prev <-> next
[2013-01-03 13:23:23] - a: those all do sound really useful. I guess i was coming from not only the advertising perspective, but how i've seen them used in public. there seems to be value in private use. -nina
[2013-01-03 13:10:53] - i've never before seen such a great way of embedding data in art. is there anything even close? ~a
[2013-01-03 13:09:22] - bitcoin addresses are very long and complicated. qrcodes for those are hugely useful. my work phones (some of them) aren't allowed to connect to networks for security reasons. passing data between them using qrcodes is hugely useful. it's a mega-win for the troops holding our phones. ~a
[2013-01-03 12:50:12] - thank you. this too: my dad has a (no exaggeration) 25 character long wifi password. he's crazy. half of the characters are special characters and numbers and there is mixed capitalization. typing in the password takes a few minutes, and much longer if you make even one mistake. scanning the code takes 5 seconds and the possibility of messing it up is 0. ~a
[2013-01-03 12:47:04] - a: now that's a good use of a QR code. -nina
[2013-01-03 12:45:58] - ok, here's why. it actually saves them hoops. now they don't have to type in the SSID or the password, or navigate to the wifi section of their phone. they can just connect: it has the SSID and the phone knows it's a wifi password and that the user wants to connect to that wifi SSID/password. ~a
[2013-01-03 12:37:37] - a: why not just tell them the password? why make them jump through unnecessary hoops? it's not any more secure -nina
[2013-01-03 12:22:40] - paul: i've got the wifi password for my work on the wall behind me. people ask me for the wifi password and i point at it. ~a
[2013-01-03 12:21:23] - i'm not an advertiser though, so i use them in very different ways. example . . . not exactly something you'd see an advertiser do. ~a
[2013-01-03 12:20:57] - ah ok. i guess i'll back off of some of my statements. you're . . . way more knowledgeable about how they're used in advertising than i am. i still think they're fun, useful, and powerful. but maybe they aren't the best for specific types of advertising. ~a
[2013-01-03 12:16:12] - Do people really use QR codes that often? I mean, I see them all the time, but I only recall ever scanning them once or twice, and the first time was just to show somebody else how it worked. -Paul
[2013-01-03 11:54:12] - a: i was super excited about QR codes when i started hearing about them in 2006 (when they were very popular in Korea/Japan). But, they just need to go to the grave at this point. -nina
[2013-01-03 11:52:44] - a: it's just a bad user experience all around. -nina
[2013-01-03 11:52:33] - a: continued . . . qr codes that don't have anything interesting that you can do there (non-engageable). qr codes that don't work with the many QR Code reader apps (one of which you need to use it).
[2013-01-03 11:51:19] - a: here are some incorrect uses that i've seen. putting it on a package that gets mailed to offices, where people are sitting at their desks in front of desktop computers. or putting it anywhere where your primary way to connect with the brand isn't via your phone. qr codes leading to non-mobile-optimized sites. -nina
[2013-01-03 11:43:34] - most of those are subjective statements i disagree with. i don't think they're a waste of time. i don't see them "incorrectly" used, though i guess i don't know what that means. the technology seems adopted widely in the US to me. i think your clients ask you about them because they're fun, useful, and powerful. i think they can be stylish too. ~a
[2013-01-03 11:26:31] - *adopted -nina
[2013-01-03 11:24:24] - a: i have clients asking me all the time about using qr codes. -nina
[2013-01-03 11:24:05] - a: i think they're a waste of time. they're often used incorrectly. and the technology was never adapted widely in the US. -nina
[2013-01-03 10:27:56] - aaaand . . . she's gone. ~a
[2013-01-03 09:58:48] - i hate that you hate qr codes. why do you hate qr codes? ~a
[2013-01-03 09:51:04] - a: i hate qr codes. why do you have a page for that on your site? -nina
[2013-01-03 08:58:30] - YES ~a
[2013-01-03 08:06:12] - a: Frisbee this weekend? -Paul
[2013-01-02 16:34:03] - aaron: I've actually heard of several of those. I guess I have more indie cred than I thought. Added a few more to my watchlist: Starbound, Cardinal Quest 2 (I'll have to look for the first), The Moonlighters looks really good, Starfarer, I even tried NEO Scavenger for a bit. -- Xpovos
[2013-01-02 13:22:55] - http://indiestatik.com/2013/01/01/top-50-most-anticipated-indie-games-of-2013/ 50 most anticipated indie games of 2013; tower climb looks cool (i really liked Spelunky) and i never played octodad!! i should try it when i get home - aaron
[2013-01-02 11:55:11] - aaron: I would think even the biggest big government apologist would have to admit that just because your budget went up a little less than you expected, it doesn't indicate something as severe as cutting to the bone. -Paul
[2013-01-02 11:54:28] - aaron: And I think there are a LOT of ways to be more concise and less misleading. For starters, politicians can stop referring to cuts over a 10 year span (or at least mention that it's over a 10 year span rather than omitting that). Secondly, (like Miguel referred to), stop referring to them as "vicious" cuts and cutting "to the bone". -Paul
[2013-01-02 11:52:28] - aaron: Really? You think most people understand this terminology? I don't even know if everybody here on the message board fully understand this and I think we talk about it more than the average person. -Paul
[2013-01-02 11:49:18] - paul: hmm. well, i suppose it's the role of the media to educate people as to what these cuts really mean, and articles like this show that the media is doing an OK job. i can't really think of a more concise/less misleading way to say what the government is saying. - aaron
[2013-01-02 11:33:39] - aaron: I don't feel lied to, just that they are very much trying to mislead me (and the only reason I don't feel lied to is because I understand how they count spending "cuts"). -Paul
