prev <-> next
[2013-11-22 14:45:24] - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/weighing-free-speech-in-refusal-to-photograph-ceremony.html?_r=0 I really like the quote at the end: “The Huguenins are not trying to prohibit anyone from marrying,” he wrote. “They only want to be left alone to conduct their photography business in a manner consistent with their moral convictions.” -Paul
[2013-11-22 14:40:24] - a: Heh, I originally had like 5 nines after the decimal point, but I thought somebody might call me out on that, so I made it a "safer" number that I thought nobody would bother disagreeing with. Apparently I was wrong.
-Paul[2013-11-22 14:39:41] - Which brings up a good (but tangential) point... it's not like we're talking about some rampant problem here. The lesbian couple found another photographer and the only damage appears to be some hurt feelings and wasted time. -Paul
[2013-11-22 14:38:28] - paul: add a few more "9"s
~a[2013-11-22 14:37:03] - g: Okay, I guess my question to you would be: How's the principle different? Why is one a grey area and the other ridiculous? Is it because it involves food? Because the other guy doesn't own the store? Keep in mind that in the real world I imagine that employee would be fired by 99.9% of store owners. -Paul
[2013-11-22 14:32:49] - Paul: because all your arguments point to you being okay with the guy in the store who doesnt own it refusing service based on prejudices. Where as I (obviously) disagree. The photographer case I find a little less clear cut. ~g
[2013-11-22 14:28:24] - g: Well, the homophobe working at the grocery store is a little complicated. Does he own the store? Just a low-level employee? Why not stick to the photographer example? It's the same principle and appears to be a simpler example. -Paul
[2013-11-22 14:26:40] - a: "it's not about one company and their dealings with one customer" It's not? Because it appears like that is exactly what this case is about. What do you think it's about? -Paul
[2013-11-22 14:24:58] - Paul: your arguments (re: the photographer) make it sound like you are saying that a homophobe working at a grocery store should be able to deny service to a gay person solely for being gay. That is ridiculous. Although I see some merit in Aaron's argument.. ~g
[2013-11-22 14:23:02] - a: I don't quite follow your logic here, but let me try to understand it. So let's say we have a tatoo artist that refuses a customer who wants a tatoo of the gay pride flag on their back, citing religious beliefs? There's no sign saying, "heterosexuals only" and he will serve the customer doing another type of tatoo, just not that one. Is that ok? - mig
[2013-11-22 14:22:46] - a: I don't think you change people's minds by pointing a gun at them and telling them to change their minds. If I'm trying to convince you that people who are uncomfortable with gays are okay, do you think it would be helpful if I forced you to buy Barilla pasta and eat Chick-fil-a while having this photographer take your picture? -Paul
[2013-11-22 14:19:32] - a: In fact, I see this as setting the process back. If you're the photographers in this case, how can you not resent the lesbian couple at least a little bit even if there was no animosity before? -Paul
[2013-11-22 14:18:49] - a: Totally agree on minds changing over time, but I don't think they change (for the better, at least) in situations like this where a third party is forcing one person (or group) to "get along with" another. -Paul
[2013-11-22 14:16:10] - china announces that it is going to stop stockpiling u.s. dollars ~a
[2013-11-22 14:04:55] - mig: that is not a protected group. did the tattoo business say that they don't allow german people in their parlor? ~a
[2013-11-22 13:37:29] - But taking down the sign doesn't mean the restaurant welcomes the next black man in off the street for a meal. If there isn't a cop on the corner he probably kicks him out just the same. You need a cop in every business at that rate. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-22 13:36:45] - Let's try another example, let's say we have a french tatoo artist and a customer comes in asking for a german flag on his shoulder or something. Now this artist has had ancestors who died in WWI, and it would be very hurtful for this person to draw a symbol of that loss, so he refuses. Illegal or no? If not, why not? - mig
[2013-11-22 13:36:41] - a: The government has, and has had, a 'vested' interest in ensuring that advertising is accurate. To that extent, they can, I suppose, require the removal of advertising... putting up a sign 'whites only' is just as much about advertising to fellow racists as it is to discourage non-white participation. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-22 13:32:43] - a: also on gray areas. Unfortunately with laws and the application thereof, if there are gray areas they very quickly get modled in black and white, or worse, exceptions get carved out for the politically favored. - mig
[2013-11-22 13:29:46] - xpovos: "it has no moral authority and insufficient leverage/manpower" i guess i don't understand, where is the lack of moral authority when the govies go into a coffee shop and tell them they have to take down the "whites only" sign? ~a
[2013-11-22 13:27:34] - "If I go to a restaurant or car dealership or someplace and they say they won't serve me because I'm white (or some other reason), my first thought isn't going to be to try to find some way to force them to serve me" you aren't seeing the big picture. it's not about one company and their dealings with one customer. ~a
[2013-11-22 13:26:50] - a: It's bullshit, but it is not the role of government to stop bullshit. There's the fundamental problem of different people calling bullshit on different things, even contradictorily. But even beyond that it's fundamentally responsibility the government can't handle; it has no moral authority and insufficient leverage/manpower. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-22 13:25:49] - "it's not going to change any minds" here i disagree. minds change over time, and it's not always grass roots movements that make minds change. sometimes it's the government putting its foot down and saying: well we can't stop you from being a dick, but we can stop you from doing some things (through law). ~a
[2013-11-22 13:25:27] - a: my main beef with the whole thing is the fact that the nature of her business is essentially, creating speech (in the form of artistic photos). You may not care about that distincition, but I think it matters. A lot. - mig
[2013-11-22 13:24:31] - "Just because I think it's wrong for the government to force people to work for other people, it doesn't mean I'm somehow supportive of racial discrimination" point taken. ~a
[2013-11-22 13:24:27] - a: How would it possibly end well to go someplace where I am already disliked, and to basically tell them that they're not being forced to accommodate me? -Paul
[2013-11-22 13:23:24] - a: If I go to a restaurant or car dealership or someplace and they say they won't serve me because I'm white (or some other reason), my first thought isn't going to be to try to find some way to force them to serve me. It's not just because of my libertarian tendencies, but because why would I want to go to a place like that? -Paul
[2013-11-22 13:15:45] - a: And it's not going to change any minds. -Paul
[2013-11-22 13:15:03] - a: To me, this is like if we took the Barilla or Chick-Fil-A CEOs and told them they had to have commercials starring gay families or donate money to gay charities. It's wrong in principle (in my mind) to force them to do something against their beliefs simply because of their beliefs... -Paul
[2013-11-22 13:11:50] - a: It's not just a matter of principle, though, but also one of practicality. What's this ruling going to accomplish? Is the photographer going to magically be perfectly fine with gay marriage now that she's been forced to photograph them? Are gay couples going to be falling over themselves to hire somebody who has made it clear she doesn't like their wedding? -Paul
