prev <-> next
[2013-09-18 16:49:54] - why would i buy gold when i have $? because, gold is better? "why would I go to a currency exchange for bitcoins when I have $?" because btc are easier for storing money on your phone or buying stuff over the intertubes. ~a
[2013-09-18 16:47:02] - related to your last post! i just went to the bank and withdrew some money. they let me get $10 of it in $2 bills!
~a[2013-09-18 16:24:41] - a: ATMs, maybe. But why would I go to a currency exchange for bitcoins when I have $? That might work for international commerce, but that's--from a consumer point of view--a very small portion of the pie. -- Xpovos
[2013-09-18 16:22:21] - nah, work will be the last place (unless you work at a startup). the first place will be ATMs and/or small-banks. brick-and-mortar currency exchanges? money changers? anywhere but the temple? ~a
[2013-09-18 16:13:18] - I think a more likely problem is that no one gets bitcoins. Merchants may be glad to accept them; but merchants are glad to accept $1 coins or $2 bills, but they're rarely used because most people don't have them in circulation. Where's J6P going to get his coins from? Work? -- Xpovos
[2013-09-18 16:04:35] - a: Merchants were slow because of the initial and transaction costs, though. Remember the sliding card 'readers' with the carbon paper? Bit coins shouldn't take anything close to decades. If it's going to happen it'll be a 5-year horizon, I think. Ten years from now at the latest. If we're not able to use b.coins at McDonalds by 2023, we never will. -- Xpovos
[2013-09-18 15:25:00] - yeah, thanks to android/ios hybrid-wallets (which i foresaw would become more ubiquitous), j6p can send and receive money from his phone. qr-code and NFC make this super easy! the only thing that's missing: merchant buy-in: that will come very slowly . . . if at all. really, it took decades for merchants to accept credit cards. btc will be the same. ~a
[2013-09-18 15:06:05] - a: I suppose it is crazy to fault a system that works now for possibly not working in the future. Next complaint is useability. J6P needs to be able to make this work to pay for his 6P. Part of that will come with time, and I'm impressed with the progress over the past two years, but it's still a bit of a mess. -- Xpovos
[2013-09-18 14:59:45] - the situation you describe could change, of course. if bitcoin's real-world value goes up, then the default transaction fees will probably fall to match. ~a
[2013-09-18 14:59:19] - "There's also an option for transfer agents to increase the default fee desired--but not to decrease" servers can set the default transfer fee to whatever they want. some servers currently allow 0-fee transactions on all transactions. ~a
[2013-09-18 13:36:10] - Or I guess as long as the inflation isn't too bad we just have to deal with more than 2% fees on micro-transactions. There's also an option for transfer agents to increase the default fee desired--but not to decrease? -- Xpovos
[2013-09-18 13:31:37] - What a weirdly counter-intuitive situation. -- Xpovos
[2013-09-18 13:31:22] - a: This works right now, but if bitcoins increase in popularity they'll have further inflation and 1/10000th of a bitcoin could exceed 0.5¢ when BTX=$500, which is only 4x as much as right now when the currency still has minimal flow. The only way it becomes a large enough and viable solution is pretty massive bitcoin supply inflation. -- Xpovos
[2013-09-18 09:57:57] - xpovos: transaction fees are small (and in the case of non-micro-transactions, they can be optional). i'll grant you that $.01 transactions would be hard, but $.25 transactions are very easy. ~a
[2013-09-18 09:40:56] - paul: it's not out of the realm of possibilty still. Cincinnati still has to play Pittsburgh (who are trying to hold of the cardinals for 1st place in the NL central) 6 more times still. - mig
[2013-09-17 16:44:52] - a: I think they probably do it better than any other currency, but the problem is always the transaction fee being to large. There's some fixed cost to transfer money, and if the transaction isn't big enough, it won't work. I don't think you need 1¢ transactions to be functional (transaction fee of 0.02¢?) but 25¢ should be (transaction fee of not more than 0.5¢).
[2013-09-17 16:40:08] - mig: Holy crap, they won? I was watching (and had dreams of a rout after that first inning) but kinda stopped watching after the back to back Storen and Clippard outings. And they beat Kimbrel too? Impressive. Too bad they dug so deep a hole for themselves. They could've been dangerous in the playoffs... -Paul
[2013-09-17 16:15:04] - The Braves-Nationals games that just concluded was just utterly ridiculous, somehow fitting for the rollercoaster season so far. - mig
[2013-09-17 14:55:42] - for all the problems i see with bitcoin, i feel like microtransactions are the thing it has down pat. ~a
[2013-09-17 14:30:26] - microtransactions are functional i think. i guess i don't understand that last part. ~a
[2013-09-17 14:15:30] - a: Nice. Follow the money. Next the questions come: is the crypto strong enough to keep the NSA out and can it make microtransactions functional? -- Xpovos
[2013-09-17 14:11:45] - interlude: http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=1&From=XBT&To=USD real currency exchangers have started to add a new currency. ~a
[2013-09-17 12:50:27] - Interlude: http://www.wtsp.com/news/watercooler/article/335451/58/Sovereign-citizen-pays-fines-with-70000-pennies -- Xpovos
[2013-09-17 12:43:47] - Xpovos: Not to try to cop out, but I think it depends on everybody's individual definition of merit. I would say we somewhat do, but there's plenty of ways to get ahead NOT based on individual skill or ability. -Paul
[2013-09-17 12:32:27] - mig: I mean it as fairly open-ended, but I'll admit to it being started as a ponder by some specifics. It's a hugely broad question with a lot of nuance, so I don't think it's likely to be concluded today, if ever, and may be better over drinks than the message board. -- Xpovos
[2013-09-17 12:26:52] - xpovos: in what context? is this an open ended general question or related to something in particular? - mig
[2013-09-17 12:21:56] - Do we have a meritocracy? -- Xpovos
[2013-09-16 12:55:08] - paul: well the reasons are so many, i don't know how to answer that question. ~a
[2013-09-16 12:54:01] - more gross updates from NSA: i hate you even more now, keith alexander. ~a
[2013-09-16 12:52:32] - a: What reasons would you have to love him? Deciding to try to get meaningless authorization from Congress for his second war?