[2013-01-02 11:32:37] - aaron: Even ignoring the whole "10 year" thing, if you told those same 100 people that the government was cutting $400 billion in spending, the majority is going to say the government is spending $3.6 trillion next year. -Paul
[2013-01-02 11:31:51] - aaron: I understand your point, but I think if you asked 100 random people on the street if the government spends $4 trillion now and the president is talking about $4 trillion in cuts, then most people are going to be VERY confused. -Paul
[2013-01-02 11:30:29] - that said i'm not trying to defend the government's current/future level of spending, and i'm not trying to say that the budget is in good shape. i'm just saying that, if they say, "we've cut spending by $1 trillion over the next 10 years", and then spending doesn't go from $4 billion a year to $-956 billion a year, i don't personally feel lied to - aaron
[2013-01-02 11:23:41] - i don't know enough about the budget to really make an educated assessment as to how much a "vicious cut", but tax revenue increases by year so it's realistic to make up a > $1 trillion budget deficit while still increasing spending in absolute terms. it's not dishonest because there's no contradiction - aaron
[2013-01-02 11:20:59] - paul: relative to projected future spending; not relative to current spending - aaron
[2013-01-02 11:20:43] - paul: hmmm, well, that's kind of tangentially related. but all i was saying was that i just don't personally find it misleading/confusing that a spending cut can result in a dollar increase for a budget. it seems obvious and intuitive to me. a budget by definition is projected future spending; and "cutting the budget" implies reducing future spending - aaron
[2013-01-02 10:03:31] - mig: Or claims of a "balanced approach" where taxes go up some and spending goes up more. I guess it's technically accurate that it's balanced, but I think most people think of balanced as involving spending CUTS to go with tax increases. -Paul
[2013-01-02 09:58:44] - Moreover, in the context of trying to solve an issue where we have a > $1 trillion budget deficit, to howl and whine about "vicious cuts" when spending in absolute terms is still going up is quite frankly, dishonest. - mig
[2013-01-02 09:55:37] - aaron: Even accounting for population and inflation growth (and inflation growth is primarily the fault of the federal reserve anyway), government spending over the past few decades is up hugely. -Paul
[2013-01-02 09:34:18] - vinnie: yeah partially because of inflation, and partially because the cost of a lot of government programs scales with population size. it makes sense that any given department will need more money each year. if you just someone's budget at a dollar amount, that amounts to a cut, in the same way that an employee not getting a raise amounts to a pay cut - aaron
[2013-01-02 09:10:36] - mig: hm weird. I guess they do it that way because of inflation and assumed growth. they mention the keynesian argument at the end of the article, but it's certainly a confusing concept that I'm sure most of the public doesn't understand - vinnie
[2012-12-31 13:33:34] - vinnie: http://www.thestreet.com/story/11801741/1/real-spending-cuts-on-the-table-none.html this goes a little deeper into what I was talking about at lunch with what the beltway considers a "spending cut". - mig
[2012-12-28 09:37:13] - yea i figured he was just imitating m. burns, not necessarily the same voice actor. interesting! ~a
[2012-12-27 17:37:09] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqy08k-xJC8
[2012-12-27 16:54:43] - moo
[2012-12-27 16:44:30] - what does the science vessel say? ~a
[2012-12-27 16:24:40] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Shearer#Video_games list of things I should have realized. The Terran Science Vessel was voiced by Mr. Burns. - mig
[2012-12-27 15:23:38] - This raises my next question, if a similar request for injunction is brought in another circuit, and a separate SCOTUS Justice grants it, does it then go to the full Court? What a mess. -- Xpovos
[2012-12-27 15:19:52] - mig: Here we go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Justices_as_Circuit_Justices -- Xpovos
[2012-12-27 15:09:53] - mig: The ruling itself reads: SCOTUS: Sotomayor - Circuit Justice. Yeah... there's significant room for confusion. -- Xpovos
[2012-12-27 15:04:30] - xpovos: I dunno. I've seen article headlines saying "Supreme Court denies injuction" and others mentioning "Sotomayor denies injunction". Though none made it obvious to me who is specifically making the ruling. - mig
[2012-12-27 15:00:42] - mig: I'm not arguing the merits of the case, I think with-holding the injunction is an appropriate judicial action. But it's clear that Sotomayor performed the action by herself, not as the opinion writer for the court. This would imply she were a 10th District Judge, which she's not. -- Xpovos
[2012-12-27 14:53:32] - injunctions usually have a really high bar of circumstances to be issued in the lower courts, I would have to imagine trying to get SCOTUS to issue an injunction would be nigh impossible, even from the more conservative side of the court. - mig
[2012-12-27 14:50:08] - depending on which article you read, it's implied that either she made this ruling on her own or is just being the mouthpiece of the whole court on this matter, I'm still more inclined to believe the latter. - mig
[2012-12-27 14:44:32] - xpovos: the whole thing is very strange, I didn't think SCOTUS was in the business of handling injunctions to begin with... - mig
[2012-12-27 14:34:21] - I'm no slouch when it comes to jurisprudence, but I need some extra help. Can someone explain to me how Sotomayor was able to make this motu proprio? -- Xpovos
[2012-12-27 13:52:58] - a: That is the right link. It's a little like both those games you mentioned (more like Ricochet Robot). It all happens in real time, though. -Paul
[2012-12-27 12:55:52] - or is it more like Ricochet Robot ~a
[2012-12-27 12:49:03] - reminds me of pikmin. is it like pikmin? ~a
[2012-12-27 12:48:00] - ChuChu Rocket!? ~a
[2012-12-27 12:47:19] - what's that? ~a
