prev <-> next
[2014-02-02 08:56:17] - jesus, tl;dr. "better password than some 10 digit long random assortment of upper and lower case letters and numbers and symbols?" how do you define random? i think the point of 936 was that the alternative wasn't random. (uncommon non-gibberish). even the article says correcthorsebatterystaple isn't the "most random". ~a
[2014-01-31 16:41:03] - (3) And is a password manager really a good idea? The idea of taking all my passwords and storing them in one place just seems like a bad idea to me. -Paul
[2014-01-31 16:40:20] - (2) Is it really that problematic to store credit card info or link anything to PayPal? I understand that it'll always be safer to not store the info, but it's just so much more convenient that it seems to outweigh the minor chance that it'll become a problem. -Paul
[2014-01-31 16:38:01] - http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/01/picking-up-the-pieces-after-the-n-twitter-account-theft/ This article raises all sorts of questions for me. (1) Is "correcthorsebatterystaple" really a better password than some 10 digit long random assortment of upper and lower case letters and numbers and symbols? -Paul
[2014-01-31 16:36:32] - as i said earlier the tweet from msnbc just kind of exposes that attitude. - mig
[2014-01-31 16:35:36] - Aaron: Right turn? I see what you did there.
-Paul[2014-01-31 16:34:31] - aaron: the point of the article wasn't that conservatives aren't racist. The point is that it is problemtatic to have an attitude where criicism of democratic policy or the president doesn't have to actually be addressed on the merits because you can just substitute, "well they're just racists" as some sort of intellectual argument. - mig
[2014-01-31 16:20:59] - If marriage is a contract, is it a contract for goods, or services? -- Xpovos
[2014-01-31 15:58:55] - paul: yeah exactly, i think that would have been a much better conclusion for the article to make. i was surprised when the article concluded the way it did, since it seemed to be making a strong premise, and then just kind of took a right turn - aaron
[2014-01-31 13:38:42] - I'm not usually one to freak out over castings, but they seem to have made some very questionable choices for this movie. I'm worried it could become a train wreck. -Paul
[2014-01-31 13:37:54] - http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/01/31/jesse-eisenberg-cast-as-lex-luthor-in-batman-vs-superman Best comment: "i bet Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman doesnt seem so bad for some people right now" -Paul
[2014-01-31 13:20:29] - aaron: Actually, I might backtrack some. After re-reading the article again, I think you're right that it's more targeted than that. I might've read my own message into it. -Paul
[2014-01-31 13:16:07] - aaron: But for similar generalizations about whites or the right or whoever oftentimes gets a pass. I know why it happens, but it doesn't make it right, in my mind. -Paul
[2014-01-31 13:14:39] - aaron: I think we would all agree that a tweet saying something like, "Maybe blacks won't like cuts in food stamps, but everybody else will cheer it!" is pretty offensive, even if statistically blacks are more likely to be on food stamps (note, I have no idea if that's true, just trying to come up with something we would all find offensive). -Paul
[2014-01-31 13:12:33] - aaron: I don't want to put words into Miguel's mouth, but I think the point of the Reason article (or at least my takeaway) was to address something larger than the issue of racism on the right-wing. It has to do with how it's wrong to make generalizations. -Paul
[2014-01-31 13:10:37] - aaron: It would be awesome if that were the final score, too. -Paul
[2014-01-31 13:07:59] - mig: the only problem being, i don't know if that poll i made up is remotely true. do you think the numbers are anything like that? do you think it's exclusively older generations which are responsible for tainting the republican party with an image of racism? i could google search to find out one way or the other, but it's pointless if we're in agreement - aaron
[2014-01-31 13:06:24] - mig: i thought the article was going to make the point like, "conservatives aren't racist, and if you poll people under 55 and compare their results, you'll find that conservatives and democrats poll similarly for issues related to racial equality..." i mean, that would have been a more logical way to refute progressive attitudes - aaron
[2014-01-31 13:04:17] - http://imgur.com/3QNTEqX a 2005 episode of the simpsons featured the broncos and seahawks - aaron
[2014-01-31 13:03:54] - have anything to do with the presidency - aaron
[2014-01-31 13:03:47] - mig: i think i kind of understand what that reason article is trying to say, but it boils down to "the right wing isn't racist... they're not threatened by obama because he's black, they're threatened for other reasons" but that just seems like a non-sequitur to me... what did obama have to do with anything? i didn't even piece together that the tweet could - aaron
[2014-01-31 12:53:11] - http://www.buzzfeed.com/lyapalater/ian-mckellan-and-patrick-stewart-are-excited-but-cleary-conf Love the expression on both Picard/Xavier and Gandalf/Magneto's faces.