[2013-11-22 13:09:18] - a: Again, I feel like you're making huge, random jumps of logic here. Just because I think it's wrong for the government to force people to work for other people, it doesn't mean I'm somehow supportive of racial discrimination. -Paul
[2013-11-22 13:06:33] - Xpovos: Sure, I think we agree the underpinning of logic is very different from how we see the rule of law. I'm just trying to appeal to people who don't have the same view of the rule of law, and the best way I think I can do that is to show how this logic could harm them or people like them. -Paul
[2013-11-22 13:04:35] - paul: well ok, i'm trying to put myself in somebody else's shoes: the african american who used to get all kinds of businesses that were like: "nope!" that's bullshit, man. and i'm a little surprised you don't agree that it's bullshit. ~a
[2013-11-22 12:53:20] - So, I'll stay cold and unfeeling, but I find the prospect more than frightening and the underpinning logic to be antithetical to my own about the purpose of the rule of law. It comes from a different first premise. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-22 12:52:08] - First, the common good being promoted is abstract at best and probably not existential. Second the service is being required for a third party. Third the government is not paying for it. I'm not a fan of socialism, but if it's something that's truly in the common good, then it's something that should be paid for out of the common pocket. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-22 12:50:54] - Paul: In my mind, the difference between a draft, and similar things, is that the government is requesting a specific service or property (in exchange for a price paid by the government) that serves a clear and present (and one hopes necessary) common good. E.g. the war effort [draft], building roads [eminent domain]. The difference here is substantial. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-22 12:44:50] - Xpovos: Right. I know there's differences there, and I also know as a libertarian, I'm much more sympathetic to individual rights (and suspicious of governments forcing individuals to do stuff), but I still feel like this ruling should make everybody at least a tiny bit uncomfortable. -Paul
[2013-11-22 12:24:15] - Paul: See: Military draft, etc. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-22 12:19:34] - a: I mean, it doesn't make you uncomfortable at all to have the government saying somebody is forced to work for somebody for whom they don't want to? -Paul
[2013-11-22 12:16:12] - a: I agree it's not a grey area, but I'm on the other side.
I guess I'm not trying to convince you that grey areas exist, just trying to put yourself in the shoes of a person who doesn't want to work for somebody and being told that they HAVE to. -Paul[2013-11-22 12:12:27] - but the original scenario isn't gray. we aren't left guessing why she was turning down the business: she told us why she was turning down the business. and no, she can't do that. (in my opinion and according to the law) ~a
[2013-11-22 12:11:27] - yes these are very gray, and yes i understand that gray areas exist. i'm not sure how the law should behave in those situations, but honestly, most of the time i think in the gray areas the law should behave in the way you'd want it to: allowing the business to turn down a customer. ~a
[2013-11-22 11:53:46] - a: I feel like there are a ton of situations where it's completely reasonable for somebody to not want to be hired by somebody else, and it's not because either party is a "hateful asshole". -Paul
[2013-11-22 11:52:54] - a: Or maybe an atheist photographer being forced to work a some strict religious wedding where the woman is considered property of the husband and has to be completely submissive and completely covered in a veil or something? -Paul
[2013-11-22 11:46:51] - a: Well, tolerant of protected classes, I guess. Did you ever address my scenario of an arranged marriage where the husband is 40 and the wife is 16? -Paul
[2013-11-22 11:44:08] - a: It's tough because I'm having trouble thinking of a good example to help me show you why forcing people to to work for somebody makes me uncomfortable because I feel like you and I are pretty tolerant largely. -Paul
[2013-11-22 11:29:05] - (regarding 90yo nude photography) i'm for age being a protected class, yes. you can't say, "hey i don't want you as a customer because you're old" (though i can imagine lots of gray areas). anyways, yes, age is a protected class, but they protect it weirdly. somehow kids are allowed to be barred from lots of bizarre things. ~a
[2013-11-22 11:25:43] - "your thoughts on whether it's acceptable or not based on the legality of it, then" nope. but in this (one specific, rare) case, i agree with the law. or as much of it as i understand. ~a
[2013-11-22 11:19:07] - Paul: As inclined as I am to believe this particular conspiracy theory, the fact is the article is nothing but circumstantial evidence, and even then, it's mild. There won't be a smoking gun on this one unless someone leaks Obama's e-mails or something. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-22 10:52:27] - Xpovos: http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/22/did-a-top-obamacare-tech-official-mislea Sounds like there may have been some shenanigans regarding the "anonymous shopper" functionality with the healthcare website. -Paul
[2013-11-22 10:06:41] - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00F9F6OVK/ref=as_li_tf_tl?t=slicinc-20&ascsubtag=qWpCJlOHEeODJpIC9oanzAGmj5_SXVo3_I2Q_0_0&ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&crea For those into the game, there is a 4th expansion for Cards against humanity. -Paul
[2013-11-22 10:01:05] - There's another one from Lamar Alexendar saying, "I'll never fillibuster a nonimee, period" - mig
[2013-11-22 10:00:22] - paul: yeah replaying all the clips from the 2005 debate on the topic have been pretty amusing seeing all the players basically reveresing roles. There's even a funny clip of Biden saying (I'm paraphrasing a bit), "I pray to god when dems have majority that we won't resort to this". - mig
[2013-11-22 09:57:22] - mig: I've not idea. The intricacies of Senate rules are something which I have so little interest in. I'm really only marginally interested in the nuclear option news because it's funny to see the hypocrisy on both sides. -Paul
[2013-11-22 09:52:28] - earlier given how much grief it gives the majority party. - mig
[2013-11-22 09:52:05] - paul: one thing I found rather odd about the whole filibuster rule change thing, was that it's long been established in rules that the senate needs 60 votes for most things, but that rule can be changed with a simple majority vote? Was it really a sort of "gentelmen's agreement" that kept the 60 vote threshold all this time? I'm just surprised it wasn't changed
[2013-11-22 09:15:46] - a: Or, how about this? Age is apparently a protected class. How about a photographer that does nude photography. Are you saying they can't turn down a 90 year old who wants to use their services? -Paul
[2013-11-22 09:14:09] - a: Not trying to be snarky, but is your thoughts on whether it's acceptable or not based on the legality of it, then? -Paul
[2013-11-21 17:59:29] - paul: "Ah, so it has to do with if it's something inherent about somebody (black, asian, gay, etc) versus a choice (Nazi, Westboro, etc)?" sure, i guess. iow, it's the legally protected groups (gender, ethnicity, etc). ~a
[2013-11-21 17:57:43] - mig: "She *has* to turn down one of them" of course. if her reason given is "they're too black" then i have an issue with that. if her reason is "man, i'm out of town that week" then it's cool, yo. ~a
[2013-11-21 17:19:01] - http://reason.com/archives/2013/11/21/the-us-isnt-leaving-afghanistan At what point can we finally do away with the myth that Obama was (or is) in any way an anti-war politician? Wasn't he supposed to end all of these wars and not go around looking to start new ones? *cough*Libya*cough*Syria*cough* -Paul
[2013-11-21 14:13:01] - mig: It's interesting timing, because it seemed to come out of nowhere. I thought this was a much bigger issue months ago. It almost seems like this is either an attempt to distract from Obamacare problems OR an attempt to hide this news under Obamacare problems.
