14:09:45] - vermin supreme?? it's like something the TMNT would call the Rat King! I can't believe that's a real name - vinnie
[2012-03-06 14:08:07] - http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/06/alternative-visions-of-ron-pauls-chances I posted this in Google+, but I have a feeling nobody reads that. It's basically some long shot scenarios on how Ron Paul might win Virginia. I'm totally not buying it, but I like to try to nuture a glimmer of hope. -Paul
[2012-03-06 13:56:11] - mig: With a name like Vermin Supreme, I half expect him to be a Transformer that turns into.... something with a boot. -Paul
[2012-03-06 13:34:33] - I would ask why vermin supreme has a boot on his head, but something tells me I don't want to know. - mig
[2012-03-06 13:25:45] - mig: There are several 'official' Democratic candidates. As expect, they're mostly beyond fringe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates,_2012#Candidates Randall Terry and Vermin Supreme are the most well known. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-06 13:24:07] - Paul: Depending on timing, that could even be a general election. Even the highest turnout elections are only about 50ish% of the registered voters. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-06 12:35:03] - Xpovos: I don't think I've voted in a primary before, so I have no point of comparison, but the turnout was very sparse where I voted. There was no line when I walked in with somebody else, we both voted and walked out without seeing anybody else there to vote. -Paul
[2012-03-06 12:23:18] - well i wasn't asking about virginia specifically, but just in general if anyone has even formally annouced seeking the democratic nomination. - mig
[2012-03-06 11:23:06] - Paul: Republican only. If anyone formally announced they didn't get the signature requirement. Extremely low turnout, as expected. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-06 10:42:13] - http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/122/1220096p1.html Potential issues for people importing Mass Effect 2 saves into Mass Effect 3 on Xbox360. -Paul
[2012-03-06 09:58:44] - mig: Not that I know of, but I haven't been following it at all. -Paul
[2012-03-06 09:48:35] - paul: has anyone even formally announced running in the democratic primary? - mig
[2012-03-06 09:09:53] - a: Nope, they don't allow write-ins. You pretty much have to pick Romney or Paul. I don't think there is a Democratic primary going on today (but I'm not sure). -Paul
[2012-03-06 08:05:34] - can i write in santorum? ~a
[2012-03-05 22:04:46] - Just a friendly reminder: Virginia is holding their Republican Presidential Primary on Tuesday, the 6th. It's an open primary, so anybody can vote for Ron Paul (and he's the only other candidate on the ballot besides Romney). -Paul
[2012-03-05 15:12:13] - thanks anon! ~g
[2012-03-05 14:44:21] - g: when i type in your name (in specific) into gmail, i only see your first name (i.e. "firstName" firstName@gmail.com)
[2012-03-05 14:41:28] - obviously this would be more of an issue if my email address was anonymous@gmail.com or something ~g
[2012-03-05 14:41:06] - a: I was more thinking I have my email address and google knows my name cause I have it entered... if they do a lookup from their directory of who is who then people could get my name from my email... ~g
[2012-03-05 13:46:14] - g: i think she (or someone) sent you an email with her last name as the description and your mail client (gmail in this case) saved it. if you hadn't received an email from her (or somebody) with that next to her email address, i don't think you'd see it in your client. ~a
[2012-03-05 13:44:28] - if you use your full name as your actual email or set it to your display name, it's kind of unavoidable at that point. - mig
[2012-03-05 13:42:40] - it's not like google could just guess her last name. ~a
[2012-03-05 13:42:30] - g: nah, she probably put her name in there. ~a
[2012-03-05 13:35:57] - I guess in a bizzare hindsight for Redskin fans ... aren't you glad they chose Jim Zorn over Greg Williams when Gibbs retired? - mig
[2012-03-05 13:26:10] - http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AsZYk8__qWoio34b1sIw.wNDubYF?slug=ms-silver_saints_bounty_loomis_payton_williams_030512 i heard about this late friday and didn't think much of it. but, wow, this could get really ugly, especially if they start looking at Williams other coaching stops. - mig
[2012-03-05 13:14:33] - apparently, Adrian and Audrey don't feel pain like the rest of us do. http://gizmodo.com/5890532/redheads-feel-pain-differently-to-the-rest-of-us -nina
[2012-03-05 12:40:33] - also I found that article both interesting and abhorrant... ~g
[2012-03-05 12:39:53] - thinking back on gmail giving me a's gf's last name... not sure I want someone to enter my email address and know my name... ~g
[2012-03-05 12:08:58] - a: How can we disrupt the message board? Spam posting or something? -- Xpovos
[2012-03-05 12:06:05] - "I wasn't aware the message board operates on wikipedia rules and regulations" i'm a funny guy, aren't i? ~a
[2012-03-05 12:05:23] - i did say that, yep. good point! ~a