-Paul[2014-01-31 11:54:15] - Daniel: I guess to be more accurate, the theory is that it hurts the people making minimum wage (ironically) because even if it helps some, it causes others to lose their jobs. Those people (minimum wage earners) tend to be either poor OR young people just starting out. -Paul
[2014-01-31 11:47:12] - Daniel: http://reason.com/blog/2011/05/09/the-consequences-of-the-minimu There are plenty of other links if you do a google search, if you don't like Reason, but it's a common theory among fiscal conservatives. -Paul
[2014-01-31 11:43:13] - Daniel: Right, what Miguel said. The common theory is that raising the minimum wage eliminates low paying jobs, which hurts the poor and young people. -Paul
[2014-01-31 11:38:46] - well the argument goes that increasing the min wage will mean less min wage jobs, which does tend to hurt poorer folks. - mig
[2014-01-31 11:26:27] - Paul: I've heard arguments that minimum wages can hurt the economy but I'm not sure I'm familiar with arguments that minimum wage can hurt poor people. How does minimum wage hurt poor people? -Daniel
[2014-01-31 09:53:07] - mig: On the flip side, Obama can't be a guy who honestly thinks he's helping the uninsured with his legislation and helping to keep costs down. No, he's a closet communist who secretly wants to bring about a class war. -Paul
[2014-01-31 09:50:29] - mig: Rich people can't be against stuff like minimum wage and regulation out of principle and the idea that it hurts the economy and poor people... No, they're all just greedy bastards who want to keep more money for themselves. -Paul
[2014-01-31 09:49:13] - mig: I think it's a part of a larger (and more general) issue that a lot of people (not just progressives) are guilty of: The tendency to see people who disagree with you as "the enemy" who doesn't believe what they believe out of some honest sense of rightness, but out of some evil intent. -Paul
[2014-01-31 09:39:53] - aaron: http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/30/its-not-just-msnbc-making-flip-assumptio this kind of sums up my issues with not necessarily the tweet itself, but the attitude of some progressives that permeates from it. -mig
[2014-01-31 09:19:14] - Nina: I think they saved themselves from it being pretty inaccurate by including the word "maybe", but I still think there's a problem in the second part where they say "but everyone else will go awww". It's not just the implication that the right is racist, but ONLY the right... -Paul
[2014-01-31 09:15:40] - aaron: But I also can appreciate a (usually offensive to some) joke poking fun at groups. In this case, I think since it's MSNBC (a serious news organization), I feel like it's probably more than a little inappropriate. -Paul
[2014-01-31 09:15:34] - that was the first time "ideologist" and "tarring" was used? i find that hard to believe. -nina
[2014-01-31 09:14:43] - aaron: "people didn't think the tweet was racist" Right, it was... ideologist? I'm a little torn. I obviously see the problem with tarring an entire ideology based on some perceived (and possibly accurate) tendency to have a slightly higher instance of racism... -Paul
[2014-01-31 08:46:59] - paul: would still be insensitive to joke about it. i mean, the m&m joke i posted earlier was basically, "ha ha, conservatives are racist" but people expect more professionalism from msnbc than they do from geoffrey asmus - aaron
[2014-01-31 08:45:23] - paul: people didn't think the tweet was racist, they thought it was disrespectful towards conservatives. i don't think anybody would argue that conservatives are, statistically, more racist than "everybody else" but it's still insensitive to joke about it. i mean, statistically there is probably a spike in drunk-driving deaths related to the superbowl, but it - aaron
[2014-01-31 08:21:50] - i'm not sure where to begin with this. tee hee. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/wealthy-top-one-percent-economy-finance-102833.html -nina
[2014-01-31 08:19:13] - paul: while i don't think the statement is inaccurate, i think it's more surprising that a news outlet would say that. -nina
[2014-01-30 16:46:52] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONkN-VqoJi8&feature=c4-overview&list=UUeM9I-20oWUs8daIIpsNHoQ Kinda surprised Rand Paul went with Seattle (and the reason that he gave). Sherman isn't terribly popular right now it seems... -Paul
[2014-01-30 16:20:11] - Daniel: Especially since they follow it up with "everyone else will go awww". Not only are they implying that the right wing is racist, but also that it's ONLY the right win which is racist. -Paul
[2014-01-30 16:19:00] - Daniel: Sure, but even if they had put something like "only parts" or "some", the implication would still be kind of unsavory. -Paul
[2014-01-30 16:10:46] - http://www.mediaite.com/tv/melissa-harris-perry-and-msnbc-panel-mock-mitt-romneys-black-grandson/ and given the outrage over this you'd think they would shy away from the subject of interracial families. - mig
[2014-01-30 15:58:34] - given how much trouble msnbc hosts have gotten themselves into you'd think they'd be a little more guarded about what goes out in the network's name. - mig
[2014-01-30 15:55:47] - Paul: I think the key word is 'some'. If they had tweeted something like "only parts of rightwing" or something like that maybe then there wouldn't have been as much outrage? Its always questionable to totally blanket such a big group as the entire rightwing. -Daniel
[2014-01-30 14:57:40] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/30/msnbc-tweet-conservatives-apology_n_4694242.html Wondering if anybody here is ok with the MSNBC tweet, since I think some people here hold the position that the right has some racism in it. -Paul
[2014-01-30 10:35:50] - nina: I heard it was a lot of repeating from previous speeches (and SOTUs) and the only new thing (MyRA) was lacking in enough details to talk about it in much depth. -Paul
[2014-01-30 10:15:44] - was reading both the right wing and left wing blogs today about SOTU. They both seem to be struggling to find something interesting to say about it. -nina
[2014-01-30 09:39:45] - Paul: Yeah, I think so. Probably 4-3-1? I'm not sure how it went in the AFC South anymore. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-30 09:36:57] - Xpovos: Those were the good old days. Who ended up with the most championships? Was it the Packers? -Paul
[2014-01-30 09:33:48] - hah, i forgot the message board puts invisible spaces in long words, so if you copy-paste that, you should delete the space. ~a
[2014-01-30 09:31:50] - paul: uggc://ra.jvxvcrqvn.bet/jvxv/Urvqv_Urvgxnzc ~a