-Paul[2013-11-21 14:09:24] - paul: I guess we'll be prepared for amusing cries of hypocrtical indignation if the other side ever manages to get back the white house and the senate again. - mig
[2013-11-21 14:05:15] - http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/21/senate-democrats-go-nuclear-vote-down-pa "Senate Democrats Go “Nuclear,” Vote Down Party Lines to Change Senate Rules" -Paul
[2013-11-21 11:34:33] - paul: yeah, exactly - aaron
[2013-11-21 10:26:29] - aaron: I can see that rationale. Using that way of thinking, maybe it's like some steakhouse refusing to serve a vegetarian because they don't have any experience with vegetarian food and wouldn't want to serve them something subpar? -Paul
[2013-11-21 10:14:50] - Either that or is he a lame duck at this point? Or maybe his fellow senator from Arizona (Flake) was able to convince him? - mig
[2013-11-21 10:13:44] - Actually McCain is not surprising. For all his faults regarding the WoT, one thing he's been consistently been is anti-torture, and I think maybe some of the relatively recent revelations about what goes on down there are probably weighing on him. - mig
[2013-11-21 10:07:43] - http://swampland.time.com/2013/11/20/rand-paul-aids-surprise-guantanamo-bay-win-for-obama/ Rand Paul? Makes sense. Jeff Flake? Sure, I can see it. John McCain? WTF? -Paul
[2013-11-21 09:55:08] - if it's honestly beyond their capacity to like.. find beauty in a specific couple's marriage, i think it's comparable to being incapable of comprehending someone's dietary restrictions. i mean it still sucks and it's like, "hey it's not that complicated and everybody else can do it, why can't you" but... let them fail as a business, don't force them to try - aaron
[2013-11-21 09:53:41] - and now, it's a gay couple, and the photographer doesn't see beauty in it and they don't understand how to portray it in a flattering way. i mean, one metaphor is like, "some racist five guys employee refuses to serve a black guy", but i think a more fitting metaphor is, "some ignorant pink berry employee refuses to serve a customer with a nut allergy," - aaron
[2013-11-21 09:51:19] - i see a distinction between a photographer and a business (say a restaurant) because photography is art and art is speech. if a photographer doesn't find any beauty in what they're photographing, they're not going to do a good job. they might have an image in mind where like, "the bride and groom kiss in this orchard and this fruit tree repersents femininity". - aaron
[2013-11-21 09:43:56] - amy and i turned off the game when the mavs were down by 18 points at the end of the third quarter. i'm baffled that they turned it around. i think they just play worse when i'm watching them, maybe i make them nervous - aaron
[2013-11-21 09:27:18] - Amy: I watched some of the first half of that game and was shocked when they came back from that first quarter deficit. Still a little surprised they ended up winning the game. -Paul
[2013-11-21 09:19:44] - Xpovos: Gotcha. -Paul
[2013-11-21 09:18:13] - Paul: No, it's going to by my response for every scandal or offensive/idiotic thing McAullife does over the next four years. I'll be attempting a long-term reductio ad absurdum of an argument fostered by many who voted for this jackass. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-21 09:10:10] - Xpovos: Was that a comment from that article or something? I didn't see it. -Paul
[2013-11-21 09:08:07] - a: Ah, so it has to do with if it's something inherent about somebody (black, asian, gay, etc) versus a choice (Nazi, Westboro, etc)? -Paul
[2013-11-21 08:56:53] - Paul: (re: McAuliffe cabinet post article) "At least he's not Cuccinelli". -- Xpovos
[2013-11-21 00:41:47] - Hello my mavericks just pulled an amazing comeback and I was so excited and happy and I had nobody to share this moment with OK bye. -amy
[2013-11-20 22:43:48] - Mmm, I guess as a more pointed question rather than spouting off hypotheticals, when in your opinion, is it ok to discriminate against a group by refusing to provide services because you don't like that particular group? I need a better argument than "because they're assholes". - mig
[2013-11-20 22:30:27] - a: so it's ok to discriminate against small subsets of people, just not general groups of people? so it's fine if i tell a mormon couple to fuck off if they want me to photograph their wedding? Because mormons are weirdos. - mig
[2013-11-20 22:26:16] - a: the problem with saying she's a "business" is that the nature of her work does require her to turn down clients from time to time. If 2 weddings are on the same date and they both want her services. She *has* to turn down one of them. And like i said earlier, trying to say there are times where she can't turn down requests is problematic. - mig
[2013-11-20 18:41:25] - "gay photographer that has to photograph weddings at churches that disapprove of gay marriage" hmm. i dunno. "client wants to have their wedding be all-nude" yeah, that's fine (the denial is legal). ~a
[2013-11-20 18:30:09] - no i think you're missing my point. answering your first post, the law shouldn't be different because they're hateful assholes, it's different because the reason you're denying them service is not because they're black, or asian, or whatever. ~a
[2013-11-20 18:24:00] - a: If you want a grey area for the sake of a grey area, though. How about the gay photographer that has to photograph weddings at churches that disapprove of gay marriage? Or maybe a client wants to have their wedding be all-nude. How about an arranged marriage where the husband is 40 and the wife is 16? -Paul
[2013-11-20 18:21:07] - a: And this is where we might never agree. I don't think laws should change depending on whether somebody is a "hateful asshole". I believe the law should be applied consistently. Nazis and Westboro should have free speech just as much as... completely non-objectionable groups. -Paul
[2013-11-20 18:13:29] - nope, i'm fine with not serving the nazi party because they're hateful assholes. not serving the WBC because they're hateful assholes is fine too. if i chose to not serve all christians or all black people or all gay people, that's obviously different. now i could propose some gray area situations, but you haven't proposed any gray area yet (imo). ~a
[2013-11-20 17:57:28] - a: I mean, if you want to think of it as a business, then how about this? The Nazi party of the US approaches you and wants to buy some software from you. Not being terribly anti-Semitic, you turn them down. The government comes back and says, "Sorry, you have to serve them". You're okay with that? -Paul
[2013-11-20 17:52:25] - a: "it's a thing" You mean a law? I have no doubt of that, I just think it shouldn't be. Not sure I see the huge difference with seeing it as a photographer or a business. Seems like just a way to make it seem more impersonal. Easy to rationalize forcing businesses to do something. Harder to rationalize forcing humans to do something. -Paul
[2013-11-20 17:46:38] - you see it as a photographer, but i see it as a business. businesses can't say that they refuse black people. i'm not sure if you agree with that, but it's a thing. ~a
[2013-11-20 17:46:34] - Didn't mean to mess up the html on purpose, but having the URL out there should reinforce how repellent the thought of forcing somebody to do that should be. -Paul