-Paul[2013-09-16 12:50:43] - paul: well regarding your last sentence: i'm still reeling from the NSA shit, so i don't know whether to love or hate the guy. ~a
[2013-09-16 12:47:43] - a: Yeah, I should be clear that ultimately, the end result makes me very happy. We're not bombing Syria and there is at least lip service towards Congress having a say about when we go to war. I just don't give as much credit to Obama as I think you do. -Paul
[2013-09-16 12:41:05] - daniel: paul's other response, the one i liked, was "If you ask me now if I'm happy, I would probably say yes, but I would also qualify it with: 'As long as he actually feels bound by it AND I wish he had done that for Libya too'" ~a
[2013-09-16 12:41:00] - Daniel: But at the same time, it kinda does seem like the most likely explanation. I'm not buying that this whole thing was a bluff, because asking Congress for authorization made his bluff look even worse. -Paul
[2013-09-16 12:40:08] - Daniel: Considering his attitude regarding Libya and how he maintained throughout this whole thing that he still had the authority to attack even if Congress voted against authorization... I have to say yes. -Paul
[2013-09-16 12:36:05] - Is it so crazy that Obama really wanted to bomb Syria but thought he should try to go about it in the right way (Congressional approval)? -Daniel
[2013-09-16 10:54:38] - I'm still not convinced that it was a ploy or some sort of bluff from the start, if only because Obama seemed to be lobbying congress pretty hard to authorize military action. I think he just kind of got lucky a solution presented itself that allowed him to save some face. - mig
[2013-09-16 10:51:42] - or ploy or whatever. - mig
[2013-09-16 10:51:34] - a: well only partially. I don't recall you being very enthusiastic about the whole bomb Syria thing in the first place, and you didn't seem to agree that it was a brilliant plan either. - mig
[2013-09-16 10:48:13] - paul even partially agreed with me (about the bluff part). ~a
[2013-09-16 10:47:30] - mig: uhhh, that's what i was saying(ish). minus the kerry remarks. "be honest, if congress denied his proposal to bomb the fuck out of syria, and he went and did it anyways, wouldn't you think that would hurt him politically (if not legally)? there's no way it's going to play out like that. he's saying what he's saying now to scare the fuck out of syrian ..." ~a
[2013-09-16 10:44:12] - and this was not far removed from some rather enthusiastic calls to bomb Syria before the Kerry remarks. - mig
[2013-09-16 10:43:19] - paul: what really gets me is some of the fb posts from obama supporters claiming this was the plan all along and obama is the most brilliant diplomat in the history of mankind. - mig
[2013-09-16 10:32:51] - three gunmen at large at the navy yard. 10(ish) injuries. ~a
[2013-09-16 10:06:34] - mig: I'm still completely baffled by why Obama decided to ask congress for authorization. I thought it was a way of trying to back out of bombing Syria, but it looks like he was just as intent on bombing Syria, he just wanted to throw in the possibility of having Congress explicitly turn him down... -Paul
[2013-09-14 16:18:05] - the breaking news flashing as he's speaking adds a very nice touch too. - mig
[2013-09-14 15:15:59] - http://deadspin.com/terry-bradshaw-i-wouldnt-have-fucked-his-old-ugly-a-1313217518 might be the most hilarious live mic pickup I,ve seen. - mig
[2013-09-14 03:39:30] - mig: Mr. Magoo is the reference that jon stewart used to describe john kerry. ~a
[2013-09-13 20:17:57] - so apprently this syria thing is going to die down because an off-handed comment by the secretary of state ended up being taken seriously as a peace proposal, potentially saving the president of the US the embaressment of having a call for war rejected by the legislative branch. It would be comical if the consequences of such actions weren't so serious. - mig
[2013-09-13 07:54:05] - a: i was talking to some people on reddit about the elevator problem a couple days ago, and it would have been nice to have some specifics about the kinds of bizarre logic ambiguities/contradictions were in the problem. at this point though, it's fine, i don't think i care anymore- aaron
[2013-09-12 17:14:52] - "i wish i still had access to the forums from back then" i have the email forums cached though i assume you don't actually want to read through them
~a[2013-09-12 17:13:23] - "allowed" yeah, that's weird. i guess maybe they thought you'd be bored? ~a
[2013-09-12 17:01:12] - haha I wasnt allowed to take the intro CS course at CMU cause of my AP score... I went and asked cause I wasnt certain I was comfortable skipping it... ~g
[2013-09-12 09:50:21] - xpovos: I had no idea what that was till I saw someone reference it in a video game review. -mig
[2013-09-12 08:46:55] - paul: fall '99 was especially bad, mcquain was a good teacher and i didn't have any problems with any assignments except the elevator one. well i mean -- i had problems because it was my first OO class and i didn't understand any of the concepts, but they were normal problems, not bullshit problems - aaron
[2013-09-11 23:45:16] - xpovos: dog goes woof, cat goes meow, bird goes tweet and mouse goes squeek. cow goes moo, frog goes croak and the elephant goes toot. ducks say quack and fish go blub and the seal goes ow ow ow. but theres one sound that no one knows: what does the fox say? ring-ding-ding-ding-dingeringeding! gering-ding-ding-ding-dingeringeding! what the fox say? -title
