prev <-> next
[2014-10-10 15:07:36] - http://espn.go.com/espn/chalk/story/_/id/11673834/betting-examining-ethical-line-advantage-play-cheating I kind of want to know why the dealer had to speak Mandarin. For some reason, all I can think of is the line from Billy Madison where he asks for a Buffalo, live or stuffed. -Paul
[2014-10-10 14:53:35] - I'm lazy and didn't read the full article. Did they address exactly how/where they will be adding new lanes? I thought the big problem was lack of space to expand. -Paul
[2014-10-10 14:39:04] - a: you're right i phrased it pessimistically, it's more like, "do i want to do nothing at all, or do i want to pay $2,000 and decrease my commute by an hour" - aaron
[2014-10-10 14:38:12] - a: i don't take 66 to work anymore, but back when i did, it was about a 45-50 minute commute each way, or about 20 minutes in the HOV lanes. this change wouldn't increase my commute, but paying $2,000 to ride in the fancy lanes would decrease it - aaron
[2014-10-10 14:27:17] - aaron: why will this extend your commute by an hour? i think they're keeping most of the normal lanes, right? ~a
[2014-10-10 13:11:50] - aaron: I guessed Captain Planet, but 24 and Star Trek totally make sense (although Star Trek, for other reasons than they give). -Paul
[2014-10-10 13:03:39] - paul: i guessed 24! i also guessed "south park" because they're kind of vehemently anti-everything, but apparently they were on the wrong list... - aaron
[2014-10-10 13:01:13] - Whoops, sorry, that was supposed to be directed at Xpovos. -Paul
[2014-10-10 13:00:59] - mig: I feel like NFL is a bit of a cop out. I think I would've preferred one of the Law and Order shows. The very nature of the show is super deferential to the police and contemptuous of the rights of accused people. -Paul
[2014-10-10 12:47:35] - mig: that's a good point. i guess they could calculate mileage as a part of state emissions inspections and figure it into your personal property tax or something... you're right though, a gas tax has problems - aaron
[2014-10-10 12:41:02] - Just not to the same level, I don't think. But that could just be a misunderstanding of my own childhood. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-10 12:40:22] - Paul: Interesting list. Can't really disagree with the choices too much. But I'd prefer they have 'better' shows overall. Captain Planet was terrible TV in addition to being preachy. Star Trek, and the rest were generally very popular and pretty good shows, though popularity != good, I know. And it can't just be popularity, because Captain Planet was popular too.
[2014-10-10 10:06:32] - a mileage tax seems too make more sense at this point but I don't know how you'd be able to realistically implement it. - mig
[2014-10-10 09:52:23] - aaron: the problem with gas taxes is that as cars get more efficient they bring in less revenue, which some states are already having a problem with. Sure you can raise them, but that tends to hurt poorer folks more who can't afford nicer cars. - mig
[2014-10-10 09:33:27] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC3N5c6FRLY&feature=youtu.be I thought this was mildly amusing. The 5 most anti-libertarian TV shows. I was able to guess one of them! -Paul
[2014-10-10 09:28:05] - a: hmm, bad. i hate the idea behind having to choose between paying $2,000 a year, or extending my commute by an hour. i'm torn on the issue of private roads. and i don't mind the idea of public roads being paid for by the people who use them, but i don't think toll roads accomplish that. i'd prefer a higher gas tax to toll roads - aaron
[2014-10-10 09:26:50] - a: I didn't even notice that. Pretty cool. -Paul
[2014-10-09 17:42:05] - paul: ha i did. what i like about that first image is that the wave (the water) line comes from the graph of the price during that time over the weekend. ~a
[2014-10-09 16:43:29] - a: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102070437 Did you hear about the BearWhale? -Paul
[2014-10-09 16:24:10] - aaron: good or bad? ~a
[2014-10-09 15:36:38] - http://www.wtop.com/41/3717851/I-66-to-get-toll-lanes-outside-but-not-inside-Beltway I-66 to get toll lanes - aaron
[2014-10-09 15:15:13] - Aaron: I just read that one. I think it's too deep for me because I don't really understand it at all. -Paul
[2014-10-09 15:11:10] - paul: i liked, "I'm going to create a perfect world where everyone is beautiful, and everyone has the right gun, but it's only good for killing bugs". i don't think i understand that quote on as many levels as i'm supposed to but i still think it's a cool quote - aaron
[2014-10-09 15:10:35] - paul: ha ha ha ha
- aaron[2014-10-09 15:07:31] - "I live in a house with my two daughters and my wife and I have to lineup to use the bathroom. I get no respect." This is why I made sure my house had plenty of bathrooms.
