prev <-> next
[2013-01-11 16:39:03] - 15%? try 97.5%. source ~a
[2013-01-11 16:37:41] - that's because you have no numbers and you're basing everything on your preconceived notions. ~a
[2013-01-11 16:35:46] - a: To me, it has more to do with your socio-economic status, mindset, priorities and other things than it has to do with whether a doctor's visit costs $20 or $200. -Paul
[2013-01-11 16:34:56] - a: I'm saying people avoid preventative care now, and those same people probably would in my system too. I do not dispute that. I do dispute the idea that the majority of people who currently DO preventative care would stop. -Paul
[2013-01-11 16:33:36] - a: Honestly, I don't know if I can put it better than my very first response to your post: " I don't have any numbers, but I don't see why preventative care would suddenly change much. Sure, some people wouldn't go to the doctor (some people don't go now), but I'm guessing most people who do go now would still go. Why wouldn't they?" -Paul
[2013-01-11 16:33:34] - ah. ~a
[2013-01-11 16:32:19] - a: Because they are mostly unrelated? The first two talk about our current system and the third refers to my proposed new system. -Paul
[2013-01-11 16:31:24] - Aaron: Sure, let's say 15% don't do preventative care right now for whatever reason. If we move to a system where health insurance is more for emergencies than regular doctor's visits, then I think it maybe goes up to 20-25%, not that it goes to something like 80%. -Paul
[2013-01-11 16:31:02] - why do you agree with the first two (or "or do not disagree"), but you do disagree with the last one? ~a
[2013-01-11 16:30:40] - i don't follow that logic. ~a
[2013-01-11 16:29:47] - Aaron: I think we might be arguing different points. I do not disagree that people, right now, don't go to the doctor for preventative care. I also don't disagree that it probably has to do with cost. What I do disagree with is ~a's point that "preventative care stops happening". -Paul
[2013-01-11 16:27:40] - paul: i disagree. i think there are a lot of reasons why people opt out of preventative care, but if you did a survey, i bet at least %15 opt out because of cost. haven't you ever known anybody who needed a prescription medicine, but it was too expensive, so they went unmedicated? that counts too - aaron
[2013-01-11 16:25:51] - Aaron: But those who currently DO get regular check-ups and DO get their bumps and sore shoulder and chest pains checked out probably would still go. -Paul
[2013-01-11 16:25:50] - paul: yes, i'm specifically talking about people who are either self-employed or working low-wage jobs. i'm not counting people like me, who just go to the doctor every 2-3 years because they're lazy, or because nothing ever happens - aaron
[2013-01-11 16:24:57] - Aaron: But my original point was that I don't think that if people had to pay more for doctor's visits, that it would change the percentage of people going to preventative care much. The people who don't get it now still probably won't. -Paul
[2013-01-11 16:23:56] - Aaron: I think we're getting a little bit off the original topic, which was a response to this: "but then preventative care stops happening, right? preventative care is MUCH cheaper and is something people often don't go for". I certainly don't deny that there are some people who avoid preventative care for all sorts of reasons... -Paul
[2013-01-11 16:21:37] - Aaron: Are we talking about the uninsured, though? Because if you have health insurance then it often covers routine check-ups. I understand people avoid doctors now, but I think that has more to do with the type of person they are than with how our health care system is set up. -Paul
[2013-01-11 16:14:48] - paul: the safest. - aaron
[2013-01-11 16:14:45] - paul: going to think, as a college student or whatever, "man, it's been six months, i should check if my headlights are aligned properly"... nobody would do it voluntarily, so the government mandates annual (or bi-annual) inspections, otherwise you pay a fine. that way the path of "cheapest resistance" or whatever, the cheapest/easiest thing is also - aaron
[2013-01-11 16:13:08] - paul: it's not out of malice it's just like -- what's the most financially efficient, for any given year. you go to the doctor as few times as you can, because it costs the least amount of money. kind of like how with cars, the government actually forces you to have your vehicle inspected periodically, because otherwise who's going to do it voluntarily? who's - aaron
[2013-01-11 16:11:12] - paul: and they do it for financial reasons, because a doctor visit costs them too much and they're living paycheck-to-paycheck. - aaron
[2013-01-11 16:10:53] - paul: yes, i'm saying that happens right now. people will have weird muscle or joint pains, or a cough which gets worse and worse every day, and they won't see a doctor unless it becomes delibitating enough that they literally cannot go to work - aaron
[2013-01-11 16:09:44] - paul: and you have to go to the hospital and you find out you have a form of cancer which, if you had your doctor-recommended bi-annual cancer screening, they could have taken care of with chemo but now it's going to require expensive surgery - aaron
[2013-01-11 16:08:07] - Aaron: Well, it'll also probably cost you more as well, unless you either have really good insurance or I guess don't have insurance at all. Is that what we're talking about? The uninsured? -Paul
[2013-01-11 16:07:12] - Aaron: Just to make sure I understand you... You're saying that people are going to have notice an abnormal growth or something and not pay $100 or whatever to see a doctor about it and wait until... I guess they need to call 911? -Paul
[2013-01-11 16:07:02] - paul: exactly. you could not change the oil in your car, and then it'll cost YOU more. that's the difference. if you don't go in for preventative care in our current model, it costs "the system" more. for people who are living paycheck to paycheck, it's not like something they plan out -- it's just kind fo something that happens. you don't get checkups, - aaron
[2013-01-11 15:56:23] - Aaron: I'm not sure why people would suddenly think differently about their health, which would seem to be more important. I don't think people are going to intentionally neglect their health so they can get free emergency coverage. -Paul
[2013-01-11 15:54:06] - Aaron: Sure, I could not change the oil in my car until my car stops running, but then it'll probably cost me more AND I'll be majorly inconvenienced when my car breaks down. -Paul
[2013-01-11 15:53:28] - Aaron: I'm not necessarily saying they can just wait for car insurance to cover the costs of emergency care. I'm saying that (generally) people understand that preventative care is preferable to letting something get worse. -Paul