[2012-03-05 11:45:46] - a: I think you can not support a point but also think that it's worth debating. I don't think we should invade Iran, but I would hope we would debate before any kind of invasion if it were to happen. Also, I wasn't aware the message board operates on wikipedia rules and regulations. -Paul
[2012-03-05 11:43:46] - a: Wasn't it you who said that pro-choice people can still be against abortion? -Paul
[2012-03-05 11:26:28] - "does it make sense to draw the line at when the baby is born?" if you think the line should be drawn earlier, than arguing it should be drawn much later is only done to prove a point? ~a
[2012-03-05 11:25:29] - a: I'm in favor of logic. It's kind of like science, but with less data. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-05 11:24:51] - "I also consider myself to be more against abortion than many people" . . . except that you're pro-choice. ~a
[2012-03-05 11:22:00] - a: Personally, I think we shouldn't be killing babies, but I also consider myself to be more against abortion than many people. -Paul
[2012-03-05 11:20:22] - a: I think it's worth debating. It goes back to the abortion debate, in my opinion. Some people advocate late term abortions being legal, and some of those arguments would still hold true for babies that were actually born, so does it make sense to draw the line at when the baby is born? -Paul
[2012-03-05 11:15:40] - "Doesn't that mean that opinions wouldn't change much, if at all, then" . . . "It was only 50-80 years ago that Eugenics was the hot thing" . . . so you guys both think we should be arguing for/against legal infanticide? i think i'm confused
~a[2012-03-05 11:00:07] - a: I think you're under-(over?)-estimating people. It was only 50-80 years ago that Eugenics was the hot thing. Before that there were arguably worse problems in terms of 'scientifically backed' racism and the like. Even if you're a teleologist, it doesn't mean things are uniformly and constantly getting better. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-05 10:59:30] - a: Doesn't that mean that opinions wouldn't change much, if at all, then? There was a point where very few people thought the Earth went around the sun or that women should have any rights at all, let alone abortion rights. -Paul
[2012-03-05 10:57:53] - a: Their impact factor is 1.391, which is hardly astounding, but not abysmal either, so it's not a "ratings grab" kind of move. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-05 10:53:47] - yeah latter, because very few people would seriously take the other side. for the same reason very few people would seriously consider terminating the sick or the elderly. ~a
[2012-03-05 10:45:27] - a: Why isn't it worth debating? Just because you think so, or because very few people would take the other side, or what? -Paul
[2012-03-05 10:40:17] - well imo it's not a point worth debating. it's just as ridiculous as debating whether we should terminate the sick or the elderly. journal of medical ethics would have lost some credibility in my eyes if it had any to begin with. i've never heard of them, but then again, i don't typically spend my weekends reading science journals. ~a
[2012-03-05 10:32:34] - a: No. They simply agree that it's a point worth debating. The authors of the paper agree. Now it's up for peer review. Science is done. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-05 10:04:25] - so the editors have to agree with everything that they put in their journal? it seems like "Journal of Medical Ethics" doesn't seem to have much to say on the topic. ~a
[2012-03-05 10:03:33] - mig: Constatly resetting my saved settings to their default ruining my opportunity to view data on Facebook. If the purpose of Facebook is to have greater communication, their policies are no longer merely annoying, but actively interfering with my ability to do that. So, if I can't get updates from Facebook, why use it? -- Xpovos
[2012-03-05 10:02:14] - a: In this case, the editors of the "Journal of Medical Ethics". -- Xpovos
[2012-03-05 09:53:32] - "scientifically valid and worthy of philosophical debate" who decides that it's scientifically valid? ~a
[2012-03-05 09:50:51] - xpovos: what prompted your final straw in falling out from facebook? - mig
[2012-03-05 09:36:33] - a: How is it a straw-man? Unless you think it's satire... -Paul
[2012-03-05 09:24:04] - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/4/obama-defunds-snowflake-babies/ As a pro-life person, I'm disappointed. As a libertarian, I'm actually pretty happy. These things should be being done, but not by the government. Unfortunately, government regulation will probably prohibit anyone else from doing it. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-05 09:22:43] - a: Here. That's why the satire/non-satire issue is important. If they didn't think so too, non-issue. Everyone's in agreement around the world. Here's a situation though, where it appears not to be satire, and so their position--while still clearly a minority, is being published as scientifically valid and worthy of philosophical debate. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-05 09:16:18] - meh, straw-man. nobody here believes that illegal infanticide should be legal. ~a
