prev <-> next
[2012-10-23 15:31:48] - http://www.reddit.com/r/wheredidthesodago there's an entire subreddit for those scenes in infomercials, where people are failing to do something simple like butter toast or push buttons on a microwave... there's no room for two dishes! ...AHHH FUCK IT - aaron
[2012-10-23 15:24:33] - a: Yeah, it was Jesus. The context is missing because I selected the Douay-Rheims translation, and a narrow passage, but I wanted it short and easy to read. The "He" gets capitalized frequently, but apparently never on this website, none of the versions I checked did. The contextual clue that probably should've been enough was "his disciples" -- Xpovos
[2012-10-23 15:11:06] - oh it was jesus? i guess i missed some context. i probably wouldn't have said "some dude". but it's weird, i thought they usually capitalized "he" when it was jesus. ~a
[2012-10-23 13:29:11] - xpovos: wow, he showed those figs!! - aaron
[2012-10-23 13:19:41] - a: Welcome to Jesus-land. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-23 13:18:22] - xpovos: can you translate? "some dude couldn't get any figs one day, so he told everybody that nobody was allowed to eat figs ever again" that doesn't seem right. ~a
[2012-10-23 12:54:56] - aaron: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+11%3A12-14&version=DRA -- Xpovos
[2012-10-23 12:08:02] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficus#Fig_pollination_and_fig_fruit did anybody else know that some consider figs to be non-vegan? fig plants rely on fig wasps for pollination which are killed/trapped in the fruit? - aaron
[2012-10-23 09:53:35] - aaron: We've got some solid blue bits in VA, but the blues are pretty conservative blues. And the red bits are distinct from the national red a bit too. I think Virginia may be the last state with any kind of Southern Democrats left. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-23 09:46:01] - aaron: I think VA probably does lean red, but since Virginia went for the Dems last time no one is completely sure how much it's changed since 08. - mig
[2012-10-23 09:29:21] - mig: that's a cool map, i'm surprised new hampshire and virginia are "toss up" states, i'd expect NH to be leaning blue and VA to be leaning red - aaron
[2012-10-22 17:17:02] - Paul: Sample: Tennessee http://www.tn.gov/environment/wpc/ -- Xpovos
[2012-10-22 17:00:55] - Xpovos: I would guess they are federal, to deal with issues dealing with rivers or lakes that go across state lines. -Paul
[2012-10-22 16:50:06] - Paul: Follow-up, if there are, are the federal (to be enforced via an EPA-like organization) or state? State sovereignty on the rise? -- Xpovos
[2012-10-22 16:38:06] - Are there laws on the books (not EPA regulations, but actual laws) which prohibit things like dumping waste into rivers and lakes and oceans? -Paul
[2012-10-22 16:28:59] - mig: i'm of the opinion that if there was suddenly no EPA tomorrow morning that we would be dooming america to be a toxic waste dumping ground. ~a
[2012-10-22 16:27:51] - Because of where I work, those same considerations also play a larger role in my concern for my job than the standard economic concerns people might have. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-22 16:23:18] - Daniel: It's not implausible that I'll be placed in a position of having to chose between some set of options where my obligations to higher authority mean I have to violate the law, as being defined by Obama. Particularly surrounding the efforts of HHS in implementation of the PPACA. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-22 16:22:28] - Daniel: For all their talk about getting rid of the Department of Education during the Clinton years, I don't know if they ever even tried or got close, and the Republicans ended up greatly expanding it's funding during GWB's years. -Paul
[2012-10-22 16:15:16] - http://www.networkworld.com/news/2012/102212-amazon-ebs-263592.html?hpg1=bn nevermind. - mig
[2012-10-22 16:14:54] - Daniel: But my counter-point would be that, despite what they might say, Republicans have shown very little desire to eliminate (or even reduce) any government agencies for... um... a very long time. I don't even know when the last time they eliminated any. -Paul
[2012-10-22 16:13:18] - Daniel: But I think the whole idea about Republicans being too extreme about getting rid of government agencies is a good point, in that I think a lot of people might be pretty worried about something like that if Romney wins. -Paul
[2012-10-22 16:10:40] - reddit has been down a lot today, is there somebody really famous doing an AMA or something? - mig
[2012-10-22 16:10:10] - Daniel: I think I see what you're saying, but it still sounds to me like you basically just want the Republicans to change their views to be more like Democrats. Completely unsurprising (I want Republicans to change their views to be more like Libertarians), but I would prefer more differences of opinion between the two major parties rather than less. -Paul
[2012-10-22 15:44:38] - Daniel: I'm of the opinion that if there was suddenly no EPA tomorrrow morning that we would not be dooming America to be a toxic waste dumping ground. - mig
[2012-10-22 15:41:55] - I don't think I would be opposed to getting rid of part of the govt if I didn't agree with its mission but I'm not sure thats the case with this particular example. -Daniel
[2012-10-22 15:40:01] - mig: You don't think we need an EPA? -Daniel
[2012-10-22 15:37:13] - Though I think my biggest gripe with dems is that they constantly bitch and whine about R's being uncompromising, when in reality they are being just as inflexible. - mig
[2012-10-22 15:24:09] - I think my annoyance with Dems is pretty much a parallel of your annoyance with R's. I get tired of the insistance that regardless of how often government agencies fail in their tasks, that the idea that maybe a particular government agency may not be worth keeping around is amount to some sort of heresy. - mig
[2012-10-22 15:19:35] - daniel: why not? I think it's a valid to ask whether we need the EPA at all. - mig
[2012-10-22 15:16:27] - Xpovos: Jailed?? -Daniel
[2012-10-22 15:16:05] - It seems to me that R's go with the "lets get rid of it" instead of "lets make it better" generally. -Daniel
[2012-10-22 15:15:33] - Paul: I feel like thats what the DNC would say their position is on the EPA sure, but I think it would be nice if the R's instead of just pushing for the EPA to be removed/neutered had actual ideas on how to better fufill its mission of taking steps to keep our environment somewhat clean. -Daniel
[2012-10-22 15:04:41] - mig: I called it as soon as I saw Davis pull up lame in the end zone. Sucks for Davis, but I think this has to be a positive for the Redskins overall. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-22 15:03:50] - http://sports.yahoo.com/news/redskins-bring-back-cooley-davis-171143983--nfl.html well I think this move pretty much surprises no one. - mig