-Paul[2014-10-09 15:05:33] - sorry, i keep saying running man, i mean total recall - aaron
[2014-10-09 15:05:13] - paul: yeah i googled his picture and immediately recognized him, i think as the villain from running man. definitely a villain - aaron
[2014-10-09 14:57:50] - Aaron: You might recognize him if you saw him (did you google his picture?), he's been in a lot of stuff, but no roles memorable enough to become a household name. -Paul
[2014-10-09 14:50:09] - http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2irdci/i_am_actor_michael_ironside_you_might_know_me/ i had never heard of this actor Michael Ironside but he had a really good reddit AMA, talking about his time working with arnold schwarzenegger on Running Man, and his time filming starship troopers and working with david kronenberg as well, lots of weird stories - aaron
[2014-10-08 10:57:11] - it's a similar situation with a different line. ~a
[2014-10-08 10:04:47] - Pure devil's advocate question, then: Is looking at child porn not a sex crime? Seems like a similar situation. Is the difference the consent to have the pictures taken? -Paul
[2014-10-08 10:01:24] - so in a way it's almost like someone just thinking "jennifer lawrence boobs, yum" is MORE moral than someone thinking, "gosh i really shouldn't look at these, i'm perpetuating these kinds of leaks, but i'm really curious" -- because at least the former person is just naive, while the latter person completely knows what he's doing - aaron
[2014-10-08 09:59:43] - paul: attention, so it doesn't really matter what your personal motives are. you're knowingly perpetuating that kind of behavior, sending the perpetrators a message "yeah behead more people, that's what i want to see" - aaron
[2014-10-08 09:57:03] - paul: i have trouble reconciling the morality of clicking stuff like that. on one case, motive should matter, someone clicking the link out of curiosity/disbelief seems less immoral than someone clicking the link because they like naked ladies or disembodied heads or whatever. but the weird thing is that the people releasing this stuff are only doing so for - aaron
[2014-10-08 09:43:47] - a: Probably not, and my question was quasi-facetious. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-08 09:18:29] - xpovos: no. however, i'm pretty sure she gave consent for the pictures to be taken. is she denying as much? ~a
[2014-10-07 23:37:31] - a: Can a picture give consent? -- Xpovos
[2014-10-07 21:43:18] - i didn't look for her pictures, but i do want to now. this isn't a sex crime; she's 18: it's copyright infringement. ~a
[2014-10-07 12:42:53] - mig: Is it weird if I had no desire to see the Ukraine flight aftermath but I did kind of want to see the beheading video? My rationale is that I'm a little morbidly curious as to exactly how a beheading works. -Paul
[2014-10-07 12:41:33] - mig: Right. I guess I used to think of it as being basically harmless for people to look at the pictures because they weren't the ones who did the hacking and the pictures are (supposedly) widely available out there. However, we generally believe the exact opposite when it comes to issues like child pornography where the viewers are considered pretty guilty. -Paul
[2014-10-07 12:39:33] - as an aside, it is weird how humans seem to have a fetish for "shocking" imagery. The same people probably went hunting for the ISIS beheading videos or the images of the aftermath flight that got shot down in Ukraine, once those were made public. - mig
[2014-10-07 12:36:36] - paul: There's certainly a level of immorality there if one actively hunted for those photos once their existence was made public. I can't say I really disagree with her perspective. I do think referring to viewing the photos as "sexual assault" is a bit hyperbolic, but the anger is justified. - mig
[2014-10-07 12:21:23] - I personally didn't look at the photos (or any from "The Fappening"), but heard about a lot of people on the radio who said they had and didn't really think twice about it, but I can certainly see her perspective on this. Also, how awkward must it be if you're the person she knows that she is talking about in that last paragraph? -Paul
[2014-10-07 12:19:44] - http://www.kansascity.com/entertainment/ent-columns-blogs/stargazing/article2555399.html "Anybody who looked at those pictures, you’re perpetuating a sexual offense." I thought that was an interesting perspective and was wondering what others here thought. -Paul
[2014-10-07 11:54:39] - Although it does seem to disprove my theory that better economies have more income inequality. I guess I underestimated places like Africa.
-Paul[2014-10-07 11:53:46] - Aaron: Yes, Brazil seems like a nicer place to live than Libya.
Although it's a little surprising to me that those all have the same GDPs. I tend to agree that gini coefficients don't seem terribly meaningful, which I think goes back to my original point that income inequality doesn't seem to be a problem. -Paul[2014-10-07 11:51:19] - or to phrase that better, the gini coefficient doesn't reflect very much - aaron
[2014-10-07 11:50:54] - overall it just seems like wealthier countries are nicer places to live, and the gini coefficient doesn't affect very much - aaron
[2014-10-07 11:50:00] - so if you take a bunch of countries with similar per-capita-GDP, but different gini coefficients, does that tell you anything? like brazil, china and libya all have about $12k per-capita-GDP, but libya has a really high gini coefficient while brazil's is really low... do any of those countries seem objectively like better places to live? - aaron
[2014-10-07 09:55:30] - paul: the problem is that when people tend to obsess over equal results. In some ways its understandable, because it does seem "fair", but obviously that misses the mark in terms of finding the root of the problem. - mig
[2014-10-07 09:48:34] - But I feel like that's not really a fair representative of naturally occurring income inequality. Likewise, you might have a country like Somalia where everybody is dirt poor, and thus a lot of equality, but that's obviously not fair either. Yes, I know neither of those countries actually had data on the map, but hopefully you get my point. -Paul
[2014-10-07 09:47:04] - Xpovos: I think I agree, and that's why I had trouble finding any "meaning" from the maps Aaron posted. It seems like there would be a lot of noise at either extreme end when you have a country like North Korea. I would assume that would have extreme income inequality because they have the dirt poor AND the essentially super rich... -Paul
[2014-10-06 19:29:51] - Here's that specifically in graphical format. http://rogueoperator.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/gini2004gdp2005.jpg A lot of noise at the low GDP side of the plot, obviously, but the trend (if any) is in the correct direction. The solution, I maintain, then, if you want to increase equality is to increase per capita GDP -- Xpovos
[2014-10-06 19:27:18] - Obviously not a 1:1 ratio, but countries with higher per capita GDP have higher Gini ratios, in general. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-06 19:26:42] - Certainly, there are countries even further impoverished, but they escape the Gini paradox by generally being so poor as to not even have 'rich' people. Hardly an improvement. Here's a fairly similar looking graphic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita -- Xpovos
[2014-10-06 19:24:38] - To bolster my previous point, the countries that have the highest Gini coefficient are the worst to live because they are the ones with the most awful poverty. Subsaharan Africa tops the list across the board with South America right behind. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-06 10:10:59] - Aaron: Yeah, I saw those maps when I was trying to find data, but I wasn't really sure what to make of it or if there was any notable correlation. I guess you could make the argument that high gini countries seem to generally be bad places to live, but I don't believe that's a causation thing. -Paul
[2014-10-06 09:58:25] - i will say that norway, sweden, or denmark seem like nicer places to live than seychelles, comoros, or namibia, so i guess i'm in favor of income equality apparently? - aaron
[2014-10-06 09:54:37] - wikipedia has lists of countries based on gini index and GDP which gives you a little something to go on, - aaron
