prev <-> next
[2013-06-27 13:29:13] - a: If you think it's an unreasonable requirement, do you think it's an unreasonable requirement for the other areas where a picture ID is required? Because I could get on board a bit with that... -Paul
[2013-06-27 13:28:36] - xpovos: it's a made up problem to change elections. turzai turzai turzai. ~a
[2013-06-27 13:27:40] - a: Off the top of my head, maybe the assault weapon ban? Considering the percentage of shootings that involve legally purchased weapons AND the percentage of those shootings that involved "assault weapons" AND the percentage of those shootings where the ban would've prevented it.... It's probably about equally as insignificant. -paul
[2013-06-27 13:26:40] - a: Whether or not fraud changes the result of elections is completely independent of whether there is fraud at all. Fraud is also a problem because it itself disenfranchises voters. Why vote when my vote is going to be nullified by a fraudster? The more fraud, the more disenfranchisement, even without changes to the results. -- Xpovos
[2013-06-27 13:23:29] - a: Ok, then use an airplane ride as an example. Or buying sudafed. -Paul
[2013-06-27 13:23:14] - "agree to get rid of other laws which target such insignificantly small numbers" ok, i guess i agree. any examples? ~a
[2013-06-27 13:22:48] - you guys are saying it's not an unreasonable requirement. i disagree. i think it's a very unreasonable requirement. but, again, if you think the lack of documented cases of voter fraud is a better argument, i'll make that my argument.
~a[2013-06-27 13:22:39] - a: We can stick with that, as long as we can agree to get rid of other laws which target such insignificantly small numbers of problems that it's stupid to be on the books.
-Paul[2013-06-27 13:21:01] - no i'm saying that i can wait weeks or months to get my gin fix. i can't vote after election day. the pre-planning requirement is bigger. ~a
[2013-06-27 13:19:48] - a: "but the timeline is different" I completely don't understand your point. You're saying that you know if you want gin weeks or months in advance, but elections just sneak up on you and suddenly you are standing in the polling line thinking, "How the hell did I get here?" with no time to get an ID? -Paul
[2013-06-27 13:19:19] - the lack of documented cases of voter fraud is a MUCH better reason . . . then let's stick with that. ~a
[2013-06-27 13:19:07] - paul: well depending on what Texas ID requirements are, it may be. - mig
[2013-06-27 13:18:26] - xpovos/paul: http://votingrights.news21.com/interactive/election-fraud-database/ . . . less than 1% of these extremely small cases would have been effected by a photo id. so we're talking about less than 1% of 1%. ~a
[2013-06-27 13:17:58] - a: And just because some people are too lazy or don't care about voting enough to overcome this slight bump in the road isn't a good reason to kill this law (the lack of documented cases of voter fraud is a MUCH better reason). -Paul
[2013-06-27 13:16:21] - a: But I think it's completely ridiculous (and frankly, a little insulting) to say that asking people to live up to the same standards that we ask of people to buy alcohol, drive a car, fly, or even buy Sudafed or use a credit card in some places, is too much to ask for something as important as voting. -Paul
[2013-06-27 13:14:51] - a: I'm not arguing that it's a smart law, or a necessary law, or a good law or anything like that. I'll even agree that law will probably cause a bigger drop in voters than it will prevent voter fraud. -Paul
[2013-06-27 13:14:15] - paul: uhhh. i don't know. but the timeline is different. if i need to get me some gin, i have weeks or months to find out the rules on getting a non-driver-photo-id. when i'm sitting in line at the polling place, i'm already too late. granted, i probably should have checked it out earlier. but still, i'm fucked. ~a
[2013-06-27 13:10:42] - a: We absolutely do not agree that cases of actual voter fraud are zero. When did anybody ever say that (except you)? -Paul
[2013-06-27 13:10:04] - a: I mean, does the fact that the ABC stores in Virginia require photo ID to sell liquor to people mean that it's discriminatory and we shouldn't require a photo ID because old and poor people will have a harder time buying liquor now? -Paul
[2013-06-27 13:10:00] - a: Actual fraud is definitely not zero. I'll allow that it may be small(er than disenfranchisement), but it is not zero. Unless you're defining voter fraud oddly. -- Xpovos
[2013-06-27 13:08:02] - it does. it does. it so does. the cases of actual voter fraud are zero. we agree on this! so what's the point if actual voter fraud is zero? ~a
[2013-06-27 13:07:03] - a: I've no doubt that altering election outcomes is icing on the cake for a lot of legislators, but I also think that just because some law might reduce voter turnout by some segment, it doesn't mean that law has to be rejected out of hand. -Paul
[2013-06-27 13:06:12] - old and poor people don't drive. ~a
[2013-06-27 13:05:07] - It's impossible to make any kind of predictive measure from a single precinct in a single county in a different state, but even with our extremely diverse population (my precinct is 75% non-white) more than half our voters use photo ID. Driver's licenses are by far the most common. -- Xpovos
[2013-06-27 13:05:02] - in rural areas it's not used in as many places as you think it is. additionally . . . additionally, i'll bet money that texas has now defined "photo id" as pretty restrictive. ~a
[2013-06-27 13:02:36] - a: Well, first, let me say that I don't think that voter fraud is a huge problem in most places, so I think we're in agreement there. However, I'm in agreement with Miguel that just providing a photo ID doesn't at all seem like an unreasonable requirement considering how often photo IDs are needed elsewhere. -Paul
[2013-06-27 13:00:46] - paul: the real reason is what i asked for. the nefarious reason you suggest. need i even mention turzai? ~a
[2013-06-27 12:59:46] - a: I don't think that's a useful metric to use at all. What if you apply that reasoning to other areas? The number of people inconvenienced by the TSA is a LOT more than the number of terrorists stopped.... Wait a second, maybe I agree with this logic.
