prev <-> next
[2013-04-15 10:41:38] - Daniel: Do you count kinect games like Dance Central or XBox Live Arcade games? -Paul
[2013-04-15 10:34:46] - Does Xbox have any strong exclusives that aren't FPS games? Cause thats pretty much all I can think of currently. -Daniel
[2013-04-15 10:34:39] - mig: Also, I really liked the Xbox exclusives better. Gears of War and Mass Effect were so much more fun to me than Uncharted and Little Big Planet. -Paul
[2013-04-15 10:34:00] - mig: Yeah, I mean, don't get me wrong, it's definitely a positive for the PS3. It's a shame, because I feel like the PS3 has so many positives to it and probably should've been the clear winner, but sony just had a few missteps and Microsoft made some clever moves. -Paul
[2013-04-15 10:32:40] - Daniel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix#Video_game_consoles It looks like Xbox had it for about a year before PS3 (and even then, PS3 needed to order a free disc to install the software until a year later when it could be downloaded). -Paul
[2013-04-15 10:31:39] - paul: fair enough, maybe I would feel differently if I had owned an Xbox vs. a PS2/3 all these years. - mig
[2013-04-15 10:30:32] - daniel: xbox was definitely first, adding netflix streaming in 2008. PS didn't actually lag that far behind the xbox in actually supporting. It started in 2009, but required you to request a disc with the application from sony (I think), so a lot of people weren't actually aware of the capabilities, which was probably a dumb move on Sony's part. - mig
[2013-04-15 10:30:30] - mig: So it kinda makes sense people whose primary console is a PS3 wouldn't expect to have to pay to play games online whereas the opposite might be true for Xbox. -Paul
[2013-04-15 10:29:51] - mig: Understood, and I'm not trying to say WoW or MMOs are ripoffs, but you even admitted that the main reason WoW is different is because... that's what people expect. -Paul
[2013-04-15 10:27:24] - if it was xbox that does seem a solid point. -Daniel
[2013-04-15 10:27:14] - I understood xbl to not actually have servers to host things but just to have some matchmaking and the social network aspect. Whereas MMO's actually have servers / development costs / support costs (and even then the amount of sub based MMO's is shrinking rapidly). Also I don't remember at this point who had Netflix streaming first but...
[2013-04-15 10:24:23] - and I understand the goodies that xbox live has are generally desirable, I just think the ability to play games online is just something that I shouldn't have to pay extra for, even if it is a nominal fee. - mig
[2013-04-15 10:23:41] - paul: maybe. but in my mind it's a little different between an MMO, which is generally understood to have a subscription fee, vs. being able to play any games at all over the net. I mean, I would imagine people would be pretty incredulous if an ISP decided to apply a surcharge for the capability to play online games. - mig
[2013-04-15 10:17:15] - Also, I think a lot of this is in the eye of the beholder. WoW players spend how much a month for the "privilege" of being able to play over the internet? -Paul
[2013-04-15 10:15:43] - Is the Sony method of having things for free better? Sure. But Xbox Live has always seemed to provide a lot more goodies to me. I'm pretty sure Netflix streaming was available on Xbox many months (years?) before PS3, for instance... -Paul
[2013-04-15 10:14:23] - mig: It has not changed, although it's honestly, a pretty minimal fee. It can be as little as $3 a month if you find a decent deal on the 12 month cards. -Paul
[2013-04-15 10:13:14] - mig: Because there's no other way. Also XboxLive has enough 'goodies' that it seems like a reasonable purchase. The fact that some of the money might go to support multiplayer servers is a good thing, in my mind. That said, EA fucks that theory up pretty well. -- Xpovos
[2013-04-15 10:06:41] - daniel: Xbox live is probably their biggest selling point. It's integrated very well with most of the games out for it. I'm still a little puzzled though why xbox users have tolerated for so long being required to pay a subscription for the "privelege" of being able to play xbox games over the internet with others (that hasn't changed yet, right?). - mig
[2013-04-15 10:01:57] - I'm not going to get an xbox but I haven't gotten any version of the xbox. I like that I don't have to pay extra for Netflix on my playstation and I'm a bigger fan of the PS exclusives than the Xbox exclusives. The main selling point of the xbox I've heard is the always on party chat but for consoles thats not as big a deal for me. -Daniel
[2013-04-12 15:45:34] - http://boardgamegeek.com/image/125449/set?size=medium this is a set magic hypercube. you can find many sets in it - aaron
[2013-04-12 15:21:26] - mig: Yeah, I feel like if they are going to put this restriction on the consoles, then they better offer some really compelling benefits to having the consoles be always on and not just "eliminate used games" -Paul
[2013-04-12 14:38:10] - I mean, imagine a simctiy or d3 like launch fiasco for the console's launch. It would be a disaster several orders of magnitude higher than those previous ones. - mig
[2013-04-12 14:34:54] - hell, the PSN outage last year was annoying as hell, and that was with the games still being playable. - mig
[2013-04-12 14:34:26] - I think it's a really bad idea though. The minute there's an extended outage of xbox live and no one can use their consoles, everyone is going to flip there shit. - mig
[2013-04-12 14:32:13] - paul: he says he trades a lot of games between his friends, and he says any console that won't let him play used/traded games is an absolute dealbreaker. - mig
[2013-04-12 14:25:14] - mig: Do you know what your coworker's reason for being so mad about it is? -paul
[2013-04-12 14:24:56] - aaron: Yeah, I don't care as much about the "always online" part either, I just care what they use it for. I'm even ok if they want to get rid of used games. -Paul
[2013-04-12 14:23:04] - http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57579309-1/rest-your-weary-head-in-a-mega-man-helmet-and-pillow/ Mega Man helmet and pillow. -Paul
[2013-04-12 14:21:43] - paul: i don't care as much about being "always online" -- as much as i care about not being able to play my games in 15-20 years. any sort of DRM, "always online" scheme means i can't play my games in the future. if i have a choice, i'm going to avoid consoles with this kind of scheme - aaron
[2013-04-12 14:18:45] - though PS4 looks like won't use the same scheme. They've been kind of weasely about used games and the console, but they've said deifnitively the console will be usuable without a persistent internet connection (with some amusing translated quotes). - mig
