prev <-> next
[2014-02-27 15:18:39] - paul: i think the limit of "scientific basis for transsexuals" would probably be, observed transsexual behavior in nature, of which i'd assume there's some basis (there's basis for almost everything like that, it's a big planet) - aaron
[2014-02-27 15:17:36] - paul: and i think it's only realistic to think of "men-who-identify-as-women" as men in some contexts. if my teenage daughter wants a sleep-over slumber party with a bunch of 12-year-old girls, and one guy -- i'd probably say "no" even if he's trans. and would the WNBA accept a team entirely made up of trans men? but, in a social context, that's different - aaron
[2014-02-27 15:16:38] - Aaron: Right, and I understand why people would get upset about that, but I guess I feel like it's a little unfair how things like that seem to have given him an "asshole" persona. I was just wondering if I was missing some scientific basis for transsexuals or if it really was just basically redefining some established terms. -Paul
[2014-02-27 15:13:58] - paul: it is a safer environment
i think nothing mike said was incorrect scientifically, and even his "batman" comment was a somewhat appropriate analogy, it's just kind of selfish. the message he's sending is "hey if they get special treatment, then i want special treatment too" - aaron[2014-02-27 14:58:16] - In an odd way, I feel like this is a safer environment because people know me and we're used to being able to express ourselves a little more freely here. -Paul
[2014-02-27 14:57:52] - Also, bringing this full circle to the other comment about FB vs message board... this is totally a discussion that started on Facebook and which I was tempted to have, but I felt like it could've caused me to have fallen into the same trap the Mike fell into where I expressed an unpopular opinion and got burned for it. -Paul
[2014-02-27 14:54:48] - Aaron: That you're not what you are and that you're something different. It's like Mike had said. Why can't he just decide he's batman now? -Paul
[2014-02-27 14:53:50] - Aaron: Right, and I understand how he could've phrased things better or even just kept his opinion to himself, but I honestly felt like I agreed with his thinking, at least. Rightly or wrongly (and I think transsexuals find this offensive), I still think of women-who-identify-as-men as women, and vice versa. It just seems weird to me to be able to just decide... -Paul
[2014-02-27 14:48:27] - paul: that said, if his tweet had been, "i think males have penises, and females have vaginas," would people have been OK with it? no, i think they were just upset because they felt trivialized, because he was speaking too frankly about something that was personal to them. - aaron
[2014-02-27 14:46:32] - paul: from what xpovos is saying, i think it's that someone's sex is male/female, and their gender identity can be as a man, woman, or some combination. but no, i don't think there's any scientific basis, any more than there's scientific basis for being gay, atheist, etc... it's just a self-identification thing. - aaron
[2014-02-27 14:31:29] - a: I'm a little surprised Yellen said that, but at the same time I believe she's right about what she's saying. The federal reserve isn't supposed to be making rules or laws (that's Congress's job). I give her some credit, but it's a little sad we have to give credit to people for not overstepping their bounds now.
-Paul\[2014-02-27 14:28:27] - a: But I know from experience that most people don't want that. Even if I try to be on my best behavior, people just seem to get offended by the simple idea of somebody disagreeing with them. For the life of me, I can't figure out why those people post political things on Facebook, then. I guess they just want to express their opinion without any feedback? -Paul
[2014-02-27 14:26:40] - a: "the mb is not facebook" I really struggle with this all the time (regarding Facebook). I like how the message board works in that we can largely debate things without pissing each other off. When people post political things on FB, I really want to treat it like the message board and debate things and point out where I think people are wrong. -Paul
[2014-02-27 14:24:59] - Aaron: Mike said he was batman and wanted to be called Bruce. Somebody basically replied it's not the same thing. I wonder how it's not. I'm honestly asking here, I'm ignorant about the science (if there is any) behind transsexuals. -Paul
[2014-02-27 14:24:03] - Aaron: But at the same time, a little part of me is a little... irked? that they kind of get to take what appears to be an established concept (male/female is defined by chromosomes) and basically ignore it.... unless there is some scientific basis for it. -Paul
[2014-02-27 14:22:59] - Aaron: Right, I read parts of the whole "Mike is transphobic" conversation and felt like I could sympathize with his point of view, and I wasn't sure if I should feel bad about that. I don't want to offend transsexuals and I'm fine taking them at their word about the gender they associate with... -Paul
[2014-02-27 14:09:13] - xpovos: it's hard to explain why. it might just be a general maturity thing, or it might be a shift from trying to trying to make new friends as a kid (presumably, competing with other kids for attention), to trying to preserve friendships as an adult (presumably, trying not to be an irritating little shit) - aaron
[2014-02-27 14:04:40] - xpovos: i've wavered on that over the years. i think i'm too polite/too withdrawn typically. alcohol helps with that. i think it's important to be insensitive enough to have fun and provoke good conversation, but sensitive enough to back down and apologize when you hurt someone's feelings or encounter a disagreement - aaron
[2014-02-27 14:03:58] - a/mig: I had a sandwich for lunch. Soon it will be a piece of shit. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-27 13:57:25] - a: you're technically correct on that, but I think we're pretty far away in general from reddit-level discourse. - mig
[2014-02-27 13:15:33] - paul: here's an example of a regulator *not* overstepping their bounds. yellen: fed has no authority to regulate bitcoin ~a
[2014-02-27 11:49:52] - xpovos: a number of ex-message-boarders have talked about how the message board is pretty harsh. we're very technical and logical. the mb is not facebook, where people post what they had for dinner and other people "like" it. the mb is closer to reddit or twitter where people respond with "you are a piece of shit" to everybody they disagree with. ~a
[2014-02-27 10:16:47] - aaron: I seem to recall someone in our group mentioning that you need to have pretty thick skin to hang around us. So, I'll vote for desensitization. The question is, then, is desensitization a bad thing? -- Xpovos
[2014-02-27 09:16:33] - paul: i was annoyed by the community reaction to that. the separation between "sex" and "gender" isn't inherently obvious and while their language was a little blunt, i didn't think they said anything very offensive. perhaps i've just been desensitized to that kind of bluntness to where it doesn't offend me anymore- aaron
[2014-02-27 09:08:56] - http://www.magnetreleasing.com/grandpiano/ for those who like the movie "speed", and pianos, elijah wood is in a movie which combines the two!! i know i'm excited - aaron
[2014-02-27 08:48:06] - Paul: Sex is one thing, gender is another. People can be/call themselves any gender they want. It's just a language and social construct. Sex is the biological aspect, and even then there are grey areas (XXY chromosomed individuals, etc.). At the end of the day, there are only two sexes, but about a million genders. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-26 18:26:44] - paul: "A male (♂