-Paul[2013-06-27 12:59:33] - paul: correct. in the sense it's not a huge problem that needs solving. especially in this case, where the solution creates a much much bigger, seven orders of magnitude larger problem than it "solved". the real reason, as miguel suggests, is this is a way to win elections. ~a
[2013-06-27 12:58:09] - mig: Right, and I never meant to imply that I think voter fraud is a huge problem. I was just answering Adrian's question as to why Texas would want to pass a voter ID law. -Paul
[2013-06-27 12:57:59] - it's an unreasonable requirement if the cases of voter fraud are LESS than the cases of people that would otherwise be disenfranchised. and, be honest, that will ALWAYS be the case. ~a
[2013-06-27 12:57:06] - a: Since it's hard to tell over the internet, I just want to make sure.... that's a loaded question, right? You're asking "what voter fraud" in the sense that it's not a huge problem that needs solving? -Paul
[2013-06-27 12:56:38] - All that being said, I don't think providing an ID to prove you are who you say you are before voting is necessarily an unreasonable requirement (nor a discriminatory one), provided that such the types of IDs are not ridiculously narrowed, and that getting a state issued photo ID is not much of a hassel. - mig
[2013-06-27 12:55:25] - a: Well, let's define what voter fraud is, first. As an election officer, I've seen things that are suspicious but were they voter fraud? -- Xpovos
[2013-06-27 12:53:44] - Depending on how hard it is to get a proper ID in texas, there's probably some truth to the discriminatory part, perhaps Daniel can speak to that better. - mig
[2013-06-27 12:52:53] - paul: to be honest, the "scourge" of voter fraud is something that both sides like to overblow, so I don't know really if it's super duper necessary. There's the problem that many minorities are either unwilling or unable to get a valid id, so it's viewed as a way for the republicans to legislate away voters who they don't think will support them. - mig
[2013-06-27 12:51:44] - "Presumably to cut down on voter fraud" you saw this question coming, i assume: what voter fraud? ~a
[2013-06-27 12:42:14] - a: What is the content of the law? I actually don't know anything about it. Why would Texas want it? Presumably to cut down on voter fraud. I assume you think there are more nefarious reasons for it? -Paul
[2013-06-27 12:36:25] - paul: the difference is the content: why does texas want a voter id law? and try to tell me why you think they ACTUALLY want it. ~a
[2013-06-27 12:32:30] - i don't read/watch msm then
~a[2013-06-27 12:25:28] - a: TDS, CR, and NPR are harldy MSM though, where i haven't been seeing much reaction past the day of. - mig
[2013-06-27 12:24:46] - a: Why is it strange that states would have new laws all prepped and ready to go? They've been trying to do this stuff for a while, which is why it went to the Supreme Court. I don't see much of a difference between this and gay couples getting married days after gay marriage is legalized in their state. -Paul
[2013-06-27 12:23:07] - a: Oh, wait, sorry. I completely misread what you said. Nevermind. -Paul
[2013-06-27 12:22:45] - a: I think they ended up declaring that particular law as not-passed, though. I assume we're talking about the abortion one with the filibuster by Wendy... somebody? -Paul
[2013-06-27 12:19:38] - *USAG, not USAJ, sorry. ~a
[2013-06-27 12:18:11] - i've been seeing waves. the daily show, colbert report, and NPR have devoted entire shows to it. texas decided to pass a law TWO HOURS after the ruling came down? a law they already submitted to the USAJ and had rejected?! TWO HOURS?! considering everything else that's coming out right now, the discussion has certainly been dulled. ~a
[2013-06-27 12:12:02] - mig: Yeah, I expected it to be a reaction on the level of Citizens United, but apparently not. -Paul
[2013-06-27 12:09:12] - I'm actually a little surprised Shelby County v. Holder hasn't generated much waves, even with all the other things in the crazy news going on (hernandez murder, zimmerman trial, and the DOMA ruling celebration), considering the touchy subject matter. - mig
[2013-06-27 11:20:14] - mig: It's probably more complicated than that, but your argument has merit. And it's a simple enough explanation to ensure that Betteridge remains correct. -- Xpovos
[2013-06-27 11:19:22] - a:
. -- Xpovos[2013-06-27 10:12:18] - With the prop 8 case, the proponents could not really show any "harm" to themselves other than their sensibilities were offended. - mig
[2013-06-27 10:03:36] - xpovos: Wouldn't citizens have standing though if the government officials just ignore the TABOR law? After all, they would be affected by higher taxes and therefore "harmed" which is a textbook case for having standing? - mig
[2013-06-27 09:25:31] - a: their names were billy and charlie - aaron
[2013-06-27 09:16:58] - "Did the Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage Ruling Just Destroy Colorado’s TABOR Law?" Betteridge says no. ~a
[2013-06-26 22:36:54] - Interesting. http://www.redstate.com/smdavis/2013/06/26/did-the-supreme-courts-gay-marriage-ruling-just-destroy-colorados-tabor-law/ -- Xpovos
[2013-06-26 14:43:16] - I didn't get my split decision, and certainly not from Scalia... Sad. http://aporter.org/msg/?action=prev&prev=122500#122654 -- Xpovos
[2013-06-26 14:43:16] - paul: i disagree. change comes in undetectable ways. the indirect effect is incalculable. a butterfly's wings and tipping points and whatnot. right? ~a
[2013-06-26 14:40:02] - a: DOMA was pretty clearly unconstitutional. I'm disappointed they didn't go further with Prop 8. It probably would have gone 'against' my preferred position, but I'd rather have that then a technical issue resolution which is dead because of government failure. -- Xpovos
[2013-06-26 14:31:19] - a: Nah, I think it's silly if anybody changes their profile pic thinking it makes any kind of difference. Reminds me of those chain emails saying you'll get good luck if you forward it to 10 friends or whatever. -Paul
[2013-06-26 14:31:05] - the = sign profile pics makes it hard for me to scan fbook to see whos status messages I actually want to read... I like having an image I can map to a single person rather than to a political viewpoint... Otherwise I probably would change mine... ~g
[2013-06-26 14:27:25] - . . . yes, you think it's a little silly that people are standing up for equal rights.
