prev <-> next
[2014-01-15 16:31:44] - paul: this is actually the opposite of the monty hall problem. phrased in a monty hall way, it's something like this: Let's Make A Deal offers three prizes; a goat, a puppy, and a car. after the contestant chooses their door, monty hall reveals one of the other two doors -- but never reveals the car, since that would ruin the tension - aaron
[2014-01-15 16:27:48] - aaron: Wait, shouldn't C have a 1/2 chance of being pardoned? Same as Monty Hall? Is it 2/3 because of the coin flip thing? -Paul
[2014-01-15 16:21:11] - paul: it's easier to understand if you imagine the two possibilities: either the warden is pardoning prisoner "C", or the warden is pardoning prisoner "A" and also, won the coin flip and chose to say "B". the second possibility is 50% less likely, since it required a coin flip to happen. - aaron
[2014-01-15 16:17:42] - paul: so, prisoner "C" gained information, while prisoner "A" did not. - aaron
[2014-01-15 16:17:30] - paul: after the warden tells prisoner A that prisoner B is being executed, A has a 1/3 chance of being pardoned (nothing changed) and C has a 2/3 chance of being pardoned (his chances got better). the two chances are different, because if C was being executed, the warden might have said "C will be executed," but he didn't. - aaron
[2014-01-15 16:16:05] - aaron: Also, I agree that I think it's less of a contradiction and just two vocal groups (one that likes the AH and another that hates the AH). -Paul
[2014-01-15 16:14:50] - a: If I understand Monty Hall (and I don't claim I do), then I think once the warden tells A that B is getting executed, that magically C's chance of being pardoned is 1/2 while A's is still 1/3. -Paul
[2014-01-15 16:13:49] - a: Sorry, I think I am explaining this poorly. The warden is only talking to A and A is only talking to the warden here. The warden knows who is getting executed. For this example, let's say he tells A that B is getting executed. -Paul
[2014-01-15 16:13:38] - mig: i don't know what the ideal solution is. really they just need 3 separate games. or they could fragment diablo similar to the "hardcore/softcore" split and just say, when you start the game -- you choose whether you're allowing AH, trading, and bind-on-pickup items, and the game restricts you to playing/trading with other players in the same group. - aaron
[2014-01-15 16:12:02] - mig: most diablo players aren't contradicting themselves. one group of players likes the AH, and another group doesn't like it. some players liked trading in Diablo 2, but dislike trivializing the process with a search box. by forcing the AH on everyone, or taking the AH away from everyone, blizzard is really only appealing to one of these three groups - aaron
[2014-01-15 16:02:07] - "so the warden should always be able to tell A at least one of them who is getting executed" but that's not how the problem is defined. you can't interchange who the warden is talking to, or else that breaks the game. ~a
[2014-01-15 15:58:14] - a: Yeah, at least one of B or C should be getting executed (or possibly both) so the warden should always be able to tell A at least one of them who is getting executed. -Paul
[2014-01-15 15:55:30] - actually, i take that back. you can set stuff up to work without a coin flip. if A is supposed to be pardoned, he'll say B or C at his choice. something like that? ~a
[2014-01-15 15:54:01] - i don't think we can ignore the nonsense about coin flipping. what is the warden supposed to do if A is to be pardoned? ~a
[2014-01-15 15:43:21] - a: Sorry. I'm basically asking if the chances of A getting pardoned is the same as the chances of C getting pardoned if we ignore all that talk about coin flipping. -Paul
[2014-01-15 15:40:14] - i don't think i understand your question. also you asked too many questions. ~a
[2014-01-15 15:37:39] - a: Because if I understand the Monty Hall thing (and I don't think I do)... shouldn't those chances be different? -Paul
[2014-01-15 15:37:05] - a: So, there are three prisoners. 2 to be executed and 1 to be pardoned and those are the only rules (none of this coin flipping or anything). If the warden tells prisoner A that prisoner B is getting executed... what are the chances of prisoner A getting pardoned? How about prisoner C? -Paul
[2014-01-15 15:35:34] - a: Ok, so I think Betrand's box makes more sense to me than Monty Hall, and the Three Prisoner's one actually made me think of something similar that I have a question about. -Paul
[2014-01-15 15:02:40] - mig: Birthday presents for you and I! I'm obviously stoked... it's Diablo, I'm gonna be excited. I'm trying to maximize my AH usage now, though. I will miss it. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-15 14:59:21] - mig: Then they need to look to themselves. Ultimately, BoA is probably the best solution and everyone whining about no trade is someone who is a) trying to scam someone else or b) looking for a shortcut to ... something else. BoA even lets you twink still, I think. Though Loot 2.0 probably minimizes that. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-15 14:58:09] - All that being said, the AH debacle aside, things do look really interesting for the expansion in a lot of ways. - mig
[2014-01-15 14:56:22] - xpovos: and it's why I shake my head at all these people trying to find some sort of "compromise". They're deluding themselves to thinking such a thing is possible. - mig
[2014-01-15 14:51:24] - It's an unsolvable problem with three roots. 1) Botters which causes terrible inflation. 2) A failure of players to realize that the game IS the item hunt. (I want to buy the best gear so I can go ... find the best gear?). Really this is the bigger problem, and it's more of an indictment of the gamers than the game--hence why Blizzard can't fix it. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-15 14:48:34] - Diablo 1, essentially no trading. "Y NO MORE TRADE?" -> Diablo 2, lots of trade, duplication and scammers. "OMG I GOT SCAMMED!" -> Diablo 3, supervised trading system, AH. "PAY 2 WIN!!!!" -> ROS, new BoA system. "Y NO MORE TRADE?" -- Xpovos
[2014-01-15 14:44:04] - mig: I tried very hard to ignore the Diablo 3 vanilla beta, and am doing the same with RoS. That said, the removal of the AH was clearly a huge move and there is no way they can just 'leave it', but neither is there any good option to replace it. AH was created as a response to D2 trading issues. Anything else just seems like moving in circles. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-15 14:43:10] - I swear a good chunk of the diablo community is made up of the most fucking stupid people on earth. - mig
[2014-01-15 14:42:07] - the TL:DR - everyone bitched and moaned about how the AH ruined D3. For the expansion, blizzard introduces a loot system where pretty much every item that's desirable is now bind-on-account, effectively killing off all trading. Now everyone is complaining about not being able to trade at all, knowing full well it was the logical conclusion of removing the AH. - mig
[2014-01-15 14:33:45] - http://us.battle.net/d3/en/forum/topic/11224842889?page=8#149 I don't know how much people have been following what's been going on with the diablo expansion, but this whole AH removal debacle has played out exactly as I thought it would. - mig
[2014-01-15 13:31:10] - or if not the letter of the regulations, but some how beuracrat decides to interpert them. - mig