organism is the physiological sex which produces sperm." yes, of course there're gray areas. ~a[2014-02-26 16:48:36] - (For those familiar with this story, yes, I am referring to a Penny Arcade controversy). I understand why people would get mad at the guy and think he's an asshole, but it got me thinking as to whether there was any scientific... reasoning(?) to assign a gender based on how a person identifies rather than their chromosomes/genitalia. -Paul
[2014-02-26 16:46:15] - The discussion went back and forth, with his critics basically saying people should be able to determine their own gender and not have it forced on them. He retorted that he was Batman, then, and to call him Bruce. -Paul
[2014-02-26 16:42:34] - The context is that there was some guy who basically said he believed that all women have vaginas and all men have penises. He was called out by people who pointed out that transsexuals don't fit that mold. -Paul
[2014-02-26 16:39:01] - Random thought spurred on by a facebook conversation: Is there a scientific way that gender is determined? Specifically, I am referring to transsexuals. -Paul
[2014-02-26 16:07:24] - I can chose ONE of those three (+gold, -CC, socket) to reroll. The rest are set permanently after that. Then for (insert gold and mats) I can re-roll that one stat to my heart's content. +gold is probably the weakest, and I could turn it into CritC, CritD, IAS or something else lovely. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-26 16:05:02] - So, looking at my new legendary and comparing it to the game guide (tell me if i need to take this to the Diablo sub-board), I'm intrigued by the options with Mystic coming up. My rolls were nearly perfect for two of the three fixed (ResAll and LPH) and average for the +INT. The other three are meh overall. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-26 15:00:10] - http://aporter.org/pics/password/screens/2014-face.png muahahaha. Oculus Rift + WebRTC + javascript = wtf. ~a
[2014-02-26 14:11:33] - a: I would think of it as similar to a joke now about how the internet is dead. It's so ludicrous that it could only be something a super-nerd (and a wacky one at that) would say. -Paul
[2014-02-26 14:10:34] - a: I think they were trying to make him appear to be so much on the cutting edge of technology, that he was ridiculously ahead of his time. I mean, this is a movie where guys strap "unlicensed nuclear reactors" to their backs... -Paul
[2014-02-26 13:03:55] - it was a joke, for sure, but a joke that is an interesting sign. they made egon a wacky nerd . . . and this is something a wacky nerd of the early 80s would say? ~a
[2014-02-26 12:51:57] - a: Yeah, I wonder if that was supposed to be a joke because it was so outrageous and strange (Egon has a lot of strange ideas) or what...? -Paul
[2014-02-26 12:01:10] - paul: i noticed that too! i watched it monday, and thought to myself how the EPA is the bad guy, the private sector is the only place that requires "results". unrelated: but, audrey and i were also discussing egon's quote "print is dead": how it was a statement made decades before it's time. print is dead in the early 80s? wow! ~a
[2014-02-26 11:02:32] - One of the changes that's going to take me a bit to get adjusted to is the new difficulties. It's both a profound change and not much of one at the same time. My WD was playing at Torment 2 and got through one pack before the second one rolled her badly. Torment 1 was a decent challenge, but no deaths. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-26 10:58:27] - mig: I'd recommend it. I spent about 30 minutes with my main barb, then I decided that the changes were substantial enough that I wanted to start a new character, so I rolled a new barb and spent most of my time with her. The last bit I played with my WD as you see, and she's the one that found the legendary. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-26 10:32:02] - xpovos: I wanted to poke around last night but castlevania got in the way. - mig
[2014-02-26 10:22:10] - http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-ghostbusters-is-the-most-libertarian-hollywood-blockbuster-of-all-time/article/2544522 I never thought of it before, but I guess Ghostbusters is a pretty libertarian movie. "Yes, it's true. This man has no dick."
-Paul[2014-02-26 10:17:15] - a: Well, being able to convert bitcoins to dollars wouldn't be a major issue for me if more places accepted bitcoins, and it looks like they're making decent inroads there... -Paul
[2014-02-26 09:55:39] - more important to me than the price, is where and how i can transact. this is something that is making great strides. ~a
[2014-02-26 09:50:06] - i don't know if it's a good buying opportunity. i still believe it's less likely to hit 100 than 1000, but now i'd focus on the fact that both are pretty likely. ~a
[2014-02-26 09:48:28] - paul: transaction malleability is pretty minor compared to the other major problems of bitcoin. if anything, transaction malleability serves as a thing that affects the price and public perception more than it affects the actual protocol and software. ~a
[2014-02-26 09:39:04] - a: I assume you see this as a good buying opportunity? I'm torn as to whether the closing of Mt Gox is a good or bad thing, but I certainly don't see it as some death knell for bitcoin. I don't know how serious this transaction malleability thing is though... -Paul
[2014-02-26 09:32:59] - i will happily retweet all retractions and apologies from people who wrongly forecasted death of bitcoin as result of mtgox collapse
- writer of ncsa mosaic and netscape. ~a[2014-02-26 01:51:34] - Diablo 3 had a massive patch today, all the changes they've been implementing for months behind the scenes went live in preparation for the RoS launch in about a month. I played for about 2 hours tonight. Here's my first post-patch legendary -- Xpovos
[2014-02-25 16:21:12] - mig: i've seen some interesting 419 scams pop-up due to bitcoin. bitcoin is palatable to the scammer since transactions are non-reversible. ~a
[2014-02-25 15:36:35] - http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/08/26/mike-miller-heat-players-caught-up-in-alleged-real-estate-scam/ -mig
[2014-02-25 15:31:26] - a: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/419_scams people probably still fall for the nigerian prince scam. It shouldn't be shocking people would fall for relatively more sophisticated schemes. - mig
[2014-02-25 14:39:02] - ok, everybody has heard of bernie madoff, but apparently ponzi schemes of 1m usd or more are actually very common. ponzi tracker. just tracks the ones that have been caught though. i wonder how many weren't. ~a
[2014-02-25 09:19:31] - Gag orders clearly have a place, but their use always raises suspicion from me. This case is weird. I'm hardly fit to comment on the medical issues at stake, and even the legal issues are confused because of the lack of clarity on the subject, but something doesn't seem kosher here. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-24 10:41:12] - a: fair point, but media is more than just tv. Liberal leaning media in print and on the internet seem to do much better. - mig
[2014-02-24 10:05:12] - mig: I think Adrian was being facetious, but I do think there's something to what he said. Conservatives tend to think the mainstream media has a liberal slant and so I think they seek out an alternative source of news. I'm not sure if liberals feel like they're not getting good info from places like CNN. -Paul
[2014-02-24 09:53:55] - i thought the liberal lame stream media was liberal. ~a
[2014-02-24 09:45:48] - I mean its not like conservatives majorly outnumber liberals, so I'm kind of perplexed by stuff like this or reading about msnbc being a distant 3rd amongst the news networks. - mig