[2014-10-06 09:44:48] - Xpovos: Regardless of whether shutting him down was the right move, I think it's silly to say the shutdown caused us to lose our best shot at the world series. His replacement actually ended up being one of our best pitchers that series (if not THE best) and Strasburg has proven himself to not be the phenom he was made out to be (at least not yet). -Paul
[2014-10-03 18:30:52] - And two years ago, MAYBE, if he was better than the next pitcher in the rotation, perhaps that's the edge that pushes us over. At least INTO the WS, if not to win it. Still the right move to shut him down. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-03 18:30:05] - Paul: I think shutting him down was the right move, but it's not apples to apples, of course. Was he better than a pitcher in the rotation that year in this game? I didn't see it, just watched the stats on Yahoo! so I saw him struggling, but it was an average to average-bad start. I'd rather have that than a complete blowout. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-03 17:13:33] - I hope Strasburg's performance today will finally put to rest the ridiculous idea that the Nationals would've won the World Series in 2012 if they hadn't shut him down. -Paul
[2014-10-03 16:09:13] - a: Ah, okay. I got the opposite impression when you said, "don't seem like they happen together very often". Maybe you're right. I'm having a hard time finding any evidence for my position. Lots of people want to see Income Inequality as the cause of stuff, not an effect. -Paul
[2014-10-03 16:04:29] - i think there is no relationship. ~a
[2014-10-03 15:30:10] - a: Honestly, I don't have any proof to back me up (hence me saying "I feel") except anecdotal evidence. It just seems to make sense to me. I'll see if I can find some proof. Meanwhile, why do you think there is an inverse relationship? -Paul
[2014-10-03 15:03:43] - "i feel like larger income inequalities happen far more often when an economy is performing well and income equality tends to go hand-in-hand with more impoverished economies" more often? meaning 50% of the time or more? where did you get this from? ~a
[2014-10-03 14:12:47] - a: And as the economy improved, inequality picked up as the rich recovered to a greater degree than the poor. -Paul
[2014-10-03 14:12:14] - a: I think the most recent economic downturn is an example of that. Income inequality went down when the economy went in the crapper because the rich lost more of their wealth than the poor. -Paul
[2014-10-03 14:10:42] - a: I actually disagree. I feel like larger income inequalities happen far more often when an economy is performing well and income EQUALITY tends to go hand-in-hand with more impoverished economies. -Paul
[2014-10-03 13:10:38] - "As long as everybody's standard of living is increasing" . . . as long as you're actually right and it's actually obvious to all, then i'm fine. but huge income inequality and "everybody's standard of living increasing" don't seem like they happen together very often. ~a
[2014-10-03 12:35:20] - a: What kind of bad things? As long as everybody's standard of living is increasing, I just have a hard time envisioning any kind of danger outside of people just being jealous. -Paul
[2014-10-03 12:30:06] - and none of this has anything to do with income inequality. paul's main point (also miguel made a similar point) that income inequality isn't a bad thing is a point well taken. i don't think it's a bad thing in general. but i do see it as an indicator of bad things. ~a
[2014-10-03 12:28:58] - nah, i didn't really have a point. other than i don't really like windows and i really don't like the iphone. for some of the same reasons. ~a
[2014-10-03 12:20:58] - Paul: I think a's point might have been more that Torvald and Stallman aren't -- Xpovos
[2014-10-03 12:16:32] - a: Yeah, that would've made more sense. I figured Jobs and Gates were more well known, but it's not like anybody here wouldn't know Page and Brin, so I can't explain why I picked those two. -Paul
[2014-10-03 12:13:27] - maybe larry page and sergey brin? they're filthy rich. linus and stallman, not so much. ~a
[2014-10-03 12:12:31] - A large problem with these measurements is also in the differences between income and wealth. Mobility in income isn't even always a good thing. I've seen plenty of stories where people make $10,000 one year, then $210,000 the next year, then $35,000 the next because their job has wildly varying income streams. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-03 12:10:12] - what are you talking about, paul, i love microsoft windows and the iphone. ~a
[2014-10-03 11:48:44] - a: Secondly, I don't know if income inequality is an issue as long as there is still mobility. Can somebody in the bottom quintile move up to the top quintile and vice versa? Isn't that what people are truly worried about? -Paul
[2014-10-03 11:47:19] - Maybe those aren't the best examples of products, but hopefully you get my point. -Paul
[2014-10-03 11:47:04] - a: I've always thought that income inequality discussions focused on the wrong thing. For starters, is income inequality a problem as long as both the poor AND the rich are having their lives be improved? Is anybody really harmed by somebody like Bill Gates and and Steve Jobs getting filthy rich? Or are our lives all improved by having iPhones and Windows? -Paul
[2014-10-03 11:35:25] - Income inequality by itself COULD be a problem, but probably isn't for all possible naturally occuring gini coefficients. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-03 11:26:20] - Income Inequality in of itself isn't a problem. Lack of economic opportunity is. But rather than talk about ways to improve opportunity most people seem rage about meaningless historical comparisons or how many houses Kim Kardashian has. - mig
[2014-10-03 11:22:02] - aaron: fair enough, 1820s was too different of a time, i still think it's an important issue: income inequality is very bad right now and getting worse. source1 source2. ~a
[2014-10-03 11:21:48] - Hence, the biggest force for income equality is globalization. We get some tragedies along the way--like the fabric mill collapse--caused by greed by the end product is that country after country is having the standard of living increased as the supply of dirt cheap labor is eradicated. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-03 11:17:19] - I don't think income inequality is a big issue. Even extreme income inequality (and then we get into debates about what's extreme or not) isn't really a U.S. issue. When you have millions of people living on $2/day or less it's kind of meaningless to try and talk about $15/hr burger flippers. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-03 11:06:07] - i'm not saying i don't think it's a problem, i just think it's weird when people look to historical income statistics to draw comparisons to modern billionaires and other bizarre outliers. i have to look at the exact claims they're making, one-by-one, to figure out if i actually care about them, because i usually don't - aaron
[2014-10-03 11:03:12] - a: i don't think income inequality means the same thing it meant 200 years ago, it's weird to compare the two. 200 years ago, being in the bottom 20% in america meant you were probably an indentured servant or a slave. today, being in the bottom 20% probably means your family lives paycheck to paycheck in a cheap apartment or something - aaron
[2014-10-03 10:44:14] - i don't know if it's amusing or sad you don't take this issue seriously. ~a
[2014-10-03 09:48:11] - Articles of this ilk seem to be posted on reddit fairly regularly. I don't know if its amusing or sad so many people take these pieces seriously. - mig
[2014-10-02 19:05:39] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVxweMWsMZk I don't really have any comment on the barb on Fox News, but I thought it was interesting that the president himself referred to his health care law as "Obamacare", as I don't recall him doing so ever before. - mig
[2014-10-02 16:21:50] - aaron: I'm surprised (a little) about the red-head bit. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-02 16:07:00] - aaron: Hard to say, since I'm not in that position, but I do think that, all things considered, I would probably (consciously or sub-consciously) lean towards a child that looked like me. -Paul
[2014-10-02 15:58:21] - also, redheads are less likely to be adopted for the same reason, which blew my mind even more. i couldn't decide whether it was stupider that stuff like that matters, or stupider to pretend it doesn't matter. i don't know, if you adopted a child, do you think you'd prefer a child which had an appearance similar to the parents? - aaron
