prev <-> next
[2014-12-08 13:19:30] - mig: And it didn't even seem to quiet all the controversy over if the champion is undisputed. No matter which team wins the playoffs, people are going to claim Baylor/TCU is the REAL champ if they dominate in their games. -Paul
[2014-12-08 13:17:57] - mig: And we're already seeing the devaluation of the regular season (as predicted). That huge game between VT and Ohio State? Turned out to be pretty meaningless, even though Ohio State lost to a crappy Tech team. Florida State went undefeated in the regular season? Congrats on being ranked behind two 1 loss teams in the playoffs. -Paul
[2014-12-08 13:14:56] - mig: I'm greatly amused that the same debates are happening now that were happening before (this team isn't worthy, this team should've made it in, etc) and now everybody is saying 4 teams isn't enough and we need 8 teams. -Paul
[2014-12-08 12:03:28] - paul: so we've had playoffs vs. bcs discussion before. Now that the playoff process has concluded, thoughts? - mig
[2014-12-07 13:05:50] - xpovos: starting 12/8 henceforth, all arena runs will reward a gvg pack. - mig
[2014-12-06 19:56:45] - Starting Tuesday? On Tuesdays? This Tuesday only? -- Xpovos
[2014-12-06 17:14:33] - xpovos: they'll be gvg packs on tuesday. - mig
[2014-12-06 12:06:24] - a: 1% qualifies as a lot?
-Paul[2014-12-06 11:12:16] - paul: firefox 99% of the time. i use chrome a lot though since it has chromecast and that google-conference-call support. also much better advanced webcam support. and better svg support. ~a
[2014-12-06 11:09:08] - aaron: "sorry, firefox glitch" hardly a glitch. but an interesting oddity. and one they fixed, i think. what version do you have? in firefox 33, when i copy/paste a url that includes the beginning, they add the "protocol://" to the beginning of the copy-paste. ~a
[2014-12-05 17:10:44] - I thought they'd said tears packs would be GvG entirely. hmm, that kind of ruins my strategy. -- Xpovos
[2014-12-05 12:59:55] - mig: oh wait nevermind, i get it. the drafts include gvg cards, and the rewards are classic packs. that's too bad actually! - aaron
[2014-12-05 12:59:24] - mig: i don't understand, i thought "classic packs" only had classic cards? if you only get classic packs for the runs then how did you get any gvg cards? - aaron
[2014-12-05 09:52:24] - arena is going to be insane for the next couple weeks. - mig
[2014-12-05 09:52:13] - xpovos/aaron: gvg cards are now available for draft in arena. You still only get classic packs for the runs but it's interesting to try them out. I did 2, one as a paladin and a warlock. I think I managed to get a lot of the stronger gvg cards since I went 7-3. Warlock didn't go so well (4-3), but I'll blame that on facing nothing but mages (5, at least). - mig
[2014-12-04 13:09:37] - aaron: I wouldn't say useless. It pretty effectively pinned it to the wall. -Paul
[2014-12-04 13:05:39] - http://i.imgur.com/B5tmJ2K.gif useless toilet paper machine - aaron
[2014-12-04 10:42:25] - Besides, it's always better to have the video than relying on cop said/they said. - mig
[2014-12-04 10:42:01] - paul: i'm using firefox, largely just for adblock, noscript and firebug -- but really i just like its pluggability in general. it seems like chrome is catching up though, maybe i should give it a chance again - aaron
[2014-12-04 10:40:16] - The problem is that right now there are huge systemic hurdles in getting accountability for police misconduct right now. It's not going to be fixed overnight. The body cameras, I think, are a good start. - mig
[2014-12-04 10:38:48] - paul: yeah i saw a wapo article basically saying that. What a dumb argument. - mig
[2014-12-04 10:37:55] - mig: It's interesting to me how people have made the argument that body cameras are useless because the cop in Garner's case still wasn't indicted. I think the opposite is true. We can all see what happened and it makes it clearer (to me) that the cop was in the wrong vs what happened in Ferguson. -Paul
[2014-12-04 10:34:53] - paul: they are, but the fact that Garner's incident is on video for all to see is a big factor in how it's viewed (hence strengthening the argument for police body cameras). - mig
[2014-12-04 10:32:41] - mig: To me, they seem like fairly different cases, and I think it's a shame that Michael Brown seems to be getting all the attention when there are (IMO) better martyrs (for lack of a better term) that deserve sympathy. -Paul
