prev <-> next
[2013-08-01 13:17:51] - a: I don't think there was a real bet. A bunch of us decided to throw out guesses as to who would be the nominees in 2016 to show how accurately (or not accurately) these things can be predicted. -Paul
[2013-08-01 13:17:18] - it has two lines. first line is "Obama, Cain, Johnson, huntsman, gingrinch," and the second line is "Romney, Perry, Paul, bochman, santorum,". none of the terms are explained, or the date of payment, or the amount of payment. ~a
[2013-08-01 13:15:56] - uhhh, what was the bet? i have a file on my old phone called "paul bet" but it's about the 2012 primaries. and the file doesn't quite explain that bet either. ~a
[2013-08-01 13:12:29] - a: I'm just saying... pay up.
-Paul[2013-08-01 13:07:12] - uhhh, it's 2013 still, paul.
you're about 1.5 years early. ~a[2013-08-01 13:00:35] - http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2013/07/31/paul-ryan-2016-presidential-race-pew-research/2605403/ My bet for Paul Ryan as GOP candidate for president in 2016 is looking good... -Paul
[2013-08-01 12:01:37] - oooh, that is fun. i like a few of those i hadn't heard of (cocktail shaker, stable, gnome, bitonic). ~a
[2013-08-01 11:28:44] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPRA0W1kECg 15 sorting algorithms in 6 minutes -- the sound really makes this interesting - aaron
[2013-08-01 09:53:19] - hah, i love how nobody can agree on what the runtime is! but no, i'm thinking we could easily make a worse sorting algorithm. step 1. check if the list is sorted. step 2. sleep(4 hours). step 3. rearrange the list randomly. step 4. reformat the harddrive. step 5. there is no step 5, you already deleted the harddrive, so let's just sleep indefinitely. ~a
[2013-08-01 01:11:36] - Worst sort algorithm ever? http://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/bogobogosort.html -Daniel
[2013-07-31 18:49:22] - http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/314535-weiner-quit-isnt-the-way-we-roll if you needed a cringe inducing video for the day. - mig
[2013-07-31 16:11:58] - It's one of those issues where I really can't blame either extreme stance taken. Think we should've gone to the 1936 Olympics even in hindsight? Sure, I can see that. Think we should boycott... I dunno, some completely non-controversial Olympics because the host country had some policy you disagree with? I can see that too. -Paul
[2013-07-31 16:09:46] - To me, it's a very tough issue with no good answer. It's nice to think of the Olympics as transcending politics, but politics is so much a part of so many aspects of life that it's tough for it to work in a practical way. -Paul
[2013-07-31 16:03:36] - a: doing the wrong thing for the right reason - aaron
[2013-07-31 16:03:22] - a: yeah, although in that case i would say germany "started it" by bringing politics to the games. if russia did something similar, by politicizing the games as the host country, then i'd side more with the boycotters. but if russia's just hosting the games, and guests politicize the games with a boycott, i mean it's one of those cases where they're - aaron
[2013-07-31 16:00:35] - at least not . . . with hindsight. i guess in 1936, nobody was aware of what was to come. ~a
[2013-07-31 15:58:45] - "all countries in the world can set aside political differences for the sake of friendly competition, and these kinds of protests take away from that" there are exceptions to this rule. 1936 Summer Olympics (obviously a very different and more extreme situation) was a time where setting aside political differences isn't exactly what i would have opted for. ~a
[2013-07-31 15:52:12] - mig: if someone refused to participate in the 2014 olympics because of russia's poor policies on gay rights, i'm not sure what i'd think about that athlete. if anything, it would probably make me want to learn more the issue, which would probably be the athlete's intent in the first place - aaron
[2013-07-31 15:47:17] - mig: while on one level, it's a nice gesture for athletes to show their solidarity with the gay community by refusing to participate -- on another level, the olympics are supposed to be one of the rare times when all countries in the world can set aside political differences for the sake of friendly competition, and these kinds of protests take away from that - aaron
[2013-07-31 13:55:11] - mig: In Soviet Russia, Summer Olympics are Winter.
-- Xpovos[2013-07-31 13:47:00] - oh wait. this is winter olympics ... nm that then. - mig
[2013-07-31 13:45:47] - Though in some cases it might be easier. Actually, maybe the NBA players deciding not to go would be a powerful statement, considering the whole Jason Collins thing. - mig
[2013-07-31 13:44:32] - xpovos: it would still be a difficult decision for some athletes, no matter how much they may despise the Russian government and their policies. For many, the olympics is supposed the pinnacle of their athletic lives. some only get one chance to go to the olympics. That would be a difficult sell I think for some. - mig
[2013-07-31 13:42:18] - http://www.pajiba.com/trade_news/the-first-picture-of-peter-dinklage-in-xmen-days-of-future-past-is-apparently-not-a-joke-.php Sentinels, ahoy. -- Xpovos
[2013-07-31 13:40:41] - mig: What about individual, but preferably well-known athletes refusing to participate? Though that's harder since the Olympics is generally "non-professional" athletes and so finding well-known non-professionals is an issue. -- Xpovos
[2013-07-31 13:27:40] - Though sadly, if by some crazy circumstance the US did refuse to participate in the games, people might think it's more because of the whole Snowden thing than it being a protest of anti-gay sentiment/laws. - mig
[2013-07-31 13:26:07] - Alternatively, countries can just refuse to participate in protest, though I'm not sure how realistic that is. - mig
[2013-07-31 13:24:25] - I think things along this line would be much more effective in helping the cause than trying to boycott a private company that is currently almost considered an "enemy of the state" by the Russian government. - mig
[2013-07-31 13:23:34] - Going back a bit to "what can we do to get Russia to change it's anti-gay ways". There's some recent talk of using the 2014 Olympics, which are supposed to be in Russia next year, as some sort of leverage by maybe moving them somewhere else. Maybe at this point it's kind of hollow, since it might be too late to have another country host on such short notice, but ...