[2012-10-22 14:35:10] - aaron: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/election-map-2012/president/ visual aid for the uphill trek Romney has to climb. - mig
[2012-10-22 14:07:56] - aaron: the national polls are kind of worthless at this point. Elecotral College-wise, I think the situation is that Romney essentially has to win every state listed as a "toss-up" or hope a blue leaning state suddenly does an about face and goes red. - mig
[2012-10-22 13:59:57] - a:Here's a fairly balanced piece on a part of the problem. http://www.american.com/archive/2012/october/partisan-polls Essentially, polls have historically favored Democratic candidates.Not by a lot.The scientific reasons why aren't particularly hard, but they apparently hard enough to never discuss in the media reporting of the polls. Then again, I'm a PSCI -- Xpovos
[2012-10-22 13:54:34] - aaron: Depends on the state. Nationally it's within the margin of error, right? But yes, Romeny has the lead. Statewise, particularly Obama's firewall states, Obama still has the lead, but again normally within the margin of error. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-22 13:52:51] - xpovos: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-vs-romney-gallup-poll-oct-22-results-2012-10 isn't romney leading in the polls right now? - aaron
[2012-10-22 13:50:28] - "underpolling of conservative votes" heh, what? ~a
[2012-10-22 13:45:45] - I'm predicting an Obama win still, but mostly because I want to avoid jinxing anything. Given the underpolling of conservative votes that normally happens and the increased closness to outright wins Romney has in the polls, I think he's probably got it. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-22 13:36:11] - paul: I agree with you (for now at least), but I think it's an interesting development. I had been wondering if Obama's awful stance on marijuana (as well as his infuriating things he's done like the whole harold and kumar skit for promoting the DNC) was eventually going to start costing him in medical marijuana states. - mig
[2012-10-22 13:30:07] - mig: I'm standing by my prediction of an Obama win, although my past predictions of presidential elections (turnout wouldn't be that great in 2008) isn't great. -Paul
[2012-10-22 13:29:14] - Daniel: "Like instead of saying lets get rid of the EPA they said well we want the EPA and a clean environment but lets try to do it in a more efficient way." But isn't this pretty much the same stance the Democrats have on the EPA? Clean environment efficiently done? -Paul
[2012-10-22 13:28:25] - http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/colorado/election_2012_colorado_president romney polling ahead of obama in colorado, one of the states voting on mairjuana legalization - mig
[2012-10-22 13:27:35] - Which goes the other way, it's not that I don't understand being concerned about a Romney presidency, but I don't understand being worried about it relative to the four years of Obama we've already had. -Paul
[2012-10-22 13:26:48] - Xpovos: I can completely understand the cause for concern over Obama being re-elected, but I guess I just can't understand people who think Romney would be much better. -Paul
[2012-10-22 13:24:49] - Daniel: Obama wants not extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but I'm not sure how extending them for the wealthy would be cause for serious concern for anybody really. -Paul
[2012-10-22 13:23:10] - for preserving the status quo. And I'm worried that we'll see even more in the next four years that I can't fathom now, just like I couldn't fathom any of this four years back when I was supportive of Obama over McCain (in a head-to-head, must chose one setup) -- Xpovos
[2012-10-22 13:22:13] - Daniel: Romney has been insinuating that Obama has been weak on foreign policy, but that seems to be complete BS considering all the drone strikes, Libya intervention, OBL assassination, etc. -Paul
[2012-10-22 13:21:50] - Probably because Israel starts it, and Obama will cave to a majority to side with our ally, finally. I'm worried about the economy getting worse because of his tax plans and because I think he's more likely to engage in fiscal cliff diving. I'm worried he'll spend another four years doing nothing about entitlements or immigration reform, but collecting kudos [...]
[2012-10-22 13:20:30] - Paul: I might be able to do a better job on the opposite side: what I'm worried about if Obama gets re-elected. I'm worried about the fact that I might be unemployed, possibly jailed. I'm worried about who else he'll appoint to the SC. I'm worried about the likelihood of more outbreaks in the middle east leading to war with Iran. [...] -- Xpovos
[2012-10-22 13:20:26] - Daniel: Obamacare is a difference (in a way), except hardly any part of it has been enacted yet so people aren't seeing any of the supposed benefits, so how much can you miss what you don't have? -Paul
[2012-10-22 13:19:42] - Daniel: But I think of the main differences between Romney and Obama, and I wonder what would be the big cause of concern beyond just wanting their guy to win. -Paul
[2012-10-22 13:18:38] - Daniel: Not because I think there are so little differences between Rs and Ds. I could see how people could be legitimately worried about how hawkish McCain seemed compared to how dovish Obama presented himself during the last presidential election. -Paul
[2012-10-22 13:17:44] - Daniel: Yeah, I know it's a strangely vague question. I just recently had somebody tell me that they were really worried about what might happen if Romney is elected, and I was wondering what they were so worried about. -Paul
[2012-10-22 13:07:36] - Paul: I wish Republicans were more interested in fixing the govt instead of just getting rid of it. Like instead of saying lets get rid of the EPA they said well we want the EPA and a clean environment but lets try to do it in a more efficient way. -Daniel
[2012-10-22 13:05:46] - Paul: I'm not totally sure how to answer your worried question. I guess I'm worried that if Romney is elected I'll be less likely to be happy with the state of America/the World in four years? Otherwise I wouldn't care about who wins? Like if you are voting for one or the other doesn't that imply some level of "worry" about the other side? -Daniel
[2012-10-22 13:01:25] - paul: yeah - vinnie
[2012-10-22 12:35:07] - Daniel: Also, side question: You say you want the Republicans to update their positions. Is it just that you want them to become more like Democrats or is there some position you want them to update to one that the Democrats don't hold? -Paul
[2012-10-22 12:33:49] - Daniel: Understood. I know this is kind of a hard question to quantify, but are you worried about what might happen if Romney becomes president? Not worried about the country being destroyed, but concerned that something significantly bad might happen as a result of Romney winning. -Paul