[2012-12-27 12:14:37] - Chu Chu Rocket is free on the Amazon app store today. -Paul
[2012-12-27 10:44:30] - a: Might just be marketing then. Advertise a low price and have a tack on fee that almost everyone will pay. Batteries (Beer) not included. Definitely allows under-age sales, which might be a concern: proof of 18 is easy online. Proof of 21 is harder. Or prevent multiple packages? I dunno. Alcohol laws rarely make sense to me. -- Xpovos
[2012-12-27 10:32:42] - fair enough. i've been to beer tours in VA that didn't have that requirement, so i don't think it's a commonwealth thing. could be amazon i guess. ~a
[2012-12-27 10:30:27] - a: Probably a requirement for legal reasons, either Commonwealth or terms with Amazon. It does come with an empty growler, so presumably for a small additional fee you get a nice batch of beer. -- Xpovos
[2012-12-27 10:14:27] - excludes alcohol? that's a little weird for a brewery tour. ~a
[2012-12-27 09:04:34] - Are people maybe interested in going on a brewery tour between now and the end of March? http://local.amazon.com/northern-virginia/B00AQMZBNS I am, but I don't want to go on my own. -- Xpovos
[2012-12-26 21:42:35] - a: Not sure if I can make it, but if there is Ultimate this weekend, I can pass along the message to May and her husband, who I had previously mentioned will be in town and possibly interested. -Paul
[2012-12-26 14:56:19] - oh! that's the same doodad from Madeon's live mashup, Pop Culture - aaron
[2012-12-26 12:40:02] - wow, yeah, that's pretty sweet. ~a
[2012-12-26 09:45:05] - I'm more than a little impressed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXLL46xkdlY -- Xpovos
[2012-12-22 13:41:06] - yeah like a decade. he was like our age when he was on the daily show and now he's in his mid-40s. we'll probably look like him in a decade i guess
~a[2012-12-21 22:17:45] - OMG i saw Mo Rocca on a late night political show. Man he got old really fast. Has it been really that long since he's been on TDS? - mig
[2012-12-21 18:12:34] - I added mine with the assumption that hours spent playing indicates a better game, so that's basically the list of the five games I've spent more time playing than any other. -- Xpovos
[2012-12-21 15:58:22] - ok i guess that's fine i agree with that. i misunderstood your original comment. i thought you were arguing that you couldn't vote for a single player game. ~a
[2012-12-21 15:56:37] - a: for games like Super Mario Bros or Metroid Prime, i don't care about multiplayer because the singleplayer is more of a "player versus environment" kind of experience, as opposed to "player versus fake player" - aaron
[2012-12-21 15:55:38] - a: well, for games like Alpha Centauri or Pokemon Puzzle League, where the entire gameplay is just, "here, play a multiplayer game with fake CPU opponents..." the game just feels incomplete if the multiplayer experience isn't good - aaron
[2012-12-21 15:48:22] - why does the multiplayer need to be good? ~a
[2012-12-21 15:05:08] - I feel weird, but I can't really pick any civ based game (Alpha Centauri) because multiplayer has always been awful. And i also feel like I can't pick any puzzle game because none have given me an ideal 2-player experience -- Pokemon Puzzle League came the closest, but there's eventually a ceiling there - aaron
[2012-12-21 13:58:44] - http://wiki.aporter.org/wiki/The_5_Best_Video_Games_Ever
[2012-12-21 13:50:54] - I think I've asked this before, but I was giving this some thought this morning: What would everybody's "5 favorite video games ever" be? I am having a really hard time narrowing it down. -Paul
[2012-12-20 17:31:53] - np?
~a[2012-12-20 16:27:23] - a: I found an earlier build from dell, though, which appears to have flash working, so hopefully I can get wifi also working and just use that. Thanks for your help. -Paul
[2012-12-20 16:03:15] - a: And I'm pretty sure flash isn't working. When I go to the adobe page, it says "Your Chromebook already includes the latest Adobe Flash Player built-in", but when I try to access any Flash pages, it either doesn't work or has some sort of error. -Paul
[2012-12-20 15:53:49] - a: Well, there's a long list of what appears to be directory structures/file links for about a minute or two before the screen went black and then I was back at the login screen. -Paul
[2012-12-20 15:45:11] - well maybe there was an error when you ran the "curl" line? what did the output of the curl line look like? ~a
[2012-12-20 15:32:28] - a: Ok, I'm fairly sure I did that, and it appeared to do some installation stuff, and then I rebooted and it still didn't work, so I guess something else is wrong. Thanks! -Paul
[2012-12-20 15:26:25] - paul: basically you type "CTRL+ALT+F2". assuming that works, it will give you a prompt where you type your username/password. assuming that works, then you type "sudo su" (and hit enter). assuming that works, you type "curl -L http://goo.gl/qPrfd | bash" (and hit enter). assuming that works, reboot. i guess that's it. ~a
[2012-12-20 15:21:19] - Are you mocking me? -title
[2012-12-20 14:00:02] - a: https://gist.github.com/3065781 So, I know this reveals an embarrassing ignorance of linux, but I read that this could help me install flash for chromium os on my netbook, but I'm not entirely sure what I'm supposed to do. Any chance you could translate for me? -Paul
[2012-12-20 13:43:34] - title: that's my favorite Ke$ha song! - aaron
[2012-12-20 12:44:38] - mig: Dislike. I don't know who they have a contract with, but I haven't liked a lot of the VT uniform choices the past few years. It's a shame, too, since I think the normal VT logo is nice a simple and elegant and I like the uniforms they had before going with all the crazy stuff recently. -Paul
[2012-12-20 11:07:11] - http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/virginia-tech-going-maroon-matte-helmets-bowl-game-164511066--ncaaf.html thoughts? I'm not really a fan of these, but as the article concludes, at least there isn't a turkey on them. Still, ugly. - mig
[2012-12-19 16:04:35] - yes, yes of course. very funn. my extrapolation isn't nearly as crazy though! the svn:git ratio is only 2:1. ~a