[2013-07-31 11:01:14] - paul: when we were talking about walmart (before we remembered/realized that walmart isn't a franchise) i suggested that the CEO/ownership has direct and indirect control over the salaries of the line-workers. i'm less confident that is the case with mcdonalds, but i'm thinking that corporate mcdonalds does have at least a rule or two about employee salaries. ~a
[2013-07-31 10:55:00] - even if the location isn't owned by McDonald's corporate I'm sure they're privy to some financials for the location but yeah it wouldn't make much sense for those to be factored into the corporation's financial statements. - mig
[2013-07-31 09:55:33] - Fun article on an unfun subject. http://dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/staff/staff1301.pdf -- Xpovos
[2013-07-31 09:37:40] - a: Hmmm, that's a good point. I honestly don't know how that all works out. Wouldn't that potentially cause an even bigger problem, then? In theory, the franchises would be bearing the majority of the costs and I'm not sure they have the same profit margins as the parent company. -Paul
[2013-07-31 09:28:50] - paul: "I'm sure not every McDonalds store is equally profitable" i'm not sure if the profit for franchisees is included in the profit for the company. are you assuming it is? because i'm thinking that it is not. ~a
[2013-07-31 08:59:20] - a: You can't just magically raise people's wages without any downside. -Paul
[2013-07-31 08:59:09] - a: And that's the best case scenario too. I'm sure not every McDonalds store is equally profitable. Raise the wages by $3 an hour and I'm sure you'll suddenly see a large number of stores become unprofitable and get shut down. That's what a lot of minimum wage supporters don't seem to understand. There are consequences. -Paul
[2013-07-31 08:56:37] - a: Sure, if McDonalds suddenly wanted to become a non-profit, they could raise their employee's pay around $3 an hour... but I think that speaks for itself. Even in the most extreme scenario, McDonalds could only really afford the raise all their employees pay but that much. -Paul
[2013-07-31 08:55:18] - a: Sure, but that wasn't what I was addressing. I was addressing how silly it was to ask the CEO to basically donate some of his salary to give the workers more money. -Paul
[2013-07-30 22:59:45] - particular workers that live in the city? ~a
[2013-07-30 19:46:30] - a: I'm sure there are folks who would want the min. wage increased to something that high, but in this case, it's just these particular workers who want their wage increased to that level. - mig
[2013-07-30 18:15:02] - I guess I was conflating this whole thing with minimum wage though. the 15/hour wasn't supposed to be a national thing. yah? ~a
[2013-07-30 17:48:52] - paul: because you're solving the problem "incorrectly" (by some definition of incorrectly
). to solve this problem differently: mcd profit is 5.5b/year. that's 5.5k per employee extra or roughly $3/hour extra. i'll grant that $3/hour isn't exactly a huge difference, but it's something. (remembering though that i agree that our current minimum wage is fine) ~a[2013-07-30 17:29:16] - a: I was replying to Miguel's post about people wanting the CEO to take home less pay. I know bonuses and non-standard income is also a factor, but I still doubt the McDonald's CEO is making enough to where he could take less money and it would make a significant difference for the other employees. -Paul
[2013-07-30 17:08:39] - don't forget bonuses and other non-standard taxable income. ~a
[2013-07-30 17:02:03] - silly_paul, you're looking at salary. you really should be looking at the company profit. ~a
[2013-07-30 15:06:36] - I haven't heard anybody argue that CEOs should take less money so they can raise salaries for the workers, but that seems like a silly proposition. McDonalds' CEO makes around $14 million. They appear to employ around a million people. Even if the CEO completely forfeited his salary, that's $14 more for each worker, right? -Paul
[2013-07-30 14:32:19] - i'm pretty sure they do both. the food supply chain, labor supply chain, everything in the stores, etc isn't exactly controlled by the franchisees. maybe you want there to be more of a clean break than there is. ~a
[2013-07-30 14:32:12] - anyways, the main point is that most corporate brands that use the franchise model generally don't dictate things like wages/how many to hire/scheduling/etc to franchise owners. Every location is different and has different needs. To try and enforce uniformity in those areas probably isn't wise. - mig
[2013-07-30 14:17:44] - a: well it's a little more complicated than that. I'm not sure if I can explain this properly, but we're at a point where the McDonald's brand itself is a product, which is basically what the corporate entity sells. They're no longer really in the business of selling food, but selling a brand that helps prospective franchise owners sell food. - mig
[2013-07-30 14:10:15] - those things get paid for by selling food. ~a
[2013-07-30 14:02:45] - And the big thing, is the real money that McD's makes is in the branding, corporate sponsorships, and the franchise fees, and stuff like that. Those actual locations are not rolling in windfall profits selling you those $6 value meals or stuff from the dollar menu. Like most of the food businesses, the actual profits from actually selling food aren't that great.- mig