[2013-01-11 15:51:15] - Xpovos: Right, and I understand that, just like there are people who don't change the oil in their car and don't care if the check engine light is on. I think there would be people on both sides. -Paul
[2013-01-11 15:21:04] - i assume i'm either misunderstanding your statement, or i've missed out on thousands of dollars worth of potential claims on my car insurance... - aaron
[2013-01-11 15:19:59] - paul: i don't want to put words in your mouth, so i just want to make sure i understand what you're trying to say. you're saying, "people pay for their car maintenance, even though they don't have to... they could just wait for their car insurance to cover the costs of emergency care"?? is that what you're saying?? because that seems untrue - aaron
[2013-01-11 15:09:06] - That could be the cost of the care itself, or more likely it's the opportunity costs. Transportation and time, perhaps time away from work that they don't get sick leave for. Or the possibility that the care requires changes to lifestyles that the patient refuses or is incapable of making for some reason. -- Xpovos
[2013-01-11 15:08:10] - Paul: I think their counter point is reality, where certain people don't get preventative care. Clearly for some economic reason, it's not valuable enough to them. -- Xpovos
[2013-01-11 14:47:40] - I just don't understand why you guys think people will suddenly stop going to the doctor for preventative stuff when examples in other areas seem to contradict that. -Paul
[2013-01-11 14:46:46] - And my cholesterol medication is actually relative expensive even with insurance, and yet I still buy it even though it falls solidly in the preventative care area. -Paul
[2013-01-11 14:46:12] - Besides, don't people already mostly have deductibles on things? It's not like going to the doctor is completely free right now. I guess it depends on what kind of insurance you have, but I often still pay a small amount when I go. -Paul
[2013-01-11 14:44:20] - Aaron: Yeah, sorry. I don't get what you are saying with your first two statements and I'm not sure why you think my analogy doesn't work. -Paul
[2013-01-11 14:15:38] - a/aaron: Because people care about their cars more than their bodies? -- Xpovos
[2013-01-11 14:11:19] - paul: yeah, i have nothing to add. what aaron said. ~a
[2013-01-11 13:44:29] - paul: i don't know if i came across coherently there. it sounds like you're saying, "if health insurance worked like car insurance, people would maintain their bodies the same way they maintain their cars", but i don't think that analogy works - aaron
[2013-01-11 13:41:27] - paul: your analogy might describe how people would act, if heath care was a regular expense people could afford out-of-pocket, and if health insurance only covered.... explosions - aaron
[2013-01-11 13:38:43] - paul: my auto insurance has a deductible, and i don't think i can apply it to things that would arise from a lack of regular maintenance. if i stop changing my oil and tires for 30,000 miles and run my wheels down to the rims, i don't think car insurance covers that - aaron
[2013-01-11 13:01:18] - a: Most people pay for their own regular car maintenance and yet most people still regularly get their tires rotated, oil changed, etc and get their car checked up when the check engine light is on, right? -Paul
[2013-01-11 13:00:11] - a: I don't have any numbers, but I don't see why preventative care would suddenly change much. Sure, some people wouldn't go to the doctor (some people don't go now), but I'm guessing most people who do go now would still go. Why wouldn't they? -Paul
[2013-01-11 12:50:18] - yes that would be cool i guess. but then preventative care stops happening, right? preventative care is MUCH cheaper and is something people often don't go for. ~a
[2013-01-11 12:49:07] - a: But I do think the problem is less with regular health insurance because people still have some connection to the plans they have (even if it's a tenuous one). -Paul
[2013-01-11 12:47:37] - a: The same problem with people wanting every test done? I definitely agree, and it's why I think one of the best things that can happen is if we find a way for people to people to pay for more things like doctor's appointments out of pocket and return health insurance to paying for medical emergencies instead of routine check-ups. -Paul
[2013-01-11 12:45:54] - http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649 I'm sure these were handpicked to show the American system in the best light, but it does highlight a lot of the benefits of our system which we might lose and not necessarily immediately notice (like the better availability to MRIs and Cat Scans). -Paul
[2013-01-11 12:43:39] - paul: yes, and regular health insurance will have the exact same problem. ~a
[2013-01-11 12:35:40] - Aaron: I don't know how they all do it, but I think the majority basically ration care in some way (wait lists, limits on when certain things can be performed, etc). -Paul
[2013-01-11 12:34:53] - paul: right there's that too. Actually I remember the old John Stossel show where he actually did go into a super market and starting picking up all the expensive steak he found to illustrate his point. - mig
[2013-01-11 12:31:38] - paul: how do other countries solve that issue? - aaron
[2013-01-11 10:38:36] - mig: So with socialized health care, even if you have somebody legitimately hurt who is seeking medical attention (let's say the injured shoulder that Aaron brought up), then there is no reason not to give him an MRI, blood tests, X-Rays... the whole nine yards, even if the majority of those tests might be excessive. -Paul
[2013-01-11 10:36:57] - mig: The way I've heard it explained that I like is that it would be as if the government paid for everybody's groceries. Then everybody would want to eat Filet Mignon and Lobster (or something similarly tasty and expensive) every day until it's all used up and then has to be rationed. -Paul
[2013-01-11 10:33:49] - the thing why rationing is brought up as a potential con of socialized medicine is that since there's usually no disincentive to not use services unnecessarily (because they are "free"), there's risk of burdening of the system to the point where care does have to be rationed. - mig
[2013-01-11 10:30:28] - a: I mean, what do YOU think would happen if we take our current system (which does have a form of rationing) and throw a bunch more demand into the mix without changing the supply? Prices either go up or else there will be shortages. -Paul
[2013-01-11 10:30:06] - a: corporate taxes are higher (the purple bar) but personal income taxes are definitely lower on average in the US compared to most european countries. - mig
[2013-01-11 10:28:00] - a: it certianly can. If there just isn't enough doctors to meet the demand for services, then yes, they will have to ration their time. - mig
[2013-01-11 10:27:37] - a: I don't know.