[2014-10-02 15:56:18] - i was reading recently from a reddit post about adoptive parents, about how white children are more popular than black children. not for racist reasons, but because white parents adopt more, and adopting white children means they don't have to tell their kids they're adopted until the kids are ready, and also because of general insensitivity/mailman jokes - aaron
[2014-10-02 14:11:39] - a: It's a really cute kid, too. Who could be upset with how she turned out? -Paul
[2014-10-02 14:01:32] - a: Yeah, I can understand being a little upset, but I can't help but think that the best thing for them to do is put it all behind them and just focus on loving the kid. Any kind of legal action seems like it's just going to cause resentment. -Paul
[2014-10-02 13:22:38] - shit, that is a sad story. i refuse to read it as it'll totally bum me out. all i can think of is the family guy where they told chris about when they sued the condom company after his birth. it's less funny when it's a real kid. damn. ~a
[2014-10-02 12:01:00] - http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/White-Ohio-woman-sues-over-sperm-from-black-donor-5796296.php Such an odd (and potentially sad, if the child ever gets the impression she isn't loved by her parents) story. "The lawsuit says Cramblett also is worried about how Payton will be treated in her 'all-white, and often unconsciously insensitive family.'" -Paul
[2014-10-02 10:52:22] - This definitely seems like a law with good intentions that will just lead to some ridiculous situations. - mig
[2014-10-02 10:50:16] - Yeah the law is very strangely worded. Like if Mozilla was based in CO, would Eich's ouster been illegal? He technically resigned, but it was pretty much understood that he was forcibly removed from his position. - mig
[2014-10-02 10:35:34] - a: Agreed that it seems like a weird law by itself. No idea how it practically works. -Paul
[2014-10-02 10:33:14] - "Under Colorado law, employers are forbidden to fire people for 'any lawful activity' in which they engage on their own time outside the workplace" that seems weird in and of itself. i guess as long as the employer fires the employee for talking about the activity while on the job, that would still be a legal firing? ~a
[2014-10-02 10:26:46] - http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/01/should-employers-be-forced-to-hire-canna One of the problems with government getting involved in in people's right of association is how to handle cases like these. -Paul
[2014-10-02 09:59:49] - haha, yeah. i think sometimes the spambots act weird on purpose to get through spam filters. ~a
[2014-10-02 09:01:31] - a: I'm confused. Where's the offer to make money working from home? -Paul
[2014-10-01 22:11:55] - I'm actually thinking we should leave this spam here since it's so nice
~a[2014-10-01 19:17:21] - Spot on with this writeup, I actually believe this website needs a great deal more attention. Ill probably be returning to read through more, thanks for the info!
[2014-10-01 19:17:12] - Spot on with this writeup, I actually believe this website needs a great deal more attention. Ill probably be returning to read through more, thanks for the info!
[2014-10-01 19:17:02] - Spot on with this writeup, I actually believe this website needs a great deal more attention. Ill probably be returning to read through more, thanks for the info!
[2014-10-01 19:16:52] - Spot on with this writeup, I actually believe this website needs a great deal more attention. Ill probably be returning to read through more, thanks for the info!
[2014-10-01 19:16:43] - Spot on with this writeup, I actually believe this website needs a great deal more attention. Ill probably be returning to read through more, thanks for the info!
[2014-10-01 16:12:13] - paul: ha ha not bad - aaron
[2014-10-01 16:06:36] - Xpovos: Hmmm, okay. -Paul
[2014-10-01 15:55:54] - This frees up resources, both fiscal and mental, to deal with genuine threats when they do arise. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-01 15:55:41] - Paul: It's a solution to the main point because it removes the decision making from the campus people. This has the dual effect of helping to limit exposure to most participants to that of higher threat issues (cut the noise) while ensuring that the process is handled by a trained response team. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-01 15:01:02] - Xpovos: Okay, but I guess I don't see how that's too closely related to the main point. Maybe I'm missing something. -Paul
[2014-10-01 14:55:54] - Everyone's so concerned with, "I don't want to ruin his reputation." If he's a rapist, he deserves to have his reputation ruined. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-01 14:53:00] - Paul: Part of it was explained, at least. Let law enforcement handle any rape accusations. That's a very important thing to do anyway. If a person is genuinely a rapist, then a criminal record is public information that lets people like me know that so we can disqualify them from volunteer service with children, etc. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-01 14:50:47] - Xpovos: Okay, that's pretty much the main point as I saw it too. I guess I don't necessarily disagree, but I do wonder what her proposed solution would be. -Paul
[2014-10-01 14:40:26] - By virtue of a bad analogy, this would be like an article stating that because we're so panicked about plane safety now and the TSA has all our attention, and we're niggling over tiny details about how they do, or fail to do their job, that we're completely blind sided when terrorists use a container ship to bomb a harbor disrupting commerce unimaginably. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-01 14:39:20] - My best effort is: the preoccupation with creating a safe environment on campus against date rape has through omission and commission left the staff and students less well defended and less well prepared to deal with a more serious, albeit far rarer, event. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-01 14:37:28] - Paul: Despite that being the closing, I think it's not the main point, actually. I can understand the possible confusion, though. It's a short article that hits at lots of different points very quickly. Trying to identify what the main point is could be a challenge. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-01 14:22:16] - Xpovos: I found that Paglia article a little hard to follow. Is the basic point that women need to be aware of the real evils of the world and be prepared to deal with them? -Paul
[2014-10-01 14:18:13] - aaron: http://laughingsquid.com/slittens-a-site-that-superimposes-photos-of-kittens-with-the-faces-of-sloths/ I don't know why, but I thought you might like this. -Paul
[2014-10-01 14:17:39] - Xpovos: In other words, I don't think he was trying to say being a mother is not hard work or is easy (of course, I don't know the context, so I'm not sure). -Paul
[2014-10-01 14:17:06] - Xpovos: At the risk of sounding like I am back-tracking, I will say that I can see how somebody that was directed at would be offended because of the implication (and I do think it's a stupid thing to say), but I just don't think it's something that all women have to be offended about. -Paul
[2014-10-01 13:25:02] - I mean, I don't find that stuff particularly offensive (except for the Cain interview), but it's really the overt hypocrisy that it exudes that makes it infuriating. - mig
[2014-10-01 13:19:04] - was a good progressive and Cain is an evil conservative. - mig
[2014-10-01 13:18:09] - I still remember the Lawrence O'Donnell interview with Herman Cain where O'Donnell (who is white) basically called Cain a coward for following his father's advice of not getting into trouble during the Civil Rights movement (Cain was a young teenager at the time). That was geniunely offensive and racist, yet there was no massive backlash for O'Donnell, because he
[2014-10-01 13:13:03] - that's A-OK, because they believe in the "wrong" things, so they're not real people anyway. - mig
[2014-10-01 13:12:39] - xpovos: this is something that honestly really pisses me off about progressive punditry in the media. It almost seems like the entire media world stops whenever some low level candidate or no name non-progressive says some vaguely offensive about women or minorities. But calling Sarah Palin a cunt, or saying Comstock's time raising her children as a negative ...