[2013-07-30 13:56:51] - the CEO and the ownership has changed over the decades, but it's mostly been run by the waltons. ~a
[2013-07-30 13:56:28] - McD's the corporate entity does not own or operate a vast majority of McD's locations, and I'd be surprised if they actually take the time to dictate and micromanage how the franchise owners run their locations, given that they need a lot of flexibility to make a paritcular location work. - mig
[2013-07-30 13:56:06] - a: Oh if you were talking about walmart then ignore me! -Daniel
[2013-07-30 13:54:59] - a: CEO's and owners are different things I think in the franchise context. Franchises pay a fee to corporate and have to follow certain rules but I'm not sure that wages are set as part of those rules. Thats probably left up to individual stores. -Daniel
[2013-07-30 13:54:28] - ah you beat me to it. ~a
[2013-07-30 13:54:20] - mig: scratch all of that i just said. let's go to this starting point: walmart is not a franchise. ~a
[2013-07-30 13:54:17] - a: Well Walmart is a little different animal due to the nature of its business, I'm actually not even sure if they use the franchising business model, honestly. - mig
[2013-07-30 13:45:40] - mig: well can you explain franchising to me then? i figured the terms of the franchise was at the discretion of the franchiser. in other words, couldn't the CEO/owners take less *profit* and workers could *eventually* get more? the waltons (the richest of the richest billionaires) do decide directly and indirectly how much the line workers get paid. ~a
[2013-07-30 12:17:16] - paul: what amazes me is the amount of people who have absolutely no clue on how franchising works. I've seen so many commentary along the lines of "well why can't the CEO just take less pay so workers get more", even amongst some punditry who should know better. - mig
[2013-07-30 12:12:30] - mig: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-council-approves-living-wage-bill-over-wal-mart-ultimatum/2013/07/10/724aab6e-e96f-11e2-a301-ea5a8116d211_sto Reminds me a bit of the Wal-Mart / DC living wage ruckus in our own backyard. -Paul
[2013-07-30 12:09:40] - even i think 15 is too high. File:History of US federal minimum wage increases.svg (uses 2009 dollars as the base). according to the graph, the highest minimum wage we've seen in the united states was in the 60s: 10/hour (in 2013 dollars). honestly, the national minimum wage we have right now is on par with our recent history. ~a
[2013-07-30 12:06:54] - daniel: there's negotiation, but that seems more rather standoffish. - mig
[2013-07-30 12:01:54] - mig: Andrea heard that this morning (the 15$ amount) and she thought it was a silly amount to ask for. I said maybe it was a negotiating thing where you start with a high offer to have room to move down. -Daniel
[2013-07-30 12:00:44] - mig: I haven't been following it much. Reading your article, I'm struck by some of the things the workers say (you really can't afford to buy something from McDonalds?) -Paul
[2013-07-30 11:56:56] - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/29/workers-nyc-strike/2597799/ anyone been following the fast food workers strike. Not that I don't sympathize with their plight, since NYC is a really expensive place to live, but their demands ($15/hr wages) are bordering on absurdity. - mig
[2013-07-30 11:29:24] - unannounced twister games, all players with no names, they lined up double quick, but just one pogo stick. everyone gets to play, run away, exposé, it was so exotic, but just one pogo stick.
[2013-07-30 10:15:09] - Pogo, pogo, pogo, BOUNCE.
[2013-07-29 17:08:16] - hah, love it. ~a
[2013-07-29 16:52:13] - http://i.imgur.com/84HPN.jpg pogo stick + trampoline = ? - aaron
[2013-07-29 16:29:01] - hah, yeah. i wonder, if i participate in a hostile takeover, can i be charged with murder? (or manslaughter in florida?) ~a
[2013-07-29 16:16:37] - a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood Corporations are people.
-Paul[2013-07-29 16:13:09] - businesses = americans?
~a[2013-07-29 15:56:28] - And you sort of saw that by the various businesses that were demanding the administration either repeal or delay the employer insurance mandate, which they partly succeeded (the deadline to comply was delayed a year). - mig
[2013-07-29 15:55:15] - Also an example. while PPACA may have been popular as it was passed by voters, the authority it gave HHS to create new regulations, the voters may not be wild about the new regulations that come from it. - mig
[2013-07-29 15:51:09] - daniel: there's a bit of a flaw in that reasoning though. There's a not insignficant amount of regulations that are created by various agencies, who aren't necessarily beholden to the whims of voters. It's not unusual for the EPA, for exmaple, to issue new regulations regarding carbon emissions and what not. - mig
[2013-07-29 15:25:50] - But I might tell him based on the prevlance of safety regulations around the country and at all different levels it supports the majority of americans favoring some level of government safety regulations. -Daniel
[2013-07-29 15:25:03] - Our conclusion is anecdotal. I wouldn't tell my coworker that my friends agree the majority of american's want regulation therefore its so. -Daniel
[2013-07-29 15:16:20] - Daniel: But, honestly, is taking a poll of people here any less anecdotal?