I am not implying that, but I am implying that it would likely be worse. I think another under-reported story is that the US is suffering from a bit of a doctor shortage right now. -Paul[2013-01-11 10:27:18] - sorry, higher. ~a
[2013-01-11 10:27:03] - mig: looking at your graph at the top, the US has lower overall taxes than the UK? ~a
[2013-01-11 10:22:56] - paul: are you implying that rationing doesn't happen with non-socialized medicine? ~a
[2013-01-11 10:21:59] - a: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialized_medicine#Rationing_.28Access.2C_Coverage.2C_Price.2C_and_Time.29 Here is a list of some of the possible trade-offs. -Paul
[2013-01-11 10:20:59] - a: you sure about that? - mig
[2013-01-11 10:20:48] - a: Sometimes the trade-offs can be hard to find. I remember reading an article about Cuba (I think) where it discussed how on the surface everything seems pretty good with their health care in terms of lots of doctors available and everything... except they apparently are suffering from a severe aspirin shortage. -Paul
[2013-01-11 10:19:07] - a: They don't pay more taxes? Even if they don't, that doesn't mean they aren't spending more on health care thanks to deficit spending. Also, the trade-offs can take a few different forms. It can be rationed care/waiting lists. It can be decreased innovation. -Paul
[2013-01-11 10:15:25] - a: I can see preferring the metro to driving into DC, it's the lesser of two evils, but actually liking it? -Paul
[2013-01-11 10:15:14] - what's the trade-off of socialized healthcare? europeans don't pay more in taxes than we do. ~a
[2013-01-11 10:13:27] - Aaron: It's like the minimum wage/living wage. Sure, having a minimum wage of $10 an hour or something is much more humane and would improve standards of life for people in theory, but I think most people don't realize that there is a trade-off (usually increased unemployment). -Paul
[2013-01-11 10:11:46] - Aaron: Right, so even if ~a didn't imply it, then article he posted did. I think it's far too easy to anticipate the good results of stuff like socialized health care and far too hard to see the negatives. -Paul
[2013-01-11 10:11:16] - point taken. ~a
[2013-01-11 10:10:20] - a: If I posted an article talking about how gun control = more gun deaths and made a comment like, "at least we know gun control saves lives (sarcasm)" but then said, "I don't know if gun control would be a good idea or not"... I think you can infer which way I am leaning.
-Paul[2013-01-11 10:10:02] - i like aaron's points better than my points so i'll let him keep talking. but i have to say that i like the dmv and i like the metro. your examples suck. ~a
[2013-01-11 10:09:50] - paul: the article implies that socialized health care would improve US life expectancy too, it explicitly calls out social inequality, and posing financial barriers to uninsured americans and stuff... but i agree with everything else you said - aaron
[2013-01-11 10:08:14] - a: And then you said it seemed to be working for our peers and prior to that you said, "well, at least we don't have socialized medicine. (sarcasm)". I don't think it's putting words in your mouth to say that you "seemed" to be "implying" (two qualifiers). -Paul
[2013-01-11 10:07:00] - paul: "a seemed to be implying that socialized health care would improve US Life Expectancy" putting words in my mouth? i said "i don't know". ~a
[2013-01-11 10:01:48] - Aaron: Either through sky-rocketing costs, or through rationed care (or something similar). It's just a matter of supply and demand. -Paul
[2013-01-11 10:00:58] - aaron: My point is that if we want to be more humane by offering free health care to everybody, I just hope people realize that there will be trade-offs. There's no such thing as a free lunch, and socialized medicine might help in the situations you described, but it's going to bite us somewhere. -Paul
[2013-01-11 09:58:58] - "The authors noted that Americans who lived past age 75 had higher survival rates compared with similar countries, and Americans overall had better rates of surviving cancer and strokes. They also said the U.S. better controls high blood pressure, cholesterol, smoking rates and use of alcohol than many other nations." From ~a's article. -Paul
[2013-01-11 09:58:32] - aaron: I understand, and I don't even necessarily disagree about it being more humane. My point was that ~a seemed to be implying that socialized health care would improve US Life Expectancy. -Paul
[2013-01-11 09:54:09] - paul: i don't think a government system wouldn't be more efficient, i think the inefficiencies stem from a lot of other issues with our health care system and our laws. but, a government-run system would guarantee a higher minimum of coverage, which would if nothing else, be more humane - aaron
[2013-01-11 09:53:19] - paul: people in europe hear americans say things like, "i think something's wrong with my shoulder... i'd see a doctor, but i don't have any insurance" or, "wow, it's a good thing i got appendicitis in may, and not back in march or it would have been really expensive" and, their entire continent just cringes. - aaron
[2013-01-11 09:41:41] - a: I would think that anybody who worked in government or has gone to the DMV or ridden the metro should seriously question that premise. -Paul
[2013-01-11 09:40:52] - a: I'm just surprised that people think that the government, who as far as I can tell can't do anything better or more efficiently than the private sector, would be able to run health care better or more efficiently. -Paul
[2013-01-11 09:36:01] - a: And I don't know how bad Hannity and Palin think it would be (I don't watch either of them on TV), but I do think the problem is that it would be hard to know how good OR bad it is without a point of comparison. It's like how we debate whether or not the recovery would've been better without all the government intervention. -Paul
[2013-01-11 09:34:22] - a: I think it's a stretch to assume any causality between socialized health care and life expectancy. Even your link doesn't mention it until the 6th paragraph, and that's after saying: "The shorter life expectancy for Americans largely was attributed to high mortality for men under age 50, from car crashes, accidents and violence." -Paul
[2013-01-11 09:27:48] - it certainly can't be half as bad as sean hannity or sarah palin would have be believe. ~a
[2013-01-11 09:27:07] - it seems to be working for our peers. ~a
[2013-01-11 09:26:43] - i don't know. ~a
[2013-01-11 09:13:15] - a: Do you think things would improve if we did have socialized medicine? -Paul
[2013-01-11 09:08:18] - well, at least we don't have socialized medicine. (sarcasm) U.S. Lags Peers in Life Expectancy ~a
[2013-01-11 09:06:24] - amazon mp3s are the only way i buy single songs. so i just suck it up and accept the loss. but it still makes me sad that 40 years from now when we're using something other than mp3, i'll have to suck it up again. ~a
[2013-01-11 09:04:59] - that's interesting . . . i like it. i just wish amazon could output flac. ~a