[2014-02-24 09:38:56] - http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/02/cnn-to-end-piers-morgans-show-183830.html Is there a particular reason why liberal leaning news programming does so poorly? This is something that does actually bewilder me. Is there just no market demand for it (which would be odd, given all the griping about fox news)? - mig
[2014-02-21 18:14:35] - paul: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/venezuela-revokes-cnn-press-credentials/2014/02/21/bcbf3f3c-9b28-11e3-8112-52fdf646027b_story.html it could be that the venezuelan government is better at keeping the media from figuring out whats going on. - mig
[2014-02-21 17:33:12] - http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/arizona-anti-gay-discrimination-roccos-pizza fight fire with fire i suppose. - mig
[2014-02-21 13:53:35] - Xpovos: Same here, so I've seen about equal news in Feedly, but the big headline stories when I visit CNN or Google News appears to be Ukraine predominantly. -Paul
[2014-02-21 12:28:09] - Paul: Well, like I said, I've seen/heard a fair bit of coverage on both. But then again I don't watch TV News or read newspapers. I follow aggregators, NPR and assorted other non-main-stream news; so it could be being under-reported. If so, I'm sure the FCC is on the case. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-21 11:35:59] - Xpovos: It probably helps that the Olympics are going on in Russia now too, I'm still just surprised more isn't being made of Venezuela. -Paul
[2014-02-21 11:05:10] - Pro-west revolts are more appealing than anti-socialist revolts? -- Xpovos
[2014-02-21 10:23:08] - Xpovos: Yeah, I understand that Ukraine is apparently fairly important in the geo-political realm because of Russia and everything, but Venezuela is a pretty major oil producer and the situation there seems to be just as bad if not worse. -Paul
[2014-02-21 09:43:22] - Paul: Venezuela's been getting more coverage in the past 24 hours. But clearly the answer for the non-coverage/delayed coverage is racism. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-20 17:15:45] - http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/20/is-western-media-ignoring-a-violent-poli It does seem a little odd that Ukraine is getting so much more attention than Venezuela... -Paul
[2014-02-20 16:06:44] - aaron: The very first picture I got was somebody flicking me off.
-Paul[2014-02-20 16:01:10] - http://www.pointerpointer.com/ a pointless web site - aaron
[2014-02-20 14:44:37] - nina: Are you in favor of these FCC actions? -Paul
[2014-02-20 14:41:33] - i think this is the more interesting story coming out of the FCC this week. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/19/fcc-will-rewrite-net-neutrality-rules -nina
[2014-02-20 12:14:34] - http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/198799-fcc-no-intention-of-regulating-journalism fcc wants to ask newsrooms how they make decisions on what airs. That's not creepy at all, surely they are doing this just for science. - mig
[2014-02-20 12:07:33] - fair enough. google of 2014 is probably right about at the same level of monopoliness as microsoft of 2001. ~a
[2014-02-20 10:40:52] - a: Sure, they still have some ways to go for web browsing, but what about the amount of the internet that they actually directly control? Between google maps and ad words and gmail and search, they seem to dominate a large segment of the internet. -Paul
[2014-02-20 10:39:13] - Xpovos: I would probably be more "pro" than "con", but I haven't thought it through much. It seems to make sense to me, though. -Paul
[2014-02-20 10:33:16] - paul: no. not really. but that could change. their web browser is gaining market share in leaps and bounds. their smartphone is gaining market share in leaps and bounds. if their google fiber is half as good as i hear, they might start a coup there too. ~a
[2014-02-20 10:30:04] - Paul: Query then, would you be pro or con this statement. If a natural monopoly occurs, market forces will spurn technological advances to find alternatives to that monopoly faster than they would otherwise? E.g. , are distributed broadband network technologies advancing more rapidly because of oligopoly of tubes. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-20 10:24:35] - a: Thanks to their "control" over everybody's internet browser. That's why I singled out Google among their competitors. You don't think Google controls as much of the internet now as Microsoft did in 2001? -Paul
[2014-02-20 10:22:44] - a: Right, exactly. And that's where my thought process was somewhat going to when I mentioned Google. I thought Netscape was a proxy for "the internet", and people were worried about some net neutrality type thing where we would only be allowed to visit Microsoft sites online. -Paul
[2014-02-20 10:21:05] - nobody controls the internet now like microsoft did in 2001. no, google has competitors, facebook has competitors, apple has competitors. the web browser market, the smartphone market, they're all fairly decentralized. ~a
[2014-02-20 10:19:52] - "Were people really just concerned about them driving Netscape out of business?" it had nothing to do with netscape, imo. no, i think they were worried that microsoft had a monopoly on controlling "the internet". and i believe at that time they did, to a small degree. not to the degree that i'd challenge them in court, but still. ~a
[2014-02-20 10:17:47] - a: Not only that, though, it seems silly that the main thrust of the case was over web browsers... something that even back then I think were basically being given away for free (thanks to Microsoft, sure, but my point is it wasn't exactly a huge money making industry). Were people really just concerned about them driving Netscape out of business? -Paul
[2014-02-20 10:12:38] - paul: microsoft was a monopoly. maybe? regardless, it seems silly now because they aren't a monopoly anymore. ~a
[2014-02-20 10:10:50] - Xpovos: http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ And google fiber is an excellent example of how it's not necessarily the big cable "monopolies" which are the problems, but sometimes local governments as well. -Paul
[2014-02-20 10:08:11] - Xpovos: Sure, but if we're arguing against the "tubes" monopoly, I'm still not overly convinced. I know it's not everywhere, but there's still very meaningful competition from Verizon Fios and satellite companies. Google is also continuing to roll out their fiber network. -Paul
[2014-02-20 10:02:22] - Of course, the shoddy barn that let the horse escape was built to design specifications dreamed up on gov't committee, so, there we are. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-20 10:01:43] - Paul: Time for a libertarian brand debate then. The problem with this new merger isn't the "cable" business--that is the TV portion, it's the fact that they're centralizing the "tubes". Your argument that the horse is out of the barn may be fair, but this is still a bad thing to allow. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-20 10:01:05] - a: But, I guess going back to your original question....I guess I'm still not entirely sure what the big concern was with Microsoft during that trial. Was it just that they pretty much squashed browser competition for a while? Or was there concern that they would rule the internet or something? -Paul
[2014-02-20 10:00:04] - a: Especially considering Google has created an OS which is basically a web browser (Chrome OS). -Paul
[2014-02-20 09:58:22] - a: I guess my overall point is that the whole thing about IE being bundled with Windows seems so silly now. -Paul
[2014-02-20 09:57:55] - a: Well, I was going to go on and list a bunch of Microsoft's competitors now, but then I switched gears and decided to go with a more direct analogy and list competitors to IE (Chrome) and instead ended up with something confusing in between.