-Paul[2013-07-29 15:15:35] - Daniel: Because I think most people have their pet regulation, at the very least. Maybe one person is strongly against seat belt laws, but he really wants to make sure the FDA is checking his medicine... -Paul
[2013-07-29 15:14:44] - Daniel: I think that's fair. I think if you polled Americans and asked them if there should be ZERO government safety regulations, the majority would say no. -Paul
[2013-07-29 15:08:19] - Given the various regulations around the country would it be fair to state that the majority of americans support support a non zero level of government safety regulations? There would be debate about when it goes to far but that the majority think that some should exist? Like no lead in water for example? -Daniel
[2013-07-29 15:05:02] - a: Huh. Good to know. -Paul
[2013-07-29 15:03:50] - so, it's not even a state law. ~a
[2013-07-29 15:03:27] - Several jurisdictions in Virginia require that every person fourteen years of age or younger shall wear a protective helmet whenever riding ...on a bicycle ... The jurisdictions reporting such ordinances to VDOT are...listed here. ~a
[2013-07-29 15:01:22] - "bicycle helmets.... for the children" . . . actually usually (in va anyways) bicycle helmet laws only affect children. ~a
[2013-07-29 14:58:15] - And with things like regulations, I think it's easy for a small, vocal minority to get regulations passed (bicycle helmets.... for the children!) while the majority is against it, but doesn't care enough for it to change their vote. -Paul
[2013-07-29 14:57:08] - I don't like the line of reasoning about how since our representatives are for regulation, the american people must be for it too. There's been plenty of issues where the majority of Americans were for (or against) something and the majority of congress felt the opposite. -Paul
[2013-07-29 14:55:11] - Daniel: But then turned out to be all for regulations when they are specifically listed. It's like those people who are for cutting spending, but can't name any specific program they want cut (except foreign aid, which takes up such a tiny percentage of the budget). -Paul
[2013-07-29 14:54:19] - daniel: well seat belts is 2-faceted. There's seatbelts being mandated in cars, and driver seat belt laws. - mig
[2013-07-29 14:54:16] - Daniel: I second what Adrian said... one of you needs polling data. I also second what Miguel said, though, that I think the answers would be all over the place. Wouldn't at all be surprised if people said they were against government mandated safety regulations in general... -Paul
[2013-07-29 14:52:57] - I think the examples my coworker brought up were seat belts, motorcycle helmets, and some other car safety things. -Daniel
[2013-07-29 14:51:51] - yeah, i guess it does depend on which safety regulations. do a majority of americans want lead-in-water or lead-on-toys safety regulations mandated by the government? ~a
[2013-07-29 14:51:48] - a: That was close to my line of reasoning. I said a majority of americans must want regulation otherwise they would vote in politicians to remove the safety regulations. But I'm not sure thats correct since they could just care about other issues more, or not want regulation but not care enough to vote at all. -Daniel
[2013-07-29 14:50:12] - alternatively, does it matter? the real question i care about: do a majority of americans want to vote in a representative that wants safety regulations? ~a
[2013-07-29 14:49:39] - I don't want anyone to make sense of his anecdotes, I'm just curious if someone else can come up with either a better defense of that statement than we was coming up with (or better arguments against it than I was coming up with). His position was basically, the people I hang out with don't want safety mandated by the gov. That was pretty much it. -Daniel
[2013-07-29 14:48:49] - honestly, that's way too broad of a statement. I can imagine there are some safety regulations that some americans would be all for, while others they may find silly an unnecessary. - mig
[2013-07-29 14:48:34] - you need data. or he needs data. data! have there been any polls? any studies? ~a
[2013-07-29 14:46:47] - daniel: I guess I would need more context, or some of the anecdotes. - mig
[2013-07-29 14:45:37] - On a very different note. How would you attack / defend (which ever you want to) the hypothesis: "The majority of Americans do not want safety regulations mandated by the government." I was trying to talk about that with a coworker and he was being very anecdotal and it was driving me crazy. -Daniel
[2013-07-29 13:33:41] - This is notable only because my employee is fairly dark-skinned himself. -- Xpovos
[2013-07-29 13:33:05] - mig: In a very broad sense, Spaniards. But primarily those who settled in South and Central America and who genetically did not mix with the native population, or those who through some "unfortunate" genetic result ended up with fair skin. One of my current employees' brother had very fair skin*. So his nickname growing up was "Gringo". -- Xpovos
[2013-07-29 13:21:46] - mig: http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2013/07/how-not-to-correct-the-record.html Or the article where it was claimed Zimmerman was suspicious of the activities of a 7 year old black boy, when it turns out he was concerned about the boy's well-being. -Paul
[2013-07-29 13:12:46] - And quite frankly, I cannot imagine any reason to put use the term "White Hispanic" to describe someone if you're not intending to emphasize the "white" part of it, especially when you combine it with all the racial angles the story took (especially with the MSNBC editing of the 9/11 call to make Zimmerman seem racially prejudiced). - mig
[2013-07-29 13:07:38] - a: http://www.policymic.com/articles/47559/george-zimmerman-trial-just-further-proof-of-our-racist-justice-system. "The benefit of the doubt given to Zimmerman by the Sanford Police Department is rarely given to people of color, especially black Americans" is one example. -Paul
[2013-07-29 13:05:56] - a: They've certainly never called Obama our first white-black president or anything like that. There have also been those in the media who have tried to claim that because Zimmerman is white, he was given special privileges. -Paul
[2013-07-29 13:04:26] - a: As for the white privilege thing, I don't know exactly how to answer that. Most of the media has been awkwardly describing Zimmerman as white-hispanic (like Miguel mentioned), which is a term I had never heard the media used before. -Paul
[2013-07-29 13:02:45] - a: "because you don't experience it, it must not exist" Huh? What is that in reference to? -Paul
[2013-07-29 12:57:51] - xpovos: well what exactly are those people referring to when they say "white hispanics" people of mixed desecent or spainiards? - mig
[2013-07-29 12:51:26] - xpovos: I do remember that being on some forms now, but it feels different for him to be described that way in a news story. If a person is of mixed race, it's usually an added foot-note. We primarily identify the president as an african-american, and his mixed roots is mentioned as a bit of a side note, he's not referred to as a "white-black". - mig
[2013-07-29 12:48:21] - paul: because you don't experience it, it must not exist. this is the running-theme of the message board. ~a
[2013-07-29 12:41:29] - Genuine "white-hispanics" are actually a target of pretty substantial racial angst from more traditional hispanics. I've employed a number from both groups and they've talked about it with me. It's kind of weird, though and I don't fully understand it. -- Xpovos
[2013-07-29 12:40:22] - mig: I spend more time that I like dealing with stupid bureaucratic forms. Many utilized by the federal government ask if a person is white, hispanic or white-hispanic among the other choices. So, as crazy as it is, it's not new to Zimmerman's story.