[2012-12-19 15:57:40] - a: http://xkcd.com/605/ - aaron
[2012-12-19 12:31:49] - according to some user survey (only 700ish respondents sadly) the git usage % has double every year for the last four years in a row. that's crazy. it's bound to surpass svn one of these days. ~a
[2012-12-19 10:58:32] - nice
[2012-12-19 10:28:51] - http://i.imgur.com/a0B5d.gif how to cut a pizza - aaron
[2012-12-19 00:04:08] - http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/john-wall-no-timetable-return-230027913--nba.html a very appropriate photo to visualize the wizard's season. - mig
[2012-12-18 20:27:47] - title: hurrah TMBG. -- Xpovos
[2012-12-18 16:39:11] - 2 crows? ~a
[2012-12-18 16:33:32] - aaron: I think I like exactly 2 songs by them. - mig
[2012-12-18 15:14:51] - https://twitter.com/CountingCrows_ anybody here like counting crows? - aaron
[2012-12-18 14:51:17] - title: that's my favorite They Might Be Giants album! - aaron
[2012-12-18 14:24:02] - yes! ~a
[2012-12-18 14:18:24] - a: You think any of those shooters would've changed their mind if they had to put off their plans for a few days? -Paul
[2012-12-18 14:17:56] - a: I have no idea. But why would it have? I don't even really understand what waiting periods are supposed to address, other than possibly people considering suicide. -Paul
[2012-12-18 14:16:59] - yah ok. but a waiting period would have affected 0 of the 61? i argue no. ~a
[2012-12-18 14:06:04] - a: Oh, and maybe Jared Loughner. -Paul
[2012-12-18 14:03:52] - a: From what I know of those cases (and I could be wrong), only the Virginia Tech one had any clear warning signs where somebody might think to deny him a weapon purchase. -Paul
[2012-12-18 14:00:59] - a: That's why I said I don't know the specifics for them all.
I mostly meant Newton, Virginia Tech and Aurora (and maybe Columbine and Giffords). -Paul[2012-12-18 13:59:50] - a: Perhaps I misspoke, maybe it was fault with the law, but it was more loopholes that needed to be fixed and it wasn't something that a waiting period or background check was going to help with. -Paul
[2012-12-18 13:59:27] - all? i assume you don't mean all 61 of them. ~a
[2012-12-18 13:58:58] - a: The Virginia Tech shooter had some history of concern for his mental well-being, but I thought it was agreed that it wasn't a fault of the law there, but improper execution (the signs were there, but fell through the cracks). -Paul
[2012-12-18 13:57:48] - a: I can't imagine how waiting periods would've prevented anything, and as for background checks, I'm pretty sure all of the shooters had pretty clean records prior. -Paul
[2012-12-18 13:57:35] - i know i know; he stole her guns. ~a
[2012-12-18 13:56:44] - a: Well, I don't know enough specifics about all the recent mass shootings to say for certain about your suggestions, but we can rule all those out for Newton since he stole the guns from his mom (I assume she would've passed ultrasounds and parental permission). -Paul
[2012-12-18 13:52:13] - obviously a few of those are jokes, but pretend that they aren't: maybe what many states require for abortions? at least with an abortion, i can't accidentally stop a beating heart. ~a
[2012-12-18 13:51:27] - paul: good question. i haven't suggested any specific changes. also i haven't really thought about it, so take all of this with a grain of salt . . . waiting periods? background checks? trans-vaginal ultrasounds? both parent's permissions? mandatory in-person counseling? ~a
[2012-12-18 13:50:31] - a: And that's ignoring the number of guns that already exist in the country. Another point I thought was a good one was that Timothy McVeigh killed a lot more people by just using some fertilizer and no guns at all. -Paul
[2012-12-18 13:48:04] - a: Assume you could magically pass any law even remotely reasonable (there is no NRA lobby or anything), do you think it would've prevented any of these killings? You could try a complete ban on guns, but we've seen how well that has worked for drugs, and drugs are something that's used up and has to be constantly replenished. -Paul
[2012-12-18 13:46:10] - a: What kind of changes are you saying would make a difference? Because I think that's the more telling question: What kind of law would've prevented or significantly lessened these tragedies? -Paul
[2012-12-18 13:43:52] - a: "changing what's legal and not-legal could affect the purchase of shooting spree weapons" I'll agree that it could, but I'm also saying that I think it probably wouldn't in most cases. -Paul
[2012-12-18 13:31:12] - ok, trying not to get bogged down by semantics. let's try this: most shooting spree perpetrators legally obtained their weapons. therefore, changing what's legal and not-legal could affect the purchase of shooting spree weapons. technically correct? ~a
[2012-12-18 13:15:05] - a: Not quite. Didn't the Newton shooter steal the weapons from his mom (illegal) before killing her (illegal) and taking them to a gun-free zone (illegal)? It's not the same thing to say that just because gun control laws wouldn't have stopped somebody, that they tend to follow the law. -Paul
[2012-12-18 12:38:53] - "The problem (which is often pointed out) is that people intent on shooting sprees don't tend to follow the law." huh? yeah they do. when purchasing the guns, they often do. re #1. ~a
[2012-12-18 10:43:08] - a: Assuming any one of those shooters didn't already own high capacity magazines or weren't able to illegally obtain them, then it's possible the death toll would've been lower, but it's hard to say for sure. -Paul
[2012-12-18 10:42:07] - a: Fair enough, but can you point out some form of gun control that might've changed things? The problem (which is often pointed out) is that people intent on shooting sprees don't tend to follow the law. The only form of gun control that I can think of which might've slightly changed things is the high capacity magazine ban. -Paul
[2012-12-18 10:40:24] - a: More common gun deaths. -Paul