[2013-04-12 14:16:47] - I would definitely be pretty annoyed, but i dunno about outraged. - mig
[2013-04-12 14:15:38] - one of my co-workers is actually pretty mad about it, and said he definitely will not buy the next xbox if it's always online. - mig
[2013-04-12 14:05:29] - http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/04/gears-of-war-designer-always-online-future-is-probably-coming-deal-with-it/#p3n We have a decent amount of console gamers here... Are people here as outraged over the idea of the next generation of consoles being always-on as the rest of the internet is? -Paul
[2013-04-12 10:26:40] - mig: They have a link to his segment on Reason 24/7. It's nothing new or special, I just was a little surprised to see him outside of a Stossel or Red Eye or Bill Maher appearance. -Paul
[2013-04-12 10:23:45] - paul: i saw an article mentioning it but didn't have time to catch the episode. - mig
[2013-04-12 10:16:22] - mig: Did you see that Nick Gillespie was on the Colbert Report? That seems like a pretty big gig for somebody from Reason. -Paul
[2013-04-11 15:51:39] - the whole "burden of societal costs" rationale was the pretty much the basis of the tobacco lawsuit settlement in the late 90s. - mig
[2013-04-11 15:43:27] - aaron: parking fees and taxes for buying certain products aren't qute the same thing. - mig
[2013-04-11 15:37:57] - mig: it's never like, "well let's bump up illegal parking fees to help our society deal with the societal burdens of these illegally parked cars..." it's just, yeah we need money for parks/schools, let's get it from smokers/drinkers/lawbreakers... - aaron
[2013-04-11 15:36:57] - mig: hmm really? this is the first time i've ever even heard that idea before. i honestly, just think the only justification is, "we need more money". i mean, they're not even secretive -- i remember voted on proposals like, "Do you think illegal parking fees should be increased from $35 to $55 to help fund local parks??" - aaron
[2013-04-11 15:32:07] - aaron: they're less unpopular but I think a lot of that has to do with how they are justified. Things like alcohol and tobacco have perceived costs to society, so it makes sense people would be for taxes to offset those costs. I have a feeling they wouldn't be so popular if the only justification was, "we need more money". - mig
[2013-04-11 15:14:33] - possibly (to put my super-duper-non-cynical hat on) by honest-to-goodness concern for lower-class-smokers who would not be able to afford insurance. but in general, i think taxes like this get passed because they're less unpopular than other taxes. - aaron
[2013-04-11 15:10:37] - mig: the only thing i disagree -- I don't think the idea of sin taxes, is that it's supposed to combat the costs associated of smoking, I think it's just that it's an easy tax to pass. i think the taxes were just motivated by the government trying to get money in the easiest way possible, and the insurance cuts are motivated either by tobacco lobbyists, or - aaron
[2013-04-11 15:08:10] - g: yay let's play! - aaron
[2013-04-11 13:26:11] - aaron: we got our copy of galaxy truckers anniversary edition last night
~g[2013-04-11 13:10:42] - terms of insurance premiums so that smokers may actually be less inclined to quit. - mig
[2013-04-11 13:09:56] - dries up and so you won't be able to keep funding the things you were planning on with those taxes. So what I think is happening is an attempt by the government to kind of trying to have it both ways with regards smoking. See, we're fighting the scourge of smoking, we have these tobacco taxes! But then at the same time, removing an economic disincentive to smoke in
[2013-04-11 13:06:50] - documented that tobacco tax revenue has been used as more a general fund (in this case the additional taxes are slated to fund the universal pre-school proposal). This leads to a bit of a paradox with sin taxes in general: in that they are meant to provide an economic disincentive for a particular behavior, but if it works too well, then the revenue the tax provides
[2013-04-11 13:04:26] - But if I can be super-duper-uber-cynical for a moment. I find this a little bit unnerving with the coupling of the revelation that the Obama budget proposes additional federal taxes on tobacco products. Now the idea behind tobacco taxes is that the revenue raised is supposed to go towards combatting the health care costs associated with smoking, but it's been well
[2013-04-11 13:00:29] - aaron: and yeah, I'm aware of the unintuitive nature of smokers drain on the health system, just speaking to the popular perception of the public's attitude towards smokers. - mig
[2013-04-11 12:57:40] - aaron: the problem is that if you are going to classify it as a "pre-exisiting condition" then what you're removing an incentive to quit smoking, which seems counter-intuitive to what government claims it wants (less people smoking). - mig
[2013-04-11 12:40:43] - that said i'm not sure about this legislation one way or another. as a nonsmoker who grew up in a family of nonsmokers it's easy for me to say, "oh well you guys shouldn't smoke, and if you smoke you should have to pay more", but this is definitely a class issue, and having high premiums for smokers is the kind of thing which could keep poor families poor. - aaron
[2013-04-11 12:37:57] - mig: well, i guess for health insurance it's a slightly different question -- since you're paying an annual premium, you'd also pay more if you live longer... - aaron
[2013-04-11 12:36:10] - mig: unintuitively, smokers and the obese are less of a drain in regards to health costs. the biggest drain are people who live into their 80s/90s with minor but not life-threatening health problems. smokers/obese usually die before they hit 65 - aaron
[2013-04-11 11:41:44] - a friend of mine said her work was also ripped off by Disney
~g[2013-04-11 11:37:32] - http://katiewoodger.tumblr.com/post/47454350768/disney-have-stolen-my-artwork-i-dont-know-what ~g
[2013-04-11 09:38:41] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/mike-debonis/wp/2013/04/09/smokers-will-pay-same-rates-as-nonsmokers-in-d-c-insurance-exchange/ this strikes me as the dumbest idea ever. Isn't the complaint about smokers is that they costs everyone else more money in terms of health costs? Isn't this exactly what this policy will do? - mig
[2013-04-10 16:42:35] - Blackjack can be a fun way to blow some time... -Paul
[2013-04-10 16:36:23] - awww, no poker? ~a
[2013-04-10 16:33:13] - -Daniel
[2013-04-10 16:33:11] - damn it!