[2013-07-29 12:31:43] - a: when was the last time you ever heard the term "White-Hispanic" used to describe someone of mixed descent? - mig
[2013-07-29 12:05:46] - no, i mean where did "white privilege?" come from? ~a
[2013-07-29 11:59:14] - http://reason.com/24-7/2013/07/26/obama-administration-wont-call-morsis-re Gotta love political speak: "We have determined we are not going to make a determination." -Paul
[2013-07-29 11:28:18] - a: I wasn't trying to say people on the message board were guilty of all of these. -Paul
[2013-07-29 11:27:16] - "This narrative has transformed Zimmerman, a man of racially mixed heritage that included white, Hispanic and black roots (a grandmother who helped raise him had an Afro-Peruvian father), into an honorary white male steeped in white privilege." no, nobody is doing that. ~a
[2013-07-29 11:00:03] - http://reason.com/archives/2013/07/27/zimmerman-backlash-continues-thanks-to-m A good recap on all the misinformation and misleading reporting on the Zimmerman/Martin case. -Paul
[2013-07-29 10:49:49] - http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20130728-700713.html this does not sound good for anybody who had more than 100k euroes stored in a bank in Cyprus. - mig
[2013-07-27 19:58:31] - paul: your country reflects on your cloud providers: prism scares off would-be cloud users ~a
[2013-07-26 17:28:28] - a: Yeah, I kinda stopped reading after the first few paragraphs, but I wouldn't at all be surprised if things were being a little overblown about Russia (of course, I'm also perfectly willing to believe things ARE that bad.... Putin is a scary guy). -Paul
[2013-07-26 17:26:16] - does holding hands count as parading? ~a
[2013-07-26 17:26:00] - yeah i don't think that article is quite right . . . "a human right to parade your sexual preferences and practices down public streets." groan. ~a
[2013-07-26 17:18:41] - http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/25/putin-is-not-the-gay-bogeyman/2/ I don't agree with the message here (I assume the Daily Caller is conservative leaning?), but here's a counter point indicating things might not be as horrible in Russia as it sounds. -Paul
[2013-07-26 17:16:39] - collateral damage . . . that's a good analogy. hmmm. ~a
[2013-07-26 17:07:09] - a: But unless it's a nationalized company... I feel like the collateral damage done outweighs whatever intentional damage is done. -Paul
[2013-07-26 17:06:27] - a: I mean, I guess if the country has a nationalized industry (and it doesn't deal with fungible goods like oil), you could try that, but I still can't imagine anybody could get enough people where it would even make a dent. -Paul
[2013-07-26 17:05:19] - finding more details about the "made in COUNTRY" seems like the logical place to start. `a
[2013-07-26 17:04:43] - a: I dunno. Not try? It's hard enough getting boycotts to work against companies, but countries are like super-huge companies with much more diversified incomes. -Paul
[2013-07-26 17:00:02] - then how do you hurt a country as a consumer? ~a
[2013-07-26 16:54:47] - a: It reminds me of the whole, "Don't do drugs because it supports terrorism" campaign. Sure, some of the money might eventually end up with terrorists, but if we start worrying about stuff that small (and that far down the supply chain), we can't buy anything. -Paul
[2013-07-26 16:53:29] - a: But it just seems a little silly because the vast majority of the harm is going to land on a company which apparently has done nothing wrong AND is actually on their side, while the Russian government likely won't even notice the difference in their tax receipts. -Paul
[2013-07-26 16:52:02] - a: And if people are well-informed enough to make that particular argument (I don't want any of my money eventually going to the Russian government through taxes), AND they are doing similar things for other countries around the world that the media isn't fixating on right now, good for them. -Paul
[2013-07-26 16:51:55] - regardless, i'm with you, sort of. if indeed none of the money (or almost none) went to russia, i'd agree this is a dumb boycott. i don't think this is the case though. ~a
[2013-07-26 16:49:49] - a: Ok, I hadn't read much more into the specifics. Also, if the entire company gets taken over by the Russian government, then it obviously becomes a much more straight-forward and reasonable boycott... -Paul
[2013-07-26 16:44:22] - nah, it's bottled in latvia. money still goes to SPI. even distribution will go back to SPI in 2014. ~a
[2013-07-26 16:42:16] - Depends on which specific example we're talking about. For the vodka example, didn't they say that the vodka we buy here is actually made in Latvia? So it sounds like that's not actually true... the money isn't going to Russia. -Paul
[2013-07-26 16:40:44] - what's ignorant about it? when they pay money to my company, or company Y, a portion of that money ends up in the governments hands (indirectly in many many ways). the country grows stronger. ~a
[2013-07-26 16:39:55] - a: I think people far too often look for some easy and simple way to show they care about an issue, and all too often those actions are misguided. -Paul
[2013-07-26 16:38:27] - a: I think I would fault them, because it seems to be making taking an emotional and ignorant action just because it "seems" like the right thing to do. -Paul
[2013-07-26 16:34:18] - the fact that much of russia (not just one dumbass leader) is on board with the gay-hate seems to matter to me. ~a
[2013-07-26 16:31:49] - paul: i don't call for the downfall of my company just because bush&obama have been spying-on/droning their citizens. but it does make my company look bad, and if some dude in france decided they wanted to not patronize us because of that, i wouldn't fault them too bad for it. ~a
[2013-07-26 16:28:32] - a: I understand that people WANT to draw connections between countries (and their governments) and the people (and companies) that are in those countries, but I just don't think that's fair or accurate. -Paul
[2013-07-26 16:26:37] - a: What's the practical meaning of this "reflection", though? -Paul
[2013-07-26 16:23:48] - paul: nope, that's not what i mean. but you reflect on your country and your country reflects on you. ~a
[2013-07-26 16:22:52] - a: Basically, any companies that are located in a country are somehow responsible for whatever horrible policies that country's government has, no matter how opposed to said government the company is? -Paul