[2014-01-30 08:55:50] - Paul: Ah, subtitle memories. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-29 16:58:29] - http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57618023-93/googles-motorola-may-be-sold-to-lenovo-for-$3b/ Wow, I did not see Google selling Motorola coming. This really makes me sad, as I was enviously eyeing the Droid Maxx and Moto X as my next phone, and was counting on strong support from Google to make sure it got the latest and greatest android updates. -Paul
[2014-01-29 16:41:51] - Aaron: The peanut butter ones are great, but I also liked the crispy ones which apparently were so popular that they don't make them anymore. -Paul
[2014-01-29 16:41:43] - http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/01/29/chick-fil-gives-free-food-to-motorists-stranded-in-southern-snowstorm/ -- Xpovos
[2014-01-29 16:37:12] - paul: i'm always tempted by the peanut butter ones... it's a good thing i don't see them very often!! - aaron
[2014-01-29 16:19:09] - Aaron: Heh, it's funny because I've had the pretzel M&Ms and would totally get them again and the only time I am tempted to buy M&Ms is when I see a cool new flavor (mint? yes please!). -Paul
[2014-01-29 16:15:26] - a: you're going to get in trouble if tbbtyr.com ever indexes aporter.org - aaron
[2014-01-29 16:12:13] - http://imgur.com/SzJXury i don't usually post political jokes but i like this one because it's offensive to almost everybody, and because it increases awareness of pretzel m&ms - aaron
[2014-01-29 14:39:28] - a: Enaq Cnhy? Zvxr Yrr? Grq Pehm? (Feel free to not answer, I just wanted to reply and make a joke at the same time). -Paul
[2014-01-29 14:38:16] - a: I do! I feel so clandestine that I actually know something about encryption, no matter how simple it is.
-Paul[2014-01-29 14:00:22] - paul: do you know what rot13 is? fur'f fravbe fgnss sbe n hf frangbe. ~a
[2014-01-29 13:25:20] - a: Re: Snowden and the peace prize. I read one tweet that found it humorous that a prospective winner would be somebody a past winner is actively trying to throw in jail (and potentially execute). -Paul
[2014-01-29 13:24:30] - a: What is Audrey's new job? I agree it's boring, but I think it could be fun to watch it while drinking and talking with friends with varying political viewpoints. -Paul
[2014-01-29 13:21:04] - mig: Eh, people still cite all sorts of things that have long been debunked. It's disappointing, but sadly not surprising to me. -Paul
[2014-01-29 12:20:25] - Snowden Nominated by Norway Lawmakers for Nobel Peace Prize. hey hey, if obama won it, why not give it to somebody actually deserving. ~a
[2014-01-29 12:19:40] - paul: haha, the sotu is boring. i think the only reason i watched it this year was: 1. youtube streamed it live! and 2. audrey's new job. ~a
[2014-01-29 12:06:53] - but yeah it was the thoroughly debunked 77 cents per dollar gap statistic that was cited. It is somewhat surprising to me that people still cite it though. - mig
[2014-01-29 11:56:31] - Well tbh I'm not sure I'd be enthusiastic about it either. watching these things is typically boring and nasuea inducing. I typically just read the transcripts the day after. - mig
[2014-01-29 11:52:36] - a: My guess is because she thinks it's dumb and politics (specifically the SOTU) is boring. -Paul
[2014-01-29 11:46:55] - "really hard to get Gurkie on board with it", why? ~a
[2014-01-29 11:44:53] - https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BfG9pylCQAEFZuO.jpg:large I liked this drinking game because it actually has some clever connections between the drinking and what happens. -Paul
[2014-01-29 11:42:33] - mig: I'm a little sorry I missed the speech. One year I really want to have a SOTU party and turn it into a drinking game. Going to be really hard to get Gurkie on board with it, though. -Paul
[2014-01-29 11:41:43] - mig: Hmmmm, is it the gender pay gap? -Paul
[2014-01-29 11:25:38] - which? ~a
[2014-01-29 10:29:15] - Paul: the president cited your most favorite misleading statistic last night! - mig
[2014-01-28 10:15:48] - Wow, I must've been mad at Pierce that day. I feel like that's a stronger statement than I would usually make about president Kennedy. -Paul
[2014-01-27 13:54:56] - And with that... off to meeting #2. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-27 13:33:16] - Meeting today, I was able to burst into song for a lyric or two. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUMkcBctE7c Yep. I hate meetings and have no fear of getting fired. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-27 13:26:25] - Ah, Davy Jones. Yeah, he chewed the scenery nicely. Not as well as Davy Jones did, though. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-27 13:05:11] - Xpovos: Billy Mack? Rufus Scrimgeour? Davy Jones? -Paul
[2014-01-27 13:02:39] - You might enjoy yourself. There were enjoyable moments. This wasn't movie torture. It just wasn't any good. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-27 13:01:40] - Yvonne Strahoski (Sarah Walker to me) was fine. Aaron Eckhardt did amazing, with what he was given. Miranda Otto was very up-and-down in her performance. I blame that on scripting, as her character wasn't given sufficient direction. Couldn't find Viktor. End result... no. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-27 11:55:09] - Xpovos: Eh, that means you had low expectations so it wouldn't take much to exceed them. I would be going in with... maybe not high expectations but at least the expectation to enjoy myself. You mean Miranda Lawson, Eowyn and Viktor wasn't enough to save the movie? -Paul
[2014-01-27 11:44:03] - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2546218/Birds-released-Vatican-gesture-peace-immediately-attacked-vicious-seagull-crow.html HIlarious symbolism. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-27 11:43:46] - Paul: Yeah, Friday night due to a set of strange circumstances. I went in knowing I wasn't going to like it, though, so there's still a chance for you. That said, the first words out of Katie's mouth were "That was worse than I expected". -- Xpovos
[2014-01-27 09:56:20] - Xpovos: You saw it? That's a shame that it's so bad, because it looks like the kind of bad movie I could really enjoy (Van Helsing, Underworld). -Paul
[2014-01-27 09:55:13] - mig: Love the kids from that commercial. -Paul
[2014-01-27 08:42:32] - a: 5%? That's down over the weekend, then. It was 6% when I posted. On a scale of 0 to 50 Catwomans that was 3 Catwomans. I felt that was pretty accurate. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-27 08:25:40] - xpovos: 5% on rottentomatoes. of the two people who could manage to positively review the film, one started off his review with "I, Frankenstein isn't a masterpiece, but ...". the other admitted he had to turn off his brain to watch the movie.