[2013-09-11 23:36:08] - title: I just found out. Am I always behind on these things? -- Xpovos
[2013-09-11 22:29:12] - yeah it was annoying how you could test out of stuff OTHER than the programming classes. - mig
[2013-09-11 17:07:53] - yeah i hate that schools don't like you to test out of stuff. ~a
[2013-09-11 16:45:41] - a: I know my AP score wasn't great for CS, but I remember thinking I got a little cheated by not being able to test out of some of the intro CS courses. -Paul
[2013-09-11 16:24:19] - cs2704 is oo. i guess i don't remember the rules. was it just luck on who got in? or was it somehow based on the ap score? ~a
[2013-09-11 16:12:30] - Aaron: I don't think so, I think I took it Sophomore year. I didn't get any credit for CS courses so I had to start at the bottom. Not sure who my teacher was, but I thought I had McQuain for at least one class... -Paul
[2013-09-11 16:11:30] - a: what do you mean, what's CS2704? was it just really competitive to get into or did i have to test in or something? i don't know specifically what you're talking about, i remember that in addition to testing out of intro to CS because of our AP credit, a lot of us also skipped some mandatory introductory class because of some error on their side - aaron
[2013-09-11 16:10:13] - paul: did you actually take mcquain's OO class, freshman year 1999? i didn't think any of our friends passed the class. the coursework was easier when i repeated the class, the elevator project was just a one-time thing but man, i really want to know the hard numbers of what percent of people failed/dropped that class, i remember it was really high - aaron
[2013-09-11 16:08:24] - xpovos: the worst was how ambiguous the rules were. i wish i still had access to the forums from back then, there were dozens and dozens of posts and clarifications per day, i mean to mcquain's credit it was a very ambitious project, and in the PDF he's like, "hopefully these rules are complete," but they weren't - aaron
[2013-09-11 16:02:28] - That is a pretty complicated program requirement for an assignment. What was the timeline for completion? -- Xpovos
[2013-09-11 15:45:23] - Ironically, I don't think I had to repeat OO, and now I'm the worst programmer among you all.
-Paul[2013-09-11 15:43:33] - yeah, back before you learned to program. ah, the good old days. i believe pierce repeated it too. maybe he late-dropped, i'm not sure. anyways, how the hell did you get into cs2704 that year? ~a
[2013-09-11 15:38:01] - a: mcquain! that's the guy. wait you repeated OO too? damn!! - aaron
[2013-09-11 15:27:51] - cs2704? i took it twice. 1999fall/first semester: link. dr bill mcquain. the assignment. again in 2000spring/second semester: keller 0800 MWF. ~a
[2013-09-11 14:36:53] - a: But he was right in the running before the newest revelations about his sexting escapades came out. -Paul
[2013-09-11 14:12:07] - a: do you remember the name of our OO professor, who came up with the notorious elevator project? - aaron
[2013-09-11 13:25:10] - hah, weiner was going to lose. there are no two ways about that. ~a
[2013-09-11 12:33:25] - So, apparently, both Spitzer and Weiner lost in the primaries.... restoring a little bit of my faith in voters. -Paul
[2013-09-11 09:38:05] - I think I'm gonna go read V for Vendetta again... *shudder* -- Xpovos
[2013-09-11 08:19:47] - a: that was a very interesting read, i always figured the US would take the route of forging security authorities, and demanding that companies give them a way to eavesdrop decrypted data. i didn't think they'd somehow broken/sabotaged something as big as OpenSSL, that's crazy if it's somehow true - aaron
[2013-09-10 16:45:31] - http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2013/09/on-nsa.html . . . a very readable article about the most recent NSA revelation (the one that came out less than a week ago). the article had some streisand effect thing going on when some people in the government told him to take down the article or seek council. ~a
[2013-09-10 14:14:41] - daniel: well there's also a big dick-waving element with regard to Russia as well. - mig
[2013-09-10 14:11:50] - no blood for oil? ~a
[2013-09-10 14:09:48] - I was unaware of all of the oil implications of Syria. It does cast a different light on it. For all of our discussion of morality and obligations it might indeed mostly just be about energy production / money. -Daniel
[2013-09-10 13:54:50] - daniel: that is fairly comprehensive. - mig
[2013-09-10 12:59:14] - Interesting post about Syria and why it matters to different countries http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_does_the_president_seem_so_personally/cc432ts -Daniel
[2013-09-09 14:22:12] - http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/dabo-swinney-steve-spurrier-elaborate-corn-maze-172736943--ncaaf.html some people have way too much time on their hands. - mig
[2013-09-09 14:04:08] - Make a Bitcoin Contribution: from The Party of Principle: lp.org. wow, this is interesting. the third largest party in the united states is accepting bitcoin donations?! the future has arrived. ~a
[2013-09-09 13:51:42] - mig: I've probably heard/seen it before, but this was the first time it stuck. -- Xpovos
[2013-09-09 13:50:14] - xpovos: that was in one of the Blade movies right? Don't remember which one though. - mig
[2013-09-09 13:48:52] - So, apparently "Thundercunt" is a word. Unfortunately, I now have the "Thundercats" theme song stuck in my head, but it's gone horribly, horribly wrong. -- Xpovos
[2013-09-09 13:47:49] - a: Ah, ok.