[2013-07-26 16:19:08] - if some country, say country X, had some horrible human rights violations. and company Y existed in country X. even if Y said, "it's not that I like the empire X, i hate it, but there's nothing I can do about it right now..." i still think ceasing to buy products from company Y is a fair course of action especially when the only other alternative is status quo. ~a
[2013-07-26 15:29:55] - Unfortunately, I'm not sure what can be done. Russia's a very authoritarian state with lots and lots of guns to back up their use of force. Short of Putin dying and the ensuing power vacuum leading to better people in charge, I'm not sure what anybody can hope for. - mig
[2013-07-26 15:26:24] - I'm all for awareness and highlighting what's going on in Russia, because it's undeniably horrific. But this strategy with Stoli I questions the sanity. - mig
[2013-07-26 15:25:22] - a: at what cost? like the article states, I'm not sure what the LBGT community is gaining by essentially alientating and hurting someone who seems to be an ally to their cause. - mig
[2013-07-26 15:22:43] - i still think boycotting stoli isn't a completely shitty idea. it might be the best thing a gay bar could do especially when the bar owners know that their consumers are unlikely to keep consuming stoli. ~a
[2013-07-26 15:21:08] - yah. so what does russia export? "petroleum and petroleum products, natural gas, metals, wood and wood products, chemicals" we don't consume russian natural gas, of course. but we do consume their petroleum apparently. sadly, as a consumer, it's probably hard to boycott a commodity from only a specific source. ~a
[2013-07-26 15:12:59] - http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/26/the-terrible-bad-no-good-plan-to-boycott we've had a discussion about boycotts before, but this definitely drives the point home that you should put some thought before demanding an outrage-fueled boycott. - mig
[2013-07-26 14:25:14] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7x9Qw1KSyIs just another day playing skyrim - aaron
[2013-07-26 13:55:25] - Paul: I'm open all weekend, so what time works for you? I can send out an email if you get a time that works (or if you want to you can /shrug) -Daniel
[2013-07-26 13:54:30] - a: Fair enough, but that's a single issue. Is that enough to swing somebody from the middle bottom to all the way to the right? -Paul
[2013-07-26 13:52:10] - a: well abortion is a tricky one to pin him down on. While he will unabashadly say he is pro-life, he typically is not for most of the anti-abortion legislation that republicans typically champion. - mig
[2013-07-26 13:47:25] - paul: in one word: abortion. i'm sure there are many other reasons, but that's the one i know about. ~a
[2013-07-26 13:46:03] - Daniel: Depends on the day and time and (most importantly) if I can get approval from the boss. -Paul
[2013-07-26 13:45:31] - a: I'm a little surprised Ron Paul is so far "right" and not lower down on all your images. -Paul
[2013-07-26 13:35:07] - Paul / Mig / Xpovos : Interested in trying to play basketball this weekend? -Daniel
[2013-07-26 13:34:22] - two more images (that put obama in two other places): 1 2. ~a
[2013-07-26 13:30:57] - heh, securityoverprivacy.com is an unowned domain. ~a
[2013-07-26 13:27:55] - good point. it probably would have failed there, huh. ~a
[2013-07-26 13:26:59] - a: it remains to be seen how that bill would have fared in the senate. - mig
[2013-07-26 13:12:43] - a better image ~a
[2013-07-26 13:11:13] - "I actually think the 'security over privacy' crowd outnumbers the privacy lovers in this case". yuck. really? that bill yesterday almost passed, so at least it's close, right? ~a
[2013-07-26 13:09:10] - paul: politicalcompass agrees with you (more or less). ~a
[2013-07-26 13:01:58] - a: Not necessarily because Obama is an authoritarian (although I do believe he is), but because authoritarian (and libertarians) can easily overlap with conservatives and liberals on certain issues. -Paul
[2013-07-26 13:00:53] - a: No, but an authoritarian would. Again, I don't know for sure, but considering the things I've heard about Christie... I think he leans more authoritarian on a two dimensional scale. It's why he gets along so well with Obama. -Paul
[2013-07-26 12:59:41] - a: Wait, so you think he's taking a non-moderate position on this? I actually think the "security over privacy" crowd outnumbers the privacy lovers in this case. -Paul
[2013-07-26 12:59:30] - paul: i understand being moderate and being a libertarian are two things: still, a moderate would be unlikely to call a libertarian "dangerous". ~a
[2013-07-26 12:57:42] - a: I admittedly don't know much about Christie's positions, but I think it makes more sense if you see political leanings in 2 dimensions instead of just a line from conservative to centrist to liberal. -Paul
[2013-07-26 12:44:19] - a: I think Christie is best summed up with a jab I heard once applied to Romney: "His position is very crystal clear: he REALLY wants to be president." - mig
[2013-07-26 12:40:14] - i thought christie was moderate. maybe i just don't understand him. ~a
[2013-07-26 12:25:32] - mig: Rand Paul has been going off on Chris Christie on twitter... -Paul
[2013-07-26 09:17:34] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/07/25/christie-goes-after-libertarians-hard/?hpid=z2 i guess it should be taken as a badge of honor that more and more people in the establishment seem to feel the need to decry libertarian thought as "dangerous". - mig
[2013-07-25 15:42:37] - mig: More distortions in health care in terms of pricing and supply and demand. Accusations that the free market doesn't work in health care. Calls for more government intervention ("health care reform") to fix things. -Paul
[2013-07-25 15:30:00] - paul: so what is going to happen once the administration realizes that it can't convince young healthy individuals to sign up for the exchanges and continue to go uninsured? - mig
[2013-07-25 15:22:48] - http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2013/07/25/2354791/washington-nationals-use-teddy-roosevelt-mascot-to-promote-obamacare/?mobile=nc I love it when URLs are descriptive enough that I don't need to add anything when posting them to the message board (except I still feel the need to). -Paul
[2013-07-25 14:42:03] - a: Oh, I can see how that could be confusing. I agree that getting lots of Democrats to vote for gay marriage IS a big deal, but if it was like 1 Democrat and 0 Republicans... I wouldn't get worked up over that.