[2013-11-20 17:45:41] - a: But, if you are strongly in support of this ruling and think this business sucks, I would be really interested in hearing your thoughts on the many scenarios Miguel brought up. Or even: does this mean a gay photographer has to photograph a wedding at the <a href="www.godhatesfags.com/">Westboro Baptist Church</a>? -Paul
[2013-11-20 17:43:15] - a: And the government is saying she has to. -Paul
[2013-11-20 17:42:56] - a: "forcing somebody to do something that they don't want to do isn't what we're talking about here" Actually, that's exactly what we're talking about here. This photographer didn't want to photograph their wedding (incidentally, she said she would photograph them with no problem, but didn't want to do their wedding, so the hate thing appears moot)... -Paul
[2013-11-20 17:41:33] - a: I'm not even sure which leap of logic to address first... The leap to say this hypothetical photographer hates Asians or the leap to say that because I think it's wrong to force them to work for somebody they don't want to that I somehow join them in this new-found hate. -Paul
[2013-11-20 17:40:24] - forcing somebody to do something that they don't want to do isn't what we're talking about here: we're talking about a business front. a business front that says "we don't like the business of people that look like this". if they need to put that sign up on the front of their business, they suck. ~a
[2013-11-20 17:34:36] - so you'd say "I'm pretty strongly in favor of the photographer, she doesn't have to take asian customers if she hates asian customers. Hate of asian customers is something I'm pretty strongly in favor of." ~a
[2013-11-20 17:33:47] - a: Do you think there is a difference between those groups? -Paul
[2013-11-20 17:32:27] - a: The same way? I don't think gays are in some way less worthy than asians or the handicapped or interracial couples. -Paul
[2013-11-20 17:27:56] - paul: (so, i haven't read the entire conversation here, sorry if we covered this already.) how would you feel if elaine refused to photograph interracial marriages? how would you feel if elaine refused to photograph weddings of disabled people? how would you feel if elaine refused to photograph weddings of asian people? ~a
[2013-11-20 16:18:52] - http://freebeacon.com/mcauliffe-appoints-greentech-exec-and-campaign-operative-to-cabinet-post/ So it begins... -Paul
[2013-11-20 15:15:33] - Aaron: Ideologically, though, I go back to what Xpovos said: "As libertarians, our first priority is protecting an individual's property rights." That's a fairly cold and unfeeling way to phrase it, but in principle, I just get uncomfortable with the government telling somebody they are forced to work for somebody they don't want to work for. -Paul
[2013-11-20 15:13:34] - Aaron: Yeah, from a practical standpoint, I just don't see the point. More realistically, you'll probably just see more "dishonest" photographers (or whatever profession) claiming to already be booked for that day if a lesbian couple comes in (instead of giving the real reason). -Paul
[2013-11-20 14:56:05] - at the end of the day you'll still have two pissed off lesbians and a principled photographer who is a dick to them... the only difference is you'll ruin an extra wedding by forcing the photographer to go through with it - aaron
[2013-11-20 14:55:36] - i guess i would side with free speech, and say the photographer should be allowed to refuse clients, since the alternative is just pointless. i mean, so you force photographers to accept gay/lesbian clients against their will, what's the point?? then they can just do a lousy job out of protest. i mean it just doesn't make sense to me, - aaron
[2013-11-20 14:49:08] - paul: i can sympathize with both parties on this one. i'm not 100% happy with the ruling, and it seems weird that you can hire a photographer and force them to photograph things they don't like. but, i'm not 100% sure how to deconflict these two principles. - aaron
[2013-11-20 14:39:35] - Xpovos: Ah, ok. Gotcha. -Paul
[2013-11-20 14:06:44] - If not, why not? And why would that reason also not apply with this current case going before SCOTUS? - mig
[2013-11-20 13:53:51] - or let's flip the script. Is a wedding photographer who happens to be a gay person who is not fond of christianity committing illegal discrimination if he refuses his service to a devoutely christian couple? - mig
[2013-11-20 13:39:18] - Even better, what if the heterosexual couple is a minority or interracial? Can they claim unfair discrimination if they are refused in favor of the gay couple? - mig
[2013-11-20 13:38:04] - Also problematic in this court ruling is how is a photographer supposed to handle conflicts which necessitate choice. If a gay couple and a straight couple who have a wedding on the same day both request her services? She would kind of have to give her services to the gay couple by default, wouldn't she? - mig
[2013-11-20 13:37:43] - Paul: Refusing to hire a person because they are homosexual. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-20 13:28:15] - Xpovos: What's legal in 37 states? -Paul
[2013-11-20 13:26:00] - Paul: Legal in what... 37 states? At least that's what the U.S. Senate would have me believe. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-20 13:26:00] - paul: there are parallels to be sure. The big difference though is that having a job is kind of vital to living, while comissions an artistic work from another person isn't as much so. - mig
[2013-11-20 13:19:13] - Xpovos: Well, as I understand this particular case, it's not just that this photographer turned down this specific couple, but that they were turned down specifically because they were gay. I think the same thing would be an issue with a company not hiring somebody specifically because they were gay. -Paul
[2013-11-20 13:17:41] - dictate that no, the agency cannot turn down that request. - mig
[2013-11-20 13:17:29] - Actually the ad agency brought up also brings a curious question, by the NM court's logic, can an ad agency who is in favor of gay rights turn down a comission request from Chick Fil-A, citing CEO Cathy's anti-gay political stances? I'm sure that same NM court would somehow try to contradict its own precendent in a hypothetical ruling, but it's logic would clearly
[2013-11-20 13:11:06] - Paul: Equal employment laws are unofficially about quotas, they don't compel a company to actually hire (or fire) anyone. Even in a broad sense, they're "you must hire someone from this pool", not "you must hire THIS person". Limited selection is still selection, and a lot of what government does, properly, is limit selection in a marketplace. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-20 13:09:12] - or feel morally compelled to. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-20 13:09:01] - I think I see where the issue is. As libertarians, our first priority is protecting an individual's property rights. Hence compulsion to buy or sell is particularly anathema. Liberals will be more interested in the justice/equality of the situation. Conservatives with how the issue was traditionally responded to (in this case on the side of the photographer) ...