Good. -Paul[2013-09-09 13:46:00] - i found nothing. there was no preponderance of evidence. ~a
[2013-09-09 13:45:27] - i wasn't. ~a
[2013-09-09 13:43:44] - a: I don't think I get your point. How is that calling bullshit on my bullshit buzzfeed article? -Paul
[2013-09-09 13:41:46] - "There Washington stands, sturdy and resolute, looking toward the enemy on the opposite shore. If you imagine Mr. Obama in that moment he is turned, gesturing toward those in the back. 'It's not my fault we're in this boat!'" hopefully nobody is surprised that washington was seen differently in his day than a man depicted in a painting. ~a
[2013-09-09 13:37:32] - *bullshit. BULLY ~a
[2013-09-09 13:37:15] - paul's bullyshit buzzfeed article. ~a
[2013-09-09 13:36:44] - yes, paul, sorry. ~a
[2013-09-09 13:36:29] - surprising syrian story. update? ~a
[2013-09-09 13:33:19] - a: my bullshit buzzfeed article? I think you're referring to what paul posted, yes? - mig
[2013-09-09 13:31:06] - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324577304579057420154706690.html Apropos of the moment. -- Xpovos
[2013-09-09 13:28:10] - mig: i went back to 2003-03-20. mostly out of curiosity, but also to see if i could call bullshit on your bullshit buzzfeed article. much to my total lack of surprise, you and paul were denouncing the invasion. ~a
[2013-09-09 12:49:18] - a: In Syria, we're talking about a fairly small number of deaths by chemical weapons, and I'm not sure what action can be taken to help reduce violence in that area. -Paul
[2013-09-09 12:48:14] - a: I guess in both cases, I just don't see any solution which would clearly reduce the number of deaths. WW2 we're talking about a lot of people, but we're also talking about a big war between relatively evenly matched forces (meaning lots of military deaths). -Paul
[2013-09-09 12:39:26] - well, despite everything i've said already, i guess i'm probably against US military involvement in this scenario. i'm conflicted, to say the least, but we're (obviously) not on the same scale of civilian murder, like we were in ww2. ~a
[2013-09-09 12:36:30] - paul: either. ~a
[2013-09-09 12:29:57] - a: Are we talking about WW2 or Syria here?
-Paul[2013-09-09 12:25:35] - I just don't see what we can do to make the situation better and I don't subscribe to the school of "do-something" politics. - mig
[2013-09-09 12:25:12] - so, "do nothing" is your suggestion for this scenario? ~a
[2013-09-09 12:24:45] - a: I'm not sure what sanctions are going to do. We've tried that in Iraq and Iran and all that's seemed to have done is contribute to the misery of the general populace there. - mig
[2013-09-09 12:18:02] - But anyways, going back to Syria, I think besides the lack of justification (imo), the plan itself doesn't make any sense. So we essentially just lob some cruise missiles at military targets. By design, the strikes themselves aren't meant to do much (certainly it will not contribute to toppling the Assad regime), but they show they the US did *something*. - mig
[2013-09-09 12:17:44] - so what do you guys think we should do? is "sanctions" your suggestion for this scenario? ~a
[2013-09-09 12:15:30] - a: But I guess I'll echo Xpovos' points, but for WW2. What would you suggest we do? Let's say FDR knows for sure what's going on. We declare war on Germany and the USSR? -Paul
[2013-09-09 12:14:41] - And you also have to take into account the death count of the various regimes that the Soviets supported during the cold war, and arguably the not so nice regimes we propped up ourselves. - mig
[2013-09-09 12:14:28] - a: It wasn't just that, Stalin had some "traditional" genocide going on too. There are some reports that the deaths on his head are higher than for Hitler. -Paul
[2013-09-09 12:11:47] - a: i was refering to the totality of his reign (which was a pretty sizable death count of tens of millions), not one specific instance. - mig
[2013-09-09 12:09:56] - a: I tend to agree with you, but I also have to ask; so what do we do? If we carpet bomb Syria, we're still "letting murderous regimes fight it out", only we've add to the death-toll ourselves. This is a 100-year project of regime change. It takes that long because you need two full generations to adapt the culture. -- Xpovos
[2013-09-09 12:07:33] - so stalin did some lame ass bullshit. that doesn't discount that what germany was doing was (imo) far worse, and way more obviously genocide. and letting the murderous regimes fight it out is (imo again) an unacceptable solution. ~a
[2013-09-09 12:05:13] - stalin was getting his genocide on? "historians continue to disagree whether the policies that led to Holodomor fall under the legal definition of genocide". you're referring to holodomor? yeah, that's pretty lame. ~a
[2013-09-09 11:59:23] - Yeah, even with perfect hindsight it's hard to tell what the best course of action would've been. Sure, Hitler was bad, but by a lot of accounts, Stalin was actually worse. Germany and Russia were at war with each other. Does it really make sense to side with one over the other or just let those two murderous regimes fight it out? -Paul
[2013-09-09 11:59:08] - Maybe Germany kills more people, but maybe we don't have the cold war and all the vile regimes that came with that? - mig
[2013-09-09 11:54:34] - It's not a simple question, though, very complex set of what-ifs. - mig
[2013-09-09 11:53:39] - a: as a hindsight issue, possibly, though there are some caveats. I do believe that it's likely Germany would have collapsed without our involvement (once they decided to invade Russia with disastorous results, it was a matter of time). Who knows if the murdurous Stalin regime would have had so much power if they didn't have our help during WW2. - mig
[2013-09-09 11:49:08] - so, before pearl harbor, you would have argued against the US involvement? even knowing what we know now? ~a
[2013-09-09 11:47:08] - Germany at it's peak power couldn't get across the english channel, how in the blazes could it have made it across the atlantic ocean? - mig
[2013-09-09 11:44:55] - *very much against getting involved. - mig
[2013-09-09 11:44:37] - a: none, which is why public opinion was very much getting involved in WW2 until pearl harbor happened. - mig
[2013-09-09 11:43:47] - what was the national security threat in ww2 before pearl harbor? ~a
[2013-09-09 11:42:16] - a: if there's no national security threat, then why is military action justified? It's not like Sadaam wasn't doing evil things to his own people, yet the arguments against from the anti-war celebs that alone didn't justify that intervention. - mig
[2013-09-09 11:39:21] - the justifications i've seen (and the ones i believe) have nothing to do with a national security threat. ~a
[2013-09-09 11:29:02] - a: if you can articulate the national security threat the Libya and Syria pose(d), i'd love to hear it. - mig
[2013-09-09 11:22:49] - "Namely, that the justification for wars during the Obama years is even more flimsy than wars in the past" hmmm. i'm pretty sure i disagree with you on this. ~a