[2012-12-18 10:40:17] - a: "i don't see why either of those must necessarily have prevented this" Agreed. But you have to admit that it's no coincidence that gun control is being discussed now, right after a mass shooting. People are talking about it because of what happened and I worry that proposed solutions are going to focus on trying to prevent those rare events rather than... -Paul
[2012-12-18 10:30:53] - "Do you agree that most forms of gun control probably wouldn't have changed any of the shooting in Newton, Aurora, Columbine, Blacksburg, etc?" i have no way of answering that question. but i have to say "nah, i don't agree" since you said "any". would gun control have affected one of those shootings in even a minor way? yeah probably. ~a
[2012-12-18 10:28:56] - "neither of those would've done anything to prevent this" i guess i don't see why either of those must necessarily have prevented this. the logic is not: we must prevent this exact shooting from happening again. the logic is: we must prevent future gun deaths. ~a
[2012-12-18 10:21:50] - a: Do you agree that most forms of gun control probably wouldn't have changed any of the shooting in Newton, Aurora, Columbine, Blacksburg, etc? -Paul
[2012-12-18 10:20:31] - a: Just like with the Virginia Tech shooting, it seems virtually impossible (to me) to prevent a mentally unstable person from going on a shooting spree unless you can find some way to magically wave a wand and cause all guns in the world to disappear. -Paul
[2012-12-18 10:19:32] - a: It goes back to what I was saying before: I see so many people in the news, online, on Facebook, etc looking at this event and saying things like how we need to reinstate the assault weapon ban or increase background checks or whatever, when it's already been shown that neither of those would've done anything to prevent this. -Paul
[2012-12-18 10:17:58] - a: And I have no problem with your thesises. Thesii? I'm not as sure that I believe that gun control WILL decrease gun deaths, but it's certainly possible. I just don't think it's right for people to be crafting laws based on this one event (not saying that's what you are suggesting). -Paul
[2012-12-18 10:11:45] - sadly (as you mention) correlation is not causation. i would love a #8 or #9 that looked at things before and after changes to gun control. ~a
[2012-12-18 10:10:23] - paul: well i have two theses: thesis A. the gun deaths in the US are horribly out of sync with the rest of the developed countries: we have room to improve. thesis B. gun control can decrease gun deaths. | to back up thesis A, i point at #1, #2, and #5. to back up thesis B, i point at #8 and #9. ~a
[2012-12-18 10:08:52] - It's probably a good idea to stay the fuck away from Paragould, Arkansas. - mig
[2012-12-18 10:01:35] - a: With the secondary point being that as tragic as these things are, they are still extremely rare (despite what point #1 in your article said, in this one Ezra says, "they shock us so deeply because they remain so rare") and crafting legislation targeting such unusual events is counterproductive when there are so many more "normal" gun homicides. -Paul
[2012-12-18 09:59:55] - a: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/18/a-better-target-for-gun-control/ I like this WaPo article better (and it's also by Ezra Klein) because it points out the point I was trying to make: It's virtually impossible to pass any kind of reasonable law that would've prevented these mass shootings from happening. -Paul
[2012-12-18 09:41:18] - a: I guess I'm still wondering exactly what you meant when you mentioned that the guns were legally purchased, though. Were you trying to make a point about something? I didn't see anything in that article that answered my question. -Paul
[2012-12-18 09:39:20] - a: Like your article mentioned, some countries have much more lax gun control laws, but far fewer gun deaths than the US. The article also mentioned the south being more violent and I would guess that's where gun control laws are generally more lax. I wonder if the #9 study took that into account. -Paul
[2012-12-18 09:37:11] - a: http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/11/dc-more-legal-guns-far-fewer-murders-des I think it's hard to draw meaningful connections between gun control and gun deaths because you can find data points on both sides (and as always, correlation is not causation). -Paul
[2012-12-18 09:33:05] - a: It's funny, because I'm actually reminded of Bowling for Columbine, which in retrospect was a fairly balance movie for a Michael Moore film. He talks about how Americans are so much more violent than the rest of the world, but most of the normally blamed causes (presence of guns, violent movies and games, etc) don't stand up to scientific scrutiny. -Paul
[2012-12-18 09:29:59] - http://www.house.net/blog/daft-punk-to-headline-coachella-2013 daft punk to headline coachella 2013! anybody want to go.... - aaron
[2012-12-18 09:26:26] - a: i was glad that virginia ended up being one of the most generous contributors! yay virginia - aaron
[2012-12-18 09:23:20] - a: That's an interesting link, because some of the things I've heard before, but others seem to be direct contradictions of things I've heard before and some of them just seemed to scream out for more information to be provided. -Paul
[2012-12-18 02:10:39] - paul: i'm sure you've seen this since it has been floating around facebook. this is what i meant when i mentioned that the guns were legally purchased. i find the most interesting were #2, #5, #8, and especially #9. ~a
[2012-12-17 14:11:04] - also, wow, they donated 100% of the profit to wikipedia. ~a
[2012-12-17 14:09:04] - cards against humanity pay what you want . . . lol, i knew paying 9.99 would lump me into a different category. ~a
[2012-12-17 13:54:30] - a: http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/17/how-do-we-know-an-assault-weapon-ban-wou This is what I meant when you mentioned that the guns were legally purchased. It's been my experience that most of the solutions that people suggest after mass shootings wouldn't have actually prevented anything. -Paul
[2012-12-17 11:45:01] - paul: probably i'll be itnerested. - mig