[2014-01-15 13:30:47] - 10% longer, and then all of a sudden, sony is potentially forced to treat all it's traffic the same to the deteriment of it's consumers, because that's what the letter of the regulation demands. - mig
[2014-01-15 13:29:46] - aaron: the ps4 example you use is one reason I'd be wary of not just pre-emptive legislation, but legislation that's overly vague and broad. There are times when prioritizing traffic is desirable. While we might expect that most ps4 consumers would prefer that video streaming get priority, all it might take is 1 asshole to say, he I hate that my system updates take
[2014-01-15 13:16:27] - mig: i just don't think there's a reason to predict the future and try to pre-legislate it just in case it becomes a problem some day. like adrian said, there are impartial ways to prove if/when it's a problem, and the courts can handle it from there if necessary - aaron
[2014-01-15 13:15:52] - mig: well yeah, that's what i mean. i think that could totally happen some day, i almost think it's inevitable. ISPs get complaints, "hey youtube is slow," so they prioritize youtube packets. then a new competitor (twitch?) gets upset that youtube is receiving special treatment. boom, court case - aaron
[2014-01-15 13:09:58] - aaron: well i'm referring specifically to more malicious uses of throttling/site blocking by ISPs. Is there a reasonable reason to worry that such things may happen. - mig
[2014-01-15 13:06:59] - mig: i think that scenario could be realistic, eventually. but, i think we may as well wait until it happens, and then it'll be more obvious what, specifically, we're legislating against, "OK, ISPs shouldn't throttle two comparable services at different rates for one consumer, unless the consumer specifically wants to..." something specific like that - aaron
[2014-01-15 13:05:51] - mig: i could totally imagine FIOS wanting, for example, to prioritize streaming video over something like PS4 patch updates. if I had to choose between 10% of a movie stuttering, and my PS4 patch taking 10% longer to download, i'd much rather have smooth video. is that violating net neutrality? yeah, kind of. - aaron
[2014-01-15 13:04:53] - aaron: that's the other thing. I wonder if this is a solution in search of a problem. I keep hearing about all these nightmare scenarios like "well if some ISP decides that they just don't like reddit, then they can block/throttle the site". But how realistic is that scenario, really? - mig
[2014-01-15 13:02:39] - mig: i agree it's confusing, especially if you flip it to where the ISP consumers are hosting web sites. it's one reason i don't have a significant opinion about net neutrality yet -- both extremes are bad, the problem seems hard to define, and it hasn't been a problem yet - aaron
[2014-01-15 12:56:44] - a: oh! amy was trying to explain something kind of like bertrand's box paradox to me the other day. it took us awhile to constrain exactly what she meant, but we eventually solved her version of the paradox. i didn't know it had a name - aaron
[2014-01-15 11:31:26] - a: well that's why I'm confused. It does seem to break the principle. Your traffic on the internet is favored by the ISP because you gave them more money than person B. - mig
[2014-01-15 11:21:25] - hate ... worse? Math is making my grammar worser. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-15 11:13:50] - a: Or a good reason for subsidizing some form of choice... and I say that as someone who hates gov't subsidies worse than gov't taxation! -- Xpovos
[2014-01-15 11:11:58] - mig: no. ~a
[2014-01-15 11:01:22] - Net Neutrality is a subject that continues to endlessly confuse me. I get the whole basic idea of "all data is treated the same", but I hardly hear anything about specific details. What becomes illegal? Does it mean that offering tiered levels of service (like varying DSL speed plans) is illegal? - mig
[2014-01-15 10:58:37] - paul: more examples (you've probably heard) that will also piss you off: the Three Prisoners problem and Bertrand's box paradox. all of them seem to be based around the concept of conditional probability. ~a
[2014-01-15 10:55:48] - "there are so many other variables that go into transferring data on the internet" i agree, there are lots of variables, but i still think it's testable if you have some resources. ~a
[2014-01-15 10:52:46] - a: i guess you could do it that way, but there are so many other variables that go into transferring data on the internet that I can't imagine that such measurements would be reliable. - mig
[2014-01-15 10:51:54] - xpovos: "Because what good would it do when there's no consumer choice on big telcos?" an excellent case for making net-neutrality defined by laws? ~a
[2014-01-15 10:50:55] - mig: you could do it very objectively. as an example: using comcast, downloading 1gb of data takes 25% longer downloading from netflix.com than from a server that's on the same subnet but owned by someothercompany.com. ~a
[2014-01-15 10:50:13] - a: Because what good would it do when there's no consumer choice on big telcos? -- Xpovos
[2014-01-15 10:49:11] - paul: yeah the Boy or Girl paradox seems to me to be just a harder version of the Monty Hall problem. ~a
[2014-01-15 10:48:00] - a: how do you determine such a metric? - mig
[2014-01-15 10:46:07] - Also, for the record (and in reference to the... subtitle? not sure what to call it), I hate probability and still don't fully understand that puzzle. -Paul
[2014-01-15 10:45:03] - a: Surprised there isn't. I feel like a lot of them have made their positions known through lawsuits and such. -Paul
[2014-01-15 10:44:05] - why aren't their any sites that rate the big telcos on their net-neutrality? ~a
[2014-01-15 10:38:23] - i've wavered on the topic a lot, so searching through the message board might just confuse you. i'm pro-net-neutrality in many contexts, but i also understand that net-neutrality is more pro-regulation than i want to be. iow, i want net-neutrality to be something that consumers take on. ~a
[2014-01-15 10:27:06] - a: Hey, I'm lazy and don't want to use the search functionality. What is your stance on Net Neutrality? I know we discussed it before, but I think most people on the board were surprisingly ambivalent if I remember correctly. -Paul
[2014-01-15 10:17:03] - "E-cigarettes provide a pathway to nicotine addiction. They normalize smoking. They make it seem okay to smoke," As I said before, this whole thing isn't about public health. This is about anti-smokers who want to treat smokers as icky subhumans that should be expelled from society. - mig
[2014-01-15 10:13:42] - nina/a: http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/24939920-418/city-panel-agrees-to-ban-e-cigarettes-where-smoking-is-prohibited.html going back to the e-cig thing, this is the kind of shit that really irks me about the hysteria. - mig
[2014-01-15 09:56:54] - http://xkcd.com/435/
[2014-01-15 09:53:14] - Or, my off-hand, and I thought amusing, integer buffer overflow analogy is an indication that the universe is a computer in God's living room. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-15 09:51:46] - a: Posit you have a Turing-complete computer, can it solve every equation? Second, posit the universe is a Turing-complete computer, can it handle every equation in math? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems. The fact that the regularization works in physics is evidence for the universe being an abstraction of something more complete.