[2013-01-10 18:00:36] - oh i see... "autorip update: due to high demand, we are experiencing delays. we will email you when we have added your music" well anyways that's still awesome! i verified that a few of my purchases should be eligible, like the crystal castles album i bought in 2012 - aaron
[2013-01-10 17:55:56] - aaron: They sent an e-mail too. I got 6 according to that e-mail, but they haven't shown up in my Cloud Player yet, so I dunno. -- Xpovos
[2013-01-10 17:53:01] - http://www.amazon.com/b/?node=5946775011 buy a CD from amazon, get the MP3s for free -- supposedly they're applying this retroactively to any CDs you've bought in the past... i checked, and i didn't get any, but i guess i buy mostly weird stuff - aaron
[2013-01-10 16:12:16] - Xpovos: We wagered 0.1BC on whether or not we would get enough this weekend, considering we haven't for the past few. -Paul
[2013-01-10 15:55:53] - Paul: Did a wager you 0.1BC to get people to show up for ultimate? -- Xpovos
[2013-01-10 15:12:49] - a: I spoke with T on Monday evening and he sounded pretty optimistic about making it. I'll see if I can nudge him into replying. Let me know if you still haven't heard from them if you are on the verge of canceling. -Paul
[2013-01-10 14:58:52] - also, your potential .1 btc is pretty high nowadays: one bitcoin = $14 american. ~a
[2013-01-10 14:56:30] - looking "good" but not "great". have you talked to t&j? i haven't heard from vinnie, miguel, or amy either. ~a
[2013-01-10 14:49:15] - a: How are we looking on my chances to get 0.1 bitcoin? -Paul
[2013-01-10 13:14:11] - "Payroll taxes are definitely more regressive" . . . i disagree with that statement. maybe *one of the* payroll taxes is regressive. ...but payroll taxes (taken as a whole) are progressive. ~a
[2013-01-10 13:11:06] - a: I'm not talking scale, aaron asked for examples of taxes that were more regressive than sales taxes. -- Xpovos
[2013-01-10 12:27:01] - yes, the SS isn't very much money relative to VA+fed income tax. medicare is not regressive and it's even smaller. ~a
[2013-01-10 12:00:00] - a: the SS part of it is definitely regressive because it's capped at how much income gets taxed. I dunno if the same holds true for the medicare part of it. - mig
[2013-01-10 11:43:24] - how are payroll taxes more regressive? or regressive at all? i assume we're talking about social security, medicare, VA/federal income tax? btw, social security and medicare are dwarfed by VA/federal income tax: which is progressive. ~a
[2013-01-10 11:27:48] - Payroll taxes are definitely more regressive. Even with a progressive structure, income taxes tend to be more regressive in general than a sales tax simply because truly wealthy people don't have taxable income. But everyone spends. -- Xpovos
[2013-01-10 11:01:56] - a: Me too. I was on the fence about buying one since it sounds cool and I found a place that had them in stock, but while I was trying to decide whether or not to buy, Gurkie went ahead and made the decision for me.
-Paul[2013-01-10 10:58:23] - i'm surprised that a $35 device can do this. ~a
[2013-01-10 10:57:45] - interesting! i want to try this. ~a
[2013-01-10 10:55:20] - Hmmmm, I think my verb tense got a little messed up there. -Paul
[2013-01-10 10:54:58] - a: http://www.mobilemag.com/2012/10/26/how-to-installing-xbmc-using-openelec-on-the-raspberry-pi/ The denizens of the interwebs has told me I can do it. Apparently it can handle 1080i mpeg4 with hardware decoding surprisingly well. -Paul
[2013-01-10 10:49:53] - i see the raspberry pi as being excellent at doing stuff that arduino does. i wouldn't want arduino to stream video to my tv
~a[2013-01-10 10:42:03] - the raspberry pi will not let you stream stuff to the tv. the raspberry pi isn't a htpc, as far as i'm concerned. the raspberry pi costs like, what, $35? and you expect it to do stuff that a $350 computer would have trouble doing? ~a
[2013-01-10 10:39:40] - Anybody here have some experience with HTPCs? Gurkie recently bought me a Raspberry Pi with the instruction to use it to let her "stream stuff to the TV". I'm looking into XMBC, but I'm wondering if there is anything else I should look at. -Paul
[2013-01-10 10:12:13] - mig: Sure, it's certainly not perfect, and I don't even know if I think it's preferable to aim for "fairness" like that when it comes to taxes, but assuming gas tax revenue goes towards road improvements, it seems "fairer" than using sales tax revenue. -Paul
[2013-01-10 10:07:03] - Right now, a person with a hybrid could use the road more than a person who doesn't use a hybrid, but the former will probably pay far less in gas taxes even though he uses the road more. - mig
[2013-01-10 10:06:01] - paul: the problem is that the gas tax is becoming rendered obselete for that purpose due to advances in fuel efficiency technology. - mig
[2013-01-10 10:05:48] - a: Japan has a well documented aging population and Europe and America is getting by mostly only due to immigration. -Paul
[2013-01-10 10:05:02] - a: Sure, but that is a little misleading. I think it's pretty well established that nearly all the industrialized nations have perilously low birth rates and many are below replacement level. -Paul
[2013-01-10 10:03:53] - Xpovos: I guess I mostly agree with you about sales taxes being one of the better forms of taxes in that it's a little more fair than most. In this case, though, wouldn't a gas tax (assuming the proceeds went towards road work) be fairer, since it theoretically taxes those who use the roads? -Paul
[2013-01-10 09:58:26] - and I'm unsure of this completely, though it could vary from country to country but I believe VAT is more regressive as well. - mig
[2013-01-10 09:57:32] - aaron: arguably the payroll tax is more regressive. - mig
[2013-01-10 09:56:34] - no, his book. - mig
[2013-01-10 09:49:57] - xpovos: when you say sales tax is not "overly regressive", which taxes in the U.S are more regressive than sales tax? i was under the impression that sales tax was one of the most regressive taxes there is - aaron
[2013-01-10 09:48:01] - mig: his documentary? ~a
[2013-01-10 09:45:32] - There was also some Pat Buchanan induced hysteria a few years back about white people not reproducing enough. - mig
[2013-01-10 09:45:25] - File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg. "low" is the only one that looks even remotely bad from an underpopulation standpoint . . . and even that line doesn't seem to be a problem for at least 200-300 years. ~a
[2013-01-10 09:39:03] - Xpovos: I'm surprised this qualifies as news. Weren't we pretty sure that under population was going to be bigger problem than over population like a decade ago? -Paul
[2013-01-09 23:59:36] - "would you rather be the best racquetball player in the world or get $70?" hmmmm.... - aaron
[2013-01-09 23:06:08] - http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_start_declining_not_exploding.single.html Dare I start this conversation again? -- Xpovos
[2013-01-09 18:45:46] - Of all the tax types (income, asset, VAT, etc.) I think I like sales taxes best. They're hard to evade but 'fair' without being overly regressive. I'm not sure I support the proposal, but I could probably be convinced. -- Xpovos
[2013-01-09 18:38:30] - a: Not if it just ends up canceling out in the end. -Paul