[2013-04-10 16:33:08] - -Danile
[2013-04-10 16:33:05] - No poker till later this summer. Only blackjack, roulette, pai gow, and something else in the mean time. -Danile
[2013-04-10 16:24:20] - https://www.marylandlivecasino.com/ its been open for awhile apparently but table games officially open this friday. - mig
[2013-04-10 16:11:45] - Is there anyplace to actually gamble yet, though? -Paul
[2013-04-10 16:00:53] - oh they legalized gambling i'm guessing? ~a
[2013-04-10 16:00:42] - what's happening in maryland? ~a
[2013-04-10 16:00:23] - ? ~a
[2013-04-10 15:56:11] - so, how's going to be gambling their life savings away in Maryland on friday? - mig
[2013-04-10 15:19:32] - i'm pretty sure that's not how rape works. ~a
[2013-04-10 14:57:21] - I suppose if I 'let' them, it's not rape anymore, though... -- Xpovos
[2013-04-10 14:57:04] - Do you suppose that if I just give them all my money and let them rape my ass the insurance companies could at least get the paperwork in the right order so that a human being could understand it? I mean I realize my money isn't much in their scheme of things, but seriously... not a single person I have talked to understands what or how I'm being billed. -- Xpovos
[2013-04-10 14:34:41] - mig: Yeah, might be too much to throw into one speech. This one was theoretically supposed to focus on race relations and the GOP and while I know the drug war is connected, I would think calling for drug legalization would be better done in another forum. -Paul
[2013-04-10 14:15:18] - paul: mostly just stopping short of calling out for drug legalization. While calling for the removal of federal mandatory minimums is definitely a good thing, he seemed open to the idea of the "rehabilatory" drug courts, which are a horrible element of the current system. - mig
[2013-04-10 13:58:13] - mig: What parts disappointed you? -Paul
[2013-04-10 12:19:19] - http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/10/the-republican-party-and-the-african-ame long speech by Rand Paul speaking at Howard University. It's a interesting read, though it dissapoints me at some points. - mig
[2013-04-10 11:04:47] - a: I used to listen to a podcast where they were always pimping bitcoins as a great alternative currency. I stopped listening probably around 6 months ago, but in retrospect I wish I had been listening as the value had skyrocketed. They must've gone crazy. -Paul
[2013-04-10 10:56:17] - paul: he might not care. if he had 10k BTC that early, my guess is he still holds a large amount. ~a
[2013-04-10 10:44:43] - xpovos: well yeah there's that, but I was more speaking to the whole notion in most of the media nowadays that Ayn Rand = Libertarianism. - mig
[2013-04-10 10:33:46] - mig: Libertarians also suffer from horrible in-fighting. They may hate Republicans and Democrats equally, but they hate those traitorous libertarians more. -- Xpovos
[2013-04-10 10:27:48] - And while I know it's not common knowledge it's just doubly perplexing to me because Rand and her followers didn't get along with a lot of prominent libertarians. - mig
[2013-04-10 09:58:29] - mig: I know that probably wasn't targeted at me, but I think it's because she makes such an easy target. It's a lot easier to whip up hate against Ayn Rand and the things she stood for compared to somebody like Ron or Rand Paul. -Paul
[2013-04-10 09:55:13] - just because she's so polarizing amongst everyone? - mig
[2013-04-10 09:55:03] - So I watched this morning a rant by Bill Maher about libertarianism and am wondering why such intense focus is centered on Ayn Rand when libertarianims is discussed in mainstream media. She's an influence on the movement, but IMO a minor compared to some others out there. I mean, Ron Paul doesn't really strike me as a pilar of randian thought. Is the foucs really
[2013-04-10 09:49:04] - Got one more ticket to the Nationals game this Friday at 7pm. Let me know if you're interested. Thanks. -Paul
[2013-04-10 09:44:44] - paul:
- aaron[2013-04-10 09:43:30] - I knew it sounded familiar, but couldn't remember where it was from. -Paul
[2013-04-10 09:43:17] - Aaron: Ah, that's zoiberg with his sandwich, right? -Paul
[2013-04-10 09:01:13] - aaron: My guess is that it has not. -Paul
[2013-04-09 18:04:25] - paul: his pizza, has it also appreciated in value? - aaron
[2013-04-09 17:05:01] - a: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/History "May 21 laszlo first to buy pizza with Bitcoins agreeing upon paying 10,000 BTC for ~$25 worth of pizza courtesy of jercos." How much do you think laszlo is hating having spent his 10,000 BTC for $25 of pizza now? -Paul
[2013-04-09 11:33:07] - paul: maybe all the death parties for Reagan's passing just happened privately and not in the streets? - mig
[2013-04-09 10:49:51] - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/09/police-arrests-thatcher-death-parties I knew Thatcher was a divisive figure, but I thought she was controversial like Reagan. I had no idea people hated her so much to throw wild parties after learning she had died. -Paul
[2013-04-09 10:26:43] - Aaron: You're probably right, but it seems a little crazy that we're more worried about Iran and their neighbors (the middle east might be unstable, but there are many world powers there) vs North Korea and their neighbors (China, Japan, etc). -Paul