~a[2014-01-25 18:34:16] - nina: a few places have said it's the guys who created the keynes/hayek rap videos, if you are familiar with those. - mig
[2014-01-25 12:03:59] - Let me just say, with an extreme degree of confidence, that I know which movie will NOT be going on our board's list of Best Movies for 2014. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-25 10:59:08] - Mig: who is behind it? - nina
[2014-01-25 00:09:53] - a: yeah a lot of effort went into this. - mig
[2014-01-25 00:06:04] - http://thekronies.com/ the website is also full of win. - mig
[2014-01-24 23:41:38] - quite the production value. ~a
[2014-01-24 20:45:02] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDXuPQ9ML9E this might be the greatest thing ever uploaded to youtube. - mig
[2014-01-24 11:37:48] - i think you used it correctly but i don't use the word very often. ~a
[2014-01-24 11:19:21] - yay, I'm the first person to use reticent, except I don't think I used it correctly - vinnie
[2014-01-24 11:18:39] - I'm very reticent to give out fb likes. if you get a like from me, you've earned it - vinnie
[2014-01-24 10:18:51] - mig: Although I am honestly more into the idea of Heroes of the Storm... -Paul
[2014-01-24 09:04:30] - mig: Thanks. Good to know. I might give it a try if I can find the time. -Paul
[2014-01-23 22:20:04] - paul: hearthstone just went into open beta (though for all intents and purposes, it's essentially a soft-release at this point) this week, so you can download it from battle.net if you want to try it out. - mig
[2014-01-23 19:21:45] - a: Developing search functions for Facebook that Facebook hasn't even considered. Brilliant! Or sad that I didn't think of something similar. Still, handy trick, at least for likes. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-23 17:25:11] - haha, thanks. i love abusing my web-browser. ~a
[2014-01-23 17:24:09] - a: genius! -nina
[2014-01-23 17:22:35] - nina: (answering more seriously: i go to your page on facebook. and hit the "end" key over-and-over-and-over again like 10 times until i get back to like 2012 or 2011. then i search for "unlike" in my web-browser. done!
) ~a[2014-01-23 17:22:02] - a: I never claimed you hadn't. I only said I hadn't noticed it.
-Paul[2014-01-23 17:20:49] - nina: meticulously. ~a
[2014-01-23 17:20:26] - amy/paul: really i'm only looking back at the past few years. i've been liking all of your stuff for the past 10ish years. ~a
[2014-01-23 17:20:21] - a: how are you able to pull up this data so quickly? -nina
[2014-01-23 17:17:41] - paul: 2012: nov 24, oct 25. 2011: oct 10, aug 21. probably others. anybody else? ~a
[2014-01-23 17:11:48] - a: Not sure if I've ever noticed you liking my stuff, but usually nobody likes my stuff and I hardly post on facebook anyway and I don't really think I care that much.
-Paul[2014-01-23 16:42:53] - ok. ~a
[2014-01-23 16:35:41] - yeah what nina said... if in the past 2 years, all you've liked is something from aug 2013, that barely qualifies .) -amy
[2014-01-23 16:34:04] - a: i don't get notified when someone likes a status i'm tagged in. also, facebook memory lasts about a week. if you don't like my shit regularly, you're dead to me on facebook.