[2014-10-01 13:02:08] - As a father of daughters, I feel this is a must-read. Paglia and I disagree frequently, but I love reading her work. http://time.com/3444749/camille-paglia-the-modern-campus-cannot-comprehend-evil/ -- Xpovos
[2014-10-01 12:56:07] - Paul: Probably because it's campaign twtiter, not something the candidate actually said, but even still--should've been bigger news. I hadn't heard of any of this until this piece. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-01 12:52:21] - Paul: It's offensive. I'll not be offended that you're not offended, but that's a big "no-no" in politics and life. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-01 12:49:51] - Xpovos: It's interesting to me that more wasn't made of the implication that women were only voting for Comstock because she's a woman... -Paul
[2014-10-01 12:49:20] - We don't claim to be a Christian business; there is no such thing as a Christian business. [...] Christ never died for a corporation. He died for you and me. [...] But as an organization we can operate on biblical principles. So that is what we claim to be. [We are] based on biblical principles. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-01 12:49:16] - Xpovos: That if a Republican male had said something like that to a Democratic female, it would be big news and just another sign of the "War on Women", but since it doesn't fit that (IMHO false) narrative, it's not as big of a deal. -Paul
[2014-10-01 12:48:06] - Xpovos: Eh, I don't think it's very offensive to say imply that being a stay at home mother isn't a job. It might not be a great point to make, but I don't consider it a big deal. I do, however, agree a bit about what I perceive as the more general point... -Paul
[2014-10-01 12:47:52] - The Chick-Fil-A stuff was so much second hand furor, and I'd forgotten a lot of the details obviously (I thought it was S. Truett, e.g.) so I went back to the original source. http://www.bpnews.net/38271 That's the interview he gave that got the guy in trouble. Here are a few choice quotes: -- Xpovos
[2014-10-01 12:36:43] - the eich. hah. ~a
[2014-10-01 12:36:27] - nah. i'm being consistent! the eich wasn't speaking for the company. he didn't say "we". he didn't even make any public statements. ~a
[2014-10-01 12:35:52] - Skip the first few paragraphs, they're stupid and not helpful to the argument or the column. Read from "A more recent example", then tell me what you think. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-the-republican-partys-silly-selective-war-on-women/2014/09/30/333f57c6-48e1-11e4-b72e-d60a9229cc10_story. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-01 12:34:27] - a: Okay, well now I am completely confused.
I thought maybe I was honing in on where you draw the line, but if the Mozilla incident is considered benign to you (now? I do think it contradicts a previous stance, but I am not sure either), I'm just lost. -Paul[2014-10-01 12:27:26] - "what if you're pretty sure some CEO is against gay marriage but have no proof?" imo, he'd get a pass. i don't want to over-politicize ;- ) honestly, i think what the mozilla guy did was benign. (this may override something i had previous said, i don't remember). ~a
[2014-10-01 11:45:24] - a: Okay, so is it only if they speak out? What if you're pretty sure some CEO is against gay marriage but have no proof? What if the Mozilla CEO had contributed to Santorum instead of that proposition? -Paul
[2014-10-01 11:32:35] - disqualification of CEO is the wrong bar. qualification his company for boycott is the bar. ~a
[2014-10-01 11:31:18] - paul: was mark cuban speaking for his company? did he say "we"? regardless, i'd still probably say yes. ~a
[2014-10-01 11:28:59] - a: How about this? Mark Cuban had his comments about how everybody has prejudices and if he sees some black teenager wearing a hoodie late at night walking down the street, he might cross to the other side. Should that disqualify him as a CEO then? -Paul
[2014-10-01 11:27:16] - a: Epic in the same way the Chick-Fil-A controversy was? Sure, you're probably right. I'm not sure what your point is, though. My point is that I don't know of any CEOs who are in favor of that.