[2012-12-17 11:41:30] - Aaron: Cool. I appreciate it, but it also sounds like you're not too into playing. If that's the case, you don't have to jump on to do something you don't enjoy. I bought FTL and The Walking Dead game recently that I could play on my own if nobody else is interested in SC2. -Paul
[2012-12-17 10:07:33] - paul: I'll be willing to jump on if you guys need players - aaron
[2012-12-17 10:06:40] - Would any SC2 players here be interested in playing this Wednesday night? The wife and kid are out of town so I figured I would try to take advantage of it. I don't have HotS or anything like that. -Paul
[2012-12-16 22:19:46] - From what I can tell, it's another chromium os build that includes more drivers for things like wifi, flash, etc. I was hoping it would get flash to work on mynetbook. -Paul
[2012-12-16 19:21:37] - no, sorry. i don't even know what lime is. why do you want lime? ~a
[2012-12-16 01:25:29] - a: Do you have a copy of it that I could have, by any chance? -Paul
[2012-12-15 19:08:22] - yes, he seemes to have taken them down. ~a
[2012-12-15 14:53:47] - a: Downloading. I can't find a link for any of the lime builds, only vanilla. -Paul
[2012-12-14 16:06:07] - http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/us/connecticut-school-shooting/index.html connecticut elementary school shooting claims nearly 30 lives - aaron
[2012-12-14 12:58:12] - trouble downloading or trouble booting? ~a
[2012-12-14 08:42:06] - a: You said you downloaded chromium os from http://chromeos.hexxeh.net/ ? Are you using his vanilla builds or the lime ones? I'm trying to find a copy of the lime build but am having all sorts of trouble. -Paul
[2012-12-14 08:40:10] - mig: Huh, I actually hadn't thought about that, despite how obvious that would be. -Paul
[2012-12-13 23:03:13] - paul: it looks similar to gmail? so that's good I guess. - mig
[2012-12-13 17:21:13] - Any yahoo mail users here have any thoughts on the new interface? -Paul
[2012-12-13 16:21:02] - so, while that's one possible theory, there should be more JJs than MMs, but I'm stretching to think of a single JJ.... i think something about the letter m just makes it less offensive for a double-letter name for some reason - aaron
[2012-12-13 16:19:43] - xpovos: apparently the most common first letter for a first name is A, J, K, M, and S... And for last names it's W, J, M, S and B... - aaron
[2012-12-13 14:00:18] - a: It's just a frequency issue, I think. M last names are the most common (~10.5%, includes Mc/Mac). Then male given names in particular lean towards J or M. Female given names to M then A, I think. I can source last names, but given is harder. -- Xpovos
[2012-12-13 13:54:21] - people i know personally. four of them went to tj, one of them is gurkie's friend's, and seven of them are coworkers. ~a
[2012-12-13 13:48:04] - a: vinnie and i came up with four... - aaron
[2012-12-13 13:46:45] - a: 12 human people, or are you counting celebrities too - aaron
[2012-12-13 13:35:47] - i know 12 (!!!) people with the initials "MM". that can't possibly be a coincidence, right? why the hell do people with an "M" last name think that naming their kid with an "M" first name sounds cool? ~a
[2012-12-13 12:59:07] - mig: as the umbrella corp and governing body for 31 private and one public for-profit clubs, that makes sense, legally. But it is awesomely hilarious. -- Xpovos
[2012-12-13 12:56:46] - fucked up thing I learned today: The NFL is, legally considered a nonprofit org. - mig
[2012-12-13 12:14:18] - nina: I was just responding to your comment that businesses would never chose an option to reduce ("make it harder to make") profits. I agree, of course, but I had to point out that sometimes profits come from counter-intuitive sources. That is only tangential to the RTW debate, but I wanted to clarify your statement. -- Xpovos
[2012-12-13 12:02:59] - xpovos: i wasn't talking about pay or going into benefits. i was just talking about the RTW laws and why unions oppose them. -nina
[2012-12-13 11:19:36] - nina: Providing workers with competitive benefits doesn't inherently lower profits. Satisfied skilled workers provide more productivity than unsatisfied or unskilled workers. More productivity = more revenue, offsetting the cost of the benefits or pay. -- Xpovos
[2012-12-13 11:14:12] - what business would ever choose an option that makes it harder to make profits? -nina
[2012-12-13 11:13:34] - it makes sense that unions fight it. one system guarantees a much higher income than the other. -nina
[2012-12-13 11:12:35] - mig: i'm not saying it's impossible to get people to opt-in to dues. but, unions know that it's much harder, and that's why they fight it. RTWers will say that it prevents union coercion. -nina
[2012-12-13 11:06:03] - And yeah, Unions have had (and probably always will) to work hard to achieve their aims. But to me that doesn't justify the coercion involved. - mig
[2012-12-13 11:00:57] - nina: Culinary 226 in Las Vegas gets fairly high voluntary dues compliance despite being in a RTW state. Yes, it's an exteme outlier, but getting enough workers to voluntarily contribute can be done if the effort is put forth. - mig
[2012-12-13 10:31:01] - aaron: i did hear about it. it was something like 40% of accounts for about 18 minutes is what i heard. -nina
[2012-12-13 10:27:22] - http://www.zdnet.com/worldwide-gmail-chrome-crash-caused-by-sync-server-error-7000008615/ did anybody else hear about this problem where on December 10, google chrome simultaneously crashed on millions of PCs simultaneously? and i guess the problem kept happening for a few minutes/hours until google fixed something with Google Sync - aaron
[2012-12-13 10:25:42] - I ran into the character limit, but didn't want to truncate my post. That was me. -- Xpovos
[2012-12-13 10:25:23] - There's also diminishing returns. Unions are necessary, and self-perpetuating in situations where working conditions are atrocious. As conditions get better, fewer people are willing to go to great lengths to complain, making unionization less palatable. Fighting for ADDITIONAL benefits is worthwhile, but probably not worthwhile enough that people will pay for it.