~a[2013-06-26 14:24:51] - a: Wait, are you talking to me? I don't think I ever said I hate the equals sign (I just think it's a little silly) and I don't see how I can be construed as disagreeing with the = people on this. -Paul
[2013-06-26 14:24:13] - mig/aaron/paul: what were the names of the two new guys? brian and connor? something like that? ~a
[2013-06-26 14:18:41] - maybe that's part of it. but secretly you hate that everybody thinks doma is fucked up. ~a
[2013-06-26 14:16:09] - a: i'm just not a fan of profile picture fads in general. And let's be honest, the '=' pic is not easy on the eyes. - mig
[2013-06-26 14:13:07] - you guys hate the "=" signs because you realize how many people disagree with you on this? ~a
[2013-06-26 12:18:49] - Some good tweets from my twitter feed: "So which hateful, bigoted and widely derided Southern state passed Prop 8? I FORGET" and "Evil Koch brothers defeat the amazing Bill Clinton". -Paul
[2013-06-26 11:39:16] - Yeah, Prop 8 is dead because the party that actually has standing to appeal refuses to do so, in spite of the voter pressure. -- Xpovos
[2013-06-26 11:39:01] - oh god, the "=" signs are coming back! - mig
[2013-06-26 11:38:47] - mig: A friend of mine just changed it to the pink equal sign thing just yesterday, I guess he was behind the times? -- Xpovos
[2013-06-26 11:36:19] - a: You planning ultimate this weekend? -Paul
[2013-06-26 11:04:42] - only downside of the prop 8 decision is that it didn't win on mertis since the pro-Prop 8 appeal was dismissed on standing, so the issues of whether states can ban same sex marriage is still up in the air. - mig
[2013-06-26 10:42:15] - mig: Nah, I think you're right that most have changed. I just still see it every once in a while. -Paul
[2013-06-26 10:38:30] - paul: i thought that fad had faded a while ago, though you probably have more facebook friends than I do that kept it up. - mig
[2013-06-26 10:36:30] - oh hold a minute i misread that, prop 8 is actually dead, the proponents appeal to a higher court to keep prop 8 alive were dismissed on standing. - mig
[2013-06-26 10:29:33] - prop 8 looks like it still stands due to lack of standing, unfortunately. - mig
[2013-06-26 10:16:23] - mig: Does that mean I will see pictures of actual people instead of equal signs on facebook now?
-Paul[2013-06-26 10:09:48] - doma is dead. - mig
[2013-06-25 22:02:56] - xpovos: i suppose international law is technically correct since reservations are supposed to be sovereign. - mig
[2013-06-25 18:45:44] - mig: International law is fun! And specifically he didn't really waive his custody rights, he just failed to take any action to maintain them. Custodial law is fun! -- Xpovos
[2013-06-25 16:32:24] - And it was strange that it was possible that a mother and child who had never set foot on an indian reservation or were never affiliated with a tribe in any way, were somehow subject to their jurisdiction. - mig
[2013-06-25 16:24:04] - xpovos: well the situation isn't bizzare (man reconsiders his decision of waiving custody rights of a child), just the application of ICWA (in which he could legally block an adoption because he had a tiny amount of native american lineage in his blood and was registered with a tribe) kind of made the case strange to me. - mig
[2013-06-25 16:19:46] - mig: Not all that bizarre a case. Or maybe I'm just inured because of my involvement with child welfare programs. -- Xpovos
[2013-06-25 16:01:54] - xpovos: that was a rather bizarre case involving a bizzare law. - mig
[2013-06-25 16:01:24] - Another case decided today has a fun name. "Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl". That's not one that's likely to receive many citations, which is a pity. -- Xpovos
[2013-06-25 15:56:00] - but at the same time, that's not SCOTUS's problem. - mig
[2013-06-25 15:55:23] - xpovos: I thought it was the correct ruling, though I understand the critics contention that the changes the court is asking will never happen with congress in its current state. - mig
[2013-06-25 15:55:04] - Xpovos: Honestly, I don't know enough about the case to speak intelligently about it, but on the surface, I think it was correctly decided. -Paul
[2013-06-25 15:51:15] - Early thoughts today on Shelby v. Holder? -- Xpovos
[2013-06-25 15:47:49] - i don't think what he did was legal. or should be. oversight is important, of course, but i thought that's what congressional oversight was for: did BO's political enemies on the congressional oversight committees know this was happening? ~a
[2013-06-25 15:46:09] - how? ~a
[2013-06-25 15:40:38] - a: well it's tricky. Obviously making classified information public should be illegal. The problems are the government classifying things that probalby shouldn't be, and well if there are government misdeeds discovered, people should be able to bring them to public light without fear of reprisal. - mig
[2013-06-25 15:23:37] - ok, should it be? ~a
[2013-06-25 15:08:12] - a: I think we would all agree that under the law, what he did was illegal. I think there is some debate on whether it should be. - mig
[2013-06-25 15:06:17] - meh, i hardly think i'll do a good job being the devil's advocate here. what he did was super-duper-illegal, but what the government was doing was unambiguously-wrong, so it's hard to find out how this ends well. ~a
[2013-06-25 14:53:56] - daniel: I do, and am amused. - mig
[2013-06-25 14:51:19] - mig: Thought you would appreciate this based on your view of duncan - http://www.sportsgrid.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/tim-duncan-e1337964709896.jpg -Daniel
[2013-06-25 14:47:11] - mig: Yeah, I don't necessarily blame Snowden for fleeing the country, considering how we treated Bradley Manning (among others). -Paul
[2013-06-25 14:32:23] - paul: the other thing is that the Obama administration has had a very sordid history of retaliating against whistleblowers (even those who exposed misdeeds during the Bush Administration), so I'm not sure trying to use legal channels was even a remotely viable option. - mig
[2013-06-25 14:10:54] - Daniel: There are official channels to go through, but I think you're largely right. When the government is all on board with keeping a secret... what's the point in asking the government for permission to talk about it? -Paul