[2013-09-09 11:09:24] - a: I don't think that's the assertion. If you read the quotes from the celebrities, they're largely anti-war in general, not referencing specific reasons or types of war. -Paul
[2013-09-09 11:02:57] - a: there are differences. Namely, that the justification for wars during the Obama years is even more flimsy than wars in the past. - mig
[2013-09-09 10:59:53] - paul: "our non-partisan, peace-loving celebrities have gone missing since late 2008" i assume the assertion is that this war is exactly the same with no differences as the wars they were protesting in the past? ~a
[2013-09-09 10:59:18] - so, $13,500 per pupil would put CA just a little below the "top-tier" in that category according to this. - mig
[2013-09-09 10:55:29] - oh nm, i skimmed over it, the #s are there. - mig
[2013-09-09 10:50:04] - http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnekdahl/14-principled-anti-war-celebrities-we-fear-may-hav-a1x1 Keep an eye out for these missing celebrities... -Paul
[2013-09-09 10:47:16] - also I love that the assertion is made CA public schools are chronically underfunded, but gives no actual $ amounts to make that case. - mig
[2013-09-09 10:43:34] - mig: These are great examples of solutions looking for problems. Everyone wants all kids to have an equal shot at reaching their fullest potential; but if you define that in terms of $ then you'll never be content. -- Xpovos
[2013-09-09 10:40:07] - xpovos: it does strike me as odd that donating to a school foundation for well off kids counts as "charity" but at the same time it seems problematic to differentiate between foundation for the "poor" vs. for the "wealthy" how does one define that? - mig
[2013-09-09 10:27:00] - I tend to ignore most of what Reich has to say, as I don't think it's very interesting. This article covers an interesting topic; unsurprisingly I come to a different conclusion, but his analysis of the facts is a good starting point for some interesting discussion. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/opinion/not-very-giving.html -- Xpovos
[2013-09-06 16:30:32] - mig: I guess you're right (I assume you are talking about the team full of Broncos). They're actually spread out enough in terms of where they were going in drafts. -Paul
[2013-09-06 15:46:15] - Especially the RBs because they're not expected to do much. - mig
[2013-09-06 15:45:54] - paul: well not really. Not if you make it a point to do it with all your beginning picks. You could easily grab all of them before they're likely to normally be selected. - mig
[2013-09-06 15:41:25] - mig: I'm guessing it's pretty hard to pull off, though, while still getting decent players, but it would also seem like it would be tough to draft a team full of Broncos.
-Paul[2013-09-06 15:40:38] - mig: Heh, I've mentioned this before, I think, but it's actually not the worst strategy in the world to try to get all the same BYE week for your team. Sure, you're throwing away one week, but you're also increasing the odds of your team being at full strength the other 15 or so. -Paul
[2013-09-06 15:38:15] - http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/fantasy-roto-arcade/behold-best-worst-fantasy-lineup-time-182552804--nfl.html as the article states, good job on week 1, but I wonder what'll happen in week 9. - mig
[2013-09-06 13:25:26] - a: He's spent so much of his presidency blaming Bush for the economy and Republicans for everything else (despite having majorities in both branches of Congress for a bit and still having a majority in the Senate) that it's hard for me to see this as anything except a way to shirk responsibility for what has to be called a pretty clumsy policy towards Syria so far. -P
[2013-09-06 13:21:45] - a: And that's why I give him so little credit. I think he's doing this vote for all the wrong reasons and none of the right ones. You even touched on it, "not everything can be blamed on him if it ends up being a colossal failure". -Paul
[2013-09-06 13:19:03] - "do you think he has actually changed his mind about needing congressional authorization to legally bomb Syria" idk. ~a
[2013-09-06 13:18:50] - a: I see some minor wins (basically what you mentioned) which don't come close to balancing out some major losses (everything else). It's actually similar to how I felt about George W Bush. He did a few things which were kinda good, but way more really bad things. -Paul
[2013-09-06 13:17:04] - a: Ok, I actually kinda agree with what you're saying, but I guess I didn't ask specific enough of a question. I more meant, do you think he has actually changed his mind about needing congressional authorization to legally bomb Syria? -Paul
[2013-09-06 13:15:54] - there have been a lot of "changes" recently, that i see as major wins. it doesn't begin to balance out the NSA thing for me, personally, but i'm pleasantly surprised by the marijuana thing, the doma/dadt things, and abiding by the war-powers act. i'm happy with obama for once. ~a
[2013-09-06 13:15:22] - if the end up denying him, he can use that as reasons for not taking warlike action on the gas attacks. ~a
[2013-09-06 13:14:41] - "do you really think this represents some dramatic change in thinking for him?" yes, yes i do. honestly. he doesn't want this to be another afghanistan/iraq quagmire. this vote means at least he has two branches of government behind his plan and not everything can be blamed on him if it ends up being a colossal failure. ~a
[2013-09-06 12:50:55] - a: They might not do it, because like you said, it would be a bit of a PR disaster, but I don't think it's because they think they aren't legally allowed to. -Paul
[2013-09-06 12:50:15] - a: I still pretty strongly believe that Obama and his administration fully believe it would be perfectly legal for them to bomb Syria even if Congress votes against authorization. -Paul
[2013-09-06 12:49:21] - a: Be honest with me, do you really think this represents some dramatic change in thinking for him? Or is it more of a strange and reluctant show-vote that he's probably only doing because the UK actually had a vote and ended up backing out? -Paul
[2013-09-06 12:48:15] - a: and considering how it looked like he wasn't even going to ask at all until just a few days ago, and considering that he has pretty consistently maintained that he has the authority to do whatever the hell he wants... -Paul
[2013-09-06 12:47:24] - a: And you could be right about it all being a bluff, but considering the utter disregard he showed towards consulting Congress during Libya (not only did he not ask for authorization, but I think he also didn't even consult with Congress within 60 days like the War Powers Act states)... -Paul
[2013-09-06 12:46:12] - a: If you ask me now if I'm happy, I would probably say yes, but I would also qualify it with: "As long as he actually feels bound by it AND I wish he had done that for Libya too". -Paul
[2013-09-06 12:24:01] - be honest, if congress denied his proposal to bomb the fuck out of syria, and he went and did it anyways, wouldn't you think that would hurt him politically (if not legally)? there's no way it's going to play out like that. he's saying what he's saying now to scare the fuck out of syrian administration. it's diplomacy. it's politics at the international level. ~a