[2013-01-09 18:25:45] - a lower tax on something else isn't substantial? ~a
[2013-01-09 17:16:03] - a: Oh, it's nothing particular to the sales tax, really. I just feel like it's one of those things that is easy to raise but a lot harder to lower, so I'm worried about giving in to raising it without getting something substantial in return. -Paul
[2013-01-09 17:00:13] - what's wrong with the sales tax? i'm not for the sales tax, but i'm not sure why you're against it. ~a
[2013-01-09 16:51:43] - mig: I say nay. I'm not sure what the reasoning is to just shift the tax burden like that. I suppose it might simplify things some, which would be good, but I'm just loathe to like anything which would involve raising the sales tax. -Paul
[2013-01-09 16:49:44] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/mcdonnell-proposes-eliminating-virginias-gas-tax/2013/01/08/7858ba96-59c8-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html proposal in VA to elimate the gas tax, but then raise taxes on just about everything else we buy. yay or nay? - mig
[2013-01-09 15:55:10] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVrJ8DxECbg&gl=BE drive-thru invisible driver prank - aaron
[2013-01-09 15:01:18] - Kluwe's really been making the rounds lately. http://trenchescomic.com/tales/post/it-aint-all-fame-and-fortune -- Xpovos
[2013-01-09 12:58:04] - Ok, cool. Thanks. -Paul
[2013-01-09 12:49:44] - http://gizmodo.com/5974514/babies-start-acquiring-language-in-the-womb -- Xpovos
[2013-01-09 12:32:44] - Lowballing yourself is never a good idea. -- Xpovos
[2013-01-09 12:32:38] - Paul: If you don't answer salary expectations they will get asked again. You'll have to answer eventually. My last job interview experience went like that. The fact that I eventually gave a number that was probably too high might have been a factor for not getting that job, but I asked what I had to in order to make it worthwhile. -- Xpovos
[2013-01-09 12:01:04] - in the past two years i've had to play this game a lot more often than usual . . . every time we sign a new contract or hire a new employee, both of which seems to be happening a few times per year. ~a
[2013-01-09 11:59:49] - well, no. no. using numbers from different sites are fine. just know that the numbers won't be exact. in my experience, i ask for the absolute maximum i think is reasonable. i know they might knock me down a bit, but that's part of the game. how much will they knock me down? will it be too much? what will i do if i think the new numbers are too low? ~a
[2013-01-09 11:54:46] - axpovos: Good points. I guess that means not to give a specific number answer to a question like "What kind of salary requirements are you expecting" and instead just ask for what the market will bear? -Paul
[2013-01-09 11:51:44] - mig: "Knee-jerky"? I see what you did there.... -Paul
[2013-01-09 11:49:02] - i agree with xpovos, 20k is a good error-bar for salaries in our range. when employers are deciding on your salary you can probably influence them by way more than 20k. ~a
[2013-01-09 11:29:11] - total re-constructive knee surgery for RG3 apparently, projected out for 6-8 months. It seems knee-jerky, but if I were a skins fan I might now be calling for Shanahan's head. - mig
[2013-01-09 11:08:51] - Paul: Don't trust any of that data, but the fact is that salaries even for the same position/experience vary widely. So 20K is probably a reasonable set of error bars. -- Xpovos
[2013-01-09 10:31:17] - Anybody here have any recommendations on a good source of average salary information for our area? I've found a few sites online, but they've disagreed by as much as $20k a year on certain positions, so I'm not sure how much I trust them. -Paul
[2013-01-09 10:22:11] - mig: yeah, that's a logical explanation. if the charges were, "you're selling marijuana", they could just enter the store and that's proof enough. but, i guess if they also wanted to charge him with growing/distributing, it might make sense to have an informant, since those are harder to prove - aaron
[2013-01-09 09:26:21] - I don't know how they picked the other 3, but probably what happened was they got wind of Sandusky as he was looking for partners to start up his business, got their government informant to get in contact with him to become a business parter (with their backing), and they waited until an optimal time to make an arrest. - mig
[2013-01-09 09:23:46] - Why those 4? Thankfully, the DEA's resources are not infinite, and they don't have the manpower to shut down all the dispensaries they can without help from local authorities (which i'm guessing they're getting less of these days). - mig
[2013-01-09 09:21:27] - aaron: well even if they were publicly known as a dispensary, the legal wheels for bringing the case still can bog down for years. Having an informant on the inside willing to corroborate evidence definitely makes the case more air-tight. - mig
[2013-01-09 08:34:33] - mig: you might be right, but there's two things don't make sense to me if that's the case. one is there's only been four of these dispensary holders tried since 2009. how did they pick which four? the second is that there was some kind of "government informant" involved. they guy ran a public dispensary -- what did the informant tell the government? - aaron
[2013-01-08 14:39:06] - aaron: aside from some commenters on reddit, I haven't really seen anyone making the claim that this guy was selling marijuana to people without a perscription. In the prosecution of the case the Feds didn't seem to particularly care about the medial distincition since in their eyes selling marijuana to anyone for any purpose is enough for their case. - mig
[2013-01-08 13:31:45] - mig: i looked for other sources other than reason/huffpost and couldn't find any, i checked wikipedia or some other site which would have a credible list of sources and stuff but couldn't find much. maybe because the verdict is still fresh. maybe more will turn up in a few days - aaron
[2013-01-08 13:28:30] - mig: if you're counting any discussion, no matter how credible, as evidence that there's only one side then... you're a very confusing person - aaron
[2013-01-08 13:22:43] - also, if you're counting the reddit threads as credible discussion that there are 2 sides here, I would be less than convinced in that theory. - mig
[2013-01-08 13:08:46] - As for why he was targeted, it turns out one of his business partners happened to be a government informant, so I don't find the whole "it was a front" thing to be really credible. - mig
[2013-01-08 13:06:58] - aaron: I've been following the case a bit and I haven't seen anything related to anything related to any accusations of it being a front or anything like that. The feds case throughout the entire thing is "selling marijuana is against federal law, and that's that." - mig
[2013-01-08 13:00:23] - aaron: that's how the feds view every medical marijuana dispensary though. Officially, there's no such thing as "medical marijuana" in federal law. - mig
[2013-01-08 12:54:10] - aaron: Ah, ok. I didn't now that. I just copied and pasted two lines from the article (basically). I guess my statement is still technically true, albeit a little misleading.