[2012-10-22 12:28:10] - Also I want as a party for Republicans to realize they need to change / get with the times somewhat and update their positions and I don't think that happens if Romeny wins. So in a larger strategic sense thats part of it. -Daniel
[2012-10-22 12:26:29] - I don't want Romney's economic policies in place. I don't want Romney's judges in courts. I don't want Romney in a prominent position in helping deal with the Middle East. If the Cuban Missile Crisis happened again I'd want Obama in charge and not Romney. I don't think Romney would destroy the country or anything but I'd rather Obama be in charge. -Daniel
[2012-10-22 12:16:48] - not sure if he came in to try and come back to work or emailed/called in... ~g
[2012-10-22 12:04:27] - so that guy was at your office 2-3 weeks ago. ~a
[2012-10-22 11:52:26] - he tried to come back a week or 2 after he left, but was told he wasnt welcome back. ~g
[2012-10-22 11:35:36] - wow that recently! how recently did he come back? ~a
[2012-10-22 11:34:11] - a: yea but I didnt know him. He left the company about a month and a half ago with no notice, tried to come back but was told no. ~g
[2012-10-22 11:09:33] - wtf, seriously?! that was a major thing on thursday. it's right next-door to my office and they closed down the whole block including my building. we had trouble getting in-and-out. ~a
[2012-10-22 11:03:42] - apparently this guy http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/19/leon-traille-ballston-mall_n_1987986.html used to work at my office... ~g
[2012-10-22 10:15:52] - mig: Given who Obama has nominated to the SC I can't buy fears that somehow Romney's appointees will be 'worse'. I'm sure they'd be from the 'wrong' political spectrum, but if the goal is to get non-partisan and constitutionally based judges, I'm not sure either candidates is a good choice. Iran is an issue, I guess. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-22 10:14:56] - Vinnie: Is it fair to assume, then, that you find yourself preferring supreme court justices that are appointed by Democratic presidents? Are there supreme court cases where you wish there would've been more liberal justices so it would've been decided differently? -Paul
[2012-10-22 09:22:44] - i'm worried he doesn't know what is right for america (sarcasm) ~a
[2012-10-22 08:55:44] - paul: basically what mig said. I don't think Romney's policies are that much different (despite what he says to his base) but there are some more subtle things I worry about like justices. not significantly worried though - vinnie
[2012-10-20 23:59:54] - paul: the most common fear I keep hearing is war with Iran, and supreme court justice nominations. - mig
[2012-10-20 20:27:18] - Paul: I'm definitely not the right person to ask that question, but I know I'm likely an outlier here. So, despite making this post, I'll just shut up for now. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-20 15:38:20] - Xpovos: Well, that is kinda my follow-up question. I am no more worried about a Romney win than I am about an Obama win and I am curious if people here just want Obama to win or if they are worried about something that might happen if Romney wins. -Paul
[2012-10-19 19:47:05] - http://imgur.com/eU5Cc "my 6 year old daughter and i are having an election for president of the house" - aaron
[2012-10-19 17:29:03] - Paul: Worried about what? I mean I think I understand your meaning, but what particular policies are significantly different enough from the status quo--or the status quo of four years ago--to warrant worry? -- Xpovos
[2012-10-19 17:09:32] - For example, if you knew for certain that Romney was going to win, would you be significantly worried? -Paul
[2012-10-19 17:06:45] - Random question for the message board: How many people here are worried about a potential Mitt Romney presidency? Not worried about him winning, but about what might happen if he does win. -Paul
[2012-10-18 15:44:59] - http://www.fromheroestoicons.com/mike-and-katie-mignolas-the-magician-and-the-snake/ mike magnola, the artist behind hellboy, collaborated with his 7-year old daughter to make this short comic - aaron
[2012-10-18 13:18:08] - yep! i had so many horrible hacks to get around that problem. ~a
[2012-10-18 10:52:54] - if you don't know about or can't access the third party plugins for svn in your IDE your life is going to be miserable if you have to do some directory/file restructuring. - mig
[2012-10-18 10:41:48] - a: yeah that's one major problem with SVN, it does not take kindly to file movements/deletions/additions that aren't done through svn itself. - mig
[2012-10-18 10:38:26] - aaron: yeah i've used svn export. that wasn't what i used though, for when i had a checkout i wanted to export because svn export won't modify your current checkout. svn export also won't repair moved .svn directories. svn behaves VERY weirdly when somebody has accidentally moved the .svn directories around. ~a
[2012-10-18 10:35:47] - aaron: i'll admit, i didn't know svnadmin was so easy. i obviously tried using another much more annoying method, one that included http and whatnot. ~a
[2012-10-18 10:29:16] - There are times where I do an update or commit and it just hangs for like a minute or so before doing anything. - mig
[2012-10-18 10:28:10] - aaron: well if you are trying to access an svn repo remotely, it can be slow as ass sometimes. Whether that's due to svn being inefficient or the network connection i'm not sure, but I access other stuff from that location without much of a problem most of the time. - mig
[2012-10-18 10:26:30] - a: personally i branch and merge all the time in svn, and i think it's fine. but, 80% of the kinds of things i branch are the things that i'd use "git stash" for, if we were using git - aaron
[2012-10-18 10:20:09] - a: and to expand on your "much faster" thing -- i think i remember that SVN, being diff-based has an O(n) algorithm for accessing older revisions (where n is the age of the revision) while GIT has an O(1) algorithm - aaron
[2012-10-18 10:17:29] - a: creating an SVN repository on your own is easy, "svnadmin create .", no other arguments. i've done it for a few personal things and it's very easy. SVN has mechanisms (svn export) for dealing with those .svn folders if they're in your way. everything else you said, i agree with - aaron
[2012-10-18 09:58:42] - so when the hard-drive eventually crashed (as hard-drives do) we were scrambling for a week to get all of the sources for all of the branches off of the developers machines. Forget history, that was lost forever. Imagining this scenario in git-land, I don't care if the git server crashes. ~a