[2013-11-20 13:06:48] - honestly very problematic. - mig
[2013-11-20 13:06:44] - The "open business" argument the NM court uses just doesn't apply. Functionally, she is still a essentially a freelancer for hire. If she has more requests than she has time for, she obviously cannot accomodate all clients. She has to make decisions on which requests to take and which she doesn't. To apply that there are times she cannot refuse a request is
[2013-11-20 13:05:53] - Xpovos: I understand and agree, but I feel like it's not completely unprecedented. I mean, the government basically forces businesses to hire people in the same vein, right? -Paul
[2013-11-20 13:01:19] - I understand how this goes back to the Civil Rights movement and issues, but I can't comprehend how it can be against the law to refuse service as a business. The government is forcing you to sell something? It's like Obamacare in reverse! Or more accurately, eminent domain. All three of those are things I come down pretty strongly against. (in general) -- Xpovos
[2013-11-20 12:59:26] - mig: I have to imagine it's the principle of the thing. They probably went there, were turned down, were offended, then wanted to fix an perceived injustice. -Paul
[2013-11-20 12:57:22] - Looking at the article, it looks like they actually did hire another photogrpaher ... which definitely makes me a lot less sympathetic to the couple. - mig
[2013-11-20 12:53:20] - I mean, I'm sure the couple's feelings were hurt, but couldn't they just have found another photographer to do this rather than sink legal fees and effort into this case? It's not like there's a scarce supply of wedding photographers. - mig
[2013-11-20 12:51:20] - Well my only question would be this: Why on earth would you want to go through the effort of forcing someone who very clearly does not approve of your lifestyle to record one of the most important days in your life? Do you honestly want to entrust that person to do a good job? - mig
[2013-11-20 12:48:31] - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/weighing-free-speech-in-refusal-to-photograph-ceremony.html?_r=0 Wonder how people here feel about this case. I'm pretty strongly in favor of the photographer, but I'm guessing there might be people here who think otherwise. -Paul
[2013-11-20 11:51:46] - mig: Poor Hawks. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-20 11:40:56] - Somehow I think the keys to Miami winning basketball games are a little more complicated than this, but not much more I guess. - mig
[2013-11-20 09:37:27] - Out of context quotes are always amusing. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/michelle-obama-my-husband-has-got-swag_767940.html -- Xpovos
[2013-11-19 20:45:58] - bill cosby is going to be on TDS tonight. - mig
[2013-11-19 17:14:34] - like "every other civilized country" has. -Paul
[2013-11-19 17:14:11] - http://reason.com/archives/2013/11/19/the-end-of-obamacare-as-we-never-knew-it For a moment, it sounded good to hear that Obamacare might fall apart fast enough to not ruin our health care system for everybody. The problem is that I'm guessing this will just be spun as another "market failure" and a reason why we need a single payer system... -Paul
[2013-11-19 15:00:04] - "nanny-ish than overtly oppressive" hah, the slipperiest of slippery slopes. ~a
[2013-11-19 14:45:47] - a: Interesting. I guess that kind of makes sense, in a way. Still, a little surprised the people there tolerate it. I guess it's probably just more nanny-ish than overtly oppressive. -Paul
[2013-11-19 14:20:58] - paul: yeah, my guess is that the green you see is because those regimes just don't care about the internet. regardling australia, they apparently suck regarding internet censorship and they don't have freedom of speech either (it's not in their constitution). their courts have deemed the internet to be a broadcast medium that needs to be censored like TV is. ~a
[2013-11-19 14:05:12] - a: And a lot of land area among them too. What's up with Australia, though? What reason would they have to be censoring the internet (either previously or recently)? Surprised by all the green in South America, considering the authoritarian regimes there. -Paul
[2013-11-19 14:03:03] - http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/19/woman-who-obama-cited-as-obamacare-succe "Woman Who Obama Cited as Obamacare Success Story Now Says She Can’t Afford Health Coverage". You would think, given his tendency to just change the rules on the fly, that the President would've at least given a special exemption to the example he used in a speech.
-Paul[2013-11-19 13:52:02] - paul: regarding the united states, fair enough, i agree with you. to slightly change subjects, i found this map to be enlightening on how the world deals with the internet. so many countries are white and pink! ~a
[2013-11-19 13:12:08] - paul: maybe. I dunno, in my mind, I just feel remarks you make that had some thought put into them in a prepared segment should be held to a higher standard than an off the cuff insult made in anger. - mig
[2013-11-19 13:07:59] - mig: *Shrug* I can see how Bashir's comment could be written off as a joke or being witty. I'm actually on board with Baldwin's comment being more offensive, and while I know Bashir has a history, Baldwin has arguably a longer one. -Paul
[2013-11-19 13:05:00] - a: I know, but there's also a lot of people who still think Obama was born in Kenya or blacks and whites shouldn't marry or whatever... doesn't mean there are any serious policy initiatives in the pipeline for it. -Paul
[2013-11-19 12:26:14] - "it was certainly made with more malicious intent than Baldwin's insult" apples and oranges? who's insult is worse? let the market decide. whoever loses their job obviously had the worse comment by definition. ~a
[2013-11-19 12:13:23] - while the language wasn't as coarse, it was certainly made with more malicious intent than Baldwin's insult. - mig
[2013-11-19 12:12:28] - going back to Bashir for a moment, how does he still have his job? Alec Baldwin might have his show on MSNBC cancelled because of calling someone a "cocksucking fag", which while pretty vile can at least be partially excused that it was just a lapse of anger. But Bashir's remarks weren't ad-libbed or off the cuff, they were most likely prepared beforehand. And ...