-Paul[2014-10-01 10:58:42] - what's wrong with the banning of christian-marriage analogy? you don't like this analogy? i think if an atheist CEO of a huge company said we should ban christian-marriage it would be epic. news anchors around the nation would get all head-exploded. ~a
[2014-10-01 10:56:50] - Have to run to a meeting now, sorry. -Paul
[2014-10-01 10:56:38] - a: If that's true, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't apply to a religious person whose CEO is a known atheist. Wouldn't they be a little concerned about praying before eating lunch at their desk? Concerned about asking for Sunday off to go to church? -Paul
[2014-10-01 10:55:26] - a: And even then, I still don't understand why your theory should only apply to wanting to ban activities. It seems like the whole point of your theory is that there are no direct signs of discrimination and that it's more of a cultural thing. -Paul
[2014-10-01 10:54:01] - a: They wanted to make (keep?) gay marriage illegal. The equivalent to me would be somebody who wanted to make (keep?) marijuana illegal or make abortion legal or something like that. -Paul
[2014-10-01 10:52:26] - a: Except it doesn't. Again, you're ascribing more hostile intentions than we have any proof of. To my knowledge, none of these people said anything about hating gay people. What they wanted was to prevent them from doing something. -Paul
[2014-10-01 10:51:45] - mig: fair enough. if bill maher was the CEO of my company and i was a christian, i would be looking for a new job. ~a
[2014-10-01 10:51:05] - it doesn't have to be gay marriage, but there are fewer subjects where you're saying . . . hey you: i hate your lifestyle! abortion isn't a lifestyle, neither is minimum wage. ~a
[2014-10-01 10:50:08] - a: how about he talks publicly about christians in a way like somebody like Bill Maher does. - mig
[2014-10-01 10:48:41] - "I think you're asking for too perfect of an analogy here" ok, fine. but it has to be more than being an atheist. it has to be being an atheist and also hating on people's lives that work for your company. ~a
[2014-10-01 10:46:57] - a: Would it be a better analogy if I said a pro-life CEO instead of an atheist one? Or maybe somebody who was pro-minimum wage or somebody for the war on drugs? Is gay marriage the only issue where you think somebody's personal beliefs can be toxic like this? -Paul
[2014-10-01 10:44:15] - a: Why does he have to be against Christians wanting to get married? I think you're asking for too perfect of an analogy here. -Paul
[2014-10-01 10:40:03] - what's more he used the words "we" when referring to his company? ~a
[2014-10-01 10:38:01] - do we know he's an atheist and that he's against christian-marriage because he went on public TV and denounced christian-marriage? ~a
[2014-10-01 10:36:59] - paul: publicly an atheist? or publicly against christians wanting to get married? ~a
[2014-10-01 10:34:09] - a: Okay, so should George Soros have to step down from whatever businesses he is running? He is publicly an atheist. -Paul
[2014-10-01 10:32:29] - paul: I think that's correct. - mig
[2014-10-01 10:32:04] - Xpovos: I believe the remarks were made by Dan Cathy, who is currently the CEO, and the founder (who died recently) was S. Truett Cathy? Or something like that. -Paul
[2014-10-01 10:31:45] - paul: these public statements were hopefully vetted by the company and the company's thousands of employees are affected by these statements. ~a
[2014-10-01 10:31:17] - paul: it's not just that they believe these things. it's that they believe these things and that they made public statements about it. these weren't private conversations that were taped unknowingly. these were interviews for national tv and they were acting as an officer of their company, not as a private citizen. ~a
[2014-10-01 10:30:57] - http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/07/19/332678567/americans-really-like-jews-muslims-and-atheists-not-so-much For example. -Paul
[2014-10-01 10:29:19] - a: You don't think a devoutly religious person could be pretty offended knowing their CEO didn't believe in God? There are polls out there which say atheists are less liked than lots of other groups. -Paul
[2014-10-01 10:26:46] - a: Despite what you seem to desperately want to believe, the absolute worst thing we know those CEOs to believe is that they don't think men should marry men or women should marry women. -Paul
[2014-10-01 10:25:54] - a: Well, I was trying to come up with a comparable analogy. "atheists who say that christian's or muslim's or whatever are an abomination or some shit like that is different." isn't at all comparable to the Chick-Fil-A or Barilla or Mozilla issues. -Paul
[2014-10-01 10:24:54] - mig: i agree with what you have said. but sadly, the CEO probably does deal with the VPs and middle-management on a regular basis. culture is transitive. ~a
[2014-10-01 10:23:26] - Paul: I thought the founder still had been the CEO, though it makes sense he would've passed on the reins prior to his death; he wasn't young. Which one made the 'inequitable' remarks? I thought it had been founder. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-01 10:23:12] - a: it would really depend, honestly. If I had to deal with this CEO in person on a regular basis, yeah I would probably considering leaving. If this CEO was in a faraway place or in holed up in their office all the time where I didn't have to deal with him/her, I'd probably not care. - mig
[2014-10-01 10:22:26] - "atheists can't be CEOs" it's like you're not even trying. atheists can be CEOs. atheists who say that christian's or muslim's or whatever are an abomination or some shit like that is different. ~a
[2014-10-01 10:20:13] - i've worked at a lot of different companies. for companies of any size, what the CEO says mattered to me. if (hypothetically) the CEO had told me that he hated heterosexual people, that would greatly affect my opinion of the company and i would probably start looking for a new job immediately. would you not do the same? ~a
[2014-10-01 10:19:26] - you want evidence to that i guess. ok. well, no, i don't have any evidence for that either. will anecdotes help? ~a
[2014-10-01 10:19:24] - a: I don't really buy the theory, and am wondering if there is any evidence to back it up. It seems like a dangerous slippery slope there. Can't that same argument be made to say atheists can't be CEOs since they might make their religious employees uncomfortable? -Paul
[2014-10-01 10:17:45] - yes. ~a
[2014-10-01 10:17:18] - a: Well, your point seems to be that somebody's personal views, even if they don't directly lead to any types of discriminatory behavior, somehow infect the company's culture to make it overall discriminatory? Or something like that? -Paul
[2014-10-01 10:14:56] - Xpovos: Actually, I think the founder passed away. The CEO is his son, I think. -Paul
[2014-10-01 09:59:53] - mig: i do what i want. ~a
[2014-10-01 09:59:20] - is there any evidence to what? you asked if it make a difference if the personal opinion is held by the CEO or a low level peon. no, i don't have any evidence to this, of course, but it seems fairly self evident to me. was chick-fil-a or barilla (mozilla is of course a different situation) some hell-hole for gays is a different question. ~a
[2014-10-01 09:58:44] - a: I'm with Paul, if you're going to make a statement like that there needs to be some evidence shown in support it. - mig
[2014-10-01 09:53:31] - Re: Chick-Fil-A. Ex-CEO. He passed away last month. -- Xpovos
[2014-10-01 09:29:42] - a: Maybe, but is there any evidence to this in reality? Was Chick-Fil-A or Barilla or Mozilla some hell-hole for gays because of the personal views of their CEOs? -Paul
[2014-10-01 00:05:38] - the CEO creates the corporate culture; a CEO makes a statement and it turns into defact rules overnight; the off-hand words a CEO uses get parsed again and again by the company's line workers. if one line worker is a bigot he could be ignored or fired: who ignores or fires the CEO like so? in short, the CEO affects the company's feel more than the average non-CEO. ~a
[2014-09-30 17:31:58] - a: Why does it make a difference? -Paul
[2014-09-30 17:11:43] - seriously? yes, of course. ~a
[2014-09-30 16:57:55] - a: Sure, but unless that CEO is making rules or something to actively discriminate (which, again, there is no evidence of that I am aware of at either company), does it make a difference if the personal opinion is held by the CEO or a low level peon? -Paul
[2014-09-30 16:46:27] - paul: a single employee is a little disingenuous. in the case of chick-fil-a and barilla, they were the ceo (or equivalent). ~a
[2014-09-30 16:41:06] - a: I think I've mentioned this before, but it seems a little odd to try to punish a whole company over the views of a single employee of that company. I'll admit it's hard to do, though. I've had pretty ridiculous interactions with single employees of companies before which have made me want to swear off the entire company (*cough*United*cough*). -Paul
[2014-09-30 16:39:29] - a: I'm not against the boycott. I just don't agree with it. If I was against it, would I post about the app?