[2013-06-25 13:51:46] - and I think minority representation in local governments. - mig
[2013-06-25 13:51:09] - daniel: I can't find much on the specifics, all I've read is that it invovles voter turnout and instances of voter disenfracnhisement. - mig
[2013-06-25 13:40:32] - mig: Do you know where the formula's they were using are listed somewhere? I read an article about the decision but I don't know what formula they were using originally. -Daniel
[2013-06-25 13:39:43] - What ways are there to blow the whistle when Obama/Congress/Justice Dept are on board? I mean I think going directly to "the people" is pretty much all that is left? -Daniel
[2013-06-25 12:24:59] - a: From what I've read, he had considered those courses of action and rejected them. There had been people who had attempted that route in the past and it hadn't worked out. -paul
[2013-06-25 12:16:10] - http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/politics/scotus-voting-rights/?hpt=hp_t1 Formula for determining which states are 'bad" under the Voting Rights Act deemed unconstitutional. - mig
[2013-06-25 12:11:58] - really the right thing to do would might have been to blow the whistle in legal ways: if you know classified stuff that's truly *evil* there are legal ways of blowing the whistle. he may have considered and rejected those courses of action though. ~a
[2013-06-25 12:10:06] - paul: that's what i meant by "in one way or another". ~a
[2013-06-25 11:20:36] - the zimmerman trial is going to be the OJ trial 2.0, isn' it? - mig
[2013-06-25 11:03:16] - a: I would argue he's already paying for it by basically being banned from his country for life and being an outlaw on the run. -Paul
[2013-06-25 10:59:04] - paul: "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws" i always like to give the context of that quote: king wrote that quote while sitting in jail. iow, just because snowden was disobeying an unjust law, doesn't mean that he won't end up paying for his disobedience (in one way or another even if it isn't in jail). ~a
[2013-06-25 10:36:37] - It was almost a maddening irony when David Greogory asked Greenwald why he shouldn't be arrested for his journalism, when Gregory himself was almost in legal hot water over doing his own journalism. - mig
[2013-06-25 10:25:29] - And if you need any more proof the people at MSNBC are nothing more than pathetic apologists for the administration, just look at how they've been treating Greenwald. - mig
[2013-06-25 10:24:21] - For it to be Espianoge, at least from my understanding, he'd be giving the information direclty to a foreign government or otherwise stand to gain something from it. I'm not sure being essentially exiled from the US and forced to live in somewhere like Ecuador for the rest of his life is a "gain" in my book. - mig
[2013-06-25 10:21:52] - Somewhere in between. Technically, yes, he's a criminal in the eyes of US law as it currently stands, though one would argue the appropriateness of whether PRISM should have been classified to the degree that it was. Charging him with Espianoge is of course absolutely ludicrous. - mig
[2013-06-25 09:24:59] - He at leasts believes himself to be a Patriot, does not fit the definition of Traitor (I don't see anything he did as providing aide to an enemy), is definitely a Criminal. Hero is impossible to know. Probably not. I think, ultimately, Hero is a word that comes with some kind of success. -- Xpovos
[2013-06-25 09:23:39] - Paul: I still need more information to make a qualified judgement, and that's something I think we'll never actually get. This thing is going to be coverup on top of secrect activities and coverups. From what I know (or think I know) I'm inclined to treat Snowden fairly favorably. -- Xpovos
[2013-06-25 09:00:18] - Similarly, I wonder what people think of Glenn Greenwald, the guy who reported the Snowden story. Seems like a lot of people in the media and government want to charge him with something to, which seems like a strange position for the media to take, at least. -Paul
[2013-06-25 08:59:21] - So, I'm wondering what people here think of Snowden. Hero? Traitor? Patriot? Criminal? Somewhere in between? All of the above? It seems I'm more sympathetic to him than most in the media (or in our government) are, but I do acknowledge that he's probably a criminal, at least. -Paul
[2013-06-24 10:31:17] - mig: No idea. Danny Ainge loves to shake things up, though. It would be rather odd that HE would be the last man standing after everybody else left or was traded, though. -Paul
[2013-06-24 10:25:35] - so looks like the Celtics are going to blow everything up. Are they just going to stick with Rondo and build around him (I assume Pierce is going to be gone, and probably KG will be gone too)? I find it a little funny since he's been in the trade rumour mill since like forever. - mig
[2013-06-24 09:37:48] - xpovos: "but if they tell me they see it as their duty to serve if called upon--how could I say no?" true enough, but I was thinking of the other side of the coin, like what if someone's daughter was drafted and she did not want to serve. - mig
[2013-06-24 00:38:23] - as a father of nobody, my opinion carries less weight
~a[2013-06-21 16:15:40] - Xpovos: I wouldn't be thrilled if my daughter told me she wanted to join the military, but that is many degrees more preferable to a situation where she doesn't want to but is forced to through a draft. The same would hold true for a son if I had one. -Paul
[2013-06-21 16:04:01] - Obviously it never came, and likely never would for my daughters, but if they tell me they see it as their duty to serve if called upon--how could I say no? I think the draft is awful, of course and I feel pretty strongly that if we have it should be reserved to males, but it's not a clear-cut thing. -- Xpovos
[2013-06-21 16:02:45] - mig: As the father of three of those daughters, I'm definitely not thrilled. But it reminds me of discussions I had with my father during my own registration. He was adamant that should I be drafted that I find some way to dodge, whereas I saw it as a potential duty, to at least be evaluated based on the needs of the military moment. -- Xpovos