[2013-11-19 12:01:59] - paul: there are plenty of people in the us that would jump at the chance to protect children and their innocence. ~a
[2013-11-19 11:44:04] - well, the puritans in the US have given up mostly because they realize there's enough court precedents that any attempts won't go anywhere. - mig
[2013-11-19 11:23:14] - mig: I know, but I thought the Western world had finally gotten over the obsession with thinking pornography was so evil it had to be banned for everybody. Heck, even the relatively puritanical US seems to have largely accepted porn as normal. -Paul
[2013-11-19 11:21:16] - paul: the "first amendment" isn't really a thing in the UK. - mig
[2013-11-19 11:08:28] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/uk-internet-filter-block-more-than-porn_n_3670771.html Also, what's going on in the UK? Blocking pornography for everybody to protect the children? -Paul
[2013-11-19 10:59:57] - paul: I guess it's mostly forgotten because it seems like an eternity ago, but that primary between Obama and Clinton was incredibly nasty. - mig
[2013-11-19 10:57:23] - mig: Kind of weird to hear that they apparently targeted their own too. Wouldn't have expected Hilary to get targeted like that. -Paul
[2013-11-19 10:55:50] - Opinionated MSNBC hosts also seems to be a common thread here ... also curious. - mig
[2013-11-19 10:50:10] - And going back a little further there's some arguably distasteful stuff said about Herman Cain back when he was sort of popular during the 2012 primaries. - mig
[2013-11-19 10:08:57] - And it's not like this Bashir incident was this one time rarity. And it's curious that this vitriol comes from a side claiming that the opposition is engaging in a "war on women". - mig
[2013-11-19 10:03:32] - defecate in Rand Paul's mouth as a form of torture. - mig
[2013-11-19 10:03:16] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/11/18/martin-bashirs-towering-mistakes-on-sarah-palin/ I'm just curious, why is it that conservative women and minorities get subjected to what appears to be a much more vicious level of vitriol? I mean, the white males get attacked too, but I've never heard anyone come close to suggesting that someone should
[2013-11-18 18:27:46] - Dear Japan: WTF? (http://theweek.com/article/index/252933/what-orgasm-wars-reveals-about-japans-sexual-culture) Sincerely, -The Rest of the World
[2013-11-18 16:41:39] - paul: you are correct. yes they can be destroyed by permanently losing your private key (permanently deleting is hard to do correctly, so i'd avoid using the word "delete"). ~a
[2013-11-18 16:30:45] - a: Right, basically I am asking if bitcoins can be destroyed. I assume the same thing basically occurs if you delete your wallet? Or am I screwing up my terminology? -Paul
[2013-11-18 16:27:07] - paul: yes. forever. (in my answer, i have made some assumptions. by burning you mean that you didn't record the number somewhere. also that some hacker didn't get his filthy paws on the number.) ~a
[2013-11-18 16:22:50] - a: Certainly hurts its argument as a currency. Random question... if I had taken that QR code that you gave me and burned it... is that 0.1 bitcoin gone forever? -Paul
[2013-11-18 16:20:17] - paul: it's never too late to buy the .1 if you want. just bring ~$70 to ultimate on some sunday. or ~$7 if you'd prefer .01. ~a
[2013-11-18 16:14:21] - you sold it for $15. yes, it's worth around $55-65 today, but volatility is crazy today because of the hearings. i have some thoughts about volatility (volatility can be mitigated with options and colored-coins), but as things stand today, volatility is problematic. ~a
[2013-11-18 15:49:42] - a: You still have your bitcoins? I'm regretting having sold my 0.1 bitcoin (or whatever it was) to you before. What did I get, $6 for it? Now it would be $60? -Paul
[2013-11-18 15:49:27] - senate hearings on crypto-currency . . . i think i might be obsessed. ~a
[2013-11-18 15:35:54] - a: is that just a general psa or is there something interesting going on right at this moment? - mig
[2013-11-18 15:35:14] - watch cspan3 live: http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN3/ ~a
[2013-11-18 14:26:22] - i basically assume i'll be audited some time in the next 10 years. ~a
[2013-11-18 14:25:45] - "super rare case you come up as a random audit" no, it's not rare for me. it's super likely for me. ~a
[2013-11-18 13:57:00] - unless that $80 somehow ups your tax bracket. then maybe they might care in an audit. - mig
[2013-11-18 13:46:17] - a: it's technically tax cheating, but as Xpovos says, it's an opportunity cost type thing. It's debatable whether it's worth the time for you to report it properly mostly because it's not worth the IRS's time to be a stickler on that point, even if in the super rare case you come up as a random audit. - mig
[2013-11-18 12:02:42] - Daniel: Makes sense, but I'm still surprised. I just thought he was more of a runner than that. -Paul
[2013-11-18 11:58:42] - Paul: I'm not overly surprised about Harden, his game isn't based around speed, mostly euro stepping and ball fakes. -Daniel
[2013-11-18 11:44:30] - xpovos: i figured reporting can't hurt. the irs won't dislike the 25 extra bucks, right? . . . i actually don't pay estimated taxes since i have withholding, but i may need to start one of these days since withholding only covers my salary. ~a
[2013-11-18 11:38:38] - Result in needing to adjust your estimated tax payments to avoid penalty. The odds are ridiculously low, but it's a fair caveat. Anyway, you'll end up spending more than $80 worth of your time trying to comply with the minutiae which is why this 'black market labor' money goes untaxed so often. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-18 11:37:29] - In reality, you don't want to report it because it's not worth your time or the IRS's unless you've made more than $600 from a single payor in the year in which case you need to request the 1099 if they don't send it automatically. Given your tax situation you may already be paying estimated taxes, if so be aware that this extra income could ... -- Xpovos
[2013-11-18 11:35:56] - E.g. invoices. Most of the time that could just be saved with your other tax documents (for the next seven years) but if there's any single source that was a big payor you might want to include it as you would a W2. You can find more information on reporting income like this under the 1099 laws. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-18 11:34:47] - a: Yes, it needs to be reported as income. You can convert the currency you were paid in to USD at the time of the transaction and just lock it in at that price for simplicity, so in this case apparently $80.00. If you're going to report more than $600 in total non-sourced income you'll probably want to have some documentation to go with your tax returns. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-18 11:31:42] - xpovos: both answers, please, thanks. ~a
[2013-11-18 11:19:39] - Daniel: Sorry, the Harden comment was for average speed. I was assuming it would be mostly big men, and it kinda was. -Paul
[2013-11-18 11:18:50] - Daniel: Bradley Beal... most distance traveled per game. Also, Harden is surprisingly low on the list. -Paul
[2013-11-18 11:13:29] - a: Do you want the real answer or the answer that makes sense? -- Xpovos
[2013-11-18 10:48:48] - wow, i was just paid for some code i wrote over the weekend. i wonder how i put this into my taxes? do i record an extra income of $80?