-Paul[2014-09-30 16:31:11] - sure. i could do nothing. i've opted to not do that. ~a
[2014-09-30 16:27:59] - anyways, your last statement presented the only options as boycott or censorship of political views. Is there really no other options? - mig
[2014-09-30 16:24:45] - I mean, I don't want to drag up the whole Chick Fil-A thing again, but there's really no evidence that the company itself has done any of the things you just listed, aside from their CEO being against equality. - mig
[2014-09-30 16:23:18] - a: i was asking, because it seems like the only transgressions these companies have committed is that their CEOs have political opinions that you don't like. the verbiage "being inequitable" to me implies something else (potentially something lawbreaking) so I wanted some clarification. - mig
[2014-09-30 16:20:16] - mig: being against equality. discriminating against same-sex marriage? paying the ladies less money in the workforce? refusing to hire certain races? i dunno. i was being pretty general on purpose. ~a
[2014-09-30 16:01:25] - a: "being inequitable." what exactly does that mean? - mig
[2014-09-30 15:53:54] - why are you so against the boycott? i guess we could always pass laws to prevent companies from being inequitable. you would prefer that it sounds like? ~a
[2014-09-30 15:47:02] - a: I thought there were others here who felt similarly to you, though (maybe Daniel?), where the political leanings of a company's CEO (or even less than that, in the case of the Russian vodka company) was enough to justify a boycott. -Paul
[2014-09-30 15:44:42] - a: I'll admit, you were #1 on my list of people I was thinking about. So outspoken? If I recall, both companies had CEOs who answered a question directed at them regarding their views on gay marriage and that was it. In fact, the companies themselves I believe released statements backtracking some (at least in the case of Barilla). -Paul
[2014-09-30 15:44:23] - mig: paul said "people here", so he was probably talking about me. i don't think i'm a hyper-partisan but feel free to disagree
~a[2014-09-30 15:39:50] - a: hyper-partisans who obsess about where the money that they spent goes? I'm pretty sure people like that exist. - mig
[2014-09-30 15:16:39] - paul: which people are you talking about? i was big on the idea of boycotting barilla and chick-fil-a, but that's because they were both so outspoken about their inequitable leanings. aveeno (from the picture in your link) has made no such public statements. ~a
[2014-09-30 15:14:45] - mig: Right, and Napster to iTunes was less than ten years. I think this will take longer because Aereo didn't get the instant penetration that Napster did. But maybe that's just perspective, since I saw Napster's effect up close and personal in college. -- Xpovos
[2014-09-30 15:07:15] - http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-buy-partisan-20140825-story.html Here's an app for the people here who were really big on the idea of boycotting companies that go against their political leanings. -Paul
[2014-09-30 13:50:58] - xpovos: think of Aeroro as Napster. Napster was shut down too, but new ventures figured out how to navigate the legal hurdles. - mig
[2014-09-30 11:57:55] - mig: I actually expect a new telecoms option to pop up that makes cable/telephone obsolete--and likely becoming a brand new monopoly ala AT&T all over again. So this particular problem has a technical solution. But that started to happen with Aereo and it got shut down by interested parties (lobbyists) and the courts. -- Xpovos
[2014-09-30 11:42:22] - xpovos: true enough, cable companies are sticky due to both of those factors, though I think the latter one will eventually dissappear (which may also make those local government granted monopolies for those companies an obsolete concept as well). - mig
[2014-09-30 10:55:46] - Huh... oligopolistic. English. -- Xpovos
[2014-09-30 10:44:56] - And let's look at another example, one I love to harp on, cable companies. They've got a gov't granted monopoly protected also by high barriers to entry in the marketplace and oligopolic collusion. I have problems with that state of affairs as it exists now, I'd certainly be even more concerned if Verizon bought out Comcast. -- Xpovos
[2014-09-30 10:43:41] - I think there's a case to be made in technology. New technology is almost inherently monopolistic at first, with or without patents. But if Mr. Baron-Robber owns all of the rental units in the city, I'm pretty sure that's a real problem. The thing is, how did Mr. Baron-Robber buy up all the units if he didn't build them. (new monopoly vs. 'old' monopoly). -- Xpovos
[2014-09-30 10:39:47] - mig: And yet, without any major government interference, we're seeing how quickly things can change, and now Microsoft is playing catch-up and is barely in third place in the new hot market of mobile operating systems. -Paul
[2014-09-30 10:38:45] - mig: I think the comment about the world not being static is a really underrated point. Everybody was afraid of the big bad Microsoft monopoly just a little over a decade ago, and it seemed unstoppable with their strangle-hold on PC operating systems. -Paul
[2014-09-30 10:20:57] - I think Thiel may be on to something that people tend to view Monopolies in a static word where nothing will ever change, and that may be why we see these irrational fears bandied about whenever the DOJ rattles its sabers against a company that displeases it. - mig
[2014-09-30 10:19:17] - Microsoft may have come the closest I think, with all the stuff they were trying to do with Vista, but that kind of failed pretty spectacularly. - mig
[2014-09-30 10:18:22] - xpovos: if there's one view of mine that's drastically changed since college, it's definitely this topic. One thing, and I think Paul might have asked this before, have we ever had a real world example of a naturally occurring monopoly actually doing all the evil things that are feared (jacking up prices mercilessly, bullying customers, etc)? - mig
[2014-09-30 09:47:53] - Xpovos: http://online.wsj.com/articles/nerds-want-muscles-too-workouts-for-comic-con-goers-1412032409?mod=Life_and_Culture_newsreel_2 Still reading your article, but I got distracted by this one and figured I would post it here so others could read it after yours.