-Paul[2013-07-25 14:37:22] - oh i see what you mean. no, i meant it was a big deal when democrats vote for gay marriage. that's a big deal. ~a
[2013-07-25 14:35:54] - ok. ~a
[2013-07-25 14:28:53] - a: Ok... but you JUST said you thought it was a big deal that they had more votes than the Republicans. That's what I was referring to. -Paul
[2013-07-25 14:25:37] - you say congratulations all mocking like completely ignoring the fact that i already said (twice) that i was disappointed in the remaining 43%. ~a
[2013-07-25 14:12:05] - a: Ok. Congratulations on the Democrats being only slightly less bad on civil liberties than the Republicans. Personally, I think they should be ashamed. -Paul
[2013-07-25 14:09:42] - paul: i do.
~a[2013-07-25 14:08:02] - a: I understand, but I don't think people typically expect the Republicans to vote against "national security" and for "civil liberties" in large groups like that. It would be like the Democrats patting themselves on the back for having more people vote for gay marriage. I don't see that as being a big deal. -Paul
[2013-07-25 14:08:02] - a: I think you can make more hay with the fact that more % of the progressive caucus voted properly than the liberty caucus, which you figure really should have fallen in line on this one. -- Xpovos
[2013-07-25 14:05:50] - a: Civil liberties is listed as an "idea" associated with progressivism under your link. You're trying to argue that the democratic party isn't for civil liberties? -Paul
[2013-07-25 14:03:13] - you guys are twisting this a lot. more % of democrats voted for it than republicans. more % of the progressives voted for it than TPP. ~a
[2013-07-25 13:58:47] - another way to look at it (and a reason why I find it more damning for democrats) is just think how this vote would have played out a few years ago. When was the last time this many republicans rebelled against what the Majority leader wanted (Boehner voted nay)? - mig
[2013-07-25 13:58:46] - a: Uh... does that have anything to do with the tea party? I saw no reference of it in there and it seems to be more the mission statement of some small group of conservatives in the midwest. -Paul
[2013-07-25 13:57:40] - "the Democrats, in theory, are supposed to be against just this very thing. They're supposed to the party to protect civil liberties and the bill of rights and everything" i'm not sure i agree with this assessment either. Democratic Party (United_States)#Ideology. ~a
[2013-07-25 13:57:38] - a: Does it really cut spending, though? It's an honest question, I don't know the answer. It sounds like it just forbids the NSA from spending money on it, but they money can still be spent elsewhere. I don't think they're actually cutting the NSA's budget. -Paul
[2013-07-25 13:55:40] - paul: for reference, Mission Statement and Core Values ~a
[2013-07-25 13:54:51] - a: But the Democrats, in theory, are supposed to be against just this very thing. They're supposed to the party to protect civil liberties and the bill of rights and everything. Like Miguel mentioned, they would've been howling in outrage if it came out that Bush had done this. -Paul
[2013-07-25 13:54:30] - "The tea party, in theory, is supposed to be limited to cutting government spending and getting it to live within it's means" can you explain this more? this bill is about cutting government spending. ~a
[2013-07-25 13:53:53] - a: Or at least that's what I have always envisioned the theoretical tea party's main goal to be. This amendment seems to be more targeted at a specific activity, rather than overall cutting spending. I know it's supposed to defund the NSA activities, but does the money really get cut or just re-assigned to other programs? -Paul
[2013-07-25 13:52:27] - a: I think the percentages are damning for both the tea party and the democrats, but I do think it's a little worse for democrats. The tea party, in theory, is supposed to be limited to cutting government spending and getting it to live within it's means. -Paul
[2013-07-25 13:44:25] - disgusted is probably the right word
~a[2013-07-25 13:43:24] - "basically giving democrats a pass for the same thing" i'm not giving them a pass. i already told you i was disappointed/sad. but i'm more "disappointed" in the tea party because, like you said, supposed principles. (disappointed probably isn't the right word because really i have total contempt for the TP). ~a
[2013-07-25 13:37:43] - a libertarian party would vote yes like crazy. if the tea party is supposed to be as libertarian as they suggest, then they should be voting yes like crazy. ~a
[2013-07-25 13:37:19] - If so, you're basically complaining about not enough TP people voting for their supposed principles, while at the basically giving democrats a pass for the same thing. - mig
[2013-07-25 13:36:37] - i do. but it's less cut-and-dry. ~a
[2013-07-25 13:33:17] - First off, while the platforms are different, I think you view the Dem platform as being against things like Prism, do you not? - mig
[2013-07-25 13:32:23] - a: I guess I see it differently than you. I view this more of an enditement on the democratic party. - mig
[2013-07-25 13:31:23] - mig: is the tea party, who's platform is Fiscal Responsibility and Constitutionally Limited Government, more than just a rebranding of the GOP, if they could barely get more % than the democrats to vote for a bill that was practically titled "Fiscal Responsibility and Constitutionally Limited Government"? ~a
[2013-07-25 13:29:28] - Unless you typoe "nae" with and mean to say yea. - mig
[2013-07-25 13:28:19] - a: And so did more than half of the TP caucus. So I'm not sure exactly what your original point was? - mig
[2013-07-25 13:25:18] - the "Progressive Caucus" was the group to vote for it with the greatest margin. ~a
[2013-07-25 13:24:12] - in fact, more than 50% of democrats voted for it. ~a
[2013-07-25 13:23:31] - "democrats have gotten much, much worse on issues of civil liberties" compared to republicans, democrats voted for the bill. ~a
[2013-07-25 13:22:10] - you're also confusing the matter because these howls and screams you're talking about were votes FOR the patriot act. ~a
[2013-07-25 13:21:35] - Also, considering how just a few years ago, it would be inconceivable for any republican not named Ron Paul to vote to defund anything with the word "military" or "defense" in it, I think it's quite an improvement, whereas democrats have gotten much, much worse on issues of civil liberties. - mig
[2013-07-25 13:20:06] - well you're confusing the matter because PRISM was created by the bush years. ~a
[2013-07-25 13:17:23] - You mean the party that howled and screamed all during the Bush years about how shit like Prism was really, really bad? That's not more laughable? - mig
[2013-07-25 13:16:35] - mig: you know what my response is going to be, right? . . . tea party patriots are for Fiscal Responsibility and Constitutionally Limited Government. democrats have a different platform. i'm sad that 43% of democrats voted no, of course, but it's much less-laughable than a nearly-half of tea-party patriots voting no. ~a
[2013-07-25 13:05:30] - 43% of democratic congresspeople also voted nay. Are they a fucking joke as well? - mig
[2013-07-25 12:49:39] - a: Touche. Which brings us back to the 'less bad' Republicans option, since Republicans, generally and stereo-typically are against spending, unless it's on DOD. -- Xpovos
[2013-07-25 12:41:46] - "Department of Defense Appropriations Act" seems financial especially when the word "defund" is thrown around.