[2012-12-13 10:15:05] - that's the thing about unions. one widget doesn't mean one widget of power. you really need a critical mass to have any kind of power at all. -nina
[2012-12-13 10:14:24] - mig: you're right, unions might still exist if the union dues weren't automatically taken out of people's paychecks. but, unions would have significantly less power if they don't have the income to represent the group. and therefore would be much less effective. therefore, decreasing the voice of the workers as a whole. -nina
[2012-12-13 10:06:07] - If true, then that would explain why libertarians are somewhat split. It's kinda like gay marriage. Ideally the government would get out of it entirely, but since that's not happening, then legalizing it (or banning forced union fees) would probably be the next best thing (although some libertarians disagree... remember Ron Paul's defense of DOMA?). -Paul
[2012-12-13 10:04:15] - I just read something which shines a little more light on the right-to-work thing for me, although I don't know if it's true. I read that the NLRA basically makes it so that union fees have to be either forced or banned (there is no middle ground where it is voluntary). -Paul
[2012-12-12 17:16:34] - a: Well, it should matter if it's not something the company wants and is instead something that the government is forcing. -Paul
[2012-12-12 16:09:32] - should it matter? ~a
[2012-12-12 16:07:03] - a: What I'm wondering is why a private company would want to force it's employees to have to pay union dues. -Paul
[2012-12-12 16:04:39] - a: that is also a good question. I would say no, the gov shouldn't have that right to do that to a private compnay with a private union, which means I'm more against RTW than I thought I would be. My stance is different for public sector unions, however. - mig
[2012-12-12 15:57:00] - mig: the real question you should be asking, is does the government have the right to tell the private company that they can't levy union fees?
i love how backwards this issue is. ~a[2012-12-12 15:56:37] - the voting thing is something I'm not familiar with, does RTW actually change the legal process in which a union can be formed? - mig
[2012-12-12 15:54:22] - are worth the dues, then does that union deserve to exist? - mig
[2012-12-12 15:54:01] - nina: I don't think it necessarily follows that a union would dissappear if workers were given the option of paying dues. Yeah, they'd have less revenue, for sure, since there will always be people who will opt out if they can. But just like the failing business that can't find people to buy its products, if enough workers don't feel the services a union provides
[2012-12-12 15:32:19] - michigan law text pdf (IGNORE MY LAST LINK). this on is the correct link oops! ~a
[2012-12-12 15:27:56] - michigan law text pdf (the version that went to the governor for signing). ~a
[2012-12-12 15:07:46] - i will add a disclaimer - i haven't been following the michigan stuff as closely, but the stuff i said below is the general fight between unions and right-to-workers, and is probably the crux of what's happening in michigan. -nina
[2012-12-12 15:06:33] - Nina: Gotcha, thanks. -Paul
[2012-12-12 15:04:53] - either way requires a majority.-nina
[2012-12-12 15:04:34] - paul: you are correct. the difference is in how you get the majority of workers. unions want to be able to collect signatures from all of their employees over a long period of time. union-busters want to have a one-day election. -nina
[2012-12-12 15:04:13] - Nina: Oh, ok. So in addition to it being a secret ballot, it also changes when the vote is taken and how many people vote? -Paul
[2012-12-12 15:03:54] - a: i don't have a straightforward answer for you. but, RTW states means that i have to opt-in. non-RTW states means i have to opt-out. does that provide clarity? -nina
[2012-12-12 15:02:36] - Nina: I'm still confused. Even without a secret ballot (not balance, like I said before, whoops, I blame lack of sleep), doesn't the union still need a majority of workers to vote for unionization? -Paul
[2012-12-12 15:02:12] - nina: can you answer my two questions? i've read a lot and seen some confusing shit. please answer these two questions: i can't be compelled to pay unions in right-to-work states? i can't be compelled to pay unions in non-right-to-work states? ~a
[2012-12-12 15:01:00] - like i said before, unions know that their best chance of getting in the doors is by literally going to every worker's home and sitting down on their couch, having a one-on-one conversation over several weeks before they can get someone to sign the card. -nina
[2012-12-12 15:00:13] - by conducting secret ballots over one day, there is an increased likelihood of fewer people voting, and the conservative few having a louder voice and shutting down the union. -nina
[2012-12-12 14:59:26] - paul: just like if you were to require every single american to vote, a republican would never get elected. the current would be much farther left than it is, and it's essentially the fact that a large percent of the population doesn't vote that allows for conservatives to even be in power. -nina
[2012-12-12 14:58:25] - it's self-preserving for the unions, which is why a lot of people don't like them. and undoubtedly a lot of unions have abused this power and are trying to keep it. -nina
[2012-12-12 14:57:33] - unions also know that by giving employees choice on whether to pay dues or not will mean that most people won't pay dues. revenue for the union decreases dramatically, and pretty much ensures that the union will disappear. meaning the workers will have zero representation. -nina
[2012-12-12 14:56:27] - so, union power decreases. also, laws in non-RTW states did say that employees automatically pay dues whether they choose to join the union or not. this gives the workers a better chance at bargaining power at counterbalancing employer power. (think triangle waist shirt factory). -nina