[2014-01-15 09:33:30] - whether it works for physics is irrelevant. it doesn't work in mathematics. "Not every sequence has a limit; if it does, it is called convergent, and if it does not, it is divergent. One can show that a convergent sequence has only one limit." their nonsense about 1/2 at the beginning, if math accepted that as an answer, lots of other math stuff would breakdown. ~a
[2014-01-15 08:48:48] - *integer (sigh)
[2014-01-15 08:48:35] - The universe has a signed inerger overflow bug. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww -- Xpovos
[2014-01-14 12:26:37] - Even the site name, "cuidadodesalud.gov" comes across as kind of awkward. Though to be fair, I'm not sure how else to translate "healthcare" into spanish. - mig
[2014-01-14 12:25:32] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2014/01/13/spanish-version-of-healthcare-gov-apparently-used-computer-translation/ computer generated translations make everything amusing. "Don’t be alarmed if your female cousin goes up next year." - mig
[2014-01-14 09:37:58] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPcV9uIY5i4&html5=1 TAS Super Mario World "Executes Arbitrary Code": masterjun exploited a bug in super mario world in which controller inputs manipulate values in memory, and then used this bug to code new versions of "pong" and "snake". this is done with the original super mario world, and a multitap - aaron
[2014-01-13 17:29:01] - a: Getting bought out by one of the big tech companies is lucrative.
-Paul[2014-01-13 17:21:38] - wtf 3.2billion?! for 130 employees? that's some serious cash: 25million/employee (arithmetic mean). ~a
[2014-01-13 16:56:54] - http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57617153-76/google-buys-nest-for-$3.2-billion/ Brief mention of something completely different: Google has bought Nest. -Paul
[2014-01-13 16:56:17] - a: It reminds me of when females talk about how they get offended when guys hit on them or talk about how beautiful they are when they dress up. Hard for me to wrap my head around how that can be annoying. -Paul
[2014-01-13 16:54:58] - a: Thanks. This is just a topic that confuses me a lot. My initial reaction to these kind of comments is how can it be wrong or sexist if it's nice? Hard to fight those knee jerk reactions. -Paul
[2014-01-13 16:53:42] - Aaron: But that probably has more to do with how hard it would be to stay beautiful while playing football.
-Paul[2014-01-13 16:51:27] - paul: what, i can't be a football player and be a beautiful woman? . . . would be my obvious response. ~a
[2014-01-13 16:50:22] - Aaron: Yeah, although I have a hard time thinking that "wow, i can't believe you play football, you're a beautiful woman!" can be wrong.
-Paul[2014-01-13 16:47:00] - paul: "I actually think I've got a pretty open mind here". IMO, you have an open mind on this topic. i don't know if everybody would agree, but i agree. ~a
[2014-01-13 16:43:26] - it's honestly a popular message between women who start exercising, like "oh i want to work out... but not lift weights. what if i gain too much muscle!!" i think that's the kind of sexism the article's getting at. those kinds of weird mixed messages, only men should be bulky, only men should lift weights - aaron
[2014-01-13 16:42:23] - paul: i think i know what you're getting at, but no, i don't think that's sexist. expressing it as, "wow, i can't believe you play football, you're a beautiful woman!" or trying to change her behavior, "women are too delicate for contact sports," "you don't want to get big and bulky!" something like that is what the article's getting at. - aaron
[2014-01-13 16:36:13] - Aaron: I agree, I actually thought the article written for a male scientist who wasn't as famous as Einstein could completely be written like that. Obituaries often seem to blend professional accomplishments with family stuff. -Paul
[2014-01-13 16:34:46] - Aaron: Sure. Maybe something on a lower level then. Maybe if she said she played left tackle for her high school team. I'm trying to think of something where it would be fairly yawn-worthy if a male told me but pretty shocking if a female told me. -Paul
[2014-01-13 16:33:36] - paul: well, i think the article drew a false comparison there. albert einstein is a household name. if a local newspaper had an obituary for, i don't know, Stephen Blundell, i assume it would read a lot like the female's obituary they featured. i didn't particularly perceive that as sexist - aaron
[2014-01-13 16:33:13] - Daniel: Yeah, and I think that's what I'm getting at. The problem isn't a single individual being surprised that a female is a rocket scientist (or whatever), the problem is more that only 1% of rocket scientists are female (totally making up statistics just to make a point). -Paul
[2014-01-13 16:31:27] - paul: yeah that's a very different reaction though. if i met a guy, and he said, "i play left tackle in the AFL" i'd be baffled too. i was surprised when mark said he competed in (and won) the tri-state ultimate frisbee championship, i didn't realize any of our friends were that caliber, and it suddenly explained a hell of a lot - aaron
[2014-01-13 16:31:01] - Aaron: Most of the facebook comments in the article were mean? I agree. But I'm not sure if I see something incredibly wrong with the obituary, for instance. I agree it's sexist, but culturally we're still at a place where family contributions from females seem to be more noteworthy than for males. -Paul
[2014-01-13 16:29:22] - paul: most of the comments in the article are pretty crass, although some are barely sexist at all. i could definitely see a man posting a pic on facebook, and having girls say "holy hell you're a hottie," so it might be sexual objectification it's not sexism - aaron
[2014-01-13 16:29:03] - Aaron: You might be right. I think the big hold up for me is that so many people already own a PC which should be able to do all this already. It's like if my mom had a smartphone that she could play candy crush on but wanted to buy a tablet so she could play at home. My first response would be to just use your phone and don't buy something new. -Paul
[2014-01-13 16:28:34] - Paul: I think the "wrongness" might come in on a higher level than the individual. Like its not wrong for a person to be surprised, but on a societal level something has gone wrong if a person is surprised that a science enthusiast is a woman? Maybe something like that. Also probably depends some on the definition of "wrong" that we are each using. -Daniel
[2014-01-13 16:28:33] - title:
~a[2014-01-13 16:26:43] - a: Like, if I met some girl and asked her what she does for a living and if she said, "I play left tackle in the Arena Football League", I would be surprised and I think a stunned reaction is perfectly reasonable and not wrong. I would feel like a complete phony if I forced myself to have a completely subdued, "Oh, that's interesting" reaction. -Paul
[2014-01-13 16:24:38] - a: And I agree that it's potentially harmful to people to be surprised by something simply because of their gender. I just don't know if I think that makes it wrong. -Paul