[2013-09-06 12:21:43] - if i had asked, before this week, if you guys would be happy if the president would be asking for congressional approval before going to war, you would have said yes, but that it would never happen. you're only saying "tiniest amount of credit" now because he actually went and did it. ~a
[2013-09-06 12:17:59] - mig: you did? ~a
[2013-09-06 12:13:52] - mig: And taking the first steps towards marijuana decriminalization, even though I said I thought he was kinda forced into it. -Paul
[2013-09-06 12:12:30] - a: If some dictatorship held a clearly rigged election, I would also give them the tiniest amount of credit because even though they're making it look democratic, the vote is meaningless. -Paul
[2013-09-06 12:10:15] - a: I think we all gave him credit without much complainig about repealing DADT and the efforts to reverse DOMA. - mig
[2013-09-06 12:09:33] - a: Ok, and I said, "I give him the tiniest amount of credit". I just don't think it's a big deal to say that you'll ask for a congressional vote, even though the outcome of the vote doesn't constrain you at all. -Paul
[2013-09-06 12:06:55] - "Would you have stopped bitching and complaining about Bush just because he did one thing that you somewhat approved of" i give credit where credit is due. at least credit me that.
~a[2013-09-06 11:59:06] - a: I'll give him full credit, since although he did say he didn't need congressional approval, it appears he won't act (overtly) without it. And that's enough for me right now. And it's what the situation needs anyway. Non-overt action. At least until such time as we can figure out how to judo-throw Syria. -- Xpovos
[2013-09-06 11:54:18] - I've got 99 problems, but a congressional vote isn't one of them.
[2013-09-06 11:51:25] - a: Going back to my bully analogy: Do you stand up and applaud that you only got punched once? Or do you think of it as a tiny step in the right direction, but there's still a lot of room for improvement? I'm leaning towards the latter. -Paul
[2013-09-06 11:48:23] - a: And again, let's not overstate things here. Obama basically said this vote is meaningless since he maintains he still has authority to do whatever the hell he wants, so I hesitate to even say he fixed anything. -Paul
[2013-09-06 11:47:30] - a: Would you have stopped bitching and complaining about Bush just because he did one thing that you somewhat approved of? -Paul
[2013-09-06 11:45:25] - a: I continue to whine and bitch because just partially fixing one problem (actually asking Congressional approval before starting a war) doesn't come close to making up for the other 99 problems. -Paul
[2013-09-06 11:23:44] - you guys whine and bitch about presidents going to war without getting congressional approval. then when they do it, you find something else to whine and bitch about. something tells me, no matter what obama did in his presidency, you'd whine and bitch about something. ~a
[2013-09-06 10:59:42] - a: I'm kind of with Rand Paul, when he tweeted: "I wanted to be proud of Pres. asking for Cong. authority. And I was until I heard him say, but it's just a fake vote". -Paul
[2013-09-06 10:58:31] - a: And a part of me still thinks this is just his way of trying to save face and back down from his red line after the UK bailed on him. -Paul
[2013-09-06 10:58:06] - a: Like Miguel said, he still basically said he has the right to attack if he wants to even if Congress votes it down, so he still seems to fundamentally not understand (or care about) the separation of powers. -Paul
[2013-09-06 10:56:36] - a: It's still not right, and you wish he hadn't punched you twice in the past, and he's probably only doing it once because of the teacher, and he'll probably punch you twice tomorrow if the teacher is gone... but I guess it's kinda nice I only got punched once today. -Paul
[2013-09-06 10:55:49] - a: and maybe I should add he's only punching you in the gut once because there is a teacher around who might see him do it the second time. -Paul
[2013-09-06 10:54:35] - a: I give him the tiniest amount of credit, but it's also the type of credit one might give to a bully who punches you in the gut twice a day when he decides to only punch you in the gut once. -Paul
[2013-09-06 10:54:35] - for clarifcation i mean a split between republicans and democrats who are against the syria intervention. - mig
[2013-09-06 10:54:02] - a: I understand that, but the wording kind of tries to give the impression there's close to a 50/50 or maybe 60/40 split in who's against. From the graphic in the article it looks more like 75/25 split. - mig
[2013-09-06 10:41:35] - mig: the definition of "most" and "many" are different. ~a
[2013-09-06 10:40:33] - apparently, the nsa can "break encryption" news that hopefully doesn't get drowned out due to syria. this is new, because before we thought the nsa was getting everything from faux-court-orders. ~a
[2013-09-06 10:37:19] - It goes back to paul's point. If he doesn't think a congressional vote isn't binding to him, why even bother seeking it? It's just insulting to everyone's intelligence, honestly. - mig
[2013-09-06 10:34:15] - a: Considering he said he doesn't think he needs congressional approval to strike no. In fact, I think that's worse than not even bothering at all. - mig
[2013-09-06 10:32:13] - Couldn't they just have said, "Many democrats and republicans"? - mig
[2013-09-06 10:31:34] - It reminds me of that Sideshow Bob quote "Especially Lisa! But Especially Bart!" - mig
[2013-09-06 10:29:59] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/05/prospects-for-syria-resolution-dimming-in-house/ so I'm trying to make sense of this sentence "Over the last two days, scores of members — most of them Republicans, but many of them Democrats" Maybe it's poor wording but it just sounds really weird. - mig
[2013-09-06 10:28:01] - paul: "I can't figure out why Obama has decided to seek congressional authorization for Syria" do you credit him for this at least? even if you disagree with going to war with syria, can you at least admit it's a little bit awesome he didn't follow the status quo of going to war without getting congressional approval? shouldn't ron paul be proud(ish)? ~a
[2013-09-05 13:24:54] - Xpovos: I guess domestic spying isn't as partisan an issue as some are. -Paul
[2013-09-05 12:29:35] - Strange bedfellows: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/320357-nra-claims-nsa-illegally-created-a-gun-database -- Xpovos
[2013-09-04 15:35:57] - Than to have a full time job with standard benefits including a health care plan. http://www.nber.org/papers/w19365 (quote via Reason) -- Xpovos
[2013-09-04 15:34:34] - "As Professor Mulligan’s paper puts it, Obamacare’s provisions combined “raise marginal tax rates in 2015 by 10 percentage points of total compensation, on average, for about half of the nonelderly adult population and zero percentage points for the rest.”". Short version, it might be better to have a part time job with gov't subsidized health care (exchange) [...]