[2013-06-21 15:06:35] - "are those considered combat roles?" yeah, again, i'm not sure what the definition of this is. does being shot at count? does being in a combat zone count? if so, i think lots of FOBs and COPs and camps count. i.e. lots of women would do no worse than men in those situations. ~a
[2013-06-21 15:05:25] - a: Ah, good point. The article was about the draft and mig was the one who brought up combat roles. My bad. -Paul
[2013-06-21 15:04:19] - i'm guessing the draft would be to fill both combat (small %) and non-combat (large %) roles though. ~a
[2013-06-21 14:59:57] - who knows. ~a
[2013-06-21 14:59:05] - a: Sure, but are those considered combat roles? I understand they might carry guns and might be in danger... but if they job mostly entails sitting in front of a computer... that's not what I would personally consider a combat role. -Paul
[2013-06-21 14:55:47] - pogue is the derogatory term for what i'm discussing. ~a
[2013-06-21 14:48:35] - no, lots of people don't have to lift heavy shit 24/7. lots of people are working in the oconus version of office buildings. they still carry assault rifles, they still have weapons training, personal training, work out twice a day, and could defend themselves if necessary: but they sit in front of a computer all day ~a
[2013-06-21 14:42:37] - a: I guess I'm not clear on what a combat position is, then. I assumed it meant somebody out in the field getting shot at and shooting back. Sure, they're not all infantrymen (infantrypeople?), but even people in tanks or whatever probably have to lift heavy munitions, right? -Paul
[2013-06-21 14:41:36] - sss: "men between the ages of 18 and 25 are required to register so that a draft can be readily resumed if needed" ~a
[2013-06-21 14:40:59] - 17? ~a
[2013-06-21 14:38:15] - I'm curious though, about the poll. It seems like the woman polled would be ok with themselves getting drafted, but I wonder how much the results shift if the question is framed, "Would you be ok with your 17-18 year old daughter possibly being drafted". - mig
[2013-06-21 14:37:42] - paul: i wouldn't focus on the infantryman position. very few women will be eligible to be infantrymen and infantrymen really don't account for that much %s of the people oconus. ~a
[2013-06-21 14:32:06] - Xpovos: Which is all nice and well, but I'm not sure her equipment is going to be much lighter, nor the soldiers she might possibly have to drag out of the line of fire to safety. -Paul
[2013-06-21 14:31:14] - Xpovos: I heard on the radio one female (soldier?) saying that she supported women in combat roles because even though she wasn't as strong as the males, she felt like she was proportionally as strong (based on her weight, I guess?). -Paul
[2013-06-21 14:30:16] - Xpovos: I think I'm mostly with mig, but I also want to add that I hope there is a single unified standard for eligibility for combat roles. In other words, I hope both men and women have to be able to carry X lbs over Y miles or whatever. -Paul
[2013-06-21 14:25:21] - And this is a bit distressing as well, because I think the discussion whether we should have a draft at all instead of talking about possibly expanding it. - mig
[2013-06-21 14:24:11] - xpovos: i'm against a military draft for anyone on principal, but if we allow women in combat roles now, then it makes sense that they should be eligible to be drafted along with males. - mig
[2013-06-21 14:20:07] - i'm for it! ~a
[2013-06-21 14:16:16] - Thoughts? http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/army/307047-poll-majority-of-americans-support-women-in-military-draft -- Xpovos
[2013-06-21 14:00:29] - a/Paul: http://www.arlingtondiocese.org/religiousliberty/index.aspx Just for fun. -- Xpovos
[2013-06-21 13:26:07] - Xpovos: Ah, thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure if it ever got fully resolved, but I knew it was mostly out of the news for now. I was too lazy to look it up.
-Paul[2013-06-21 13:20:35] - you're
[2013-06-21 13:20:28] - oh your probably talking about contraception. ~a
[2013-06-21 13:11:15] - 40 days? ~a
[2013-06-21 13:10:21] - Paul: was* is. Still on going, and will hit a head in about 40 days. -- Xpovos
[2013-06-21 12:54:49] - a: Because it WILL affect businesses with 50+ employees, and maybe those companies lay off some people, and the economy gets a little worse, and then maybe it's not such a good idea that your 3 person company decided to grow by 33%... -Paul
[2013-06-21 12:53:28] - a: Do most of them fall under the 50 employee threshold? Maybe. But just because it doesn't directly regulate their business doesn't mean they don't have anything to be concerned about. -Paul
[2013-06-21 12:51:40] - a: I don't think that's a fair assessment of things. 41% of small business owners surveyed see a massive and complex law about to be enacted which regulates a sizeable portion of the spending in America and since they don't know how it's going to affect things, they've held off on hiring. -Paul
[2013-06-21 12:47:52] - i don't believe the survey correctly reflects the state things are in. 41% of the world is going to explode isn't what i see. what i see is 41% of companies under 20m in sales are run by morons. ~a
[2013-06-21 12:46:22] - a: There might be a bunch of companies out there which provide health care coverage, but it maybe it doesn't cover routine doctor's visits or maybe it doesn't cover birth control... -Paul
[2013-06-21 12:45:47] - a: "the 'right' kind". Well, one of the things Obamacare mandates is that if you are providing healthcare, it has to provide certain coverage. The whole contraception coverage furor was about that. -Paul
[2013-06-21 12:44:54] - a: Fair enough, but I guess I'm confused. Are you saying you don't believe the survey? I wasn't sure where you were going with the comments about Obamacare not directly affecting businesses smaller than 50 employees. -Paul
[2013-06-21 12:41:12] - "the 'right' kind". i guess i don't know to what you're referring. ~a
[2013-06-21 12:40:45] - "Besides, I think it's a little misleading to count by number of businesses. Sure, maybe 100 businesses with 1 employee won't be affected, but all it takes is a single business with 100 employees to 'even' it out" nah. we were talking about 41%. 41% of owners. 41% of companies. NOT 41% of employees. so counting businesses is where you started. ~a