[2013-04-09 10:21:26] - Nate Silver Offers Up a Statistical Analysis of Your Failing Relationship ~a
[2013-04-09 10:18:04] - on the contrast, Israel is very concerned about Iran, so by extension the US is as well. - mig
[2013-04-09 10:16:46] - I think it also has to do with South Korea's attitude as well. The last article I read about the NK/SK conflict was that most people in South Korea didn't seem particularly concerned about NK's actions. - mig
[2013-04-09 10:15:33] - paul: and i also think there's just the fact that iran doesn't have nukes yet. so, it's something we can prevent, so we make a big deal out of it. if north korea didn't have nukes yet, i think people wouldn't make jokes about it -- we'd take it seriously and try to prevent them from getting nukes - aaron
[2013-04-09 10:13:01] - paul: hmmm, yeah i think it's a bigger deal for what iran would do to their neighbors, and how that might spill over to the rest of the world. i'm not convinced it's a doomsday scenario but it seems like a worse scenario than anything north korea could do - aaron
[2013-04-09 10:10:47] - Aaron: While at the same time North Korea already has nukes, has done more to us and our allies than we've done to them lately (hell, we still ship them food) and technically is still at war with us... yet we just treat them like a harmless joke. -Paul
[2013-04-09 10:09:26] - Aaron: Everybody seems to treat Iran getting nukes as being some doomsday scenario that must be prevented at all costs despite the fact that they are half a world away from us and we've done a lot more things to them then they have to us. -Paul
[2013-04-09 10:09:13] - i just assumed you were invited i guess. ~a
[2013-04-09 10:08:28] - Aaron: Some pretty good answers there. It kinda does make sense that we make fun of North Korea and take Iran more seriously, but I hadn't ever really given it serious thought. -Paul
[2013-04-09 10:04:19] - mig: Ok, np. I feel less bad about missing out on the rare Starcraft get together then.
-Paul[2013-04-09 10:02:09] - paul: no actually it was my bad. I was pretty sure I put you in on the calendar event, but turns out I didn't. sorry. - mig
[2013-04-09 09:55:51] - So, Adrian invited me last night, be he said I was invited a week ago, which I didn't remember. Did I miss something or is my memory that bad? -Paul
[2013-04-09 09:37:06] - Sorry about starcraft last night. I just was tired and forgot. My bad. -Daniel
[2013-04-09 09:08:49] - Aaron: Cool, I'll take a look. Thanks. -Paul
[2013-04-09 09:03:43] - paul: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1bz937/why_do_americans_make_fun_of_north_korea_but_take/ there's a reddit thread about the specific question you posted yesterday, regarding NK and iran. it has some pretty good answers. - aaron
[2013-04-08 16:23:52] - the bitcoin fee is super small and solves many problems: two of which are spammers and DDOS. ~a
[2013-04-08 14:53:37] - no, fees go to the miners. however, right now it's an incredibly small amount of money. less than 1BTC per "block". eventually, the theory is that the payout for new blocks will go down, but the fees will go up (in total, not per transaction) as more and more people utilize the network. ~a
[2013-04-08 14:40:15] - a: Who does the fee go to? If you're transferring it from one of your wallets to another... does it just get charged to you and given to you? -Paul
[2013-04-08 14:26:17] - like usual, i could talk about bitcoin for hours if you'd like! ~a
[2013-04-08 14:25:55] - also . . . i should mention that you can transfer the entire contents of a wallet you own to another wallet without having to use a fee or even involve the network. if you have a private key, you can put that private key anywhere you want. think of it like having multiple wallets you can put on any machine you want. ~a
[2013-04-08 14:23:24] - back when USD was doing much better against the BTC, the fee was negligable. now that the price of USD has fallen so badly against the BTC, the fee seems to almost be something i have to take into account
~a[2013-04-08 14:21:09] - yeah every transfer has a fee associated with it. the fee can be 0 if you want. but, for small transfers of like $10, the (optional) fee comes out to about .1%. compare that to 6.0% for paypal. or 4.5% for a credit card. ~a
[2013-04-08 14:14:10] - a: You charge a fee to transfer from one wallet to another? -Paul
[2013-04-08 14:04:37] - maybe you don't know this: transferring money between wallets is incredibly easy. you just send the money and it's there. sometimes i put a .0005BTC "fee" on the transfer, but as of writing that fee is optional. ~a
[2013-04-08 14:03:29] - well i guess i don't know enough about your use-case. you can have as many wallets as you want. if you want your wallets to be synced between your phone and your computer, i'd suggest blockchain.info, but that's a hybrid e-wallet too, so neither your computer or your phone would have the block chain. ~a
[2013-04-08 13:53:20] - a: Hmm, ok. So does it make any sense or is it possible to have some client with whole block chain on my desktop while still having a client on my phone? Or would that entail having two wallets or something weird? -Paul