[2012-12-12 14:55:53] - Nina: Why does a secret balance decrease the chances of a union forming? -Paul
[2012-12-12 14:54:10] - while on the face of it, it seems like that would prevent "union coercion" of people signing cards, it decreases the chances of union's forming. union organizers know that they have to work slowly, one by one, to get buy in. a vote in one day would almost guarantee the loss of a union. -nina
[2012-12-12 14:53:04] - all a union had to do was get a majority of the workers of an company to sign cards saying that they want a union. a union could then be formed. what the RTWers are trying to do is take away the card signing aspect, and make it a secret ballot. -nina
[2012-12-12 14:51:39] - i can see why everyone's confused here. on the face of it, the democrats stance on unions seems counter-intuitive to democracy. when unions were growing in this country, and the government was labor friendly, laws were essentially passed that supported powerful unions. -nina
[2012-12-12 14:46:47] - Small-government, I mean. -Paul
[2012-12-12 14:42:17] - yes sir. ok, so i'm not the only one that was weirded out by the backwards democrat-republican split on this. ~a
[2012-12-12 14:36:29] - a: http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/12/when-right-to-work-is-wrong-and-un-liber Here's the small argument against the Right to Work laws that you were talking about. -Paul
[2012-12-12 14:10:01] - some explanations i've seen (possibly incorrect) is that this only affects fees of non-union members that want to be part of collective bargaining (believe it or not, non-members can demand to be part of the bargains that members pay for). ~a
[2012-12-12 14:08:45] - maybe. there are other explanations. nothing i've read so far has been clear on RTW and how it affects mandatory fees to union members and mandatory fees to non-union members. ~a
[2012-12-12 14:03:15] - a: Well, it's not legal for non-union members to be forced to pay money in right-to-work states... isn't that the reason why this law is a big deal? -Paul
[2012-12-12 14:02:19] - a: And if the law wasn't a big deal and didn't change anything, then why is everybody making such a big deal about it? -Paul
[2012-12-12 14:01:40] - i'm not sure what i believe because i'm still not sure if it's legal for non-union members to be forced to pay money in all 50 states. ~a
[2012-12-12 14:01:21] - a: I'm a little confused. Are you trying to say that this new law doesn't change anything and isn't a big deal and that people are already not required to pay union fees? Because the link you posted seems to contradict that. -Paul
[2012-12-12 14:00:14] - i'm . . . not sure.
~a[2012-12-12 13:56:18] - so no the 2 sentences are not contradictory or no my last post wasn't accurate? - mig
[2012-12-12 13:49:15] - nrtw faq. ~a
[2012-12-12 13:46:11] - nope. not if that was already the case. ~a
[2012-12-12 13:42:48] - ok, how about this as a TLDR: in michigan unions and employers can no longer enter into an agreement that requires employees who are not members of the union to fork over money to the union. is that an accurate? - mig
[2012-12-12 13:06:56] - next sentence: "Nonmembers who object to that requirement may be compelled to pay only that portion of union dues that is attributable to the cost of representing employees in collective bargaining" ???? aren't those contradictory? - mig
[2012-12-12 13:05:19] - a: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_shop "Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, a union may require that employees either join the union or pay the equivalent of union dues." ok, now I'm officially confused. - mig
[2012-12-12 12:40:42] - paul: a combination I guess? I don't see how a fee would be enforceable without cooperation between employer and the union. - mig
[2012-12-12 12:35:09] - mig: Do you know which entities are the ones "forcing" people to pay their fair share fees? Is it the employer? The union? Some combination of the two? -Paul
[2012-12-12 12:33:05] - a: Considering the huge deal that unions and democrats (including the president) made over this, it seems doubtful to me that this is some sort of redundant smoke screen. This seems like a legit big deal. -Paul
[2012-12-12 12:27:27] - xpovos: ok then, i guess that clears it up. - mig
[2012-12-12 12:26:49] - a: I guess now that I think about it I'm of mixed opinion on the whole thing, in so far as it pertains to the private sector. The public sector is an entirely different animal, however. - mig
[2012-12-12 12:24:34] - mig: Dues would imply membership. Charging a fee to a non-member can't be dues, otherwise they'd be members and entitled to a vote, etc. -- Xpovos
[2012-12-12 12:13:28] - though conceptually I don't see much of a difference between the 2, there's apparently a legal distinction. - mig
[2012-12-12 12:08:22] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_shop Ah here we go. I should not have used the word "dues" apparently it's "fair share fees". - mig
[2012-12-12 12:05:50] - a: I suppose there's some confusion there. While NLRA states that they can't force you to join a union, is taking "fees" from all employees in an open shop environment similiarly prohibited? I'm not so sure. - mig
[2012-12-12 12:03:02] - paul: the rights of the private-entity to levy fees on whoever they wish? that seems like a small-government issue. ~a
[2012-12-12 12:01:57] - so this whole thing is a fucking smoke screen? why isn't anybody talking about this? ~a
[2012-12-12 12:01:35] - "Section 7 of the NLRA expressly states that employees shall have the right to refrain from joining a union" ~a
[2012-12-12 11:59:53] - audrey says that part of the bill was redundant. ~a
prev <-> next