[2013-06-21 12:39:25] - a: They might have healthcare in place, but it might not be the "right" kind of healthcare. -Paul
[2013-06-21 12:38:10] - a: Besides, I think it's a little misleading to count by number of businesses. Sure, maybe 100 businesses with 1 employee won't be affected, but all it takes is a single business with 100 employees to "even" it out. -Paul
[2013-06-21 12:36:39] - and yes, i understand the 49 problem. but really a company with 50 employees should have some sort of healthcare system anyways. hell, we had healthcare for our employees at size 3. ~a
[2013-06-21 12:35:19] - directly affect them, right. ~a
[2013-06-21 12:32:27] - a: Doesn't mean it won't affect them. Certain health care plans that were offered before the introduction of Obamacare have been discontinued. Maybe those businesses offered some of those plans. Maybe a business has 49 employees and now definitely doesn't want to add any more. -Paul
[2013-06-21 12:30:24] - 20 million in anual sales is almost nothing. so probably like 99% of those 603 owners aren't affected by the affordable care act (assuming the owners were picked at random). ~a
[2013-06-21 12:28:15] - paul: maybe you already changed my mind
maybe "neutral" was a change from how i felt in high-school. ~a[2013-06-21 12:27:40] - no, they don't know because they're dumbasses. "The Affordable Care Act does not require businesses with fewer than 50 full-time employees to provide their employees with healthcare coverage. ... 96 percent of the businesses in the U.S. have fewer than 50 employees" ~a
[2013-06-21 12:27:07] - a: Doesn't matter what you think of them, what matters is if I can change your mind. -Paul
[2013-06-21 12:26:01] - a: I thought the reason we so desperately needed this health care reform was BECAUSE we all agreed that the costs of medicare and medicaid were going through the roof (ie, the programs were not wonderful). -Paul
[2013-06-21 12:24:13] - i think medicare, and medicaid, and social security, and the affordable care act are "neutral", so you probably shouldn't put me in the same "bucket" and nina and pierce. ~a
[2013-06-21 12:23:44] - a: Does it matter? Besides, "most probably don't even know if obamacare effects their business directly". That's exactly why companies WOULD freeze hiring. Businesses hate uncertainty. Wouldn't not knowing how much more an employee might cost you (if anything) have a chilling affect on hiring? -Paul
[2013-06-21 12:22:44] - again: yawn. paul, you're saying that things will be horrible, and that you predicted it. but come on, it'll be just like medicare, and medicade, and social security, where we couldn't even agree *today* if any of those are "wonderful" or "horrible". ~a
[2013-06-21 12:21:45] - a: Ok, so I should put you in the "not changing my mind on things based on evidence Paul presents" bucket along with Nina and Pierce?
-Paul[2013-06-21 12:21:40] - how many of the "603 owners whose businesses have under $20 million in annual sales" aren't even affected by obamacare. most probably don't even know if obamacare effects their business directly. ~a
[2013-06-21 12:18:56] - "41% have frozen hiring" no, 41% stated that they have frozen hiring. my argument: yawn. ~a
[2013-06-21 12:17:13] - a: http://aporter.org/msg/?action=search&search=syria It's the same reason I keep bringing up Syria, even though nobody takes the bait. I'm pretty sure I pointed out this exact scenario when saying intervening in Libya was a slippery slope, and now we're getting involved in Syria and I want to see if people have changed their minds. -Paul
[2013-06-21 12:16:13] - a: I'm trying to change minds. I remember talking a lot about how the problems Obamacare was going to cause and people on the message board largely disagreeing. I figure now that we have some evidence that some of the things that I was saying are coming true, maybe people will re-evaluate. -Paul
[2013-06-21 12:09:32] - 'obamacare is lame' is your point. right? you've argued it before. i think obamacare is neutral. so when i see people saying stuff about how lame they think obamacare is, i'm usually like: yawn. ~a
[2013-06-21 12:07:54] - ok. ~a
[2013-06-21 11:54:08] - a: It's hard to tell on the graph with so few numbers, but it looks like the unemployment rate is almost 50% higher (7.5% vs 5%) right now than their projection. That's pretty bad. -Paul
[2013-06-21 11:47:32] - a: Including historically (compared to other recessions) and even based on Obama's own expectations. I understand predictions are tough, but Obama's was wildly off. Not only did real world unemployment miss his prediction, but it was considerably higher than even the nightmare scenario that the administration whipped up to rally support for the stimulus. -Paul
[2013-06-21 11:44:57] - a: (3) You didn't respond to my question about what your point was, so I assumed that you were basically saying, "Your article is bunk because unemployment is down over the past 3 years". (4) My point is that job recovery after recessions are over are natural and job creation under Obama has been subpar by most measures. -Paul
[2013-06-21 11:42:14] - a: (1) I posted an article about how small businesses have frozen their hiring because of Obamacare. (2) You replied (I assume it was a reply to me) with a link showing unemployment is up big over the past 10 years (but I assume you wanted me to look at the past three years where unemployment is down). -Paul
[2013-06-21 11:33:31] - what's that? economists couldn't correctly predict the future? and? ~a
[2013-06-21 11:32:08] - a: http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/bernteinromerupdated.jpg?uuid=w_F1vvKHEeC4Lb8lBMZ5GQ The recovery (in terms of unemployment) is even worse than Obama's nightmare scenario. -Paul
[2013-06-21 11:24:26] - is there a public/private sector breakdown? I'm not sure public sector growing is necessarily a good thing if the private sector is stagnant or not growing as much. - mig
[2013-06-21 11:23:20] - a: And unemployment in other areas of the country are more concerning. What's your point about NOVA? -Paul
[2013-06-21 11:22:52] - a: Recessions are supposed to be followed by recoveries. The fact that jobs are being created since the worst part of the recession isn't necessarily a feather in Obama's cap. -Paul