[2014-01-13 16:23:33] - paul: sexism is a sliding scale to me, between words/actions which are mean, versus things which are immoral and things which are (or should be) illegal. most of those comments mentioned in that article are just mean. it's OK for people to be mean, but it's also OK for me to not want to be friends with them - aaron
[2014-01-13 16:23:01] - a: I think we do disagree some, but I actually think I've got a pretty open mind here. I mean, I think I largely agree with the article I posted that most of those examples are sexist. -Paul
[2014-01-13 16:14:55] - paul: the options at that point might be more like, a $300 Xbox One, a $300 PS4, or a $150 bottom-of-the-barrel steam box, and it'll find a niche - aaron
[2014-01-13 16:13:34] - paul: yeah, I agree that a used XBox 360 would be the cheapest Peggle option at the moment. although if steam boxes had been invented 4 years ago, then they'd be even cheaper! so, try to imagine what the console wars might look like 4 years from now... - aaron
[2014-01-13 16:04:20] - i'm wary wading into this conversation, but it shouldn't surprise you that you and i disagree on this, i hope. yes i think they're (most of them) with good intention, but no, i think they're minorly wrong, i think chivalry is minorly wrong. the facebook people show a lack of impact of their words. their words have a negative impact. ~a
[2014-01-13 15:28:08] - Paul: I've long held the position that chivalry was sexism in a different guise, so I think I agree that benevolent sexism is real. Its interesting to see the article lay out a case for benevolent sexism correlating strong with hostile sexism. -Daniel
[2014-01-13 14:59:17] - Sure, it's a little sexist, but it's not that person's fault that females might have a harder time of it in certain fields because of cultural norms. -Paul
[2014-01-13 14:57:55] - I know I don't have the best reputation on this topic, but I feel like it has to be acceptable on some level to acknowledge the differences between genders (even if sometimes those differences might only be social constructs) and to be impressed that a female is the best FPS gamer in the world or best programmer or something like that. -Paul
[2014-01-13 14:43:52] - I understand how a that female from the Facebook example was probably off-put by people being surprised by her being a female, but is it wrong of those people to be surprised? It might reflect poorly of our society but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with people being surprised it was a female (I'm ignoring the "hot" comments). -Paul
[2014-01-13 14:36:02] - http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psysociety/2013/04/02/benevolent-sexism/ I wonder what people think about this "benevolent sexism". I agree with part of the article that talks about how even nice compliments can be sexist, but I wonder if that makes them wrong. -Paul
[2014-01-13 14:19:13] - Aaron: But when I think about it, I realize all the problems I've had or how I sometimes wanted to throw my touchpad out the window.
-Paul[2014-01-13 14:18:49] - Aaron: I definitely agree with your selective blindness comment. It's unrelated, but sometimes people ask me how I like my phone or how easy installing cyanogenmod was on my touchpad and my knee-jerk reaction is always "I love it/it was easy" -Paul
[2014-01-13 14:17:32] - Aaron: I mean, I guess if she wanted to play a PC exclusive on the TV and it was more than a one-shot thing? In that case maybe a steam box makes sense. Honestly, though, my first thought would be to save her money and connect her PC to the TV. -Paul
[2014-01-13 14:16:18] - Aaron: I get your point, but I would probably get her an xbox. If it was a game not offered on the xbox? Well, I just can't imagine my mom caring about playing on a TV. -Paul
[2014-01-13 13:13:29] - paul: as a PC gamer it's easy to have selective blindness for this kind of scenario, "oh yeah, i loved Dark Souls, that worked just fine out of the box on the PC," and you don't remember trying to get your controller recognized, registering with GFWL, diagnosing your port forwarding problems, installing "DSFix" to override the built-in FPS cap, etc etc - aaron
[2014-01-13 13:11:14] - Having a rather broad defintion of what the senate not being in "session" means kind of renders the nullifies the whole need for senate confirmations, doesn't it? - mig
[2014-01-13 13:11:12] - paul: if your mom wanted to play peggle on the TV, would you rather get her a steam box or a PC? which do you think would get her up and running faster? which would require less maintenance? - aaron
[2014-01-13 13:06:01] - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-13/obama-s-recess-appointments-questioned-by-u-s-supreme-court.html kind of interesting court case if you're interested about the separation of powers and checks and balances, but some of the elements seems kind of unbelievably silly to me. - mig
[2014-01-13 12:13:24] - paul: well it is a sort of pie in the sky type thing. But honestly, is there any risk for Valve here? Actually, the various components of that are in valve's control here - SteamOS and the controller, aren't bad ideas on this own. - mig
[2014-01-13 11:58:59] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_Machine#Hardware_units "Unlike other gaming consoles, the Steam Machine does not have a specific configuration of hardware, but a minimum specification of computer hardware components that would be needed to support the SteamOS operating system and games developed for it." - mig
[2014-01-13 11:01:49] - a: I guess.... I just remain unconvinced that selling somebody a hobbled PC is going to work. -Paul
[2014-01-13 11:00:41] - a: But I just wonder why I don't just grab my PC and connect it to my TV and buy this new controller and have a nice Steam Box that can do other things... -Paul
[2014-01-13 11:00:06] - a: Sure, and I guess that has to be considered too. But for me, I don't own any next gen consoles yet and I'm at least a little intrigued by this idea since PC games are cheaper and games often look better on PCs. -Paul
[2014-01-13 10:58:54] - paul: think of it this way: (almost) nobody is going to put a desktop into their living room and hook it up to their TV. having a mouse and a keyboard in the living room is even less likely to happen. this is a different market entirely. ~a
[2014-01-13 10:58:23] - 2 things about the steam controller: 1) The controller is supposed to be able to deal with games that don't support a controller. And 2) it's sort of their way of making money off the steam box thing, since they aren't making and selling the hardware. - mig
[2014-01-13 10:52:34] - "can't the controller be used on a regular PC too?" yeah, ok, maybe. but the controller wouldn't exist (or be created) if this effort didn't exist, right? ~a
[2014-01-13 10:46:40] - paul: There's no special TV integration that I'm aware of. But the idea is just a smaller PC case that isn't annoying to hook up to a TV. - mig