[2012-10-18 09:58:26] - at my last job, we had subversion running on a VM server admined by the IT department. the IT department was doing regular backups of the server and so everything was fine. except . . . you know . . . when backups start failing, it's usually a silent failure. ~a
[2012-10-18 09:19:09] - a: basically that it was faster and doesn't require having a connection up at all times - vinnie
[2012-10-17 17:46:31] - a: haha I love it! yea having the history on your local machine makes sense and seems convenient. ~g
[2012-10-17 17:28:50] - g: merging sucks in git, but it's no worse than it was in subversion. i usually solve this problem with social engineering: if a manager says we should have two ongoing baselines of our code, i spread around how lame that manager is, and how awesome it would be if that manager was fired. ~a
[2012-10-17 17:17:23] - vinnie: what did your boss say? ~a
[2012-10-17 16:58:44] - a: i guess what I want more information on is the check-in/merging functionality for individual files and branches. This tends to be the most annoying aspect of source control to me. ~g
[2012-10-17 16:53:53] - funny, we were just talking about git today at work, and my boss was extolling its virtues - vinnie
[2012-10-17 16:26:42] - whereas if we're both looking at version b864ef0 of the git repository, then i know that we're looking at the same version, because b864ef0 is a hash of the whole history of every bit that's passed into the system. ~a
[2012-10-17 16:25:35] - i know the idea of a git hash (instead of the simple svn version number) seems like a huge hassle. it is, but i've found that it also adds a certain level of certainty to "data assurance". in subversion if we've both got version r5123 then i know we probably are both looking at the same code. but who knows if we're both looking at the same repo? ~a
[2012-10-17 16:22:36] - git is so blindingly fast at so many things. i remember waiting for minutes for certain operations that now return in a few milliseconds. http://git-scm.com/about/small-and-fast ~a
[2012-10-17 16:12:17] - http://git.eucleo.com/ is where we display the git URLs. making something like this work with subversion would have been such a horrible undertaking. ~a
[2012-10-17 16:10:48] - omg, i could go on for hours. ~a
[2012-10-17 16:10:42] - it's the little things too, do you know how many times i had to go through a directory and delete all of the ".svn" directories? or how about the times i had to repair the hundreds of ".svn" directories. with git it's all in one directory. ~a
[2012-10-17 16:10:36] - it also means that my shitty desktop running on my consumer-grade internet connection can service 60 (seriously) developers. ~a
[2012-10-17 16:08:36] - 3. network/server issues are gone. i've run "svn log" or "svn commit" or "svn blame" on a slow server and over slow networks. alternatively when i run "git log" and "git commit" and "git blame" with no network connection these commands work! it's because i have the whole history on my machine. ~a
[2012-10-17 16:07:05] - 2. try to create an svn repository on your own (without an administrator). i've done it. it's a pain in the ass. i've said this here before, but i run "git init" in directories that i never before would have considered controlling with a repository. ~a
[2012-10-17 16:05:45] - daniel: 1. frictionless context switching. if you've never used "git stash", it'll change your life. easily push TONS OF changes you just made into a stack QUICKLY. you can create local (for your use only) branches immediately. git is so fucking fast. ~a
[2012-10-17 16:04:39] - i'm so glad you ask! ~a
[2012-10-17 16:02:00] - a: So sell me on git? Whats better about it than subversion? -Daniel
[2012-10-17 16:00:53] - I LOVE GIT. "honestly it doesnt seem that different" yeah, it's more similar than different, but the differences are key IMO. i wouldn't dare use subversion now that git exists. ~a
[2012-10-17 15:56:54] - Does anyone use git? I am looking at its documentation in terms of how it differs from a traditional code version repository and honestly it doesnt seem that different. Although they say understanding the differences is key to using it properly
~g[2012-10-17 13:32:34] - xpovos: yeah I guess I am thinking about it too hard. - mig
[2012-10-17 13:16:35] - mig: Don't think about that one too hard. Both parties are coalitions of people that are working against their own best interest often. Trying to make sense of it is just asking for a headache. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-17 12:59:34] - xpovos: I guess my disconnect is that mandatory union fees are effectively a tax on working lower/middle class people, of which those fees are coerceively redirected to politically influencial special interests (pretty much every public sector union is a heavy political player). It just strikes me as something a liberal would be intuitively be against. - mig
[2012-10-17 12:01:58] - mig: That's definitely a union concern. But there are still broader concerns about worker's rights being trampled with subterfuge. With right to work it's going to be assumed that the employer is in the position of power; and the person in the position of power may use that against the other party, regardless of legal protections. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-17 11:50:14] - xpovos: ok, so I guess the rationale is that in right-to-work states, employers would be free to use underhanded methods to make sure there is no unionization (such actions would be still be technically illegal, but harder to enforce), or something like that? - mig
[2012-10-17 11:38:56] - xpovos: The referendum in Michigan is more a defensive measure brought forth by unions than anything else. Michigan isn't going right-to-work anytime soon, but with more states trending that way, they want to make sure there's a roadblock in place for their state. - mig
[2012-10-17 11:29:01] - mig: Right to work also results in work at will; that may not be universal and I'm not familiar with the Michigan issue, but I'll assume it is for now. At will work means termination at any time for any reason is acceptable. The discrimination caveats, etc. are all still in place, but easier to ignore. Termination benefits are generosity. Etc. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-17 11:28:16] - to the previous question. It was just such a perplexing exchange, which prompts me to wonder, what exactly is the liberal principle that someone would use to justify being against right-to-work. - mig
[2012-10-17 11:26:08] - I'm just reminded from a video I watched where an interviewer was at the DNC talking to people about concepts of choice. One person was aksed, "Do you think people should have the choice whether to join a union or not?" And her answer was, "Yes." The follow-up was then, "So you supoprt right-to-work, then?" And she immediately said no and retracted her answer ...