[2013-06-21 11:21:48] - a: http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/03/the-great-obama-failed-recovery-in-graphs/ Ok, sure. Let's look at the bigger graph. It's still not flattering. -Paul
[2013-06-21 11:16:20] - unemployment in the NOVA area is even less concerning. ~a
[2013-06-21 11:15:20] - looking at the bigger graph gives some more awesomeness when it comes to unemployment. ~a
[2013-06-21 11:14:48] - 2010? yeah, a lot has happened in the last three years, huh? ~a
[2013-06-21 11:01:15] - a: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/comparing-recessions-job-recovery/?src=twt&twt=nytimeseconomix&_r=0 -Paul
[2013-06-21 10:56:29] - a: Not sure of your point. That we lost a lot of jobs but are getting some back? -Paul
[2013-06-21 10:51:29] - paul: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 ~a
[2013-06-21 10:50:20] - oh no! ~a
[2013-06-21 10:29:50] - http://www.cnbc.com/id/100825782 "Forty-one percent of the businesses surveyed have frozen hiring because of the health-care law known as Obamacare." -Paul
[2013-06-21 10:04:55] - daniel: i saw that, man i can't believe how bad things would have gotten if microsoft had actually followed through with that - aaron
[2013-06-21 01:04:39] - seeing that gif he looks more like a doofus than I thought initially. - mig
[2013-06-21 00:55:13] - daniel/vinnie: this was "warrior fan guy" that i mentioned during the game. - mig
[2013-06-20 14:53:39] - Xpovos: Honestly, I felt like the motives for both were a little muddled. I understood the... more unexpected?.... bad guy's motives, but I felt like they didn't explain it well. Agreed that Cumberbatch (nice typo) was bad-ass. -Paul
[2013-06-20 14:14:26] - Paul: Fair enough, that was pretty bad. And the motives for the primary (secondary? it's actually hard to tell) villain were really not well done. But I do have to say that at least Cumberbitch was a bad-ass. -- Xpovos
[2013-06-20 14:04:48] - Xpovos: Well, they arguably doubled down on it in the second, though. In the second movie, you apparently can do this ridiculous teleporting with some sort of tiny, handheld device. -Paul
[2013-06-20 13:54:46] - Paul: Wouldn't it be worse to use it in the first movie and then pretend it didn't exist in the second? On the other hand... Lens Flares! -- Xpovos
[2013-06-20 13:44:05] - Xpovos: And they transporter has mysteriously stopped working so many times as a plot device in Abrams' two movies. I can count 4 combined instances where the transporter mysteriously failed mainly for plot reasons without even trying hard. -Paul
[2013-06-20 13:42:42] - Unconfirmed yet but its possible that family sharing for x1 wasn't quite what we thought initially: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1gqa5a/according_to_this_post_family_sharing_in_the_xbox/ -Daniel
[2013-06-20 13:42:23] - Xpovos: You're probably right, but it just seems more noticeable in these since they massively beefed up the transporter where it can teleport people light years away onto a moving ship (and they've used that ability in BOTH movies)... -Paul
[2013-06-20 13:35:46] - Paul: Yeah, I can see that. There was, as always, a ton of 'technology magic' that works when they need it to and doesn't when they don't. It's not nearly as tight as Star Trek series shows were, which is sad, but it's no worse (IMO) than most of the Star Trek movies. -- Xpovos
[2013-06-20 13:32:52] - http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3543-google-uses-big-data-to-prove-hiring-puzzles-useless-and-gpas-meaningless Google finds that brain-teasers and GPAs are worthless as a criteria for hiring. -Paul
[2013-06-20 13:19:15] - mig: It helps if you don't think of them as Star Trek movies, but as popcorn sci-fi that happens to have similar characters and names for things.
-Paul[2013-06-20 13:18:38] - Daniel: Not that distances really matter much, anyway, considering they basically introduced technology in the movie where anybody can teleport anywhere at any time (even planets light years away). Of course, that's only when the transporters are working, which seems to be very inconsistent based on the plot. -Paul
[2013-06-20 13:17:17] - Daniel: They had a similarly funny way of measuring distances in the first one. I couldn't figure out how Spock Prime was on a planet which was close enough to Vulcan where he could see it clearly get destroyed, but not too close where the black hole would do something horrible to the planet he was on as well. -Paul
[2013-06-20 13:15:58] - And I'll be honest, if they had actually followed through on that speculation that Shatner might have had a corny cameo similar to Nimoy, I might have been tempted to just walk out of the theater. - mig
[2013-06-20 13:09:15] - I think it's safe to say at this point that I won't ever be watching a Strek Trek movie again that has JJ Abrams attached to it. - mig
[2013-06-20 13:04:25] - Paul: I also noticed / thought the sense of distance was majorly out of wack. The time in warp always seemed like it was seconds / minutes and the whole torpedo/neutral zone thing was so bizarre especially when it fell apart and turned into their plan B. -Daniel
[2013-06-20 12:49:17] - Xpovos: And finally, while I appreciate the references to earlier shows/movies, the end of the movie felt like it went from homage to outright copying and it felt almost silly. I wish they had made a different choice on the villain. -Paul
[2013-06-20 12:48:14] - Xpovos: No, Earth is not a few seconds of warp away from the neutral zone. Also, this is the second Star Trek movie in a row where the Enterprise gets the crap beaten out of it by another ship and I don't think we ever see it fire a single shot back. -Paul
[2013-06-20 12:46:37] - Xpovos: The plot had a ton of stuff that didn't make sense and once again, the writers seem to have no sense of distance when it comes the Star Trek universe. No, Qo'nos (it's not spelled Kronos) is not so close to the neutral zone that you can fire a torpedo from a ship outside the neutral zone and hit a single target on the planet. -Paul
[2013-06-20 12:44:53] - Xpovos: I was kinda torn about it. It had it's fun moments, and I appreciated a lot of the references that probably went over the heads of other people, but... -Paul