[2014-01-13 10:42:04] - a: But can't the controller be used on a regular PC too? I haven't heard anything about special TV integration and especially nothing about kinect-like integration. -Paul
[2014-01-13 10:41:10] - a: I'm not sure what you mean regarding "the main selling point? or the main selling point vs just using a pc?" I'm just saying I don't see why these boxes are better than a regular PC. I'll grant you the form-factor and features/dollar (I assume it's a little cheaper)... -Paul
[2014-01-13 10:41:09] - "Most game don't care if you are using an ATI or NVIDIA gpu" i see people writing software for Cuda and non-standard versions of opencl, so i don't know how true this is. ~a
[2014-01-13 10:36:20] - Also, let's remember at this point more or less the current PC OS's have solved the whole standardization thing. Most game don't care if you are using an ATI or NVIDIA gpu or an AMD or Intel cpu. - mig
[2014-01-13 10:32:37] - paul: the main selling point? or the main selling point vs just using a pc? assuming you want the latter, then i'd say a few selling points would be cost, features/dollar, form-factor (set top box), standardized controller integration, TV integration, remote-controller integration, kinect-like integration, other standardized hardware integration. ~a
[2014-01-13 10:32:21] - mig: I guess. But is there any benefit over a regular PC, then? Can't a regular PC do everything a steam box can do but also do other stuff? -Paul
[2014-01-13 10:28:27] - paul: I think that's the eventual *goal* but not the selling point right now. The selling point now is for people who like to experiment. - mig
[2014-01-13 10:21:56] - a: What do you think the main selling point is, then? I don't really get what the point of something like a Steam Box is over a normal PC unless a Steam Box had the positives of a console (cheap, uniform hardware to make it easier for game makers to design specifically for that hardware). -Paul
[2014-01-13 10:09:52] - The only thing that would ever be the "standard" would be the OS. And even then, because it's a debian offshoot, I can imagine some modfications possible there. - mig
[2014-01-13 10:08:41] - apaul: there's defined minimum specs for a steambox, but I think that's it. The whole idea behind a steam box is that anyone can build one, so I don't think there'll ever be a standard one. At least officially. - mig
[2014-01-13 10:02:49] - paul: "the main selling point" i doubt that's the main selling point (especially if your context is of the consumer). ~a
[2014-01-13 09:52:47] - xpovos: i hope you enjoy it!! it's really brutal, i think it took me about 400-500 tries before i beat the game for the first time, and that's actually pretty good... for some people it's closer to 1,000! - aaron
[2014-01-13 09:38:28] - a: Right, and I can see the appeal of having a wide range of specs, but it seems to ruin the main selling point of consoles (one unified set of hardware to program to). -Paul
[2014-01-11 12:01:38] - paul: i had a long conversation last night with some of my coworkers who were telling me more about the steam box. yes, you're right, it's a pretty wide spectrum of specs right now. that might stabilize in the future. ~a
[2014-01-10 15:55:02] - aaron: Interestingly Spelunky went on sale on Xbox during their recent holiday sale, so I picked up a copy. I'll be playing it on my TV once I get through some other games in my backlog. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-10 15:20:01] - aaron: Don't they have some that are almost that cheap? To me, the concept of a steam box is pretty appealing (especially considering how much cheaper PC games are than console games, which always annoys me), but I just don't know if their execution is the best. -Paul
[2014-01-10 15:18:28] - a: But it's not really standardized hardware, right? From what I can tell there was a wide variety of prices, sizes and specs. -Paul
[2014-01-10 15:14:45] - paul: so, the idea of having a dedicated console just to play steam games, which would mitigate driver issues and perhaps standardize a set of controllers -- it would be really great for me - aaron
[2014-01-10 15:14:06] - paul: if a steam box were closer to $300 i'd buy one. i like the idea of playing Monaco, Spelunky, Risk Of Rain, SportsFriends and stuff on my TV. as it is, it's kind of a nuisance to get out my laptop, hook up 4 USB controllers to it, deal with controller/driver compatibility issues across games (many games only like xbox controllers). - aaron
[2014-01-10 15:02:36] - paul: I have not seen a compelling case for a steam box yet. -Daniel
[2014-01-10 15:01:31] - paul: i take it back, i still wouldn't agree. the benefit over a pc laptop, is: standardized-hardware, standardized-controller, set-top-box form-factor for living-room use, price is going to be cheaper probably. ~a
[2014-01-10 14:59:22] - paul: if you had said PC laptop, i'd agree. it's small enough that you can't have a full-sized GPU nor full-sized CPU fit in that thing. ~a
[2014-01-10 14:54:45] - Somewhat related: What did people think of the steam boxes that were announced? Anybody interested in getting one? I'm having a tough time seeing how they are an improvement over a regular PC, to be honest. -Paul
[2014-01-10 13:56:29] - xpovos: i'm a bit curious at the details on non-ps devices too. They say using it will require a Dualshock 3 to play games, but how this will work on devices that don't have usb inputs is going to be a mystery to me. - mig
[2014-01-10 13:49:23] - mig: That's interesting. How will the controller talk to the network? Maybe this means I'll finally get to play Heavy Rain? -- Xpovos
[2014-01-10 13:36:22] - http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/08/technology/sony-playstation-now-streaming/ Playstation Now streaming service coming this summer. What kind of peeked my interest was the goal of having Ps1/2/3 games streamable on other non-playstation devices. - mig
[2014-01-10 12:36:08] - title: Sounds like you need an album cover. - Sean Connery
[2014-01-10 10:51:36] - nina/daniel/paul/xpovos: welts, scrapes, and nicks are badges of honor for me as a mountain biker
i avoid scars . . . but i doubt we'll see too much of that at paintball. ~a[2014-01-10 10:48:27] - Paul: Very true on the breaks or not part. I think the two worst for me were getting hit in the finger (with no glove) and having one fly in magically and hit me right in the nuts while squatting. Those were highly unpleasant but I lived and played the next round after both. -Daniel
[2014-01-10 09:10:41] - When I got shot by paintballs the discomfort level seemed appropriate for the simulated effect. A nice bit of negative reinforcement on the "don't get shot" idea, as if we really need it. If there's a group effort, I'd be interested in joining, I think. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-10 09:02:44] - a: I would go. -Paul
[2014-01-10 09:02:33] - Daniel: Also whether it breaks when it hits or bounces off. I found the ones that bounce off hurt a lot more. I don't recall ever getting any bad welts, but I also made sure to dress appropriately. Going in the winter helps since you can bundle up.