[2012-03-05 09:13:42] - paul: i haven't heard anything about the divisonal series being lengthened to 7. I would prefer that to happen as well, but they'd probably have to shorten the regular season in order to make it work, and I'm not sure that would ever happen. - mig
[2012-03-05 08:59:26] - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html It doesn't appear they're pro-life writing satire, but rather actually believe this. That's why I feel it's relevant. I think we've covered the satire side far enough. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-05 08:22:59] - mig: I suppose. I just wish each round of the playoffs were consistent, instead of changing. Do they still have 5 game series' as well? -Paul
[2012-03-03 14:10:22] - paul: one of the biggest complaints about baseball's current postseason format is that wild card teams are not put at enough of a disadvantage as opposed to division winners. The randomness of a one-game playoff for both wild card teams (where you'll likely have to use your best pitcher as well), is something I'm very much for. - mig
[2012-03-02 16:23:55] - mig: I'm in favor of two more playoff teams, but I'm not sure I like how the wild-cards play a one game series. Baseball, among all the major pro sports, seems to need multiple games to determine better teams. -Paul
[2012-03-02 16:07:50] - the only potential downside is the tiebreaker process could get really complicated. - mig
[2012-03-02 16:07:12] - paul: it's actually a brilliant change, and in my opinion a long overdue one. - mig
[2012-03-02 15:45:17] - http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-its-official-mlb-expands-playoffs-20120302,0,7399613.story MLB adds extra playoff teams... sorta. -Paul
[2012-03-02 15:27:20] - it's funny because she's young. ~a
[2012-03-02 15:19:02] - Wow. That was a seriously misplaced comma. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-02 15:18:49] - Happy 16th, birthday, dee! -- Xpovos
[2012-03-02 15:01:52] - xpovos: the topic is happy birthday, dee! (not serious) ~a
[2012-03-02 15:00:47] - Paul: On-topic: Katie says we're interested too. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-02 15:00:34] - yesm. ~a
[2012-03-02 14:58:58] - a: is the gf's ln duncan? I hit add to contacts on her email addy and her last name somehow defaulted to that~g
[2012-03-02 14:57:52] - Is there such a thing as on-topic here? -- Xpovos
[2012-03-02 14:56:44] - paul: me ~g
[2012-03-02 14:41:32] - paul: yes. - mig
[2012-03-02 14:18:45] - Completely off-topic: Who here would be interested in going to the Virginia Tech / Cincinnati game at FedEx Field on September 29th? -Paul
[2012-03-02 14:05:18] - mig: Like all things political, it depends on who you ask. Those who think it ever existed still claim it exists. Everyone else claim it doesn't; and among those who do claim it exists, there's substantial debate on whether any particular decree is infallible. Biggest debate on that point is still ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS, since that's just an Apostolic Letter -- Xpovos
[2012-03-02 13:47:57] - xpovos: is papal infallability still church doctrine? - mig
[2012-03-02 13:09:41] - Anyone ready to convert to Maltheism? -- Xpovos
[2012-03-02 12:16:08] - Wow, how very web-impolitic of the Vatican. Here's the document as a pdf. Not from the official source, then, but same stuff AFAIK. It's a good read, if "TL". Assuming you can get through the stilted English of a cumbersome translated document. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-02 12:14:02] - a: Alright, as long as we're clear that the Catholic Church is decidedly not Sola Scriptura. Your original link probably works well enough for that. The majority of Christians seem to believe that there's nothing Biblically impermissible about (at least certain kinds of) contraception. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-02 12:03:48] - your link didn't work. regardless, i understand that catholics don't like birth control, but they also believe a bunch of things that either aren't in the bible or are only subjectively in the bible. i'm more interested in knowing what was in the original bible about specifically disallowing contraception. nothing, right? ~a
[2012-03-02 12:02:02] - i guess "say anything" shouldn't have been my question. does it specifically prohibit contraception? ~a
[2012-03-02 12:02:01] - Short version: Eh. Long version, I'll need a longer character count, but suffice to say that birth control has been a solved problem for the Catholic Church for quite a while. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-02 11:58:43] - does the bible say anything about contraception? tl|dr ~a
[2012-03-02 11:51:44] - Paul: Here's an article I wanted to post before, but the online version on the newspaper site didn't have the chart, which I thought was probably the best part. I don't know why I didn't think of scanning it until just now. Mark works down the hall from me. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-02 11:39:22] - xpovos: haha, that is amusing. ~a