[2012-10-17 11:20:51] - xpovos: from my understanding right-to-work laws only bar making mandatory union fees a condition of employment, or is there more to it than that? - mig
[2012-10-17 11:08:08] - mig: Right to work can lead to worker discrimination as well as other problems. These problems are almost all against other laws, but getting enforcement on them is harder with right to work in place. And I say this as a fan of right to work. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-17 11:01:55] - liberal case is aside from "it's bad for unions". - mig
[2012-10-17 11:01:09] - So I was reading some stuff on the Michigan ballot referendum that's up this November dealing with outlawing right-to-work in the state constitution. One thing that I can't really wrap my mind around is what is the liberal case for being agianst right-to-work. I understand the union angle, but I want to ignore that for the momemnt and just figure out what the ...
[2012-10-16 13:40:50] - be up for consideration for president. It'd be a non-factor in the house of course but it'd still be really funny. - mig
[2012-10-16 13:39:58] - Another interesting wrinkle not mentioned involving the faithless electors: According to this the top 3 electoral vote getters are sent to the house for consideration (I don't know if the rules have changed since then). So since Ron Paul would technically have electoral votes in that scenario, he'd ....
[2012-10-16 13:00:32] - I'm surprised though that the faithless electors haven't made more news, because that's still kind of a big deal. - mig
[2012-10-16 12:56:39] - So if romney has a very slim lead, those electors could push him down to below 270 potentially, triggering the eleection being thrown to the house and the senate. - mig
[2012-10-16 12:55:28] - daniel: actually this might be more possible than even the authro thinks. it's not a 269-269 that will trigger this. It's neither candidate getting to 270. That makes the faithless electors a bigger potential factor i think. - mig
[2012-10-16 12:42:09] - I guess funny is a strong word. Amusing perhaps? -Daniel
[2012-10-16 12:41:48] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/electoral-college-tie_n_1968333.html?utm_hp_ref=politics Funny article about the possiblity of a tie in the election and the craziness that would ensue. -Daniel
[2012-10-16 12:06:32] - well you were a "yes with caveats". i thought about IMing you two to firm up your responses, but figured that pushing that hard to get 8 (the bare minimum) was futile. ~a
[2012-10-16 11:53:32] - a: Sad. I figured that was the case. I had to beg and plead a few times when you were gone to get the extra one or two. Was I one of the 6 or was I one of the others? -Paul
[2012-10-16 11:49:41] - we were so very very close! we were hovering at 6 people + one "95%" + one "with caveats". ~a
[2012-10-16 11:13:38] - a: I'm sad we didn't have frisbee last weekend. It was such a perfect day for it! I'm running out of free weekends... -Paul
[2012-10-15 16:05:13] - a: the popular theory is he inhaled some laughing gas before hand. I'll go with that. - mig
[2012-10-15 09:24:55] - yeah, i was also watching it for entertainment value i guess. really, i just want to be able to talk to other people who also watched the debate. like watching professional sports, but less boring. ~a
[2012-10-15 09:21:51] - then again, I was pretty much watching the debate for the entertainment value and got what I was expecting, so hmm - vinnie
[2012-10-15 09:20:43] - if I'm being honest I'm pretty much a partisan democrat and Biden got pretty annoying to me. On the basis of decorum, Biden certainly lost the debate though no one likely cares about that. he was "passionate" - vinnie
[2012-10-15 08:46:19] - i wouldn't say buffoon. he certainly was hopped up on something. ~a
[2012-10-12 19:13:57] - From what I've seen/read, Ryan was thoroughly uninteresting, and I got a reconfirmation that Biden is a bit of a buffoon. - mig
[2012-10-12 19:13:23] - for the vp debate, I see it as mostly people just confirming their opinion of their "guy" so I guess there's no real winner. I wonder though how some of Biden's boorish interrupting and condascending laughter will swing with independents, despite how popular it was with the partisan democrats. - mig
[2012-10-12 16:37:54] - Xpovos: I also missed the VP debate (although from the sounds of the commentary afterwards, it was quite eventful) because of the game. I also definitely made the right choice, but I figure some people here might've preferred the debate. -Paul
[2012-10-12 16:35:21] - Paul: I watched baseball, not the VP debate. I made the right choice. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-12 16:27:49] - Surprised nobody had any comments on Nobel Peace Prize award or the Vice Presidential debate. -Paul
[2012-10-12 16:11:29] - Paul: Fair enough. It's about time the bats got cracking. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-12 15:35:23] - Xpovos: I'll take a nice blowout win for the Nats, personally. -Paul
[2012-10-12 15:34:01] - mig: I like the Obi-Wan one the best. The only thing that could make that drama better is if it were Game 5. Elimination is one thing, but the pure difference between elimination and complete victory is another level. I hope he does it again tonight. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-12 15:06:31] - a: a walk off home run is one that immediately ends the game. - mig
[2012-10-12 15:04:35] - what's a walk-off home run? ~a
[2012-10-12 15:04:09] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2012/10/11/audio-jayson-werths-walk-off-home-run/ i don't know if anyone was listening to the last night's game on the radio, but it was kind of a prophetic call. - mig
[2012-10-12 14:52:11] - http://www.natsenquirer.com/2012/10/the-best-of-jayson-werth-walk-off-photoshops.html - mig
[2012-10-12 14:45:17] - We are far from a model of decorum in the U.S. and the internet is probably more degraded than that. I think expecting decency is a bit naive given the circumstances. Which leads to a legitimate question about the purpose of laws and whether it includes promoting decency (blue laws, etc.) or not. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-12 14:41:35] - decency! that's the word i should have used yesterday in our conversation about the ladies' bums. ~a
[2012-10-12 14:30:31] - xpovos: yahoo article comments are typically depressing, unfortunately, even with the low bar I've set to the expectations for decency on the internet in general. - mig