-Paul[2014-01-10 08:59:17] - a: But if you get hit in the bare skin up close? HURTS. Thats the stuff than can cause welts. Sometimes minor bruises if you get shot where your clothes were already stretched out but nothing to bad. -Daniel
[2014-01-10 08:57:56] - a: I went paintballing a couple of times in high school. It can be fun. It was expensive on my high school budget. The amount of hurt from being shot varies greatly depending on how far the person shooting you is and how tight the clothes are where it hits. If the clothing is loose/baggy and the person wasn't close it probably wont hurt. -Daniel
[2014-01-09 20:46:44] - haha, yeah, very distorted.
i don't mind going to leesburg, i guess. again, i've never been, so i don't really know what to expect. but if it's a lame place in fairfax or an awesome place in leesburg, i'd drive to leesburg. ~a[2014-01-09 20:29:01] - I hear getting hit with a paintball is welt-inducing. I'm surprised Fairfax didn't have paintball, but then I looked it up and saw that there's one in leesburg, which is like Fairfax in my distorted view of nova. -nina
[2014-01-09 19:58:10] - i have. ~a
[2014-01-09 19:32:54] - a: have you ever shot a gun? -nina
[2014-01-09 17:43:43] - paul: ooooooh. i'm totally interested. i've never done paintball, and i imagine i'd suck at it, but i love the idea so much. should we plan a trip (once it's actually a thing of course). ~a
[2014-01-09 17:41:33] - http://dc.curbed.com/tags/castle-creek-paintball Paintball coming to Fairfax County? -Paul
[2014-01-09 17:23:55] - i don't know. most likely. "how much better" i guess is a good question for a doctor. ~a
[2014-01-09 17:20:33] - a: Even if it doesn't happen, though, aren't e-cigarettes a better alternative to smoking regular ones? -Paul
[2014-01-09 17:14:16] - mig: "gradually decrease your nicotine intake till you don't need it anymore" for many users, that last part doesn't happen. ~a
[2014-01-09 16:55:29] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/09/the-bestworst-u-s-map-ever/?tid=pm_pop I honestly don't get some of these. I'm guessing teacher's don't have a problem with North Carolina. I don't have a problem with Ohio and I would imagine even non-libertarians wouldn't see what's so bad about Idaho. -Paul
[2014-01-09 16:36:33] - mig: i've already heard people talking about how e-cigs are bad for public health. that users dont really know what's in them, manufacturers aren't required to tell, and here comes the ridiculous part, water vapor is bad for people's lungs. hence the public health stuff. -nina
[2014-01-09 16:35:08] - a: i'm pretty sure nicorette et al are regulated by the FDA. But, e-cigs aren't, yet. and, that's part of the debate that will pop up this year. -nina
[2014-01-09 16:28:04] - a: ok, recognized is probably a poor word choice. But if I understand how e-cigs work it can be used practically the same way the patch or nicorette gum. Start using it and the gradually decrease your nicotine intake till you don't need it anymore. - mig
[2014-01-09 16:24:31] - recognized by who? ~a
[2014-01-09 16:20:56] - but since it is a recognized tool to help people quit actual cigarettes, it makes the reaction counterproductive from a public health perspective. - mig
[2014-01-09 16:18:14] - nina: well that's the thing. The hysteria over e-cigs isn't about public health, it's about attacking a disliked culture, which irks me a great deal. - mig
[2014-01-09 16:13:37] - i also think the e-cigs thing is incredibly fad-ish. i always thought of e-cigs as yet another tool to quit. not a new subculture. google glass etiquette, though......makes sense. -nina
[2014-01-09 16:11:29] - mig: i'm also concerned about the move to digital on everything, mainly b/c there's a move to cloud hosting. so, without an internet connection (which comcast can't reliably provide, and no competition exists for alt providers), I won't be able to access games i purchased. -nina
[2014-01-09 16:09:35] - mig: I didn't know about the food dyes, but Pierce also jumped to the anti-vaccination debate when we discussed it. i can also see the whole/organic/natural local food people jumping on this bandwagon. -nina
[2014-01-09 15:14:34] - O'Reilly's law, not being followed at all. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-09 15:13:37] - mig: But what's to lose. Those books are copyrighted, but no one is publishing them at all. Surely $0.50 is better than $0.00? But you're right. And the parallels work into gaming too. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-09 14:55:31] - xpovos: i would have to wager publisher resistance. Old school media entertainment has always been wary of the newer means of digital distribution. - mig
[2014-01-09 14:49:14] - mig: Parallel question, why isn't every book available on Kindle? Sure, there's an initial cost to format it, I guess, but I'm betting Amazon would love to work a deal with the publishers where they ate most of the initial cost like that for a bigger chunk of the margin. Amazon does crazy stuff like that. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-09 13:54:37] - paul: but in some ways, it shatters a bit one advantage that I thought the digital medium would have: not having to worry about availability. - mig
[2014-01-09 13:52:31] - But maybe I'm being overly worrisome. These licensing deals that are causing the de-listings were probably negotiated before digital mediums were really the norm, so it's possible that this may be better taken into account from now on in future. - mig
[2014-01-09 13:51:03] - paul: It's not that much different, but with physical copies you still had the option of maybe finding the game on ebay or something. A game would be rare but not gone forever. With a digital only game, it might be nigh impossible to get it once it's gone. - mig
[2014-01-09 13:49:30] - mig: So it's just a matter of people not being able to buy the game anymore? That doesn't seem that bad. How is it any different from a store selling out of the game and not getting it back in stock? -Paul
[2014-01-09 13:48:19] - paul: oh missed that. let me clarify. In these instances, if you bought the game, you can still play it. The online distributor simply can no longer sell the game anymore. - mig
[2014-01-09 13:47:16] - ugh, dept of redundancy department. l2proofread for me. - mig
[2014-01-09 13:46:44] - paul: basically when physical discs basically aren't used anymore. - mig
[2014-01-09 13:46:11] - mig: What exactly do you mean by all digital? Are these games that people downloaded onto their hard drives (with no physical disc involved) that they can no longer play? -Paul