-Paul[2014-02-20 09:45:13] - "That didn't appear to help MS very much against Google" can you explain what you mean? i don't follow. ~a
[2014-02-20 09:04:47] - Xpovos: Any movement to try to break up Comcast or reduce it's power would seem to be similar to me to the movement to break up Microsoft however many decades ago: Probably not a good idea to start with and also probably too late. Wasn't a big deal made about how IE was bundled with windows? That didn't appear to help MS very much against Google. -Paul
[2014-02-20 09:02:48] - Xpovos: Eh, I wouldn't say I strongly disagree, but I also am not very compelled by his arguments. It seems to me that the past few years have seen a reduction in influence and power by the cable companies, as people have used stuff like Roku/Chromecast/Xbox/Hulu/Netfllix/etc to "cut the cable". -Paul
[2014-02-19 23:02:50] - Dear God, the world is ending. I (sort of) agree with Krugman! http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/opinion/krugman-barons-of-broadband.html -- Xpovos
[2014-02-19 17:27:13] - a: I don't know either, but I don't see any magical reason why it would. I'm totally on board with the DEGREE of change being different, but I if $100 causes distortions and unemployment on some level, I don't know why $10 wouldn't on a smaller level. -Paul
[2014-02-19 17:22:41] - paul: "Does the $10 minimum wage magically not cause inflation and unemployment but $100 does?" i don't know. which is why i'm not a super big proponent of large changes to the minimum wage (positive or negative) (relative to inflation). ~a
[2014-02-19 17:18:42] - a: Interestingly, I think Xpovos touched on something that might answer my question: Mainly, the idea that the poor are more likely to spend that little extra money they get instead of saving it, whereas they might end up saving more money out of a $100 minimum wage increase. -Paul
[2014-02-19 17:16:37] - a: Sure, but then why doesn't that same thing happen (to a lesser extent) with a lower minimum wage increase? Do you see what I'm saying? If the positives outweigh the (possibly non-existent) negatives for a $10 minimum wage, what changes for a $100 minimum wage? Does the $10 minimum wage magically not cause inflation and unemployment but $100 does? -Paul
[2014-02-19 17:14:01] - paul: if the minimum wage is too high, all of the things you're probably worried about happening will probably happen. what with the inflation and unemployment. ~a
[2014-02-19 17:13:44] - xpovos: agreed. so going another step forward, increasing the minimum wage increases velocity? but . . . also has other side effects. ~a
[2014-02-19 16:37:44] - a: Sure, and that might be true, but why does your last, added step logically follow? I can follow the progression from step 1 to 2, 2 to 3 and so forth, but I don't see why raising the minimum wage to $100 breaks this. -Paul
[2014-02-19 16:35:57] - Giving money to poor people, it either gets spent or pays down debt. The velocity is 0.5. But that's something the Federal Reserve is incapable of doing because they lack the legal standing, as much as they'd like to. They want inflation and they can't get it because the tools they have are zero velocity. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-19 16:34:40] - a: It's the opposite of pushing on a string. The Federal Reserve gives free money to the banks, that's part of it's role. This tends not to be inflationary because the banks don't spend it. They lend it (primarily to other banks--who also don't spend it). As a result very little of that money actually moves in the economy. It's velocity is zero. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-19 16:33:02] - paul: i'll simplify it slightly less: poor people have more money. they spend that extra money on stuff. businesses make more money. unless the minimum wage is too high. ~a
[2014-02-19 15:42:45] - a: Jason Furman is the chairman of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers. -Paul
[2014-02-19 15:40:31] - a: Right, the CBO only looked at this specific minimum wage increase. But I'm not talking about the CBO. I'm talking about the people who say the minimum wage increase is great because (simplifying here): Poor people have more money. They spend that extra money on stuff. Businesses make more money. -Paul
[2014-02-19 15:14:12] - paul: i'm not sure who jason furman is or who "a lot of people out there" are, but i disagree with both of them. ~a
[2014-02-19 15:13:07] - paul: "there’s no solid evidence that a higher minimum wage costs jobs" != "there’s solid evidence that any arbitrary minimum wage costs zero jobs" ~a
[2014-02-19 15:12:05] - paul: "there's nothing that indicates that the logic wouldn't still hold true for larger increases" sure there is. the domain is specified in the fine print. the CBO numbers look at specific minimum wages, in specific locations, for specific situations. not minimum wage in general. not an ironic 25/hour or a 100/hour minimum wage. ~a
[2014-02-19 15:07:48] - a: '"Zero is a perfectly reasonable estimate of the impact of the minimum wage on employment," said Jason Furman, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers'. There's a lot of people out there who think unemployment is basically unaffected by minimum wage laws. -Paul
[2014-02-19 14:52:47] - a: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/12/05/obamas-claim-that-there-is-no-solid-evidence-that-boosting-the-minimum-wage-harms-jobs/ Jumping into your conversation with Miguel, here is Obama saying, "there’s no solid evidence that a higher minimum wage costs jobs". -Paul
[2014-02-19 14:44:09] - a: The reason that nobody is claiming these hold up for larger increases is because it seems to be pretty clearly impossible. Obviously we can't just raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour and have society be all around much better off. -Paul
[2014-02-19 14:43:02] - a: I understand. But my point is that according to the pro-minimum wage logic as I understand it (and I admit that I could be mis-understanding the logic), there's nothing that indicates that the logic wouldn't still hold true for larger increases. -Paul
[2014-02-19 14:09:32] - "they come out and say you can raise the min wage without any sort of ill effects to the labor market" they said what now? ~a
[2014-02-19 13:29:59] - a: "why not $100/hr" seems like a fair question to ask the people tsk-tsking the CBO for its findings about the projected job losses, since they come out and say you can raise the min wage without any sort of ill effects to the labor market. - mig
[2014-02-19 13:13:29] - nobody is claiming that these arguments hold up with larger increases except you. ~a