[2013-04-08 11:37:31] - s/payment/request/ . . . i don't want to imply that the server ever holds your money. it doesn't. ~a
[2013-04-08 11:32:27] - no. no. not if it's a hybrid-ewallet. hybrid-ewallet requires a small amount of trust, but not that amount of trust. an owner of a hybrid-ewallet server cannot steal peoples money. but they could say (potentially) fail to forward a payment in a timely manner. or . . . something like that. ~a
[2013-04-08 10:47:51] - a: Ah, ok. So if you don't have the block chain anywhere, and you want to send $1k to somebody, you would have to send those bitcoins to some third party that DOES have the block chain first? And that third party could theoretically just take your bitcoins? -Paul
[2013-04-08 10:41:45] - hmmmm. having the entire blockchain is nice i guess if you want to send or receive money without depending on anybody. i don't think i'd store more than a wallet's worth of cash on my phone ($100?) since even hybrid-ewallets require some trust on the server. basically, i don't think i'd want to store more than $100 or so anywhere that could be hacked. ~a
[2013-04-08 10:15:58] - a: Well, I would probably download it to my computer (if anything) and if I downloaded it to my phone, I would probably do it over wifi. What's the point of having the block chain downloaded other than to help the bitcoin "system"? -Paul
[2013-04-08 10:00:13] - the blockchain is about 9gb (as of writing), so you likely will go over your data limit downloading that to your phone
~a[2013-04-08 09:47:32] - no, you don't need to download the block chain in order to mine. if you mine in a pool (which you should) you don't need the block chain. yes, the block chain is the ledger. i have the block chain downloaded twice, in my c++ client and my java client, but i don't use either of them for mining and i don't use either of them with my bitcoinspinner app. ~a
[2013-04-08 09:24:01] - http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/why-do-we-laugh-at-north-korea-but-fear-iran/274680/ Why do we laugh at North Korea but fear Iran? -Paul
[2013-04-08 09:13:28] - a: I'm mostly just trying to get my terminology right. I'm guessing you need to download the block chain in order to mine? And the block chain is basically the ledger which makes it all work as a currency? -Paul
[2013-04-08 09:06:13] - no, it doesn't do any mining. but i'd be cautious of mining: you likely won't make more than a few pennies per day even if you use your graphics card. if you mine with your cpu, you'll make only a few pennies per month. ~a
[2013-04-07 22:37:26] - a: I assume it doesn't do any mining? I'm doing research just in case bitcoins aren't in a bubble.
-Paul[2013-04-07 22:04:32] - i like bitcoin spinner. why do you care, you just sold your .1BTC
~a[2013-04-07 21:32:18] - a: What bitcoin wallet client do you use? Is that even the right terminology? -Paul
[2013-04-06 19:01:15] - a: sims can go work in neighbouring cities in the region. - mig
[2013-04-06 16:09:47] - if there is no commercial and no industry, where do the sims work? ~a
[2013-04-06 08:50:43] - Ouch, well there's two things wrong with a Pythagorean expectation. 1) Early season numbers are skewed, because of low sample size (and Marlins) 2) and big wins/losses get magnified. New expectation is only 52-110. One game takes us from a ludicrous expectation of a nearly flawless season to an equally ludicrous expectation of a historically bad season. -- Xpovos
[2013-04-05 22:55:28] - Some may say that the new Sim City game is just a disaster, a failure in the series and a black eye for EA when people can't even play it. But if you can play it? Seems it proves once and for all that libertarians are right! http://imgur.com/a/gW7F9 -- Xpovos
[2013-04-05 17:55:49] - paul: but, people who have more money have a much easier time saving for retirement! economists all agree, though, that capital gains and corporate taxes are a dumb way to make increase tax revanue, so i'm conflicted. ~a
[2013-04-05 17:38:36] - a: I've mentioned a few times about how I'm worried I haven't been saving enough for retirement. Well, I'm already no longer able to put money into a Roth IRA because Gurkie and I make too much money. -Paul
[2013-04-05 17:37:34] - a: I just don't see a reason why we have to discriminate against people who have more money. They need to save for retirement too. -Paul
[2013-04-05 17:34:51] - a: fair enough, I hadn't factored in capital gains. - mig
[2013-04-05 17:31:59] - mig: without a 401k or an ira, you have to basically pay taxes twice: income tax and capital gains. ~a
[2013-04-05 17:30:15] - mig: you only have to pay taxes on it once
~a[2013-04-05 17:30:12] - a: But if we agree that the verbiage sucks (not sure Daniel does, but I'll accept your surrender on his behalf)... then I agree this particular change isn't hugely different from the rules already in place for retirement accounts. -Paul
[2013-04-05 17:28:56] - a: Hehehe, I was just about to make a very similar point to you. Something along the lines of: "I don't really care about discussing the concept, I posted the article because I thought the verbiage was interesting. Stop changing the subject."