-Paul[2013-01-08 12:53:09] - paul: i can't really find enough sources to back up either side on that one. i just found enough discussion to understand that there's two sides here. some people think he was arrested for distributing medical marijuana, and some think he was using it as a front to distribute it for non-medicinal reasons - aaron
[2013-01-08 12:48:20] - paul: also, to correct you, he was prosecuted for using medical marijuana as a front to sell marijuana for non-medical purposes. he wasn't charged with selling medical marijuana - aaron
[2013-01-08 12:46:49] - i guess the only silver lining is that the medical marijuana case is still unusual enough to be newsworthy; there's only been three similar cases since 2009. i wonder what made them choose these four particularly people - aaron
[2013-01-08 12:46:12] - I think that kind of comment is just CYA for calling him a pussy in the first place. -- Xpovos
[2013-01-08 12:45:09] - mig/Paul: I understand and agree. And I blame Shanahan too. I stand by my previous comment, I'm totally disgusted with him and how he handled that situation. But when it was clear he wasn't going to do the right thing, someone had to. No one did. Hell, I'd have put more faith in Cousins being a leader if he'd just forced his way into the lineup. -- Xpovos
[2013-01-08 12:43:38] - even with the Cutler thing and revealing that he indeed have a fairly serious injury (grade 2 mcl tear) there were still media people saying, "well he could have technically played". - mig
[2013-01-08 12:42:01] - mig: Holy crap, jinx on the Jay Cutler point. -Paul
[2013-01-08 12:41:42] - Xpovos: I understand on some level about saying RG3 should've taken himself out, but we know players hardly ever do that (and look at what happened to poor Jay Cutler when he did). I don't blame RG3, I blame Shanahan. He's the coach, it's his job to make those calls, and it was obvious he was hurt and not 100%. -Paul
[2013-01-08 12:41:09] - Maybe, it wouldn't happen to RG3 because he's much more likeable, but that mentality is just way too pervasive in the NFL. - mig
[2013-01-08 12:40:35] - xpovos: I think that ultimately though the coach is gotta be the one to put his foot down and take the player out. The climate of the game unfortunately just unmercilessly will want to label someone a 'pussy' if they ever take themselves out of a game, like what happened to Jay Cutler a few years ago. - mig
[2013-01-08 12:35:36] - I think an argument can be made by talking heads that leaving RG3 in was the 'best chance to win the game', but I think that argument loses the debate, probably 80:20. -- Xpovos
[2013-01-08 12:34:53] - This is why RG3 needed to take himself out. I understand, at least on a partial level, the competitive spirit. But the physical things that make him a better QB than Cousins were all objectively gone. The only advantage was in mindset, leadership, etc. Those matter, but I'd rather have a QB who can actually throw accurately and scramble a little. -- Xpovos
[2013-01-08 11:34:11] - paul: but, but, OBAMA PROMISED HE WOULDN"T DO THAT! - mig
[2013-01-08 11:32:39] - http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/01/07/feds-sentence-aaron-sandusky-to-10-years Medical marijuana dispensary owner sentenced to 10 years in prison despite being in full compliance with California law. -Paul
[2013-01-08 11:16:00] - for taking out RG3 after he engineered a 14-0 lead. -Paul
[2013-01-08 11:15:49] - mig: Right, which is why I would've taken him out and replaced him with Cousins. I agree with you, I just think a lot of people are acting like the decision was much more obvious than it was based on hindsight. I could easily see a situation where Shanahan takes out RG3, Cousins stinks it up, loses the game, and then people are calling for his head... -Paul
[2013-01-08 11:03:12] - There was definitely a lot of risk in keeping him out there, and I'm not sure it was wise to take that gamble, and I think I would still say that even if the best case scenario happened (RG3's knee doesn't buckle and he engineers a game winning drive). - mig
[2013-01-08 11:01:27] - paul: There's hindsight, yes. But from what I was seeing from watching the game I think it was very apparent well before the injury that RG3 was very clearly hobbled and limping. Even Joe and Troy were talking about whether he should have come out or not well before that play. - mig
[2013-01-08 10:37:04] - mig: Basically, I think it was a bad move by Shanahan, but I also am not on board with the people who are relentlessly bashing him for it. Of course, I also didn't think Jim Zorn's second fake punt attempt in a single game was THAT bad of an idea, so what do I know? -Paul
[2013-01-08 10:35:46] - mig: Personally, I think it was the wrong move, but I also am willing to admit that I have the (huge) benefit of hindsight. What if he had stayed in and NOT gotten injured worse and engineered the game winning drive? What if Kirk Cousins came in and stunk up the joint? -Paul
[2013-01-08 10:11:39] - so I've been hearing a lot of arguing amongst a lot of talking heads over the whole RG3 knee debacle, which is odd. I thought it was really obvious that leaving him in there till his knee gave out was the height of abject stupidity, but a lot of ESPN talking heads seem to be adamant that it wasn't. - mig
[2013-01-07 14:40:04] - Xpovos: I almost called back to your claim that money is fungible when I made my last statement.