[2013-09-04 10:38:29] - mig: In his defense, he already knows where he stands. "War? Not in the classical sense? Is it at least a kinetic military action? Then I'm in! No, don't care who it's against or who it's supporting." -Paul
[2013-09-04 10:23:55] - John McCain is sure taking this debate seriously. - mig
[2013-09-04 10:11:48] - mig: But then why not just pull a Libya and do it? Why bother asking for authorization from Congress? He hasn't cared about the constitution before and honestly, he still maintains that he has authority to do it even if congress says no, so what's the point? -Paul
[2013-09-04 10:07:50] - paul: yeah for a "relunctant warrior" as the apologists in the media have been calling him and as a nobel peace prize winner, he seems to be pursuing the case for an unprovoked war very strongly. - mig
[2013-09-04 09:56:03] - mig: But he seems to be still pursuing this pretty strongly. -Paul
[2013-09-04 09:55:25] - mig: I can't figure out why Obama has decided to seek congressional authorization for Syria. At first I thought it was his way of basically backing out, after realizing he probably overstepped since the UK backed out and it's wildly unpopular at home... -Paul
[2013-09-03 18:18:26] - a: i solved problem #232
the strategy is so weird, i understand some of it but... if player 2 is winning 67-0, they should flip 1 coin... but if they're winning 67-1, or 67-2, they should flip 2 coins...? and if they're winning 67-3 they should flip 1 coin?? where's that little anomaly come from! - aaron[2013-09-03 15:25:17] - So, I mean, if I eat a shark, I feel like I’m avenging a lot of people’s deaths or whatever. Sharks are so mean.”
[2013-09-03 15:25:11] - http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/minnesota-dl-ra-shede-hageman-eat-shark-avenge-154123316--ncaaf.html “I’m definitely not a fish person, I don’t like eating fish just for the fact, like, I used to catch fish and they probably eat disgusting things in the water,” Hageman said. “I would eat a shark, though, because a shark kills a lot of people. ...
[2013-09-03 14:43:51] - The people who have come out in support of Syria strikes is a virtual who's who list of people who I really want to be voted out of power. -Paul
[2013-09-03 14:43:38] - this does seem similar to when we destroyed some sudanese chemical weapons plants in 1998? ~a
[2013-09-03 14:42:43] - Now that Republican leadership has come out in support of Syria strikes, though, I can't imagine anything that would make me want more for Congress to vote against authorization. -Paul
[2013-09-03 14:37:12] - mig: Yeah, that actually does seem to be the plan. It sounds like everybody agrees it won't make much of a difference in terms of the war is going, or preventing him from using chemical weapons again. -Paul
[2013-09-03 14:30:07] - paul: yep. but i haven't been there in a long while. thanks! ~a
[2013-09-03 13:48:32] - At least the 5-year old realized he needed to ask permission first this time. -- Xpovos
[2013-09-03 13:36:54] - I'm trying to understand what the deal is for the proposed action on Syria. Is it really just lobbing some cruise missles at some military targets in the hopes that it'll teach the Syrian government a "lesson"? Is that basically it? Because that sounds like a plan made up by a 5-year old. - mig
[2013-09-03 11:51:47] - Omg, I just now realized that Dwyane Wade's name is spelled with a Y before the A instead of what I would think is the "right" way. -Paul
[2013-09-03 10:36:06] - a: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page Not sure if you were aware of this, but I thought you might find it interesting. -Paul
[2013-09-01 22:23:05] - xpovos: top comment the most pertinent: Ladies and gentlemen... the "most transparent administration in history" - mig
[2013-08-31 12:53:40] - http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/DA8GEA680 Tch, it's just metadata, it's not like we're asking to hear the actual content of their conversations. -- Xpovos
[2013-08-31 00:46:31] - oooh, 232 looks hard. ~a
[2013-08-30 15:02:56] - "well he'd always flip 1 coin until he reaches 36 points... then he'd flip 7 coins..." but, it's even more complicated than that, player 2 can actually get to a really high win percentage if he does... SOMETHING... but i don't know what it is... i never solved this problem - aaron
[2013-08-30 15:02:16] - ugh the optimal strategy mentioned in that paper reminds me of Project Euler Problem 232, which sounds so easy, but the optimal strategy for player 2 is actually a lot more complex than you'd expect. at first i thought, "well player 2 would always flip 8 coins", and then i thought, - aaron
[2013-08-30 14:54:17] - http://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/1lellp/pinterest_account_posts_pictures_of_taylor_swift/ someone overlaid taylor swift pics with quotes.... which it turns out were quotes from hitler. in response, someone people on reddit posted pictures of hitler overlaid with quotes from taylor swift... i'm not sure which i like more - aaron
[2013-08-30 13:56:50] - wtf, science
[2013-08-30 13:54:30] - title: http://www.pigmadness.com/worldpigspage.html
[2013-08-30 13:52:18] - paul: it's also kind of got that problem some games have, where it's so easy to continue playing. kind of like New Tetris, "hmm only 350, well i'm going to play again" "wow! 515, i'm on a roll! let's see if i can beat it" "gosh, 230, well i can't stop after that game" ...it's easy to accidentally play for a very, very long time - aaron