[2014-01-09 13:45:56] - I have no problem with digital gaming as long as I actually get an executable. Then I can make a local backup and I'm good to go. As much as I love Diablo 3, that's exactly what I don't want in my games. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-09 13:44:07] - I'll have to admit, I'm a little tepid now about the whole moving to the all-digital age for gaming. - mig
[2014-01-09 13:41:24] - I even saw that the classic Fallout 1+2 games were even affected last month too, but in that case Bethesda (who know owns the rights to the franchise) says the de-listing is only temporary. - mig
[2014-01-09 13:39:20] - but it was kind of shocking that even a game that was only released for a like 6 months (Deadpool) was affected. You can still get physical copies of the games affected, but some of the titles were digital only, and now they're in some ways gone forever. - mig
[2014-01-09 13:37:46] - So I have been coming to learn about the downsides of entering the digital era for gaming. I hadn't been following it closely but apparently there's been a fair amount of games that have been removed from steam and other places like PSN and XBox Live over the last couple weeks. Mostly they are Marvel related games, so it was probably some weird license related issue
[2014-01-09 10:46:23] - I'll stop being cynical for now. All the techno-gadgets listed there are actually quite exciting. - mig
[2014-01-09 10:45:37] - mig: I'm excited about 3d printing for a few reasons. I've got a pretty penny or two invested in some 3d printing stocks that I'm excited about. One of them has already more than doubled since when I bought it. -Paul
[2014-01-09 10:41:49] - and ugh, the hysteria over e-cigs. I swear anti-smoking crusaders are fast rising up on my list of least favorite people. - mig
[2014-01-09 10:39:39] - "The right to be forgotten" on the internet? it's a nice thought, but yeah good luck with that. Data on the internet is forever in more ways than one. - mig
[2014-01-09 10:37:26] - infused ice cocktails. yes please. - mig
[2014-01-09 10:26:13] - I am excited for 3d printing, and curious to see what advances the courier wars will eventually entail. - mig
[2014-01-09 10:23:20] - nina: just quickly browsing through the slideshow the artificial food dyes stuck out at me. It reeks of the Jen McCarthy brand of reactionist hysteria to me. Candy makes children hyperactive? Who knew? - mig
[2014-01-09 09:25:06] - Daniel: That's what the article implied, I think. -Paul
[2014-01-09 09:22:24] - http://www.jwtintelligence.com/2014-and-beyond/. Thoughts? -nina
[2014-01-09 08:58:15] - aaron: I read they were willing to do that b/c 'Super Maglev' is like their brand or something. So they want the US to buy their train system and not someone else's. -Daniel
[2014-01-08 21:17:05] - oh shit, i thought it was washington state! ~a
[2014-01-08 20:40:31] - Aaron: as a public transport aficionado, I'd be super psyched if that actually happened. More excited about a DC to NYC leg. -nina
[2014-01-08 17:07:08] - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/10555330/Japan-offers-to-lend-US-half-the-cost-of-Super-Maglev-train-between-Washington-and-Baltimore.html Japan offers to lend US half the cost of 'Super Maglev' train between Washington and Baltimore - aaron
[2014-01-08 16:00:38] - paul: yeah I was a little surprised it was someone from as major media outlet as ESPN. Though it does seem like a LeBetard thing to do. - mig
[2014-01-08 15:55:32] - mig: Wow, surprised it's Dan LeBetard. -Paul
[2014-01-08 15:41:59] - http://deadspin.com/revealed-the-hall-of-fame-voter-who-turned-his-ballot-1496558341 probably only of interest to me, but it brightened my day after getting angry over the HOF announcements earlier today. - mig
[2014-01-08 14:17:56] - paul: nope. unless there was a (dramatic-pause) print-money-ceiling (end-dramatic-pause) . . . that they could easily ignore. ~a
[2014-01-08 14:02:55] - a: That is an insane idea, and you're right, not too far off from what we do now. Once we reach that point, though, is there any reason at all politicians would be worried about spending? I would think hyper-inflation would be a certainty. -Paul
[2014-01-08 13:47:47] - The people that idea hurts are non-TIPS bond holders. Mostly the government itself with SS 'trust fund'. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-08 13:44:59] - a: I'd agree, except that most very wealthy people don't actually hold cash. They're almost entirely invested. Take Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. They're only worth their tens of billions because of how much company stock they own. Stocks, as an asset, will increase in value at or above the rate of inflation in this scenario. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-08 13:38:27] - a: although wyoming was the first and only place i've ever seen real ghost towns. -nina
[2014-01-08 13:36:11] - a: that's because wyoming has been consistently wealthy with their oil reserves. i think there is very little our current society can do to inflict anything economically on wyoming. -nina
[2014-01-08 13:33:39] - nina: poor wyoming. their state doesn't have anything on either map. ~a
[2014-01-08 13:31:32] - xpovos: printing money to pay taxes is very punitive to rich people. it taxes wealth instead of income: position instead of velocity. rich people will be hurt by this taxation the most. the downside, ok, one of many downsides, is it also hurts your country's currency. unless all of the nations do this equally. also bitcoin can't exist (plug!) ~a
[2014-01-08 13:28:31] - http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-boom-towns-and-ghost-towns-of-the-new-economy/309460/
[2014-01-08 13:28:17] - i think it's also important to put this extension into perspective. the extensions are probably not going to have as great an impact to the DC area, than to other parts of the country. -nina
[2014-01-08 13:23:18] - a: Whoa. Just whoa. That's such a beautiful idea economically... The problem is, then, we only have subsidies. How can we be punitive to people we don't like? Like rich people? -- Xpovos
[2014-01-08 13:19:57] - daniel: M2 goes up. there, now you have money, zimbabwe, i mean bernake, i mean yellen. . . . i actually heard an interesting viewpoint from a friend, that taxes should be 0, and we should just print money to pay for services. it's a crazy viewpoint, and not that far off from what we do now! ~a