-Paul[2013-01-07 14:39:25] - We have now confirmed we all understand the concept that money is fungible. -- Xpovos
[2013-01-07 14:10:00] - the platinum coin itself obviously doesn't go into circulation, but the fed can now pump out $1t immediately. that $1t could go into circulation within minutes. ~a
[2013-01-07 14:08:58] - wait, uhhhh, why can't that coin be added to the circulating money supply? the $1t coin goes to the fed reserve. the fed reserve then can spend $1t more. that's what the video said. ~a
[2013-01-07 14:03:15] - Xpovos: Right, so that coin won't be added to the circulating money supply, but it frees up the other money being held to be circulated. -Paul
[2013-01-07 14:00:41] - mig: No idea if he is any good, but I'm all for trying somebody other than Stinespring. -Paul
[2013-01-07 13:31:27] - http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/1/7/3846860/pep-hamilton-virginia-tech-stanford-meeting the end of stinespring maybe? - mig
[2013-01-07 12:43:26] - Paul: Right, if we definte inflation as an increase in the money supply, this whole argument is null. And while that's probably the best answer, the fact is that we only care about inflation as it pertains to the marketplace: which is increased prices. -- Xpovos
[2013-01-07 12:41:23] - Xpovos: I'm not sure I understand your question. I'm assuming (based on your arguments) that we're not defining inflation as an increase in the total money supply, but as an increase in the circulating money supply (basically increases in prices). -Paul
[2013-01-07 12:38:45] - The bond vigilantes are asleep at the wheel. But bond yields going up, even if it were to happen, is not the same as inflation. -- Xpovos
[2013-01-07 12:38:10] - a: OK, so the concern is about monetizing the debt through printing new reserves? I'll agree it's unprecidented, and it ought to send Treasury yeilds through the roof. But then again so should the first debt ceiling debate and near "default". What actually happened though was the fear sent people scrambling for safe harbor... which was apparently still U.S. Treasuries
[2013-01-07 12:36:29] - Paul: So you believe that innovation is inflationary? -- Xpovos
[2013-01-07 12:36:28] - xpovos: usually when the us gov borrows money, they do it with a bond, right? not by printing the money they need? ~a
[2013-01-07 12:35:44] - Those cause immediate inflationary responses because they're NEW and UNEXPECTED. I think the latest one got called "QE4ever" though, because they basically just said we'll buy $1T per year, or more for as long as we feel we need to in order to right the economy. That actually counteracts some of the immediate inflation issue because now it's expected again. -- Xpovos
[2013-01-07 12:34:41] - Xpovos: I would challenge the idea that "the inflation we're talking about right now has already happened". We've probably already reaped the inflation from Greenspan's easy money policies, but I think most of the inflation from Bernanke's QE policies is being suppressed right now by banks being unwilling to lend and businesses sitting on large sums of cash. -Paul
[2013-01-07 12:34:29] - a: Why would this be inflationary in the immediate? Every dime of this is expected federal spending, the coin is just a gimmick to 'pay' for it. Everyone involved knew the spending was coming and would be borrowed. This isn't like the Federal Reserve and QE:6 or whatever number they're up to now. -- Xpovos
[2013-01-07 12:33:27] - yeah I'm with a in wondering how this wouldn't have a major impact on currency exchanges. - mig
[2013-01-07 12:31:15] - ok looking at dxy:ind there hasn't been any big moves yet. we'll have to watch after they print the $1t coin. ~a
[2013-01-07 12:27:52] - xpovos/paul: i think it will create some immediate inflation where everything costs more tomorrow. i'm wondering if even talking about this is going to start affecting the currency exchanges. ~a
[2013-01-07 12:27:38] - Paul: Posit: We are currently experiencing a deflationary crush because of the overlending of the bubble. That is, all the inflation we're talking about right now has already happened (1991-2005 primarily). Anything we do for a few years is just filling the void of what we've already done. Rebuttal? -- Xpovos
[2013-01-07 12:21:52] - Xpovos: Sure, I'll grant you that it won't create some immediate inflation where everything costs double tomorrow, but to me there is no doubt that it would make inflation much worse over the next few years once all the money the banks are hoarding start getting lent out again. -Paul
[2013-01-07 12:20:41] - Krugman caveat: besides, given the deflationary trend of the past 6 years, some inflation would actually be a good thing for the economy. -- Xpovos
[2013-01-07 12:20:02] - But that is exactly the same inflation as has already been baked in by government spending agreements, which hasn't actually produced any genuine inflation yet, because, again the velocity is too low. The money is going to bankers, not to a man on the street who might spend it in a vending machine. -- Xpovos
[2013-01-07 12:19:00] - Paul: I'll take the other side for argument's sake. (Can't believe I'm agreeing with Krugman on anything, but there it is). How is this inflationary? He's right, the coins won't be in circulation. The monetary velocity is zero. Sure, money is fungible, and this goes into reserves, and $1T reserves go into circ... -- Xpovos
[2013-01-07 11:57:51] - a: Maybe I should re-phrase... I can see people taking the idea remotely seriously as long as they admit that this would obviously be VERY inflationary. -Paul
[2013-01-07 11:52:27] - a: I thought it was a joke, and I can't believe people are taking the idea even remotely seriously. -Paul
[2013-01-07 11:52:06] - a: Well, I think the author of the article wrote that part, but it's coming from part of the central argument for the $1 trillion coin (as I understand it). -Paul
[2013-01-07 11:42:19] - i agree with everything in that article except that part. yes, congress sucks at its job. yes, this is a gimmick and a loophole. but that it wouldn't affect inflation. that it wouldn't affect inflation because it won't his circulation. wtf?! loaning out money that you minted out of thin air will always affect inflation. ~a