-nina[2014-01-23 16:32:46] - nina: most of those are your statuses. also, wait, why doesn't it count? ~a
[2014-01-23 16:31:22] - amy: 2013: aug 30, probably others. 2011: jun 4, apr 17. probably others. ~a
[2014-01-23 16:30:17] - a: liking other people's statuses that I'm tagged in, doesn't count. -nina
[2014-01-23 16:28:04] - nina: 2013: june 3rd, jun 2nd, may 28. 2012: nov 20, nov 19, jul 21, apr 24. probably others. ~a
[2014-01-23 16:25:41] - a: thanks for the like. -nina
[2014-01-23 16:25:22] - a: yeah i don't see you "like" much of my stuff either... but maybe you just don't like it .) -amy
[2014-01-23 16:24:57] - nina: i can see how that would be very difficult to make spectatable. -amy
[2014-01-23 16:21:17] - a: you never "like" my stuff. that's why i thought you weren't on facebook. -nina
[2014-01-23 16:20:30] - amy: i figure some people notice that i like their stuff since i'm not stingy with the like button. maybe people don't look at who "likes" their stuff very often. ~a
[2014-01-23 16:19:34] - amy: it sounds awesome, but it's a really horrible spectator sport. -nina
[2014-01-23 16:19:10] - a: but, i'd bet you'd push your body to the limits. something you'd enjoy. -nina
[2014-01-23 16:18:54] - a: yeah i guess it's not a good assumption that if a person doesn't post to fb, and doesn't interact with your fb or anyone else's fb that you see, then they are not on fb and not looking at content.wonder how many ppl out there have been watching my stuff all along and i didn't even know it. -amy
[2014-01-23 16:18:45] - a: i think holding your breath is the ultimate challenge. i couldn't do it, because i would freak out. i think your body tells you when you need to surface for air. that desire is stronger than the desire to get the puck. -nina
[2014-01-23 16:17:55] - nina: that sounds crazy but awesome .) -amy
[2014-01-23 16:15:38] - snorkels? oh i thought it was scuba. wild! holding your breath that long is safe? ~a
[2014-01-23 16:14:29] - "didn't realize you looked at FB" i look at fb all the time. i love looking at people's pictures! and posting my own every few months or so. . . . miguel mentioned a while ago that he thought i didn't use facebook because i didn't post. ~a
[2014-01-23 16:12:42] - http://underwaterhockey.com/index.html
[2014-01-23 16:12:20] - amy: olympic style swimming pool. fins, masks, snorkels. really tiny hockey stick, and puck that stays at the bottom of the pool. so, basically you spent most of the game holding your breath. and, it's in 3d (people above you, below you, and around you). -nina
[2014-01-23 16:11:40] - "i know some of the hardcore underwater hockey folks" best sentence ever. where do they play? ~a
[2014-01-23 16:09:10] - underwater hockey? i didn't realize that was a thing. how does that even work? -amy
[2014-01-23 16:08:41] - i don't generally believe that any kind of external ranking system validates whether somebody has mastered something or not. -amy
[2014-01-23 16:07:54] - a: heh, didn't realize you looked at FB. it is an idea i wholeheartedly agree with, the basic concept that we can go through phases of our lives dedicating ourselves to mastering various things, and that we don't have to be tied to one thing or set of things for a lifetime, excluding all else. -amy
[2014-01-23 16:06:49] - a: i know some of the hardcore underwater hockey folks. so, if you're interested, they practice at GMU on a regular basis, and they're always open to getting new players in. -nina
[2014-01-23 16:03:02] - a: ooh, can i have a ride? -nina
[2014-01-23 11:47:54] - yes, i have a helmet. and motorcycle gloves. the pants and the jacket i bought have padding built in. ~a
[2014-01-23 11:41:02] - a: remember to wear a helmet. -Daniel
[2014-01-23 11:20:32] - nina: i've been pretty serious about team sports in the past. i've competed in a national rowing competition, and a worldwide programming competition. i've always wanted to join rec ultimate. but your suggestions are awesome! i'm seriously considering learning to scuba. another possibilty that's even more likely to happen: learning to ride the motorcycle. ~a
[2014-01-23 11:15:14] - paul: "mastering" something is hard to define. i'm not nationally ranked in either one. ~a
[2014-01-23 09:23:52] - whoops. bossaball
[2014-01-23 09:23:11] - here are some suggestions. underwater hockey or <a href="http://www.bossaballsports.com/index.html"bossaball</a> or bike polo?
[2014-01-23 09:17:46] - a: i think you should master a team sport. try to compete at the national travelng amateur level of something. i think it goes against the grain of your individualized sports you've done for the last 7 years. -nina
[2014-01-23 09:05:54] - a: So you've mastered snow boarding and mountain biking? -Paul
[2014-01-23 09:04:15] - a: I can see how you might think #2 is "anti-Paul" based on the title, but I'm not sure why you would think the other 2 are as well. I'm a little undecided on #2. He points out the difference between foreign aid in the sense of medicine and vaccines and supporting foreign regimes, which I think is key. -Paul
[2014-01-23 00:21:19] - found this on amy's facebook thing. this sounds awesome! i'm about to run out of my 7 years on mountain biking and snowboarding. what's next, guys? should we learn to fly? ~a
[2014-01-23 00:17:32] - paul: uhhh, interesting. do you agree with these things? these seem like very anti-paul sentiments. though i'll admit i mostly scanned the title sections. ~a
[2014-01-22 17:38:48] - http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/?cid=bg_pt_ll0_012122/#section=home I found this to be an interesting read on the state of poverty in the world. -Paul
[2014-01-22 16:10:40] - a: I definitely feel like we're overpaying for our media content in general. We've got a big Fios bill and we have Netflix (DVD and streaming) and Amazon Prime subscriptions. At least I stopped buying DVDs awhile ago, but I've still got a lot of those too. -Paul
[2014-01-22 16:06:48] - a: Well, we have an HD box ($12) and a multi-room DVR ($20). -Paul
[2014-01-22 16:06:28] - a: So that I can just pay the NFL like $20 a month for all NFL games or something like that. When it comes to TV shows, I think most of them I can probably catch on Hulu or Netflix (eventually). -Paul
[2014-01-22 16:05:40] - a: I can't speak for Gurkie, because I think she watches more shows and a wider variety over channels, but I really just need the major sports leagues (NFL, MLB, NBA) to stop signing exclusive deals with networks. -Paul