-Paul[2013-04-05 17:27:04] - I'm not sure its accurate to call a 401k a tax shelter. I mean you have to pay taxes on it eventually, right? - mig
[2013-04-05 17:26:33] - paul: i think you're focusing on the verbiage. and we agree with you on the verbiage. we're focusing on the concept. get with the conversation
~a[2013-04-05 17:24:24] - The whole thinking that there is some set amount of income/profit/savings/etc that a person can have that is reasonable/fair/moral/etc and any more than that is wrong just really seems eerily like it was torn from the pages of Atlas Shrugged (hence the comment I made before). -Paul
[2013-04-05 17:24:00] - I think there is a point in retirement savings where its reasonable for the gov to end the tax breaks, sure. -Daniel
[2013-04-05 17:22:31] - He's made similar comments in the past about salaries, corporate profits, etc, so it's not just a one-off slip of the tongue like his comments to Kamala Harris. -Paul
[2013-04-05 17:21:11] - The president seems to believe that there is some "reasonable" amount to save for retirement, implying that saving more than that is unreasonable. -Paul
[2013-04-05 17:19:02] - aDaniel: Ok. Personally, I think the limits placed on retirement accounts are dumb and smack of class warfare, but that really wasn't the reason I posted the article. I just found the way the justification was phrased to be interesting. -Paul
[2013-04-05 17:05:45] - Retirement savings vehicles are designed to encourage people to save for retirment so they aren't dependent on third party sources to take care of them in retirement (gov/pension/etc). I think its ok to decide at some income level that encouragement doesn't really make sense any more. -Daniel
[2013-04-05 16:59:32] - rich people can't have IRAs: i don't think that's bad. this is similar IMO. ~a
[2013-04-05 16:55:14] - a: True, and it's definitely not the first "we hate the rich" restriction put on retirement accounts. Similarly, it's certainly not the first time Obama (or his administration) has phrased things like that. -Paul
[2013-04-05 16:50:22] - paul: the verbiage is dumb, but remember, (assuming something like this crazy shit happens) we would still be allowed to have more than 3million saved for retirement. this is just about the tax-free accounts. ~a
[2013-04-05 16:44:17] - I think three million might be low by the time we are all 65 years old. However I'm fairly sure that if it gets capped at three million this year (or next) it won't stay there. The same way that IRA contributions aren't static. -Daniel
[2013-04-05 16:43:42] - Still, to me it wasn't even about whether $3 million is too high or too low. I was just struck by the "more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving" verbiage. -Paul
[2013-04-05 16:41:33] - a: I'm hoping, but not necessarily planning for it. -Paul
[2013-04-05 16:39:58] - paul: i'm *hoping* that even conservative post-retirement "investments" (bonds and shit) will make better than inflation. ~a
[2013-04-05 16:37:44] - a: So even if I plan on retiring at a reasonable age and with a reasonable income... I end up "needing" a huge retirement balance since the cost of living will have increased so much in my scenarios. -Paul
[2013-04-05 16:37:40] - retire at 40, live to 100, 250k/year, requires 15million (ignoring inflation, ignoring taxes, ignoring other stuff). i don't have 15million. ~a
[2013-04-05 16:36:46] - a: My retirement scenarios always get crazy because I tend to worry about high inflation down the road. I almost always change the default to something fairly high (5-6%) because I have a suspicion that all this QE is eventually going to bite us in the butt. -Paul
[2013-04-05 16:34:41] - Daniel: I guess I'm thinking of 20 - 30 years down the road. Most of my (admittedly pessimistic) retirement scenarios have me needing to save up around $5 million+ based on when I want to retire, how long I plan on living, etc. -Paul
[2013-04-05 16:34:10] - but honestly, 250k/year to 3m total assumes 12 years of retirement? that doesn't sound right either. what if i want to live to 100. or retire at 40? i guess maybe IRAs and 401ks don't let you pull from them at 40yo. ~a
[2013-04-05 16:29:49] - latter. ~a
[2013-04-05 16:22:36] - Three million seems low to you guys for a retirement account if you are about to retire today? Or seems low if you are retiring in 20 or 30 years? 3 million is not low if you are retiring today. -Daniel
[2013-04-05 16:18:04] - meh, we can still save more than 3 million for retirement. it just won't have the same tax shelter. there's no way republicans will go for it though. ~a
[2013-04-05 16:11:25] - After Cyprus and now this... I'm not laughing anymore, and I'm beginning to think bitcoins might not be in a bubble. -Paul
[2013-04-05 16:10:51] - I remember reading an article a few years ago talking about how the government might seize money from people's 401(k) accounts and I remember laughing it off as over-the-top even for my crazy libertarian beliefs. -Paul
[2013-04-05 16:09:50] - mig: I'm guessing once you go over $3 million, you start having to pay taxes. -Paul
[2013-04-05 16:09:33] - a: Don't worry, I'm sure after some compromise with Republicans, it'll be bumped up to $5 million so it only hits the "ultra-rich" instead of the "super-rich", or whatever terminology they'll be using. -Paul
[2013-04-05 16:02:11] - and yeah this is a pretty infantile view of "how much is enough" for a retirement accounts. good lord. - mig
[2013-04-05 16:00:57] - what exactly does that mean? would someone just not be allowed to store more than $3 million in a 401k, or will it just lose the tax favoring status after that? - mig
[2013-04-05 15:57:28] - 3 million seems pretty low. ~a
[2013-04-05 15:55:41] - http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/05/covered-at-reason-247-obama-wants-to-lim Not sure how many people here have read Atlas Shrugged, but it's really eerie to me how much of what Obama says reminds me something a villain from that book would say. -Paul
[2013-04-05 12:28:58] - Paul: Pythagorean expectation. Runs scored^2/( runs scored^2+runs allowed^2). So until Jordan Zimmerman gave up the home run, it was still projecting to an undefeated season. -- Xpovos
[2013-04-05 11:45:12] - a: Ah, ok. I found it now. Stupid tree in the way. Stupid atm right next to the door making me think it was part of the bank next door... -Paul
[2013-04-05 11:28:12] - 1747 connecticut nw? i see it on google maps. and streetview. ~a
[2013-04-05 10:40:49] - a: I can't seem to find it on google maps. Must be really small.
-Paul[2013-04-05 10:28:42] - i walked by reason magazine's washington office earlier this week. i was walking down connecticut and i said "oooooh". i guess it's to be expected, but it's a pretty modest office. ~a
[2013-04-05 10:00:15] - http://toplibertarian.com/twitter/john_galt/ For libertarians and/or Ayn Rand lovers: A list of twitter accounts ranked by the most followers named "John Galt". -Paul
[2013-04-05 09:16:39] - a: Still, even with a legitimate projection, 160-2 seems a little off. We haven't really blown a team out yet and two of the games were close. -Paul
[2013-04-05 09:16:09] - a: Although now that I think about it, I might be thinking of "on pace", which is more understandable. -Paul
[2013-04-05 09:15:13] - a: That's often how I hear it used in sports, as ridiculously as it sounds.