follow up question, how do i record it if i wasn't paid in USD? ~a[2013-11-18 10:41:47] - Paul: Notice the last column on the right. -Daniel
[2013-11-18 10:41:29] - Paul: More stats! http://i.imgur.com/SzxvJGc.jpg -Daniel
[2013-11-18 10:17:48] - Paul: This is that stat measuring stuff I mentioned at the Wiz game : http://stats.nba.com/playerTrackingSpeed.html?pageNo=1&rowsPerPage=25 -Daniel
[2013-11-17 12:38:18] - http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/11/16/matt-damon-id-eat-my-shoe-if-jeb-could-name-bush-ever-even-walked-pub let's leave the politics out of this for a sec, there's a more important message: NEVER EVER declare "I'll eat my shoe" about a statement of unknown veracity. Because you'll probably have to eat a shoe. - mig
[2013-11-15 14:59:49] - a: Yeah, I realize I'm kinda repeating the article, but it doesn't really talk about what the "warming pause" disappearing means for projections. It seems to me it should mean we're back on track, so to speak, but I'm obvously not a climatologist. -Paul
[2013-11-15 13:13:16] - that's exactly what the article says, yes. "the much-discussed 'warming pause' has virtually disappeared". not sure what "virtually" means in this context. maybe they meant "mostly"? ~a
[2013-11-15 12:37:29] - a: Well, doesn't that just put us back on track for the original projections, then? From what I understand, the original projections didn't anticipate the "pause" that has been happening in the past 10 or so years and therefore were projecting more warming than was probably likely. -Paul
[2013-11-15 11:48:52] - xpovos: i don't follow. we have one set saying x, and one saying 2x. i don't know about the third data set, but yes, somebody fucked up bad. and by somebody, i mean everybody. ~a
[2013-11-15 11:45:12] - a: So, we have one set of data saying X, another saying 1/2(x) and a third saying 2x? Sounds like pretty big error bars. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-15 10:24:03] - Global Warming Since 1997 Underestimated by Half. uh oh. "gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used ... data" ~a
[2013-11-15 09:33:22] - http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/14/5-big-questions-about-president-obamas-h so the "fix" the president proposed yesterday looks even more useless. Not only does he need buy in from the insruance companies but he needs buy in from the various state insurance commisioners, and 2 (arkansas and washington) have already said no. - mig
[2013-11-15 00:11:30] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_324wnNQU&html5=1 NFL lip reading - aaron
[2013-11-14 17:57:50] - http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rob-ford-denies-telling-staffer-hed-eat-her-pssy-ive-got-more-than-enough-at-home/ I would say "only in america" but this is ... canada? - mig
[2013-11-14 16:59:07] - haha, true. i think i was confusing my two thoughts (1. fisa courts. 2. my made up deathmatch of the us armed forces vs scotus) ~a
[2013-11-14 16:51:15] - a: True things all, but there's a big difference between grey areas and assaulting 9 senior citizens in black robes; even with a healthy dose of slippery slope. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-14 15:55:31] - "vigorously trained to disobey an illegal order" i'm not sure how vigorous it is. when a commanding officer gives an order, and it's not obviously illegal or legal, you'll likely execute on the order. ~a
[2013-11-14 15:54:48] - xpovos: well my comment was tongue in cheek, but i'll answer anyways
"sworn to uphold the constitution" well that gets confusing when fisa courts issue orders that seem in direct conflict with said constitution. ~a[2013-11-14 15:44:30] - a: 2.25M who are also sworn to uphold the Constitution and vigorously trained to disobey an illegal order? I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm just saying a constitutional crisis is a cluster, not a runaway train. A quarter of the country seems to want a new civil war as it stands right now anyway. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-14 15:42:32] - no . . . it does not. i'll continue to scoff at property that can be "issued or copied at zero cost". as a proponent of certain virtual assets, i say different kinds of virtual property should be considered differently. the client-server model is very broken here. ~a
[2013-11-14 15:12:33] - http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielnyegriffiths/2013/11/14/dota-2-three-spirits-update-38000-dollar-loot-auction/ the sage of the $38,000 virtual dota 2 item ... does not end well for the buyer. - mig
[2013-11-14 13:58:00] - xpovos: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303789604579197733759439274 "White House officials said they didn't know how many insurers would take up the new option." ....... Ok. Maybe the adminstration is that stupid. - mig
[2013-11-14 13:57:34] - mig: i don't think nine old people can stand up to the 2.25million in the armed forces. ~a
[2013-11-14 13:47:44] - The only other even remotely plausible rationale i can think of is that he's doing this as a total last resort desperation move in an attempt to salvage the law, and he's banking on that insurers might comply just for PR's sake. In which case, oh man things are going to look fucked up in the coming year. - mig
[2013-11-14 13:43:03] - insurer's if they were OK with it. - mig
[2013-11-14 13:42:56] - xpovos: maybe, but the adminstration HAS to know that this whole law does not work without cooperation from insurance companies, and their cooperation is now more important than ever. Even given some of the missteps of the past, I can't possibly believe that the President cannot be this unbelievably stupid to think he could institute this policy without asking
[2013-11-14 13:38:03] - mig: I think you're giving the President more negotiating credit that is due, given past results. I'm guessing this is unilateral. I'm hoping the insurance companies send him a big "No thanks, we're good" response. Not because I want people without insurance, but because it pushes this through to it's natural conclusion faster. Rip the bandaid off. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-14 13:28:05] - One problem with this though, is while it does seem like the fair thing to do, one has to wonder how feasible this is considering the potential market distortions it will create. Though I'm sure he wouldn't be making this proclamation without the blessing of insurance companies, so I have a feeling any distortions are going to take taxpayers for a ride. - mig
[2013-11-14 13:24:52] - a: even the president must bow to the will of the supreme court. He's very powerful, but there are checks and balances ... at least in theory. - mig
[2013-11-14 13:20:09] - incentives for them to do so. I'll guess they'll go with incentives route. - mig
[2013-11-14 13:19:44] - paul: as far as I'm understanding it, the adminstration is waiving the minimum coverage requirements for 2014 insurance coverage. It's not clear that insurers are going to be compelled to still offer those plans. Though I don't know how his offer would hold any weight unless the administration actually does force insurers to offer the old plans or at least offer
[2013-11-14 13:17:06] - xpovos: putting the army away for how long?