[2014-02-19 13:02:46] - Paul: One of the biggest reasons to increase the minimum wage is the 'feel good' reason, and it doesn't 'feel good' to raise the minimum wage to a wage you're making. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-19 12:52:28] - a: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_wage#Debate_over_consequences Most of the "Arguments in favour of minimum wage laws" seems like they should hold up with larger increases. -Paul
[2014-02-19 12:52:03] - a: That's entirely possible, but almost everything I've seen and read indicates the logic should hold the same for an increase to $20 or $100. I've also heard a number of progressive think-tank types asked the question of why $10 and not $100, and the only thing they can come up with is some vague statement about needing to balance things. -Paul
[2014-02-19 12:47:24] - http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/02/basically-barackobama-parody-twitter-account/358099/ I actually had no idea that the BarackObama twitter account is not really affiliated with the president himself or even his staff. -Paul
[2014-02-19 12:39:16] - unemployment and/or inflation. ~a
[2014-02-19 12:38:01] - paul: "it seems like more SHOULD be better" no, i don't think you understand the logic behind pro-minimum wage thinking. i'm not the best proponent of the minimum wage, since i have very mixed feelings about it, but even the biggest proponent will keep in mind that a minimum wage that is too high will lead to unemployment. ~a
[2014-02-19 12:33:06] - Xpovos: I would think that would have to do more with Fed monetary policy or even government borrowing policies than minimum wage laws. -Paul
[2014-02-19 12:30:34] - Paul: In that case, I think the biggest risk is that of hyperinflation, which is counterproductive to the whole movement. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-19 12:27:39] - a: What are the obvious reasons? I understand there's no general rule that if a little is good, a lot is better, but if I understand the logic behind pro-minimum wage thinking (multiplier effect, etc), then it seems like more SHOULD be better. -Paul
[2014-02-19 12:26:36] - 2) These are minimums, they can always be paid more at any stage. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-19 12:26:12] - In this scenario that law states that the minimum wage for a person is $LV, which is algorithmically determined by a combination of factors such as age, dependents, etc. This would range, probably between $7 and $25. With the added bonuses in the law: 1) you can't terminate the employee because his algorithm increases his compensation, and ... -- Xpovos
[2014-02-19 12:22:32] - a: I've got three options. 1) $0. That's the libertarian laissez-faire answer that Paul can do a good job of explaining, so I'll let him. 2) $20-$25. This pulls the minimum wage up to the median wage; it does seriously weird things to the economy, but it would be interesting. 3) The bat-shit crazy idea that I'll try to explain. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-19 12:17:13] - ok, do you have a proposal? what should the federal/state minimum wages be? ~a
[2014-02-19 12:14:04] - a: I'm not suggesting against balance, I'm just suggesting that the fulcrum is further away than people realize. If you want to push minimum wage earners into self-sufficiency, it's going to take a big shove. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-19 12:12:08] - "If a little is all around good. Why isn't a lot all around better" for obvious reasons? you need to strike a balance. "all around good" isn't what i typically hear people say when they refer to complex things like the minimum wage. ~a
[2014-02-19 11:38:00] - Xpovos: I'm with you, though, and it's part of the reason why the rationale for minimum wage laws and stimulus and whatnot never quite makes sense to me. If a little is all around good. Why isn't a lot all around better? -Paul
[2014-02-19 11:36:23] - Xpovos: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-minimum-wage-20140218,0,486403.story#axzz2tmmnBqev I'm guessing this is the response to what you're saying. Basically, 16.5 million and 900k > 500k. -Paul
[2014-02-19 11:34:30] - And the same math will apply, it'll result in a higher unemployment number, but probably not that much higher than $10/hr. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-19 11:34:08] - If that's the greater good, it seems like we ought to shoot for a higher number. $10 isn't enough to live off of, so we're not going to pull very many out (but then neither, perhaps are we disengaging many from the employment rolls). Why not $20? I think it's fair to say that should give enough for most people to find a way to live off of. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-19 11:32:41] - mig: Ok, so the theoretical greater good is that this pushes some portion of people out of a dependency mode while enshrining the already effective dependency mode of the rest, therefore resulting in some net to society where we have a few more haves and at least know who the have nots are? -- Xpovos
[2014-02-19 11:20:52] - mig: i think xpovos is referring to the low income workers who would see their income disappear (i.e. laid off). ~a
[2014-02-19 11:19:16] - xpovos: in this case it would the low income workers who see their income rise. - mig
[2014-02-19 11:18:37] - mig: I'm just happy that it's acknowledged that there is a trade-off involved and it's not just free money for people. Still surprising to me that some people won't admit there are both pros AND cons. -Paul
[2014-02-19 10:55:18] - mig: What exactly is the greater good there? Serious question, I'm not trying to be sarcastic. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-19 10:47:51] - http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/business/mixed-results-in-us-study-of-increasing-minimum-wage.html i suppose this is an interesting thought experiment. Increase the minimum wage and screw a few low income people for the greater good? Is it worth it? - mig
[2014-02-18 15:20:28] - a: yeah! i guess google hasn't heard that joke yet. that's really unusual - aaron
[2014-02-18 14:13:43] - microaggression. ~a
[2014-02-18 13:45:56] - http://www.mediaite.com/online/college-student-leader-apologizes-for-racial-microaggression-after-sending-obama-gif/ what the fuck does "microagression" even mean? canadians are weird. - mig
[2014-02-18 10:48:33] - i created a webpage where people could turn on and off my coworker's monitor. the URL is spreading around the office. i'm wondering how long it'll be before the coworker yells out in anger. he's already tried to fiddle with the connectors on his monitor. ~a
[2014-02-18 09:38:23] - "for the last 12 hours they have been stuck in a maze" hahahaha, that makes me smile. will they ever get out of the maze? ~a