[2014-01-22 16:04:54] - 32/month?! wow. it was 10/month back when i had a dvr. ~a
[2014-01-22 16:04:43] - a: Yeah, my $55 was without any taxes or surcharges added. It's the number next to internet listed on my bill. -Paul
[2014-01-22 16:04:19] - i have a feeling like they don't want us to be cutting cords. so they fudge the costs to keep their old-school tv system alive. i really wish there was some competition in this sector. ~a
[2014-01-22 16:04:11] - a: The frustratingly high cost, in my opinion, is the $32 a month we pay to rent the set top boxes. -Paul
[2014-01-22 16:02:46] - yeah . . . that's where they get you. stuff rarely costs what you think it would when you seperate out the plans. (i should also mention that 90/month is the non-promotional price and that it includes taxes and such). ~a
[2014-01-22 16:01:30] - a: In theory, $55 a month. Hard to tell what it would cost by itself, though. -Paul
[2014-01-22 15:53:11] - how much do you guys pay for internet? ~a
[2014-01-22 15:52:35] - probably the first one. comcast (50mbit/s down) internet costs me 90/month. 90/month with or without cable. ~a
[2014-01-22 15:37:41] - a: I'm surprised you aren't saving a lot of money, though. Either you pay a lot less for your cable subscription than I do (most likely) or cable cutting is more expensive than I think. -Paul
[2014-01-22 15:36:53] - a: Yeah, I think sports is the big carrot keeping a lot of people from cutting the cord. WatchESPN doesn't cover nearly enough stuff to satisfy somebody like me. -Paul
[2014-01-22 15:02:16] - paul: i originally justified cord-cutting as a cost savings measure back when i thought it saved me tons of money. now that i've found that it saves me very little money (i think the cable companies have caught on to cord-cutting) i see it as more of a long-term strategy of disrupting the media monopolies and the old-school distribution. ~a
[2014-01-22 15:00:53] - paul: "Maybe I need to look into how much it would cost us to go a la carte" the cost savings are minimal, sadly, for me. ~a
[2014-01-22 14:58:15] - paul: i'll admit sports is *possibly* a hole in my system. as you know, i don't watch sports. apparently there is a thing called WatchESPN (though it might require a cable subscription?). i also found this: on reddit. ~a
[2014-01-22 14:30:56] - Also, I'm still not sure if it's even possible for me to watch all the sports I want without a cable subscription. -Paul
[2014-01-22 14:30:13] - I like my chromecast, but I hardly ever find myself using it. It's probably because we still pay for cable (technically Fios). Maybe I need to look into how much it would cost us to go a la carte. We watch a lot of shows, but I have no idea how many would be available online for free. -Paul
[2014-01-22 13:39:53] - nina: i just found this thread. i obviously haven't tried any of these yet. ~a
[2014-01-22 13:38:38] - a: no, we haven't played around with that yet. we have been watching a lot more youtube videos on our tv, though. particularly game grumps. -nina
[2014-01-22 13:36:03] - nina: i use chromecast like crazy too. if i'm not watching amazon-prime, i'm using chromecast. have you been able to locally stream stuff yet? i check on /r/chromecast every once and a while to see if they readded local playback. ~a
[2014-01-22 13:14:21] - we also paid per episode for Korra. Chromecast has really changed the game for us. -nina
[2014-01-22 13:13:47] - we don't have cable. -nina
[2014-01-22 13:13:39] - amy: pierce and i have hulu plus and netflix. we use hulu plus to watch family guy, south park, and the latest episodes of community. we use my brother's HBO GO account to watch game of thrones and boardwalk empire. and, we pay per episode on Amazon for Walking Dead. -nina
[2014-01-21 19:16:44] - amy: FIXED. ty! ~a
[2014-01-21 17:56:51] - overflow:hidden .P -amy
[2014-01-21 10:54:46] - title: hah, wtf, you broke the message board! ~a
[2014-01-21 09:58:57] - hulu_plus+amazon_prime+netflix_instant = cable_subscription / 4. so, just get all of them. sadly, you'll still be missing hbo, but you will get the netflix/hulu/amazon exclusives. ~a
[2014-01-21 09:48:22] - amy: I think Hulu is the service you're looking for. It has holes, just like everything else, but it'll do the job, I think. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-20 20:08:20] - I guess maybe the season 11 is the latest one out on DVD and they don't want to hurt sales for that maybe? - mig
[2014-01-20 20:08:01] - there's also some weird restrictions. For example you can watch every season of family guy except for any episode from season 11. - mig
[2014-01-20 17:36:20] - a: you still get ads (though less i guess then not hulu plus) and have access to more of the library. - mig
[2014-01-20 14:08:04] - back when i used regular hulu, there were certain shows/episodes i couldn't watch without plus. ~a
[2014-01-20 14:05:21] - you mean how is hulu plus better than regular hulu? i actually don't know. but my guess: you probably get more material and/or fewer commercials? ~a
[2014-01-20 13:54:11] - a: looking around a bit. what is the point of hulu plus? -amy
[2014-01-20 13:13:40] - i use amazon prime, hulu, netflix, and "other". for tv, hulu is the best (it has comedy central, nbc, fox, fx, and lots of others). i also watch lots of tv on amazon prime. other = just going directly to a website like pbs.org or cbs.com. ~a
[2014-01-20 13:10:54] - amy: tivo won't work without a cable subscription. unless you're talking about recording OTA (over-the-air . . . which usually has lots of static). ~a
[2014-01-20 12:38:58] - ty gurkie .) -amy
[2014-01-20 11:45:58] - amy: also a lot of shows will let you stream their full episodes from their websites... esp if its relatively recently. ~g
[2014-01-20 11:45:27] - amy: hulu might have your shows you could check... Netflix and Amazon Prime dont generally keep up to date... Amazon does but you have to pay per show it generally isnt part of the prime free videos... ~g
[2014-01-20 11:44:41] - amy: tivo is the dvr choice without getting a cable plan... not cheap up front but I think it will do what you want. ~g
[2014-01-20 11:21:31] - (yeah i know dvr, but i mean without subscribing to a cable plan.) -amy