~a[2013-11-14 13:07:04] - I just came back from a Design and Analysis Resolution (DAR) training session. I'm now terrified about how my company expects us on how to go about making decisions. - mig
[2013-11-14 12:59:06] - Pretty please. I'm sorry I said mean things about you and those plans. I've changed, I promise. Look, I'm putting the army away! -- Xpovos
[2013-11-14 12:47:52] - "sorry, you can't drop those plans. bring them back . . . i have a fucking army, here, guys" ~a
[2013-11-14 12:42:32] - a: Yeah, I dunno, my brain stuck on "Revenge" for some reason. Frankly, we're probably into the as yet un-named sequels. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-14 12:40:07] - Xpovos: OK, that sounds like something more reasonably within the powers of the executive (although probably should still be with the legislative, if at all). I thought insurance companies were dropping plans and Obama was like, "Sorry, you can't drop those plans. Bring them back." -Paul
[2013-11-14 12:37:43] - a: Fair enough.
-Paul[2013-11-14 12:35:36] - wtf, obama/bush. this most recent episode hasn't even landed on the wikis yet. (hah, iii seems so low, i think it's at least like 6, xpovos . . . return of the snowden). ~a
[2013-11-14 12:34:16] - Paul: Reading on it from other sources, the plan apparently 'permits' insurance companies to continue to offer 'substandard' health insurance for one more year without it impacting the provider or the purchaser negatively in the mandate section. The insurer is not required to reinstate the policy. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-14 12:25:56] - http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/14/208438/americans-personal-data-shared.html Episode III: Revenge of the Snowden. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-14 12:18:20] - he is the commander in chief of the (by far) largest military in the world. who's going to question him? you? ~a
[2013-11-14 12:11:57] - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/14/obama-obamacare-white-house-announcement/3525383/ Wait, am I understanding this correctly? The President is basically dictating to insurance companies that they can't cancel certain plans for another year? Uh, is this something the executive branch can unilaterally do? -Paul
[2013-11-14 12:08:45] - mig: I get the appeal of having Nova, because she provides a bit of fan-service (especially with her cutesy blowing of kisses and making a gun with her hand), but then drop Raynor. -Paul
[2013-11-14 12:07:32] - mig: Yeah, I thought their choice of "heroes" was a little curious. Raynor and Tyrael as the heroes from SC and Diablo make sense. Completely ignoring their biggest franchise was baffling. Completely ignoring it in favor of Nova (!?) while also having all their franchises represented by the villians was super weird. -Paul
[2013-11-14 11:56:31] - Got an email in my spam folder asking me to join the mmorpg Silkroad online. OOOKKKK, sounds legit. - mig
[2013-11-14 10:59:15] - xpovos: that is of course, assuming that they can actually acess the faux amazon and can actually checkout what's in their cart. - mig
[2013-11-13 23:54:11] - mig: In this case it probably makes more sense, since at the end of December everyone at this faux Amazon has to buy what's in their cart or get sacked with a fee. They're just holding off on actually paying right now, because who spends money before they have to? The coverage doesn't go into effect any sooner if they do. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-13 19:37:48] - aaron: I have come to 2 possibilities about Jon Basso. He is either basing his entire business model on the concept of reverse psychology, or that he geniunally believes that this is actually the way to solve the obesity epidemic. Quite insane, either way. - mig
[2013-11-13 19:31:41] - misdeeds its amazing what these same people will tolerate from government officials. - mig
[2013-11-13 19:31:20] - http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/13/obamacare-enrollment-totals-dont-tell-us this is kind of maddening. I'm pretty sure if Jeff Bezos had tried to pass off items shoppers had in their shopping carts as "sales" at an investor's call, if he wasn't immediately removed as CEO, that he'd be brought up on fraud charges. For all the hissy fits liberals throw over corporate
[2013-11-13 20:17:02] - http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/10/05/heart-attack-grill-owner-proudly-displays-dead-customers-remains-on-tv/ heart attack grill owner proudly displays dead customer's remains on tv - aaron
[2013-11-13 19:00:42] - characters in each franchise. - mig
[2013-11-13 19:00:36] - xpovos: probably not, but out of the other potential options, is probably the best fit to represent the sc universe in that regard. The overmind is way too large, Megnsk isn't really anything more than a political figure, not enough people know Samir Duran I feel, and just using a zerg unit would have been kind of lame, they were definetely going for iconic
[2013-11-13 18:19:03] - Even Queen of Blades on the 'evil' team isn't a perfect fit. Given backstory from SC1 and story progression so far in SC2 (maybe later in Heart of Swarm she goes back to more-bad?) -- Xpovos
[2013-11-13 18:18:25] - Paul: Yeah, I know we've hashed that out before. Tosh is a rebel, and you're a rebel, but you're not rebelling together, except as it benefits you both. Mercenary. Nova is a paladin who just happens to be blinded into working for the evil dictator. It's an interesting dilemma, and decided not black/white. Very Starcraft. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-13 17:47:24] - Xpovos: It wasn't just the blonde, blue-eyed caucasian, though. I think her portrait had the "blue" background on it which indicated "good" while Tosh's had the "red/bad" background, so I think it was intentional on Blizzard's part. -Paul
[2013-11-13 17:46:31] - Xpovos: Well, that the funny thing we were discussing. By all accounts, Tosh should've been the good guy (he was on your side and had helped you out, Nova was on the other side and by all intents was the enemy), but I felt like she was portrayed as the "good" option. -Paul
[2013-11-13 14:58:20] - I thought Duke and Miami already played... ah, but clearly they can't have because Miami lost to FSU and us, so Duke would be a third in-conference loss. Nevermind, then. All my math is off. -- Xpovos
[2013-11-13 14:41:41] - I mean, we did kind of smash Miami, but it was in a very fluky game that was played in horrendous conditions. Duke's going to basically have to outscore Miami to win, and I don't see Duke's offense exploding the way we did last week. - mig
[2013-11-13 14:39:21] - Xpovos: Hmmm, I'm going to have to look at this again. I was expecting a 3-way tie being very likely, but I didn't realize that Georgia Tech was going to be playing Clemson as it's last conference game, which is probably a loss for them. Even so, I just don't see Duke winning out, even if they somehow beat Miami (which I don't think they will). - mig
[2013-11-13 14:29:07] - mig: I was looking at the standings and I think Duke might actually have the inside edge to the championship game, but I may be mis-reading it. Though if Duke loses and we win out we'll go. If Duke wins out and Miami loses, I think they go, even if we win out. If all three win out, then I think it probably comes down to BCS rank as a tiebreak? So Miami? -- Xpovos
[2013-11-13 14:27:21] - what annoyed me about the trailer though, was there was no warcraft character on the "good guys" side. There was plenty of characters to choose from - Jaina, Thrall, Malfurion just off the top of my head. It was just weird to see one side having a character from all 3 universes and the other side omitting one universe. - mig
prev <-> next