~a[2013-07-25 12:40:43] - And since the "Tea Party" caucus' issue is financial, it's not too surprising that there'd be some disagreement within the caucus over the non-fiscal issues. -- Xpovos
[2013-07-25 12:39:39] - a: The only consolation is that that is a lower percentage than of the Republicans in general by a sizeable margin. Are they a joke? Maybe, but they're probably just 'less bad' Republicans. -- Xpovos
[2013-07-25 12:36:57] - 42% of the tea party caucus voted nae. is the tea party a fucking joke as the commenters suggest? ~a
[2013-07-25 12:23:14] - gotcha. ~a
[2013-07-25 12:21:07] - a: Yeah, I fucked that up, sorry. IMO a "yea" vote is good. Sorry. -- Xpovos
[2013-07-25 11:59:29] - also i'm confused by "Connolly voted the right way" which seems inconsistent with "'yea' vote is bad. Connolly voted 'yea'" ~a
[2013-07-25 11:55:41] - xpovos: ok, now i understand even less. you're pro-PRISM? or something else? ~a
[2013-07-25 11:53:57] - a "yea" vote is a vote to pass the amendment, which limits the NSA. Therefore, IMO, a "yea" vote is bad. Connolly voted "yea". Pelosi voted "nea". Etc. -- Xpovos
[2013-07-25 11:46:52] - aaron: i think "rejects" just means that the vote failed. the bill is "H.R.2397: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014" ~a
[2013-07-25 11:41:47] - aaron: right, the name confuses me too. is "yes" good or is "yes" bad? (assuming, of course, that i think nsa warrantless survalence is bad) ~a
[2013-07-25 11:34:01] - also I don't know why the summarized the bill as "Rejects Limits On NSA Data Collection", since that's the exact opposite of what the bill was supposed to do (unless i'm misunderstanding it) - aaron
[2013-07-25 11:31:12] - http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/1/412 here's a list of which representatives voted which way, and here is a reddit post which breaks it down by party in case you're curious about that - aaron
[2013-07-25 11:20:39] - Bah. Connolly voted the right way. Now I can't send him an angry letter. -- Xpovos
[2013-07-25 09:48:49] - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/congress-nearly-shuts-down-nsa-phone-dragnet-in-sudden-217-205-vote/ If you're against the expansive NSA spying operation... you have an ally in representative Justin Amash. -Paul
[2013-07-24 12:56:42] - mig: Actually, I'm pretty sure they created an entire movie about that (The Wolverine), which is coming out this weekend. -Paul
[2013-07-24 12:52:37] - paul: there will almost certainly be a scene where Wolverine is going to brood about Jean, rest assured. - mig
[2013-07-24 12:43:03] - mig: Yeah, I don't know how that's going to get addressed (or if it is at all). I'm pretty sure James Marsden isn't signed for the movie and I'm not sure about Famke Janssen. -Paul
[2013-07-24 12:30:36] - there's going to be some serious retconning or ... this is going to be really weird. - mig
[2013-07-24 12:30:17] - paul: oh ... speaking of cyclops and jean ... - mig
[2013-07-24 12:24:12] - mig: Just replace him with a generic Senator? There are much bigger issues in my mind (like the screwed up continuity regarding when Xavier could or couldn't walk, Mystique's altered backstory, Cyclops' son being older than him... -Paul
[2013-07-24 12:11:27] - paul: Actually, Days of the Future Past as a film is going to feel really weird. Senator Kelly was almost a central character in that storyline, how are they going to deal with that? - mig
[2013-07-24 11:56:26] - Pretty sure it happens in the first 10 minutes or so of a movie that came out... wow... 7 years ago? Time flies. -Paul
[2013-07-24 11:49:37] - spoiler alert! GOSH.
[2013-07-24 11:48:45] - mig: We kinda saw the head of one in X3 during the danger room sequence. -Paul
[2013-07-24 11:38:27] - you know it just occurred to me we haven't seen sentinels in any of the x-men movies, which is super odd. - mig
[2013-07-24 10:49:52] - a: he hasn't made very many. basically just man of steel, suckerpunch and some other movie I haven't heard of legends of something or other. - mig
[2013-07-24 10:46:58] - i haven't seen any of his movies since watchmen. that's probably not a coincidence. ~a
[2013-07-24 10:38:00] - Xpovos: Or, perhaps a much better example is Zach Snyder. Loved Dawn of the Dead, 300 and Watchmen, but haven't been thrilled with his stuff since. -Paul
prev <-> next