[2014-02-18 09:36:58] - aaron: when i google "how many octopuses does it take to screw in a lightbulb" i get this link. ~a
[2014-02-18 08:58:19] - but there's 40,000 people trying to control it at once, half of the players are trolls who are repeatedly pausing the game or moving backwards, and there's a 40-second delay. they've collected 4 gym badges, thrown away their starter pokemon and most of their valuable items, and for the last 12 hours they have been stuck in a maze - aaron
[2014-02-18 08:56:02] - http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/twitch-plays-pokmon-the-largest-massively-multiplayer-pokmon-game-is-beautiful-chaos-9133732.html has anybody been following "twitch plays pokemon"? players type in a command, "a", "left", "start", and the emulator automatically presses the button... - aaron
[2014-02-18 08:53:03] - a: .125 or 1/8, both answers are acceptable- aaron
[2014-02-17 17:48:10] - a: re the subtitle, that's one of the reasons I prefer the Winter Olympics. Not only are the sports generally more interesting to watch, there's less pointless variation on the same sport. Sure, there's like 7 types of skiing and 5 types of bobsled, but that's nothing compared to the apparently 40 types of swimming. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-17 12:54:35] - current_title: ha. ~a
[2014-02-17 12:54:30] - previous_title: .125? ~a
[2014-02-17 09:36:50] - hah, nice subtitle. i'm guessing this happens less often in the winter olympics than the summer. ~a
[2014-02-13 12:45:17] - http://www.mmo-champion.com/content/3767-Heroes-of-the-Storm-Alpha-Client
[2014-02-12 15:30:01] - xpovos: i was confused since it wasn't at any DC venue i'd been to before, so i wasn't sure if it was some kind of weird fundraiser or seminar, or other non-concert thing - aaron
[2014-02-12 15:29:19] - xpovos: that april "concert" came up for me on songkick, a week or so ago -- but i wasn't sure if it was a glitch! i couldn't dig up info anywhere else. but yeah i'm interested! - aaron
[2014-02-12 15:23:52] - aaron: Heh. Also, that video is super macabre. Or is that mache? -- Xpovos
[2014-02-12 15:18:32] - xpovos: i thought your two posts were related, and you had just heard i'm impressed for the first time... - aaron
[2014-02-12 13:08:27] - The tea party has been trying to play hardball, but Obama has been successfully playing it. Let's not forget that on pretty much every major point of disagreement between the tea party and Obama, Obama has won (sometimes decisively). -Paul
[2014-02-12 12:56:39] - From what I can tell, this isn't a conservative paper, and yet it talks about how Obama has been largely getting his way in the debt ceiling and budget battles and how he hasn't negotiated much. -Paul
[2014-02-12 12:55:22] - http://www.sfgate.com/news/politics/article/GOP-bedrock-principle-dropped-in-debt-limit-vote-5226754.php "Starting last year, Obama has steadfastly refused to negotiate" I would submit this article as an example of why the narrative that a willing-to-negotiate Obama being thwarted by refuse-to-negotiate tea partiers is wrong. -Paul
[2014-02-12 09:24:06] - I'm impressed: http://d3.gameguyz.com/node/3608.html -- Xpovos
[2014-02-12 09:10:55] - TMBG news. They've got a pair of DC concerts in April, according to a Facebook post. No other details listed, but I figured that might be interesting to some folks here. Meanwhile, I just heard for the first time a song they released in 2004. That's a decade, what the hell? -- Xpovos
[2014-02-11 16:15:11] - ha! ~a
[2014-02-11 15:45:46] - a: Oooh, sledding! -- Xpovos
[2014-02-11 14:33:53] - paul: my guess is enough to go sledding or skiing. ~a
[2014-02-11 13:44:22] - Xpovos: My guess is enough to shut down daycare, but not enough to shut down work. -Paul
[2014-02-11 13:03:42] - So... how much snow are we getting Thursday? -- Xpovos
[2014-02-11 10:07:49] - have to be factored in long term budgets. - mig
[2014-02-11 10:07:26] - http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/02/10/the-white-house-is-relaxing-the-employer-mandate-again/ I'm beginning to wonder if the aca employer mandate will eventually turn into how congress treated medicare's "doc fix". Something you have no intention of actually implementing, but have to keep can't say so explicitly because then the costs of doing so
[2014-02-11 09:04:48] - the previews made it look dumb. i liked the animation style but the jokes/snippets they chose for the previews made it look like just another kids movie - aaron
[2014-02-10 19:36:37] - xpovos: well he's projected to go in rounds 3-5. Possible he may drop out of a lot of boards. He will be given a shot to make somebody's roster though. In some ways it might be better if he gets a shot as an undrafted free agent rather than being drafted that late. - mig
[2014-02-10 17:00:53] - Xpovos: I'm not fully buying into the hype that it's genius and stuff like that, but I haven't really seen a bad review yet, so I figure even if it's not genius, it should at least be pretty good. -Paul
[2014-02-10 16:59:54] - Paul: I thought it looked stupid. Then I saw positive reviews. Then even more. Then I started to see it in a different light. It might actually be genius. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-10 16:57:26] - a: She thinks the commercials for it looks incredibly dumb, and I do have to agree with her there. I'm hoping it just means they saved all the good parts for the movie. -Paul
[2014-02-10 16:47:28] - paul: RT say 95%! i also heard good things (or generally positive things) from my 20-something y.o. coworkers. why is gurkie against it? ~a
[2014-02-10 16:44:55] - Xpovos: I wanted to see it just based on the ridiculously positive reviews I've heard, but Gurkie is adamantly against it. -Paul
[2014-02-10 16:30:29] - Hmm. Now I really want to see this movie. http://thefederalist.com/2014/02/10/is-the-lego-movie-the-most-subversive-pro-liberty-film-ever/ -- Xpovos
[2014-02-10 15:51:04] - nina: No, that's why no one will give him another shot though. And while he's not an amazing QB, he's good enough to play in the NFL for someone (looking at you Jacksonville). -- Xpovos
[2014-02-10 15:11:35] - xpovos: you think tebow didn't get anywhere in the NFL because of the media surrounding him? -nina
[2014-02-10 15:11:11] - Paul: He's probably a 5th round pick without this. Worst case he ends up on someone's practice squad. Now? He's headed for Canada is my guess. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-10 15:11:08] - paul: Collins came out at the sunset of his career. It's a much bolder move to make when you're just starting out. So, yeah, I guess we'll see. -nina