-Paul[2013-04-05 09:13:17] - not if you assumed you were going to play at least one team that was vastly better than you. how do you think projections work? you ignore all data except your current season wins? ~a
[2013-04-05 09:09:14] - Xpovos: How do you figure those projections? They haven't lost a game yet. Wouldn't that project out to an undefeated season? -Paul
[2013-04-04 18:42:37] - Three games in and the Nationals are projecting to a 160-2 season. Too bad we don't play the Marlins all the time. -- Xpovos
[2013-04-04 16:32:13] - mig: Normally I would agree, but don't you think their recent behavior is a little abnormal, even by North Korea standards? -Paul
[2013-04-04 16:15:48] - paul: I'm not sure why anything that comes out of NK should be taken seriously. Besides, them actually doing anything would be not good for China (because NK would certianly be obliterated if they actually do anything), so I'm not sure the Chinese government will let anything happen. . - mig
[2013-04-04 16:10:23] - 25=broken, 26=fixed. got it
~a[2013-04-04 16:09:28] - Anybody have any predictions on how this whole situation with North Korea will turn out? I kinda think it'll just blow over and we'll all forget about it in a few months, but they sure are rattling the saber pretty loudly this time... -Paul
[2013-04-04 15:17:59] - a: I'm on the same version as mig. Though mine has a suffix of "m", dunno if that means anything here. -- Xpovos
[2013-04-04 14:37:15] - seems fine on version 26.0.1410.43 - mig
[2013-04-04 14:33:48] - btw, you can post here to test if you don't want to pollute this thread. ~a
[2013-04-04 14:27:46] - xpovos: i still see the "problem" in chromium 25. what are you using? ~a
[2013-04-04 14:26:04] - i didn't change anything. ~a
[2013-04-04 14:23:39] - a: I think you managed to fix the refresh-repost bug. Either that or Chrome self-cured. Or I'm doing it wrong (right?). -- Xpovos
[2013-04-04 13:57:03] - a: Cool. I'm really hoping to be able to show up. Do you know if Vinnie and/or Miguel are showing up too? I have stuff to give to them. -Paul
[2013-04-04 12:31:54] - paul: yeah, i'll send out an email today. we're on. ~a
[2013-04-04 12:17:37] - mig: I'm shocked. Shocked and disappointed that the government can't convince people to buy something they don't think is in their best interest. -- Xpovos
[2013-04-04 10:42:17] - http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040313-650381-slick-marketing-campaign-wont-save-obamacare.htm the administration is apparently having a hard time convincing the nation's uninsured that they want health insurance. - mig
[2013-04-04 09:48:34] - a: Sounds good. Are the chances it's going to happen looking up? Depending on who is coming, I could have a lot of stuff to bring.
-Paul[2013-04-04 09:45:45] - haha, yeah $15. i can sell it for you if you'd like. send me the private key . . . somehow. i guess you could bring it to ultimate and i could give you $15
~a[2013-04-04 09:40:17] - a: That reminds me, though. I should probably figure out how to sell my 0.1 bitcoin that I got from you. It's probably worth like $10 by now. -Paul
[2013-04-04 09:39:06] - a: Oh, right, I agree the severity is seriously different. The rise in bitcoin is mind-boggling. It's like Apple level increases over something like 1/30th of the time. -Paul
[2013-04-04 09:36:13] - paul: this is different. a VERY modest investment in bitcoin ONLY a few years ago, would have made us seriously rich. you don't see 30,000%+ in two years anywhere else. i see a bubble, but it's hard to say that when you thought you saw a bubble 10,000% ago. ~a
[2013-04-04 09:30:42] - a: That's one of the hardest things for me to do in terms of stocks: stop watching stocks after I sell them. So frustrating to see Netflix soaring after I sold my shares at around $100 (and with a nice profit). -Paul
[2013-04-04 09:17:49] - naw, i sold lots of them months ago. i've still made a profit on them, so i shouldn't be complaining, but i've made a piddly profit compared to if i had held them. ~a
[2013-04-04 09:05:11] - a: If you're sad, I assume that means you sold most of them before the past week or so?
-Paul[2013-04-03 18:10:08] - sad. i sold most of them. still i have some other investments in bitcoin hardware that might pay off. ~a
[2013-04-03 18:05:21] - a: So... how happy are you with your bitcoin investments right now? -Paul
[2013-04-03 11:54:42] - Aaron: Yeah, it definitely sounds like it sucks for Talia. I don't remember having it as a kid myself. Guess I got lucky. -Paul
[2013-04-03 11:47:08] - paul: i had croup a lot when i was a kid!! that shit suuuuuuuuucks. i still remember what it felt like - aaron
[2013-04-03 11:45:56] - Xpovos: We actually just found out from the pediatrician this morning that it's probably bronchitis and not croup... At least she's in relatively good spirits all things considered. -Paul
[2013-04-03 11:38:58] - Paul: Yeah, you know what I mean. Poor Talia. RSV, Croup... Leads to poor you guys by extension, of course. -- Xpovos
[2013-04-03 11:32:18] - Xpovos: Damn, I can't wait until I get Obamacare. Our hospital visits still cost money.
-Paul[2013-04-03 11:30:20] - Paul: No, he's right. There's a lot of crappy medical stuff going on. Plus he doesn't pay me enough, and he knows it. Which has added bite when medical stuff costs money, which of course it never does now that we have Obamacare.