[2012-03-02 11:28:51] - Paul: Sorry, I misinterpreted your previous question. I gave the old answer, not the new one. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-02 11:28:18] - Paul: Yes, however, under the remainder of the health care law there would be a $2500 fine per employee for failing to provide coverage. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-02 11:27:46] - Heh. I'm easily amused. http://heterodoxy.cc/meowdocs/pseudo/pseudosynth.pdf -- Xpovos
[2012-03-02 11:21:21] - Ok, so if this contraception thing doesn't get overturned, could Catholic institutions just choose not to offer health insurance at all? -Paul
[2012-03-02 11:12:56] - Paul: Definitely not. And even if they do provide it, they can do a lot of things to discourage it's use. My previous employer's option was basically to pay 100% of the premium, so only the old people signed up for it, so the premium was absurd, which justified none of the young people signing up. I bought health-insurance in the secondary market. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-02 11:10:57] - "part-time or non-salaried worker" not afaik. the gf is full time, but doesn't have health insurance. ~a
[2012-03-02 11:09:12] - One thing I'm curious about: Are employers required to provide health insurance to their employees? I've heard conflicting stories. I've always had health insurance provided by my employer as a full-time salaried worker, but I don't remember if that was true as a part-time or non-salaried worker. -Paul
[2012-03-02 11:07:22] - a: Your complaint is legitimate, but it's with the American tradition of health care as a work-related fringe benefit, which is tangential to the health care debate at large, but more pressing here since the issue is religious groups providing this health care for their employees, or doing so as self-insureds. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-02 11:04:23] - now that i actually pick my insurance company, i would consider switching if i or one of the covered employees said something about it. ~a
[2012-03-02 11:03:56] - back when i was an employee of a large company, i didn't have a choice to change insurance companies. ~a
[2012-03-02 11:02:38] - mig: "I think the answer would be obvious: there are customers to be had in people who have a market demand such coverage" it's not so obvious. if an insurance company doesn't cover something, it's not like all of the employees can shop around for a new insurance company. ~a
[2012-03-02 10:59:11] - The argument against it that I heard was that the conscience protection was too big, that someone could claim all health care as morally offensive (Hello, Christian Scientists) and therefore be exempt entirely, rather than the narrow contraceptive focus now in play. Even as a non-Christian Scientist, I'm OK with that--unsurprisingly. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-02 10:57:33] - http://blunt.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/12ca4c96-d98c-4b37-920a-cdb15edb24d4/S.%201813%20Amendment.pdf -- Xpovos
[2012-03-02 10:57:25] - a: No, I'm reading the text of the amendment now. It was tacked onto a transportation bill, of course. God, I love U.S. politics. Anyway, it only provides a morals and conscience clause if the covered entitiy has an objection. Has nothing to do with the insurance company itself. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-02 10:56:27] - a: yes, I think the vagueness was a major sticking point. to answer your question of why an insurance company would want to cover contraception, I think the answer would be obvious: there are customers to be had in people who have a market demand such coverage. - mig
[2012-03-02 10:50:13] - wasn't the blunt amendment super vague though? didn't it include basically anybody who didn't want to cover contraception? why would an insurance company want to cover contraception? ~a
[2012-03-02 10:49:50] - Xpovos: Yeah, it certainly seems like such an odd thing to fight strongly for, particularly coming up on an election season. This is why I reject the arguments giving Obama a pass for not closing Guantanamo. He has shown the willingness to fight tooth and nail for some things like Obamacare and raising the debt ceiling. -Paul
[2012-03-02 10:32:19] - a: In probably 90-95% of the cases, yes. Which is what makes this move so perplexing. They're expending tremendous effort and political capital to obtain a minimal gain. Even if you're in favor of it, the biggest argument now is that you get to force the opponents to do something they don't want to do, not the actual practical benefits. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-02 10:31:46] - a: they "have it" in a technical sense, but the contraception mandate doesn't actually kick in until some point in the future, so religious groups are trying to change the law before that happens. - mig
[2012-03-02 10:27:28] - determined to get it? what do you mean exactly? you're referring to health plans covering contraception? don't they already "have" it? ~a
[2012-03-02 10:26:40] - mig: I can see that, but why put such a high priority on it? Was he just woefully misinformed about the probable level of animosity taking this action would create? Political miscalculation? Or was the calculation correct and he just wants it that badly? And if so, why? -- Xpovos