[2014-02-10 15:09:02] - Nina: Yeah. I think (hope) Collins wouldn't have been signed anyway, just like if this guy doesn't get drafted, I'm hoping it was because he wasn't good enough to get drafted anyway. -Paul
[2014-02-10 15:02:59] - Paul: Their lives warranted the same dignity as yours or mine... but the irony is humorous, and I don't think there's any problem in laughing. Sometimes all you can do is laugh or cry. Probably better to laugh. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-10 15:02:27] - paul: jason collins is 35 years old. so, age is probably the bigger factor for why he's unsigned. -nina
[2014-02-10 15:01:36] - It comes back to the Tim Tebow problem, actually. No one will want him because of the circus that will follow. Playing him is favoritism. Not playing him is bigoted (as is not drafting him, but at least then it's equally 31 other teams' problem). He was already a player that was considered risky because of his size... -- Xpovos
[2014-02-10 15:01:26] - http://reason.com/24-7/2014/02/10/iraqi-suicide-bomber-accidentally-kills It's ok to laugh about this, right? I don't need to feel sorry about the deaths of a bunch of people who were looking to die anyway (and take others out with them)? -Paul
[2014-02-10 14:57:57] - nina: I've read a lot more about the media worrying about backlash, than about public backlash. Having said that, Jason Collins remains unsigned and we'll see if this guy gets drafted. -Paul
[2014-02-10 14:57:21] - nina: The good thing is, it doesn't look like very many teams or players have gone on the record as speaking out against Jason Collins or Michael Sam. -Paul
[2014-02-10 14:33:49] - it was only a matter of time for an NFL player to come out, now that the NBA already has players coming out. players/teams that have issues with him are going to look as stupid as the players who spoke out against Magic Johnson when he returned to the NBA. -nina
[2014-02-10 14:31:26] - mig: I hope your crossfire damage is minimal. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-10 14:21:25] - mig: i applaud bosses that try to short-circuit bureaucracy. bureaucracy sucks ass. ~a
[2014-02-10 13:53:01] - Daniel: I'm less inclined to applaud him at this point, but it definitely is taking a measure of bravado. He's drawn the spotlight; now let's see what he does with it. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-10 13:37:13] - At the same time, good for him for trying to stand up to one of the toughest places to come out to (NFL locker rooms). -Daniel
[2014-02-10 13:36:07] - Xpovos: I was trying to decide if I thought that was going to happen or not (sam not being drafted). I'm less certain than you but I certainly think its possible. I think if he does go undrafted it will surprise people though. -Daniel
[2014-02-10 13:26:00] - i think my boss just tried to circumvent a bit of bureaucracy around here and its about to bite him in the ass. And I have a feeling I'm going to get hit in the crossfire. - mig
[2014-02-10 13:23:59] - In other news: this is awesome and will never happen. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/02/10/lights-out-for-nsa-maryland-lawmakers-push-to-cut-water-electricity-to-spy-agency-headquarters -- Xpovos
[2014-02-10 13:21:56] - a: Over the past 5 years or so, we've seen American culture move strongly in a libertarian direction on the issues of marijuana legalization and gay marriage. -Paul
[2014-02-10 13:20:17] - a: I'm not sure what's unclear. I am saying that 5 years ago, if you asked somebody why they didn't vote libertarian, the "crazy" stances on drugs and gay marriage would probably be two of the most mentioned things (along with stuff like prostitution and taxes and regulation). -Paul
[2014-02-10 13:18:53] - I guarantee Michael Sam will not be drafted now. That doesn't make it proper, but it will happen. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-10 13:08:43] - have it both ways? "One thing that I think is worth noting/bragging about for libertarians is how two of the biggest 'libertarians are crazy for believing this' issues that people used to like bringing up have swung dramatically in their favor" i want to know what the hell you're talking about here. what are you talking about? ~a
[2014-02-10 12:36:24] - a: Come on, you can't have it both ways. Before you were coming up with excuses for Bill Clinton (for Don't Ask Don't Tell) about how different society was back then on gay marriage.
-Paul[2014-02-10 12:35:30] - maybe. ~a
[2014-02-10 12:23:03] - wasn't being pro gay marriage back in the 90s considered a view that was kind of "out there"? - mig
[2014-02-10 11:32:57] - paul: web.archive.org is your friend. sadly, it's not as easy as googling something. ~a
[2014-02-10 11:22:04] - a: Honestly, I'm having trouble finding them now (maybe a lot got taken down with the changing winds?). They generally showed up in more conservative media about how libertarians might be attractive on fiscal issues, but Republicans had to be aware of their crazy social issues. -Paul
[2014-02-10 10:58:02] - a: not sure. but, i know that when something makes big news, others tend to use it as a platform to get their own message out, relevant or not. -nina
[2014-02-10 10:38:46] - paul: yeah, sure. a link to somebody who thought libertarians were crazy for thinking gay marriage should be legal? ~a
[2014-02-10 10:37:54] - nina: nice. i wonder how many hippies agree with this literally though and would be offended by being mocked in such ways. ~a
[2014-02-10 10:29:35] - a: What do you mean? Link to somebody who thought libertarians were crazy for believing that? -Paul
[2014-02-10 10:29:24] - this is funny. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/further-health-demands-of-cvs/283695/ -nina
[2014-02-10 10:26:50] - it's not that i don't believe you, it's just i have no perspective / context of what you're talking about. ~a
[2014-02-10 10:17:07] - paul: "libertarians are crazy for believing this" can you link to one of these? ~a
[2014-02-10 09:29:32] - mig: I don't think many people have properly given libertarians credit for not being crazy, just being a little ahead of their time. -Paul
[2014-02-10 09:28:46] - mig: One thing that I think is worth noting/bragging about for libertarians is how two of the biggest "libertarians are crazy for believing this" issues that people used to like bringing up have swung dramatically in their favor of the past few years: marijuana legalization and gay marriage. -Paul
[2014-02-09 20:27:51] - http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/rise-of-the-libertarians#axzz2se9D8ZhM long piece not sure i the whole thing is worth reading but 1 section did pique my interest: is libertarianism the new center? - mig
[2014-02-07 17:21:38] - mig: I gotta ask: Are you working on the No-Fly list?