-- Xpovos[2013-04-03 11:22:44] - Xpovos: Did you take it the wrong way? -Paul
[2013-04-03 11:18:05] - My boss -> me: "Don't take this the wrong way, but your life kind of sucks right now." -- Xpovos
[2013-04-03 10:50:31] - I can see why they might be hesitant to go down that route again a mere 5 years later. -Paul
[2013-04-03 10:50:11] - aaron: I think I get what you're saying, but I can certainly understand the POV for the banks. They were pushed and prodded during the Clinton administration to help expand who they would lend to in order to expand home ownership. Then, when the bubble burst, they were vilified as being greedy, irresponsible bastards. -Paul
[2013-04-03 10:24:54] - "Given housing’s role in building up a family’s wealth, that could have long-lasting consequences." That's where the real problem lies. They want housing prices to be high, yet want everyone to be able to afford one. You can't have it both ways and make it work. - mig
[2013-04-03 10:22:54] - paul: that sentence is kind of dumb but hopefully you get what i'm saying - aaron
[2013-04-03 10:22:36] - paul: to be some protections in place to spell out when those kinds of protections are/aren't going to be in place - aaron
[2013-04-03 10:22:09] - paul: i don't know, it's a heavily loaded title, when you read further and see he's referring to people with ~620-680 credit score i think it's not a bad argument. if the banks are worried that the FHA loans which are supposedly protecting them from homeowners who default on their loans are going to be yanked out from under them, maybe there need - aaron
[2013-04-03 10:19:51] - paul: the stock market is way-up and the government is pushing hard to get people on home loans. is it 2005 or 2008? ~a
[2013-04-03 10:18:16] - ha. ~a
[2013-04-03 10:14:15] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a I can't imagine how this could possibly go wrong. -Paul
[2013-04-02 16:24:00] - As a side note, blizzard's april fool's efforts have been pretty lackluster this year (apparently the wow one was a repeat). - mig
[2013-04-02 16:22:26] - xpovos: maybe having it not require clicking on a hatchery, but rather just requiring it to be near a hatchery and it will automatically inject the nearest one that doesn't have larvae injection pending. I think that's the biggest hangup with using it. - mig
[2013-04-02 15:57:56] - mig: I wonder if there might be some middle ground, where the queen stores up to 250 energy, but only 200 of it is actually usable, but if it hits 250 it autocasts inject larvae. Anything else and the excess is lost. -- Xpovos
[2013-04-02 15:34:04] - aaron: Yeah, I agree that was their rationale. The zerg counter argument is that mules and chrono boost can both be (mostly) used all at once if you forget to keep up with it or decide it's not worth staying on top off. You can't queue up a bunch of larvae injections at once. Every second you miss of a larvae injection is a missed opportunity. -Paul
[2013-04-02 15:11:35] - aaron: true, but zerg also has to deal with creep spread too. - mig
[2013-04-02 15:05:30] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGeMGqVKD6A i don't know if you guys saw youtube's april fool's thing where the entire Youtube service was supposedly just a long-running contest to see who could submit the best video -- and that they were going to shut the site down to pick a winner?? they're keeping the joke going today... - aaron
[2013-04-02 15:04:14] - mig: i feel like they tried to balance chrono boost, mules, and infusion so that each faction had some fiddly micro thing they had to do to each of their bases. i think that's the sole reason why they don't allow auto-infuse - aaron
[2013-04-02 14:18:30] - I don't agree with the auto-infusion. That'd be way too good in MP. - mig
[2013-04-02 14:17:19] - I'm wondering if it has to do with it being maybe too good in the late game. - mig
[2013-04-02 14:15:02] - I've always wondered, though, why they haven't even tried to experiment having larvae injection on auto-cast. - mig
[2013-04-02 14:12:42] - a: chrono-boost would be awful on auto-cast. It can be cast on too many targets and there are times you want to store up energy. - mig
[2013-04-02 14:12:26] - a: Well, chrono-boost can be used on a bunch of different things, so it's hard to figure out how it would be automated. There's been a lot of complaints from zerg about wishing inject-larvae was automated. -Paul
[2013-04-02 13:58:13] - why isn't it? i think auto-whatever (chrono-boost, inject-larvae) would make the multi-player game more fun and playable. ~a
[2013-04-02 13:55:44] - Xpovos: Love the auto-transfusion. Wish that existed in multi-player. -Paul
[2013-04-02 13:49:56] - I've ended up using a bunch of queens too. I can't multiply the larvae, but I send them in with the troops and they hit air units (nice early on in the campaign) and have the auto-transfusion ability, which keeps my roaches in particular alive a lot longer. -- Xpovos
[2013-04-02 13:23:56] - mig: Yeah, I haven't really been doing that. Got to get used to not having inject larvae available to me... -Paul
[2013-04-02 13:15:14] - mig: I've had a second hatchery in every mission so far, I think... As was always my problem with Zerg in SC1, I run low on gas too fast. But I just levelled to a point where that may not be such an issue anymore because I'll be able to do some creative stuff with zerglings--at least in campaign. -- Xpovos
[2013-04-02 12:59:18] - I'm not sure you guys are doing it already, but be sure to make macro hatches, it helps a lot to keep the unit count up. - mig
[2013-04-02 10:42:10] - Xpovos: I think that's the first time I failed too. I got a little cocky after easily killing the first few shuttles and then things ramped up quickly. Kerrigan died a lot. -Paul
[2013-04-02 10:41:50] - Paul: I figured I had lost when Kerrigan died there, but was super-shocked, then quickly not so much because "Kerrigan must survive" wasn't a mission objective. It was eye-opening. Then I came back and destroyed the 'toss easily. Probably could have gotten the destroy two Nexuses achievement if I'd known it was there. -- Xpovos
[2013-04-02 10:40:12] - mig: I went to Kaldir. On Hard, my first mission lost was Shoot the Messenger. I was actually doing pretty well but a shuttle got too far, so I ended up trying to kill it with just Kerrigan chasing, and it wasn't enough. Kerrigan died about 5 seconds before the shuttle escaped, so I never saw re-spawn, but I was in panic mode, so I was throwing everything. -- Xpovos
prev <-> next