[2013-06-20 12:43:15] - mig: Wow, how bizarre. I don't remember that at all. -Paul
[2013-06-20 12:42:25] - Paul: Overall I enjoyed it. There were a few moments of "that's not how science works" and a couple of bits where the ridiculousness got to the point that it damaged my suspension of disbelief. And it did drag at times--but overall I felt it was fun and did a good job of what it tried to do. -- Xpovos
[2013-06-20 12:33:38] - http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2008-03-09/sports/36874695_1_hawks-beat-heat-stephon-marbury-knicks - mig
[2013-06-20 12:30:13] - paul: the replayed it from the point of the foul (at that point :59.4 left in OT). - mig
[2013-06-20 12:29:44] - mig: Wait, they replayed the game? Or at least part of it? -Paul
[2013-06-20 12:29:32] - Xpovos: What did you think of it? Not sure if you should be wary of spoilers or if everybody here who will see it has seen it. -Paul
[2013-06-20 12:24:28] - paul: there was also a game between the heat(ironically) and hawks that had to be replayed because a scorer had incorrectly assessed that Shaq had fouled out of a game. - mig
[2013-06-20 12:10:05] - I finally saw Star Trek: Into Darkness last night. -- Xpovos
[2013-06-20 11:18:58] - mig: Pretty sure the result would've stood. Wasn't there some crazy play in an NBA where it was actually 6 on 5 because somehow nobody (either the refs or players on either team) realized that a player didn't sub out when another subbed in? -Paul
[2013-06-20 10:24:24] - https://twitter.com/IraHeatBeat/status/347433676117770240 this raised an interesting hypothetical in my head. What if at the end of regulation the Spurs had scored because of Duncan's prescence? What would have happened? And man, would there be a big * on that title if it was just allowed. - mig
[2013-06-20 09:00:56] - aaron: Yeah, it would be confusing, but so was their new system anyway... -Paul
[2013-06-19 17:47:47] - paul: the biggest caveat imho, being that it would have confused a couple of grandmas around christmastime - aaron
[2013-06-19 17:47:14] - paul: allow consumers to opt-in, "do I want DVDs delivered to my door? or do i want streaming?" "do i want physical disc which is guaranteed to work in 20 years... or do i want a digital copy which i can share with my friends, but which won't work if the XBox One servers go away?" i don't think consumers have ever retaliated over having extra choice... - aaron
[2013-06-19 17:45:41] - paul: and then, give retailers the ability to sell license keys, so you can go to gamestop and buy "Gears Of War online edition" or something, and have all of the pros/cons associated with microsoft's proposed setup. basically, go the netflix route. it seems really obvious... - aaron
[2013-06-19 17:44:03] - paul: the family sharing aspect will go away. you can still choose to download games from XBox Live instead of buying a disc. frankly, i think the best option for them is just to have two different setups -- the convoluted restricted "one license transfer" kind of setup for downloaded titles, and the "disc required" kind of setup for disc-based titles... - aaron
[2013-06-19 17:15:29] - Aaron: Ugh, I'm actually a little disappointed by this because, like they said, it means reversing some of the actual benefits that came with needing to be always online. Not having to get up and swap discs to play a different game would've been a nice perk. I wonder what happens to the family sharing aspect as well? -Paul
[2013-06-19 16:59:51] - http://imgur.com/a/28zXb there's been an official statement by microsoft, reversing their DRM/always-online plans for the XBox One. It's available at xbox.com although it's currently being hit pretty hard, so here's a screencap - aaron
[2013-06-19 15:35:15] - xpovos: i pass by this bank on my daily commute and it always reminds me of LoL as well - aaron
[2013-06-19 15:32:49] - xpovos: ha ha! cute - aaron
[2013-06-19 14:20:39] - LoL folks: I was road-tripping through VA on my way to FL and I saw this and was amused. Probably because it was 3AM. 'Cause you know... swamp and jungle are pretty similar when you're punch drunk. -- Xpovos
[2013-06-19 10:43:25] - Torchlight (1 not 2) is free on GOG for the next 48 (OK, probably less) hours if anyone was interested in it but didn't have a copy yet, somehow. -- Xpovos
[2013-06-18 15:11:16] - Been reviewing some of those old diplomacy games after aaron mentioned it the other day. Its a crazy crazy thing! I still feel bad about lying to people
-Daniel[2013-06-18 10:17:15] - mig: Well, to me, Lex Luthor and the Joker are two of the three most famous comic book villians (Magneto being the other). -Paul
[2013-06-18 09:50:07] - paul: it's kind of weird but aside from batman it seems the DC villians (at least the ones that aren't cartoonishly evil) seem to be more popular than the heroes themselves because the heroes are so bland and goody goody. - mig
[2013-06-18 09:46:53] - paul: actually I thought batman begins was kind of a break in character, as that batman seemed to break his own rule in spirit at the end. - mig
[2013-06-18 09:44:29] - mig: Although, in the Nolan movies, those bad guys seem to usually end up dead somehow anyway. Ironically, the only villain that I can remember surviving is the Joker. -Paul
[2013-06-18 09:41:16] - mig: Yeah, I had kinda forgotten that both Batman AND Superman have their big thing where they never kill bad guys. -Paul
[2013-06-18 09:28:42] - heroes never kill the villians no matter what, which seems almost like an obsession or fetish to "save or reform" the bad guy, which I don't see happening much with marvel heroes. - mig
[2013-06-18 09:27:43] - paul: the all powerful stuff does yield some problems with superman in particular (because they can only rely on his gullibility or selflessness to realistlicty try to "defeat" him), but I think a lot of the problem with the heroes in DC in general is that they make them basically perfectly good in a lot of cases. A particular running theme is that the
[2013-06-17 16:24:55] - mig: Yeah, I know it's hard to come up with a good Superman movie because of his whole all-powerful thing, but I just felt like they could've done a let better in Man of Steel. It didn't even look like things really hurt him at all. -Paul
prev <-> next