[2014-01-08 13:15:46] - a: I'm not sure what you pay is going to change since I'm fairly sure that the UI program is not "payed for" or offset by anything. I think we are just borrowing more for it as far as I know. -Daniel
[2014-01-08 13:14:23] - mig: i was specifically replying to paul's statement about the cost of UI to employers. i pay pennies today, i paid pennies last year. yes, the extensions will change things at a more general level. ~a
[2014-01-08 12:57:12] - a: "no, i don't think employment insurance has changed greatly recently." Don't the longer extensions change the nature of the program though? More than likely if you are unemployed for over a year you're going to have to make some pretty drastic changes (downsize house and other expenses), which if I'm understanding correctly UI was supposed to prevent. - mig
[2014-01-08 12:41:22] - good points. ~a
[2014-01-08 12:18:43] - a: also, i have the feeling that paying out in florida boom economy of 2002 is very different than paying during the economic crisis of 2009. -nina
[2014-01-08 12:16:45] - a: i wouldn't assume it was more expensive in florida. just because va has created more bureacracy, doesn't mean they've created more efficiency. -nina
[2014-01-08 12:12:05] - a: It's the same principle, though. The people who pay don't care enough since it's pennies (as you said), but the people getting the benefit care a lot. -Paul
[2014-01-08 12:11:27] - based on that, my guess is SUI is more expensive in florida. ~a
[2014-01-08 12:11:02] - in florida, i think i was getting enough money from the state to pay my rent and utilities. i still needed to dip into my saving to cover food and other essentials, which were basically nothing for a healthy 22 year old. can't imagine iiving on that with a family. -nina
[2014-01-08 12:09:23] - the payout of the programs (and access to them) varies a lot by state. when i lost my job in florida, it was relatively easy to get onto unemployment. not the same when i lost my job in va, so i never bothered. -nina
[2014-01-08 12:08:05] - that's not the argument here: this isn't as concentrated as the f-35. fucking 20% of americans (made up number) have used UI. ~a
[2014-01-08 12:00:29] - a: Understood, but I really hate that logic (concentrated benefits and diffuse costs). Just because it hardly costs me anything shouldn't affect whether it's money well spent. I'm sure the F-35 jet program has only cost me a few dollars... -Paul
[2014-01-08 11:59:31] - http://pdlcomics.tumblr.com/post/72104577506/wonders-of-the-universe it's ernesto, the bear from space. allow him to show you the wonders of the universe - aaron
[2014-01-08 11:53:32] - paul: no, i don't think employment insurance has changed greatly recently. anyways, it's not a lot of money. i pay pennies to the us government for UI (unemployment ensurance) and pennies to virginia for SUI (state unemployment insurance). ~a
[2014-01-08 11:47:55] - paul: I'm guessing probably not. It makes little sense both politically to advocate increase business taxes to pay for it. - mig
[2014-01-08 11:45:57] - migDaniel: Ah, ok. That makes sense. -Paul
[2014-01-08 11:45:26] - a: Also, are the employers on the hook for this expanded unemployment insurance, then? If so, then wouldn't that be a HUGE drag on businesses wanting to hire people? Spending more money on unemployment means less money for more employees (and those employees are potentially more expensive as well). -Paul
[2014-01-08 11:44:41] - paul: There is a regular system I think that states and employers pay that covers the first 26 weeks of unemployment. In 2009 the federal gov offered to pick up the tab to extend coverage past 26 weeks. The extended coverage is what I believe is being discussed in the Senate currently. -Daniel
[2014-01-08 11:40:42] - paul: it's my understanding that employers do pay for the program, at least partially (or at lest the non-expanded portion of it). - mig
[2014-01-08 11:40:26] - a: Ok, so we agree that my analogy was a good one and that this program is horrible like social security?
-Paul[2014-01-08 11:39:51] - a: It's like the parable of the grasshopper and the ant.
-Paul[2014-01-08 11:39:33] - a: In this particular case? If they don't save on their own for a rainy day? Then they have to make tough decisions. Maybe they have to downsize their home or take on a roommate or whatever. -Paul
[2014-01-08 11:34:36] - paul: because it's exactly like social security where the employers pay for it, then the government treats it like their own motherfucking piggy bank. (in the case of ss, the government also gets some employee money). ~a
[2014-01-08 11:32:47] - "people can't be trusted to save on their own" but what about when people aren't saving on their own. like what about when almost nobody is saving on their own. it's hard to change a culture. you can't make a whole society just change. ~a
[2014-01-08 11:32:36] - a: Employers pay for unemployment insurance now? Then why is all the talk about the government extending it and how it would affect the debt? -Paul
[2014-01-08 11:30:54] - a: "2+ years of not that much money" Not a lot of money for who? The unemployed person? The employer? -Paul
[2014-01-08 11:25:08] - man, i should show you guys my list of expenses some time. ~a
[2014-01-08 11:21:24] - paul: "Who pays into it during the good times? Is it the employees?" like it is now? no, it's the employer. you guys know that employers pay for unemployment, right? ~a
[2014-01-08 11:04:57] - Overall I think I support the idea of unemployment benefits but I think if I were in charge I would set the limit at a year. After that if you haven't been able to get find work then I think you should not be part of a program that seems designed to only help people temporarily. Maybe you transition to something else, I dunno, but not unemployment benefits. -Daniel
[2014-01-08 11:02:30] - article on the issue: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/20/unemployment-benefits-for-1-3-million-workers-expire-next-week-heres-what-you-should-know/
[2014-01-08 11:00:50] - a: Who pays into it during the good times? Is it the employees? Yeesh, I think I hate that idea more. That reeks of something like social security or government pensions where the government says people can't be trusted to save on their own, so they will do it for them (and royally screw it up). -Paul
[2014-01-08 11:00:11] - paul: 2+ years of not that much money. ~a
[2014-01-08 10:59:55] - Daniel: I guess I can see that, although it's kind of weird that people would think their company is a douchebag for not paying them not to work.
-Paulprev <-> next