-Paul[2014-02-07 16:34:07] - I've spent the better part of 3 days trying to figure out a problem only to find out it's because some fucknut copied/pasted something from ms word into an xml file. I have the urge to punch someone again. - mig
[2014-02-07 13:17:51] - mig: I talk with these folks on a fairly regular basis. I'm pretty sure that my contact with the VASP CCRE is technically brain dead. So, no, I'm not surprised that they make errors. But at least normally when they do it's not a problem for me. Due diligence! -- Xpovos
[2014-02-07 13:10:29] - Daniel: They're essentially Yes/No questions, so putting N/A is equivalent to "No", when the answer was "Yes, but I refuse to provide the required details about 'yes'". -- Xpovos
[2014-02-07 13:08:32] - Xpovos: Why is putting 'N/A' untrue? It seems that the information required was not applicable to the matter at hand if he was able to get cleared without providing the more specific answer? -Daniel
[2014-02-07 13:05:16] - some of them will and some of them won't. ~a
[2014-02-07 12:38:24] - a: I don't disagree, the difference is that I don't think those people are going to stop just because it's illegal. -Paul
[2014-02-07 12:36:01] - http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/06/that-woman-who-has-been-fighting-to-get bah - mig
[2014-02-07 12:35:19] - xpovos: general rule - <a href="reason.com/blog/2014/02/06/that-woman-who-has-been-fighting-to-get">don't assume competence when it comes to government and paperwork</a>. - mig
[2014-02-07 12:34:29] - the reason i'm not a libertarian, is because i know that if you allow people to discriminate based on sexuality/ethnicity/etc, they will do it. because people are lame. ~a
[2014-02-07 12:33:02] - because you secretly believe that discriminating on sexuality/ethnicity/etc is awesome? ~a
[2014-02-07 12:24:15] - a: And I don't blame them. It's a difficult and subtle argument to make that some things that you disapprove of and think shouldn't be done shouldn't be illegal. I feel like a jackass everytime I try to defend somebody's right to discriminate based on sexuality/ethnicity/etc. -Paul
[2014-02-07 12:23:02] - a: I dunno, I think the majority of people draw a pretty direct connection between stuff they don't think should be done and making it illegal. People shouldn't do drugs. Illegal! Kids should have to wear helmets on bikes. Illegal! Guns scare me. Illegal! -Paul
[2014-02-07 12:21:38] - Xpovos: Yeah, not sure. I guess I would just point to it being the agency's fault and let it go by, but I see why that's not an ideal solution. -Paul
[2014-02-07 12:05:47] - And frankly now it's worse than if I hadn't sent it, because he'll try to use the fact that the agency says he's OK as a point in his favor. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-07 12:04:37] - "They don't want to make everything they disapprove of illegal" i disagree that it's a thing that differentiates libertarians from most everybody else. though i would say it's probably a non-causal correlation. ~a
[2014-02-07 12:04:14] - Paul: I'm sure I could treat it as CLEAR and be fine.But if he ever did something our due diligence defense gets hampered significantly, even though the error wasn't ours. Legally isn't the issue though. I'm more concerned with the practical--which is this guy is not going to be permitted to volunteer until we get this fixed; and he's going to piss and moan. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-07 11:50:50] - Xpovos: What's your legal responsibility? It sounds like your hands might be clean since the agency (that should have the legal obligation) cleared it. -Paul
[2014-02-07 11:44:44] - Now... what am I supposed to do next? I sent this form in assuming it would be rejected, then I could use the official rejection from the government agency to badger him into providing the required information. Instead, they've given us a "CLEAR" result that I can't use because it was obtained fraudulently. -- Xpovos
[2014-02-07 11:43:58] - However, the answers are not, in fact, "N/A". He has signed, perjuring himself, and I have a letter certifying the perjury attached to the form, which has been processed by the agency. They have determined he has a clear background. They didn't reject the form, or get hung up on the perjury at all. They processed it! -- Xpovos
[2014-02-07 11:42:26] - The form requires a substantial amount of personal information, including some that may seem irrelevant to a background check search; but the agency requires the information to be included, or it refuses to process the form at all. One enterprising individual has decided to answer all of the questions, "N/A" (an acceptable answer). ... -- Xpovos
[2014-02-07 11:41:01] - I have another ponderable. We use a government agency to run background checks as part of my job. The form the agency requires to be filled out (completely) must be notarized and signed "certify[ing] that the information [...] is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge." ... -- Xpovos
[2014-02-07 11:36:43] - a: I can very strongly disapprove of things but still think it shouldn't be illegal. Heck, I might even say it's one of the biggest things that differentiates libertarians from most everybody else. They don't want to make everything they disapprove of illegal. -Paul
[2014-02-07 11:34:22] - a: Yeah, and I think we agree there some. A common misconception is that just because libertarians don't want something against the law, it means they condone it (see "you are okay with employers firing people when finding out they are gay"). -Paul
[2014-02-07 11:20:49] - paul: i concede. i've decided my position is indefensible. instead, i'm going to keep bitching that lawyers suck and need to stop putting bullshit in contracts. but i've grown tired of thinking it should be done by law. ~a
[2014-02-07 10:56:02] - paul: if you don't mind sending the word out to any programmer friends you have, i'd appreciate it.
-nina[2014-02-07 10:36:29] - Nina: Ah, ok. Thanks. That does clarify it a lot. Sorry, I'm a little dense sometimes.
Unfortunately, I think I am busy that weekend, but let me know if you're doing another one. -Paul[2014-02-07 10:29:48] - https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/carcassonneshoppe/the-adults-of-carcassonne the adults of carcasonne -- a carcasonne drinking game. 72 coasters, 8 shot glasses per player - aaron
[2014-02-07 10:20:44] - here's the presentation for the program Pierce and I and this other dude we met there made. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B447DmirAxMaM2VNQ2x0OERxVEU/edit?usp=sharing -nina
[2014-02-07 10:18:28] - and there are a couple other projects going on. at last year's hackathon, the arlington fire dept came with a problem. (needing to track where firefighters were in the buildings, and tracking their breathing times, so they know when to get out). a group of high schoolers created a program to do exactly that. -nina
prev <-> next