[2012-10-12 11:34:07] - mig: The commentary on that article is disheartening. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-12 10:42:59] - http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/broken-bat-hits-joba-chamberlain-bruises-elbow-video-060149480--mlb.html#more-53368 I'm surprised this doesn't happens more often given the close proximity of a pitcher to a potential broken back. Also has a history of the Joba Chamberlain mishaps. Man does that dude have the worst luck. - mig
[2012-10-12 08:41:12] - mig: yeah some of the lonely island stuff is great. ~a
[2012-10-12 02:05:05] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAYL5H46QnQ I like this lonely island video a lot. I'm not quite sure why. - mig
[2012-10-11 22:53:43] - Paul: XCOM does have a multiplayer option down at the bottom of the screen when I launch it. I have no idea what it does which you click it though. One side plays aliens? Coop? Who knows! If you get it on XBox, we will never know! -Daniel
[2012-10-11 16:04:25] - Are these funny only to me? http://www.catholicmemes.com/yo-dawg/yo-dawg-statue-worship/ -- Xpovos
[2012-10-11 14:19:02] - xpovos: oh! ahhaha. i forgot that was a critic joke! that's gold - aaron
[2012-10-11 14:12:44] - a: A maintenance crew is power-washing the library and the stream of water knocks off a letter, people notice and get excited and stream into the "New York Pubic Library" only to be disappointed. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-11 14:10:25] - daniel: andrew's reason goes into more detail than necessary about why people might not want unflattering pictures of themselves on the internet, but i think that's moot. if you know people don't want you to do something, and if you do it anyway, you're being rude... it doesn't seem complicated to me - aaron
[2012-10-11 14:09:19] - daniel: imho it's way, way simpler than andrew's reason. most people don't want unflattering or sexual pictures of themselves on the internet. so if you take pictures of them and put them on the internet, you're being rude to them - aaron
[2012-10-11 14:04:56] - it's free speech! haha, jk. which joke were you talking about. ~a
[2012-10-11 14:03:48] - aaron: I'm reminded of the joke from The Critic. Somehow I wasn't able to find a clip on YouTube, though. Damn you, copyright law! -- Xpovos
[2012-10-11 13:50:20] - Andrew's sentence may be the closest thing to finding the underlying reason so far. -Daniel
[2012-10-11 13:50:10] - daniel: it's disrespectful because they don't want you to do it. if you asked their permission they'd probably say no. - aaron
[2012-10-11 13:48:25] - Bout to head off to start making my way to Nats game (go Nats!) so I thought I would throw out that I don't really think taking candid pics of people and putting them online is a good thing. It seems disrespectful somehow but I'm having trouble logically justifying that feeling in my head. Hence the discussion. -Daniel
[2012-10-11 13:42:40] - daniel: i guess the idea of publishing photos taken in public is just, making public information publicker, which doesn't seem immoral to you? hmm i guess i see your point, that's not really the same - aaron
[2012-10-11 13:31:10] - aaron: Gossip and slander do not seem equivalents to me I guess. Gossip is closer but still has differences to me. I think gossip implies private knowledge being shared not public knowledge. Slander is false public statements made to make someone look bad. Sharing a photo of someone when they were in public doens't seem the same. -Daniel
[2012-10-11 13:23:31] - new words: pubish hmm..... anybody want to use that word in a sentence?? - aaron
[2012-10-11 13:20:20] - daniel: "allow the first but disallow the second" are you saying, you don't understand why it's moral to take a picture of someone and immoral to pubish/share it?? that seems obvious to me. it's like why knowledge is moral but gossip is immoral. or why holding unfounded opinions is moral but slander is immoral. - aaron
[2012-10-11 13:03:13] - Xpovos: That was a much more elegant statement than any of the rest of us. Nicely written. -Daniel
[2012-10-11 12:59:32] - Someone saw something in a public space, they are now sharing what they saw with others in a free public way. -Daniel
[2012-10-11 12:59:00] - I guess allow isn't the right word since we aren't talking legality. I'm not sure how the first is OK but the second isn't when to me it seems an extension of the first. -Daniel
[2012-10-11 12:58:05] - a: I get that there are obvious exceptions/rules (eg taking a picture of someone in a non public space or using their photo commercially) but for someone in a public space and the picture being shared in a public forum I'm not sure I see how you allow the first but disallow the second. -Daniel
[2012-10-11 12:54:00] - a: Clearly in our minds because the illusion of time's transience provides us succor. Finding a photo of our past selves posted unknowingly and permanently preserved shatters the illusion and makes us feel exposed. As we are. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-11 12:51:43] - haha, so now looking at someone vs. taking a picture and uploading it to the internet are the same thing? ~a
[2012-10-11 12:51:01] - I guess in my head going out into the public world is implicitly giving everyone who is out there permission to see you. A photo is simply a freeze frame of that time while you are out in public implicitly allowing everyone to see you. -Daniel
[2012-10-11 12:49:33] - aaron: Taking a picture of someone in public is giving them unwanted attention? I guess I don't really think of rude things as immoral things but I haven't thought about that before now. -Daniel
[2012-10-11 12:04:04] - daniel: well, personally i consider "rude" to be on the small scale of "immoral", where all things that are rude are just a little immoral too. maybe the two words are more separated in your mind - aaron
[2012-10-11 12:01:13] - daniel: i don't know if it constitutes an invasion of privacy, but giving someone unwanted attention is just as rude in a different way. and yes, it's immoral - aaron
[2012-10-11 10:54:46] - daniel: the content that invades privacy. if all of the content in the subredit invades privacy by definition, and i moderated the subredit, then i would probably somehow make it obvious that we would be removing content that invades privacy. ~a
[2012-10-11 10:53:41] - mig: Well I guess to clarify my position better. I would agree that invading someone's privacy is wrong. I'm not sure that taking a picture of someone in a public place is an invasion of privacy thus not sure its wrong. -Daniel