[2013-08-30 13:50:36] - paul: ha ha! i've been playing papers please every day this week, exploring the different endings and playing the game in different ways. i think i've put about 10 hours into it and i just bought it monday night. i really recommend it - aaron
[2013-08-30 13:44:08] - ah yes. ~a
[2013-08-30 13:27:58] - a: Somebody else. It's not somebody that any of us know personally (I don't think). -Paul
[2013-08-30 13:18:03] - is her maiden name patch? or was that someone else? ~a
[2013-08-30 13:04:20] - Aaron: Felicia Day (not sure if you know who she is) tweeted today that she stayed up far too late playing "Papers Please". -Paul
[2013-08-30 12:10:50] - men: you've reach half of your life at 39. your chance of dying in one year reaches 1% at 59. the decade where you have worse than even odds of living past to the next decade is 80. if you're 32 years old now, your chance of reaching 100 is just under 1%. if you're 56 years old now, your chance of reaching 100 is exactly 1%. ~a
[2013-08-30 11:26:37] - I'm not sure what someone like blizzard could "give" to people for an early access of something like starcraft. - mig
[2013-08-30 11:26:03] - pay for play. - mig
[2013-08-30 11:26:00] - It does work in some F2P instances though like with Path of Exile and Dota 2. Though while you "pay for early access/beta" the trade of for the players is that you're really paying for something in their in-game stores (like $10 worth of cosmetics stuff/boosters), which then enables access to the game. That seems to be a much more popular way of getting people to
[2013-08-30 11:24:23] - aaron: too many people would revolt if games go "pay for beta". At least for AAA retail games. - mig
[2013-08-30 11:08:19] - a: that's the maximum age for men and women - aaron
[2013-08-30 08:51:06] - hmmm. why did he stop at 40? ~a
[2013-08-30 08:47:55] - http://i.imgur.com/GOeWlUI.jpg here's the graph i wanted to post - aaron
[2013-08-29 21:08:25] - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579042571741346530.html uk parliament rejects intervention in Syria. - mig
[2013-08-29 18:29:21] - both of your links point to the same place. ~a
[2013-08-29 18:25:34] - probability of male/female death within one year (source) ... lots to analyze about this graph! hmmm - aaron
[2013-08-29 17:05:32] - xpovos: but overall yeah, i'm not sure why companies don't do it more! like blizzard always puts out early starcraft releases for people to playtest... they could charge $10 to get in on that, rather than making it a lottery. i don't know why they haven't yet - aaron
[2013-08-29 17:02:58] - xpovos: the two biggest risks would be damaging the company's reputation making them looking like they're "money grubbing"... or turning away people who would otherwise buy the game on the release day. they might be discouraged by reviews, or they might watch a "Let's Play" of the full game on youtube, and decide that's enough for them - aaron
[2013-08-29 15:10:52] - aaron: How would it hurt them? Unless there's server-based DRM and we see a Diablo 3/SimCity fiasco? -- Xpovos
[2013-08-29 15:04:23] - paul: like GTAV is pretty much ready for release, and there are people who would pay $100 if they could have a copy to play right now. it would be funny if companies started having "GTAV Early Release Edition: $100" although i guess it would hurt them in a lot of ways - aaron
[2013-08-29 15:02:51] - paul: well, some variance of release pricing, AAA titles like Mass Effect 3 and GTA V retail at $60, while lesser-recognized titles usually retail at $50, and obviously indie titles which retail much lower but I wouldn't count that. but i understand your point, i think you'd probably expect to see more variance, i do kind of wonder if we'll ever see that model - aaron
[2013-08-29 15:01:43] - a: Variable pricing is market efficiency, though. Overall it leads to lower prices. -- Xpovos
[2013-08-29 14:56:04] - paul: do not like. ~a
[2013-08-29 14:49:08] - Aaron: In other words, if games really were sold at prices that "people will pay", I think we would see more scenarios where a game like Madden might sell for $70 and a game like... Xcom might sell for $50 at first. -Paul
[2013-08-29 14:48:06] - aaron: Right, but the fact that pretty much all new games in the US gets released at $60 at first makes me think there are other forces at work. It seems strange that people (in the general sense) are willing to pay the exact some money for every game. -Paul
[2013-08-29 14:46:07] - http://i.imgur.com/viTJn6S.jpg we can not tolerate these killings! - aaron
[2013-08-29 14:45:19] - paul: well, it varies wildly from country to country with seemingly no rationale to it, except for "well that's what they've always charged". particularly between europe, australia, and america, it's very confusing why video game prices change so much in different local economies, which really makes me think it is just "what people will pay" - aaron
[2013-08-29 14:44:23] - a: I'll tell you what I did find today (which I wish I hadn't).... the Bristol Stool Scale. -Paul
[2013-08-29 14:43:31] - Aaron: I'm not so sure it's as simple as publishers charging what people will pay, though. When it comes to console games, at least, there seems to be a pretty standard price point set up where all new games are $60 (barring special editions). -Paul
prev <-> next