[2012-03-02 10:25:40] - the initial decision to start picking this fight doesn't make much sense more. But now that the decision to start this fight has already been made, from a political standpoint the administration doesn't have much more choice but to see it through to the end. - mig
[2012-03-02 10:24:08] - xpovos: Well I think it makes sense that the administration can't cave in willingly now. It's not like he's going to get any signficant vote gains from the religious groups if he does actually cave in. But if he does, the potential anger from liberal groups that want the coverage mandated could be catastrophic. - mig
[2012-03-02 10:13:50] - mig: If it gets that far, certainly. The opposition won't stop until then, probably not even after. Meanwhile Obama's team seems determined to get it at any cost, which seems strange. The cost-benefit analysis doesn't make sense to me from a political standpoint. -- Xpovos
[2012-03-02 10:10:27] - blunt amendment? not surprised at the outcome. I wonder how far this will escalate because the conflict is certainly not going to die down anytime soon. SCOTUS challenge eventually? - mig
[2012-03-02 09:56:22] - I didn't care much for Breitbart. He was an interesting fellow and a bit of a game-changer with regards to media, but unfortunately at his core was just another GOP drone. - mig
[2012-03-02 09:24:52] - Blunt amendment was killed in Senate yesterday. Comments? Andrew Breitbart died of natural causes yesterday, too. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-29 17:44:37] - i actually could check to see if you're posting from the same load of the message board twice and chuck the second "POST" command. it wouldn't be terribly hard i don't think. ~a
[2012-02-29 16:35:16] - a: Yeah, I guess I shouldn't refresh the message board after posting using my tablet. -Paul
[2012-02-29 15:16:47] - oh right. awesome. ~a
[2012-02-29 14:04:33] - a: The signed copy of the pocket Constitution. It's coming in the mail in a few days.
[2012-02-29 13:38:38] - what did you win? ~a
[2012-02-29 13:37:59] - "why did that post again?" your web browser sent a POST command with that as its content. ~a
[2012-02-29 13:34:53] - Xpovos: Awesome, I am jealous. -Paul
[2012-02-29 13:33:53] - why did that post again? -Paul
[2012-02-29 13:33:25] - Nice! You found out today? -Paul
[2012-02-29 13:27:28] - Paul: Yeah, they called me around 11. The person who won didn't come forward last night and they couldn't reach him/her by phone. So they drew again. I came out in lucky second place. Almost didn't answer the phone. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-29 13:26:52] - a: Yes, way. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-29 13:23:54] - yes, it's under my work shirt. my work shirt is very thin though because it was bought for my time in the afghan summer. so you can almost read the tshirt. ~a
[2012-02-29 13:22:10] - btw, i'm wearing my ron paul shirt today at work
~a[2012-02-29 13:21:49] - wtf no way. ~a
[2012-02-29 13:13:31] - did someone say my name??? - plaunve
[2012-02-29 13:09:21] - Nice! You found out today? -Paul
[2012-02-29 13:08:37] - xpovos: what did you win in the raffle? ~g
[2012-02-29 13:05:33] - Paul/Adrian: So you remember last night's raffle? I won it. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-29 12:31:38] - xpovos: agreed. I fully expect bitching and moaning about ou ranking if we hit the top 10, even if Pitt and Cincy go on to do well. - mig
[2012-02-29 12:11:12] - haha plaunve - vinnie
[2012-02-28 16:56:22] - mig: I think it's a worst case scenario in someways. No clear cupcakes, but no respect if we win, either. I think Cincy is a team we should beat, e.g. But everyone else will feel that way too. Meanwhile, it's also a game we could lose. -- Xpovos
[2012-02-28 15:57:01] - paul: ok, maybe brutal is too strong a word. But it's definitely our hardest ACC slate that we've had in a while, and our non-conference schedule really isn't anything to breeze over either. - mig
[2012-02-28 15:45:59] - mig: I don't know if it's that brutal. There are no SEC heavyweights or Boise States, and while we do have some tough ACC road games and Florida State, we also have some cupcakes as well. -Paul
[2012-02-28 14:40:51] - Although I took a look at the schedule again and realized it's pretty brutal. The monday game is probably the least of tech's worries upon further inspection. - mig
[2012-02-28 11:42:33] - paul: i don't think it'll happen again ... but it makes me a little nervous, yes. - mig
[2012-02-28 11:25:52] - mig: You're seeing another loss-to-JMU type scenario? -Paul
[2012-02-28 11:24:06] - http://fakescience.tumblr.com/post/18388107555/muscle-facts -- Xpovos
[2012-02-28 11:14:57] - mig: I read that backwards which would be worse... I thought you were saying a monday game following a saturday, I was surprised they would do that! ~g
[2012-02-28 10:59:38] - I don't like that we are playing on a saturday following a monday game again, even if it is a DIAA school. - mig
[2012-02-28 09:24:55] - mig: Yupyup. -Paul
[2012-02-28 09:18:53] - paul: so the fedex date is the 9/29, then? - mig
prev <-> next