[2012-10-11 10:52:22] - mig: I think we agree its not illegal. I'm not sure its immoral. Adrian seems more sure its wrong in a non illegal way. I think that is our summary. -Daniel
[2012-10-11 10:52:08] - mig: "remember, we're not talking about what's legal/illegal" "they haven't broken the law" "surprisingly the law often treats them both as legal if it's a public place" "not via lawyers or laws or threats" ~a
[2012-10-11 10:49:52] - I'm confused are you guys talking about "invasion of privacy" in a legal or in a moral sense? - mig
[2012-10-11 10:45:13] - a: But you don't think the entire site needs/should be shutdown? -Daniel
[2012-10-11 10:40:51] - "you wouldn't advocate for removing some creepshot website from the internet" advocate using what means? if it were a picture of me, i'd advocate for its removal via a conversation with the websites owners/moderators. not via lawyers or laws or threats. ~a
[2012-10-11 10:38:39] - a: But its not our own website... I guess I think of Reddit as a pretty public place. So you wouldn't advocate for removing some creepshot website from the internet just from a website that you run? That seems more reasonable. -Daniel
[2012-10-11 10:35:20] - "question of whether sexualization is derogatory" they're called "creepshots", they're not called "me looking sexy". ~a
[2012-10-11 10:33:07] - "to me that should be incidental" why? why can't there be an emotional judgment? we're not deciding on what's free-speech, we're deciding on how to police our own websites. why is allowing the creeps to take advantage of randoms an ok standard? ~a
[2012-10-11 10:31:32] - as a side question. -Daniel
[2012-10-11 10:31:17] - a: While I think the why should still be irrelevant the question of whether sexualization is derogatory is not immediately obvious to me. -Daniel
[2012-10-11 10:29:36] - a: I think you have hit upon a point that is key to me. Your last statement implies that WHY they took the pic matters and to me that should be incidental. I think discussion about pic taking in public is legit but I think people get caught up in having an emotional judgement on WHY people are taking the pics. -Daniel
[2012-10-11 10:27:42] - "taking a picture of someone is an invasion of their privacy unless you have explicit consent?" it really depends on the motivation. if i'm in the background of some photograph and the goal of the photograph is not to mock me i think they don't need my consent. for example, if you read that wikipedia link they take into account if it's "derogatory". ~a
[2012-10-11 10:25:44] - daniel: the legalities are very murky. I think a lot of it depends on an "expectation of privacy" standard. - mig
[2012-10-11 10:25:03] - "But if you are on a beach in a bikini, or at the store in tight pants do you still have an expectation of privacy?" yes. i don't want people to take my picture with the specific goal of mocking me. if they do it, i won't sue them obviously because they haven't broken the law. but i will be disappointed in them and get all sad and mopey. ~a
[2012-10-11 10:24:33] - not really, but I was curious if this was a matter of reddit removing posts as opposed to removing an entire subreddit. - mig
[2012-10-11 10:24:25] - a: So taking a picture of someone is an invasion of their privacy unless you have explicit consent? -Daniel
[2012-10-11 10:23:18] - regardless, that security camera presumably does not auto-publish its data onto the internet. taking a picture and publishing it are two different things (though surprisingly the law often treats them both as legal if it's a public place). ~a
[2012-10-11 10:22:37] - "Is it an invasion of privacy if a security camera records her bending over?" yes. remember, we're not talking about what's legal/illegal, we're talking about what's "wrong". it's wrong to overtly invade someones privacy. (imo) taking a picture of someone and publishing it and calling it a "creepshot" is invading their privacy. ~a
[2012-10-11 10:18:33] - a: I get that there are places where one does have an expectation of privacy and like taking pictures through windows, into someones back yard or whatever are not ok. But if you are on a beach in a bikini, or at the store in tight pants do you still have an expectation of privacy? -Daniel
[2012-10-11 10:17:21] - a: I guess thats part of my question. I get that taking a pic of some lady bending over to get a box of cereal off the bottom shelf is not high class but I'm also not sure its an invasion of privacy. Is it an invasion of privacy if a security camera records her bending over? -Daniel
[2012-10-11 10:15:35] - miguel wants to know so he can go there. ~a
[2012-10-11 10:14:49] - mig: To this discussion or to creepshots? There was a subreddit for creepshots that apparently shut down recently due to some outside people's efforts which started the whole dealio. -Daniel
[2012-10-11 10:06:07] - daniel: Is there a subreddit dedicated to this? - mig
[2012-10-11 10:04:53] - wikipedia's photograph privacy policy . . . includes some discussion of the law and what is generally ok vs not-ok. ~a
[2012-10-11 10:03:17] - it's wrong imo because it invades privacy clearly and overtly. ~a
[2012-10-11 10:02:48] - reddit (the owners and the users) have the right to self-regulate. they probably have a privacy policy, right? this privacy policy might forbid invading peoples privacy via content. ~a
[2012-10-11 10:00:16] - So I waffle some because while it is skeevy, I'm also not sure that I think its "wrong" so I'm not sure I support removing parts of Reddit (or any site) because I (or a majority) think something is creepy. -Daniel
[2012-10-11 09:58:47] - over, in revealing shirts, tight pants, etc you get the idea. The discussion is whether the idea of "Free Speech" should apply in that its technically not illegal thus should be allowed or because Reddit is its own site it could shut that down because its skeevy. -Daniel
[2012-10-11 09:57:25] - So totally random topic for discussion. There is currently this flap going on on Reddit but the part of the discussion I'm curious about is the discussion of a part of reddit that was called "creepshots". Its kind of what it sounds like in that people would post pics they took of people (almost 100% women but I guess it could be a guy too?) bending over, leaning...
[2012-10-10 16:00:48] - Randal: "You know Veronica, I just realized we had something in common: we both eat Chinese" Veronica: "Dick." Randal: "Exactly."