-Paul[2014-09-29 17:33:38] - Hmmm. http://online.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-losers-1410535536 -- Xpovos
[2014-09-29 10:02:01] - https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/galaxy-trucker/id904013027?mt=8 galaxy trucker now available for iPad - aaron
[2014-09-29 09:53:53] - a: i've been toying around with the idea of a flash game where you'd be making change for strangers, and trying to do it really quickly and accurately so that they tip you. also, some people are bad at math don't tip, so you can steal from them a little by doing your math wrong (as long as you don't steal too much) - aaron - aaron
[2014-09-29 09:52:23] - a: or another one might be, "adrian owes miguel and paul $3.95", and miguel has a $10, $5, $1, a quarter and two dimes -- adrian has a $10, $1, a dime and two nickels, and paul has a $5, $1, and a quarter - aaron
[2014-09-29 09:47:21] - a: another puzzle might be, "miguel and paul owe adrian $5", and miguel has a $20 and four $1s, adrian has two $5s and a $1, and paul has a $10 and two $1s - aaron
[2014-09-29 09:46:04] - a: the puzzle i just gave is non-trivial, and it uses big round amounts of money. i think it's hard to automatically generate puzzles like that. - aaron
[2014-09-28 08:07:05] - also (out of curiosity) is this for something? ~a
[2014-09-28 08:05:42] - aaron: I'm not sure I understand what is hard. generating the puzzle seems easy and determining if it's an easy puzzle or hard puzzle seems easy. which part is the hard part? I'll write some python tomorrow when I have a computer. ~a
[2014-09-26 15:09:06] - mig: Probably because it wasn't funny? I mean, one of the people breaks down and cries, right? -Paul
[2014-09-26 14:50:03] - paul: Yeah it's weird isn't it? I'm still mystified why they didn't air any part of the conversation between the 2 groups. If it was as tame as they claim it was, why not show some clips of it? - mig
[2014-09-26 12:27:16] - Did the Redskins supporters really say (after all the talk about being ambushed and lied to) that they would come back on? If those guys at the stadium signed the waivers, why did they still have to blur their faces? Does Jon Stewart really believe they never try to mis-represent people's views? -Paul
[2014-09-26 12:25:45] - I was also surprised they called it out in a (relatively) serious bit by Stewart beforehand and then again with the WaPo quotes at the end. It seemed as fair as anything TDS does, but the whole thing did seem a little awkward. -Paul
[2014-09-26 12:23:52] - They flash the quotes and go "see it was mostly cordial and stuff!", only mentioning it got "heated" but not really showing any example of that. - mig
[2014-09-26 12:22:31] - paul: yeah i just watched that bit! i was surprised the daily show called attention to the alleged unfair handling of interviewees both in the monologue preceding the segment, and during the segment. i guess it was really news - aaron
[2014-09-26 12:22:02] - paul: after viewing the segment it was mostly fair. I do think though, at the end it was kind of a dick move by TDS to flash the WaPo quotes without showing hardly any audio/video of thr confrontation. - mig
[2014-09-26 11:45:23] - xpovos: yeah, something simple like that would be fine. something like "number of currency units moving" is too simple because it would rate that puzzle as equivalent to the puzzle of, "aaron owes xpovos $1.00 but only has 20 nickels". but, maybe something like "number of transactions needed" or something equally simple. - aaron
[2014-09-26 11:31:28] - http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/jon-stewarts-washington-redskins-segment.html The Redskins segment on the Daily Show apparently aired. -Paul
[2014-09-26 10:04:26] - aaron: Finding 10,000 unique change situations seems daunting, but not 'hard'. The further classification of easy/difficult seems like it might be the "impossible" part unless you're just rating complexity based on the number of currency units moving per transaction. -- Xpovos
[2014-09-26 09:04:29] - also if anybody else wants to chime in that's helpful too! it's just that adrian and i have often tried to come up with these kinds of weird algorithms together, so that's why i pitched it at him - aaron
[2014-09-26 09:03:20] - a: so the simplest thing to do is -- i want to generate 10,000 puzzles and then say, "these puzzles are easy, these puzzles are hard" somehow. like if you gave miguel two $1 bills, the puzzle is completely trivial. if you give adrian three $1 bills, the puzzle is easy. if you give paul a $1 bill, the puzzle is still kind of medium difficulty. - aaron
[2014-09-26 09:01:46] - a: paul has two $10 bills, four $1 bills, 3 quarters, and 3 dimes. miguel has a $20 and a $5. adrian has a $10 and two nickels. so, writing a computer algorithm to solve the puzzle isn't too super hard for trivial cases. but i want to either generate 10,000 puzzles and store them in a file somewhere, or maybe just generate puzzles on the fly - aaron
[2014-09-26 09:00:29] - a: i have an algorithm i'm trying to think of and i can't think of it. i want to automatically generate puzzles involving making change for other people. like this would be an example puzzle.... you have three people, paul, miguel, and adrian, and they all have different amounts of money. miguel wants to pay adrian $2.00 - aaron
[2014-09-25 15:00:45] - And how, in an odd way, the NPR article is even an example of the #GamerGate controversy because, despite leading off with a mention about how there are two sides, it then proceeds to talk almost exclusively about just one of those sides, which I think is a large reason why this has exploded, because some people feel mis/under-represented. -Paul
[2014-09-25 14:58:43] - http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/09/24/349835297/-gamergate-controversy-fuels-debate-on-women-and-video-games Not to dig this up again, but I felt like this article (and almost equally importantly, the first half-dozen or so comments) did a good job of describing the controversy over #GamerGate and even what it stands for. -Paul
[2014-09-25 11:56:38] - http://www.mediaite.com/online/espns-bill-simmons-goes-off-on-roger-goodell-such-fcking-bullsht/ wow ESPN just dropped the hammer on Bill Simmons. - mig
[2014-09-25 11:02:24] - http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/25/video-proves-cops-shot-guy-in-walmart Just in case anybody wants to claim that libertarians aren't on top of racial injustice regarding cop shootings, here's another case with some pretty damning video evidence. -Paul
[2014-09-25 10:37:26] - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/09/one-mans-endless-hopeless-struggle-to-protect-his-copyrighted-images/ I thought this was an interesting perspective on the pros and cons of our current copyright system. -Paul
prev <-> next