[2014-01-20 11:12:02] - even dumber question: what about recording shows on a schedule that are on regular networks like fox and nbc etc., like we used to do on VHS? what has replaced that? -amy
[2014-01-20 10:56:02] - Prime or Netflix would be great, but I don't know if they're up-to-date. -amy
[2014-01-20 10:55:50] - i have a dumb question. what are the ways i could watch current tv shows on demand without having a cable subscription? i know you can buy single episodes on iTunes and such, but I'm wondering if there are more cost-effective ways, if I am interested in watching roughly 2-3 TV shows and keeping up with them every week. A subscription service like... -amy
[2014-01-17 17:23:08] - after 2.5, they got rid of the whole even/odd thing. ~a
[2014-01-17 17:21:08] - they did change that. ~a
[2014-01-17 16:51:47] - a: aren't odd point releases supposed tobe considered experimental or did they change that? - mig
[2014-01-17 12:11:17] - mig: 3.11 was the worst kernel version ever. i hate it so much. 3.12 is soooo much better. ~a
[2014-01-17 11:16:20] - "Funny"
-Daniel[2014-01-17 10:37:30] - Daniel: It's funny, but considering how crappy the East is and how deep the West is... there's a chance the Wizards could go deeper in the playoffs than the Rockets.
-Paul[2014-01-17 10:33:35] - Daniel: I'm interested in seeing how they perform in a 7 game series. I think they can beat any team in any single game, but I worry about them when their opponent has time to prepare and game plan specifically for them. -Paul
[2014-01-17 10:22:21] - Paul: I watched. It was sad. I wasn't really expecting to win - 4th game in 5 nights for us but the 1st half gave me hope. 2nd half took it all away. It will be interesting to watch and see how the Rockets play out. No idea what will happen with them in the playoffs and that will determine so much of the narrative around them. -Daniel
[2014-01-17 10:13:28] - Daniel: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1926665-rockets-break-nba-record-with-73-points-in-1st-half-19-in-2nd-vs-thunder?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_c I was actually watching the stats of this game, but even I didn't realize the discrepancy in scoring. -Paul
[2014-01-16 14:01:41] - aaron: "paul, you're the tiebreaking vote." paul and aaron don't have any cards yet, right? ~a
[2014-01-16 13:58:19] - Xpovos: Yeah... I have no idea.
-Paul[2014-01-16 13:18:58] - The fun part of that one is: who gets to move first. Contestant A or Contestant B? Because moving to the unpicked/unopned door increases the odds. If Contestant A moves to that door, does Contestant B move to the door Contestant A picked? That one should be statistically identical. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-16 12:43:46] - Paul: 4 doors, three goats? -- Xpovos
[2014-01-16 12:28:22] - Daniel: I don't even think both contestants can have a 2/3 chance to win, because that adds up to more than 1. I think something gets screwed up because there's a chance that door B can't be opened to reveal a goat (if the car is behind door B). -Paul
[2014-01-16 12:26:14] - Paul: Yeah its weird but I think the way it works is both should switch to increase their odds? But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. -Daniel
[2014-01-16 12:23:07] - Contestant 1 choose door A, contestant 2 chooses door C. At this point both have 1/3 chance of winner a car, right? Door B is opened to reveal a goat. Do they both still have 1/3 chance to win a car? What if they both switch? Now do they both have a 2/3 chance? That can't be right... -Paul
[2014-01-16 12:21:31] - Ok, so I have another question that I just thought of. Same basic Monty Hall premise (three doors: A, B and C. One door has a car and the other two have goats), except this time there are two contestants. -Paul
[2014-01-16 12:20:09] - aaron: Um... I think if there is a re-deal, I increase my chances of getting an ace. Assuming I am right, then this particular example doesn't confuse me as much as the regular Monty Hall example. -Paul
[2014-01-16 12:08:13] - paul:
- aaron[2014-01-16 12:07:51] - paul: does opting for a redeal influence your chances of getting an ace, or does it stay the same? - aaron
[2014-01-16 12:07:24] - paul: so we're playing texas hold'em, i'm dealing, and you're sitting to miguel's left. i misdeal, flipping miguel's hole card, which is an ace. he decides "i'll keep it," but i say, "well, i misdealt, so i should just redeal again. it's only fair. you wouldn't keep it if it was a low card." paul, you're the tiebreaking vote. - aaron
[2014-01-16 11:20:25] - g: I generally ignore it when people tell me what cards they have because I have no idea if they are lying or not. -Paul
[2014-01-16 11:19:56] - g: exactly 75% of the time? ~a
[2014-01-16 11:18:00] - hmm and lie 75% of the time to make it more complicated. ~g
[2014-01-16 11:17:14] - so note to self next time I play with Paul make a ton of statements to try and make him do math... ~g
[2014-01-16 11:14:06] - g: Right, I would probably come up with something like that, but I also wouldn't at all be surprised if I was wrong somehow. -Paul
[2014-01-16 11:12:27] - oops I looked at it as clubs not not clubs... but the other concern is the person could be lying in poker
~g[2014-01-16 11:11:33] - Paul: how many outs do you have how many of them are clubs? Subtract the clubs from the outs then that over the number of cards remaining... I think..~g
[2014-01-16 10:59:17] - a: Seems like it should be pretty easy for a grey area to come up in poker. Like, if I was going for a straight and somebody told me their hole cards were "not clubs"... I'm sure that information affects my odds of getting my straight but I'm not sure how to calculate it without thinking long and hard about it. -Paul
[2014-01-16 10:56:24] - paul: i think you understand conditional probability in the simple cases: if i have four aces, the probability of someone else having four aces is 0%. the monty hall problem is special because it's the opposite: counter-intuitive. now i'm wondering if there is some gray areas: where counter-intuitive conditional probability would come up in hold'em. ~a
[2014-01-16 10:45:35] - i'd be totally interested in a poker night (however, like xpovos, i'm busy this weekend). ~a
[2014-01-16 10:40:01] - Xpovos: Oh, heh. As long as we don't suddenly introduce options to switch hole cards (Monty Hall style), I think I should be ok.