[2013-01-07 11:39:13] - "Plus, since the coin isn’t going to make it into circulation, it should not be inflationary" wtf? who has made this assertion and what are they smoking. ~a
[2013-01-07 11:26:19] - http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2013/01/07/krugman-joins-the-1-trillion-coin-brigade/ I can't believe anybody, even Krugman, thinks that this $1 trillion coin idea could possibly work. Sure, it would avoid the debt ceiling issue, but how can anybody think this wouldn't be inflationary? -Paul
[2013-01-07 10:59:07] - mig: It's much better than the super simple self destruct password for the Enterprise in Star Trek 3... -Paul
[2013-01-07 10:49:56] - hah that's a long-ass password. ~a
[2013-01-06 19:57:15] - a: looks like your dad has nothing on picard when it comes to complex passwords. - mig
[2013-01-06 11:18:05] - So I picked uup Chivalry last weekend and am surprised at how much fun it actually is. It's a little pricy for the type of game it is ($25 normally but there's a 50% off sale right now that goes until tomorrow). If anyone decides to pick it up let me know. - mig
[2013-01-06 10:22:44] - that's so weird! just last week i was contemplating computer generated humor: one of my weird coworkers posted up a bunch of puns that seemed excessively formulaic and i started to wonder how i would go about creating an application that generated the puns. it turned out to be quite difficult in my head, but i did end up stumbling on computational humor. ~a
[2013-01-04 17:49:27] - Hmm. Silicon comedians? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/can-computers-be-funny.html?hp&_r=1& -- Xpovos
[2013-01-04 16:38:27] - haha, yeah i've seen some of those sites. i lost $30 or so playing poker (omg, everybody there was really really good) and i won $10 on one of the roulette things. ~a
[2013-01-04 15:53:04] - a: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/bitcoin-based-gambling-to-expand-in-2013/#p3n Another use for your bitcoins... -Paul
[2013-01-04 14:59:01] - a: Ok, cool. Thanks. I was going to bring up the ORDBMS thing, since I can't quite wrap my head around it. I'll take a look at those wikipedia links. Thanks. -Paul
[2013-01-04 14:57:59] - mig: I guess it's a little bit of an exploit, but it sounds mostly like taking advantage of a favorable market opportunity. -Paul
[2013-01-04 14:11:44] - of a favorable market opportunity? - mig
[2013-01-04 14:11:31] - think this was abnormal. However, the materials used to create this item were super cheap on the auction house because previously they had very little demand. Predictably, players loaded up on cheap materials before their prices started spiking, and netted quite a bit of profit. Would you consider what these players did an exploit, or did they just take advantages
[2013-01-04 14:11:14] - It's a rather complicated issue but I'll try a TLDR: Basically, they added a new crafting recipe to the game for a holiday event. This recipe, when you salvaged the crafted item, would poentially net you ectos, a somewhat pricy crafting material for high level items. Now, given the item's level and the fact it was considered rare quality, it was not unheard of to
[2013-01-04 14:10:30] - gaming ethics: i don't play guild wars 2 anymore but I do follow news items on it from time to time and came across this interesting "incident" and based on previous discussion on what is and isn't an "exploit" am curious as to others thoughts on here. - mig
[2013-01-04 14:00:23] - don't get bogged down in the difference between ORDBMS and RDBMS. that's a minor issue. ~a
[2013-01-04 13:57:39] - oh oh . . . i guess you're referring to the fact that they called it an ORDBMS. yeah, ok whatever. it still uses SQL. but it has some minor stuff that they talk about here. ~a
[2013-01-04 13:54:41] - paul: no no. it's just a RDBMS (it's just a database). just like mysql, or sqlite, or microsoft's thing. it is tuned to being more friendly to OR-mapping like hibernate. but hibernate works with mysql too, so whatever. ~a
[2013-01-04 13:27:56] - a: I'll take a look at those places you suggested, but is it really just a sort of hybrid between SQL and Object Oriented Programming languages like Java and C#? -Paul
[2013-01-04 13:27:05] - a: Unfortunately, I don't know the answers to most of those questions. I have a phone interview with a place that mostly uses PostgreSQL and I've never used it, so I'm trying to at least learn a little bit about what it is before the call. -Paul
[2013-01-04 13:07:56] - "sudo apt-get install postgresql" on debian, ubuntu, or mint. ~a
[2013-01-04 13:04:02] - also check out comparison of relational database management systems to give you an idea of what it does and doesn't do. ~a
[2013-01-04 13:02:59] - hmmm. what sort of app will be using it? what are your requirements? geospacial? will you be using stored procedures? any extensions? is replication important? i18n? do you have a legacy application that uses something else? you should probably start by just reading PostgreSQL. if it were me, i'd also install and use it, but that might take too long. ~a
[2013-01-04 12:41:04] - a: What would you say is the best way to get a crash course on it that I could get done in a few hours (tops) so I wouldn't sound completely ignorant if discussing it with somebody? -Paul
[2013-01-04 12:32:10] - yes, i have used it at work tons. it's the sql i have used the most. ~a
[2013-01-04 12:31:06] - Anybody here ever use PostgreSQL? -Paul
[2013-01-04 11:37:29] - starting from the right lane leaving the tj campus, never change lanes and only make turns you're forced to make. that will get you to my parents house. ~a
[2013-01-04 10:53:20] - haha, yes it was! the directions i used to get home was in minimal form.
~a[2013-01-04 09:42:17] - a: hey that's like how you used to drive to school - aaron
[2013-01-03 17:19:52] - take every left that doesn't put you on a prime-numbered highway or street named for a president. ~a
[2013-01-03 13:42:25] - hah . . . yeah. ~a
[2013-01-03 13:28:51] - a: you and pierce talking past each other??? . . . never . . . -nina
[2013-01-03 13:27:05] - nina: thanks. i had a similar conversation with pierce. we were mostly talking past each-other because of our different context: i've used them mostly (as you say) for private use, and he's seen them mostly in advertising. ~a
prev <-> next