[2012-10-10 15:55:24] - Maybe he designs major asians? Yao Ming, Yao Ming, Yao Ming, Yao Ming, Yaoooo Ming, Yaoooo Ming -- Xpovos
[2012-10-10 15:19:19] - paul: yeah, i think multiple people refer to him as "her asian design major boyfriend" or "what about the asian design major?" it's always those 3 words in order with no other context - aaron
[2012-10-10 15:15:03] - aaron: Do they refer to him as an "Asian Design Major"? I just assumed it was somebody majoring in Asian Design. -Paul
[2012-10-10 14:55:39] - it's kind of unnatural that all the characters in the movie would explicitly call him out by his race, so... now i'm not so sure. thoughts? - aaron
[2012-10-10 14:53:57] - in clerks, is veronica's fiancé an asian majoring in design, or is he a guy majoring in asian design? i had always assumed her fiancé was asian, something based on how they talk about his parents (or her parents?) and the context of the movie, just made it sound like he was wealthy and successful and asian.... but in hindsight - aaron
[2012-10-10 14:24:40] - i had everyone survive, but ethan ended up in jail for most of it... so the ending was just the other two characters. iirc miguel had one fatality - aaron
[2012-10-10 14:23:20] - paul: just put it on the hardest difficulty like i did, you don't have to purposefully mess up then, the game gets legitimately hard - aaron
[2012-10-10 13:11:22] - Cool. I think I got one of the best ending as well. In retrospect, though, I wonder how many of the quicktime actions made a difference in how the story played out. I actually wanted to go back through a second time and purposely mess up some to see how things change. -Paul
[2012-10-10 13:07:18] - Paul: I haven't played it but I watched Andrea's whole playthrough. She got a good ending (2nd best ethan one?) Everyone (cept the killer) survived so they got ok endings too. I think she liked the story but didn't like having the stress of controlling the fight scenes and stuff. -Daniel
[2012-10-10 12:18:42] - http://rt.com/usa/news/texas-school-id-hernandez-033/ I'm intrigued, but mostly dismayed. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-10 10:35:57] - Daniel: Ah, cool. Did she like it? What kind of ending did she get? Have you played it? -Paul
[2012-10-10 10:32:56] - Paul: I downloaded it last night but haven't actually played it yet. I finished watching Andrea play through Heavy Rain last night. -Daniel
[2012-10-10 09:22:06] - Daniel: Are you planning on getting the new X-Com game? -Paul
[2012-10-10 09:18:54] - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215324/Jimmy-Savile-gravestone-removed-family-police-launch-hunt-BBC-child-abuse-accomplices.html Hmm. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-10 09:16:56] - The volus are a playable race? Thats crazy land. The new XCOM just came out this week as well. To many games! -Daniel
[2012-10-10 08:56:57] - that new super-crazy mass effect multiplayer DLC came out yesterday -- it's free DLC which adds a new collector faction for multiplayer, and new units for the other factions like the "geth bomber"... also the volus are now a playable race - aaron
[2012-10-10 08:20:23] - If you watch yen flows you can see a precursor to the fireworks. Over the next few years the yen should weaken dramatically, perhaps all the way up to ~100/$. When that happens we'll be close to a Japan default, IMO. Government defaults take a long time, even for quick ones (see Greece) so it's 10-15 years off, I'd say. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-10 08:18:59] - Paul: Extraordinarly high rate of internal savings. Japanese elders save hardcore, even when doing so costs them lots of money. Also a huge bulk of their national debt is held by Japanese individuals, rather than foreign governments, as with the U.S. They're hitting a demographic tipping point, though. -- Xpovos
[2012-10-09 17:41:47] - mig: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/ichiro-breakdance-slide-puts-yankees-board-023231262--mlb.html Did you see this scoring play by Ichiro? -Paul
[2012-10-09 17:17:11] - paul: stupid larissa. ~a
[2012-10-09 17:14:27] - a: Yeah, I'm not sure what the deal is with Japan, honestly. For whatever reason, they always seem to escape scrutiny when it comes to countries with dangerously high debt to GDP ratios. There must be something "special" about them. -Paul
[2012-10-09 17:10:33] - EU=80%. ~a
[2012-10-09 17:09:46] - oh germany=80%. ~a
[2012-10-09 17:07:38] - debt vs GDP: US=100%, ireland=100%, greece=160%, japan=200%. (future). ~a
[2012-10-09 16:43:22] - Daniel: For instance, Paul Ryan's supposedly drastic budget is actually incredibly tame and wouldn't even balance the budget (to say nothing of decreasing the debt) until around 2040. -Paul
[2012-10-09 16:41:16] - Daniel: My guess is that Greece did what we've been doing the past few decades. We've been voting people into office who promise us more free stuff while making it virtually impossible for any politicians to get elected who talk about decreasing spending at all. -Paul
[2012-10-09 16:38:37] - Daniel: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/02/us-debt-to-gdp-passes-101-per-capita-debt-higher-than-greece/ Frankly, if you want to know how Greece got there, you can look at the United States since we're in a pretty similar boat, except we are lucky to be the reserve currency of the world. -Paul
[2012-10-09 16:34:05] - "The economists’ conservatively estimate that in 2009 some €28 billion in income went unreported. Taxed at 40%, that equates to €11.2 billion — nearly a third of Greece’s budget deficit." And I think that's the "mind-blown!" moment right there. Even with 100% tax compliance, their deficit would be well over €20 billion. - mig
[2012-10-09 16:32:04] - http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/07/09/greeks-hide-tens-of-billions-from-tax-man/ it doesn't help that greeks are notorious tax dodgers. - mig
[2012-10-09 16:28:07] - Daniel: More of the former, but there was a lot of truly atrocious accounting, as well as a lack of oversight/authority from outside. Per EU rules, no member government could run more than a 3% deficit in any given year. Greece routinely ran 8% paper deficits or worse. And those deficits were mostly accounting gimmicks. The real numbers were worse. -- Xpovos
prev <-> next