-Paul[2014-01-16 10:38:45] - Paul: My comment was in jest re: your inability with probabilities. That said, this weekend is out for me for reasons we discussed elsewhere. I am, however, interested if there's another event at a later time. -- Xpovos
[2014-01-16 10:05:12] - Xpovos: Gurkie and I were talking about maybe having one this weekend. Why? -Paul
[2014-01-16 09:53:29] - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/us/obamas-path-from-critic-to-defender-of-spying.html?_r=0 "aides said Mr. Obama was surprised to learn after leaks by Edward J. Snowden [...] just how far the surveillance had gone" Probably not good that even the President had to find out about NSA surveillance through a whistle-blower. -Paul
[2014-01-16 09:37:24] - Oh, hey, that reminds me. Paul, when's the next poker night? -- Xpovos
[2014-01-16 09:20:18] - a: I know, which is why I have such a hard time grasping probability sometimes.
-Paul[2014-01-15 17:44:46] - "it really seems like it should affect both prisoners equally" it doesn't. ~a
[2014-01-15 17:21:23] - a: I know, but the information is far less direct AND it really seems like it should affect both prisoners equally. -Paul
[2014-01-15 17:08:21] - paul: hah! the information makes things no longer random. it's like this, paul. much simpler explanation: i flip a coin. you call heads in the air. 50% chance of winning. now it's landed, i can see the result, but you can't. i tell you it's heads. now you have a 100% chance of winning, by the mere act of me telling you that you're the winner!
~a[2014-01-15 17:04:41] - a: Yeah, so I think the three prisoners problem does a better job of encapsulating why I find these things so un-intuitive... Confusing how the odds for A and C get changed just by the mere act of the warden telling one of them (and it matters who he tells!) that a third prisoner is not the "winner". -Paul
[2014-01-15 17:02:43] - Aaron: Yeah, I think you're right. I meant C getting pardoned. These mixed metaphors (is that the right term?) are screwing me up.
-Paul[2014-01-15 16:44:21] - paul/aaron: according to the wiki page, the three prisoners problem "is mathematically equivalent to the Monty Hall problem with car and goat replaced with freedom and execution respectively" ~a
[2014-01-15 16:40:47] - paul: (uhhh. a kitten is a baby goat) - aaron
[2014-01-15 16:40:09] - paul: also, i think you got "executed" and "pardoned" mixed up. the puppy is like prisoner C getting pardoned, and it's a 2/3 chance for that. revealing the kitten didn't improve your chances of going home with a car, but it improved your chances of going home with a puppy (since he could have revealed a puppy, but didn't) - aaron
[2014-01-15 16:38:01] - paul: actually, with monty hall, switching is even better -- it gets you a 2/3 odds of winning a car! - aaron
[2014-01-15 16:37:19] - paul: but basically, there's not a good chance that you won the car, and a really good chance you're going home with a puppy - aaron
[2014-01-15 16:37:02] - Aaron: But I guess it can't be 1/2 for switching, because if it's 1/3 for staying you've lost 1/6 of your probability somewhere. So I guess I was just wrong about the percentages for Monty Hall. -Paul
[2014-01-15 16:35:50] - aaron: I'm actually more confused now.
I assume the puppy is like prisoner C getting executed, so it's 2/3 for that? I realize it's kinda a reverse Monty Hall, but I thought with Monty Hall switching got you 1/2 odds. -Paul[2014-01-15 16:35:30] - paul: hmm -- i can't decide if this is actually a helpful explanation, or if i just invented a third, more confusing problem. - aaron
[2014-01-15 16:33:08] - paul: Paul goes on the show as a contestant, and monty opens a door revealing a goat. But they're in a hurry, so they won't let Paul change his answer. Paul really wants the car, but Talia wants him to win the puppy. What is the chance that Paul gets his car? What are the chances Talia gets her puppy? - aaron
prev <-> next