[2014-12-04 10:29:52] - aaron: yeah that drives me crazy sometimes when I try to copy/paste links, though i'm using chrome almost exclusively these days now. - mig
[2014-12-04 10:17:43] - going back to our discussion on police body cameras, I think it's interesting that the case of Eric Garner is seeming to draw a different reaction from those who might have been less sympathetic to Michael Brown. - mig
[2014-12-04 10:02:01] - Aaron: That brings up an interesting question (for me). What browser do people here use? I use Chrome (and a little IE at work) and I was a little surprised to hear that people still use Firefox. -Paul
[2014-12-04 09:47:46] - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/magazine/mag-08subversion-t.html sorry, firefox glitch. i wonder if they'll ever bring back putting the URL in the URL bar, that was a cool feature - aaron
[2014-12-04 09:47:13] - www.nytimes.com/2011/05/08/magazine/mag-08subversion-t.html flying to hub cities like dallas is expensive, but many cross-country flights include a layover in dallas. the solution is to book a flight to, say, los angeles -- and then just get off the plane in dallas... pretty hilarious - aaron
[2014-12-03 16:12:00] - aaron: yeah i remember now, i was getting it mixed up with the non-partner musical chair variation when you first mentioned it. - mig
[2014-12-03 16:05:53] - mig: well, to clarify -- you give your partner a non-verbal signal, and then they yell "SQUARES" and the game ends - aaron
[2014-12-03 16:05:30] - mig: yeah, that's right. a non-verbal signal, something like tugging your ear or snapping your fingers - aaron
[2014-12-03 15:59:00] - aaron: this is the one where your partner has to signal when you have 4-of-a-kind? - mig
[2014-12-03 15:54:04] - g: were you the two people with an unbreakable signal? there was one group who had the same signal every game and never had to change it - aaron
[2014-12-03 12:37:16] - aaron: I remember! Vinnie and I made an awesome team. ~g
[2014-12-02 10:40:35] - aaron: I don't recall the game by any of those names... -Paul
[2014-12-01 16:04:07] - do you guys remember playing the card game "squares" in high school? apparently nobody else in the universe calls it "squares", they call it "signal" or "kemps". but, it's a pretty well known game under those names - aaron
[2014-12-01 13:51:16] - a: Okay, makes sense. I recently bought (somewhat on a whim) a device which lets me stream my FIOS TV signal through DLNA to devices around the house, and so I'm wondering if there's anything neat I can try with it. I saw MythTV listed somewhere regarding setting up your own DVR (I think). -Paul
[2014-12-01 13:48:42] - you know what, yes, i have used dlna before. my tv supports it. and i mostly don't like it. i prefer using chromecast apps to do similar use-cases. ~a
[2014-12-01 13:47:12] - i don't know what dlna is. but no, when comcast decided to turn off analog cable, i moved exclusively to roku+chromecast (netflix, huluplus, amazonprime, hbogo, etc). ~a
[2014-12-01 13:44:36] - a: I vaguely recall you using MythTV in the past. Do you do DLNA streaming at your place? -Paul
[2014-12-01 13:43:57] - a: I don't recall being excited about nVidia-tuned games, unless it was because I had a PC with an nVidia card, in which case I guess that would make sense.
-Paul[2014-12-01 13:43:22] - a: I have owned nVidia stock in the past (also owned AMD stock and unfortunately own some now). Wouldn't be surprised by the existence of stickers, but pretty sure if I had them, it came free with a video card purchase. -Paul
[2014-12-01 13:41:37] - understood, ok. i thought your fandom went past that to the point of buying nvidia stock, having nvidia stickers, and getting excited about nvidia-tuned games. ~a
[2014-12-01 13:38:48] - a: Um, I think I was largely a fan of whichever video card seemed best. I was willing to switch allegiances. At first that was 3dfx, then it was nVidia. Not entirely sure why I switched to ATI, but I think it had the best bang for the buck when I had my computer built. -Paul
[2014-12-01 13:29:14] - yes. ~a
[2014-12-01 13:18:50] - a: does amd own ati? - mig
[2014-12-01 13:16:28] - mig: amd uses crossfire. ~a
[2014-12-01 13:15:49] - paul: i always thought you were a fan of nvidia (10+ years ago?). did this change? ~a
[2014-12-01 13:11:33] - though admittedly I don't really have much knowledge on ATI cards, maybe they do use SLI. - mig
[2014-12-01 13:09:24] - paul: hmmm, SLI is specifically for nvidia I thought (and EVGA is typically a nvidia board brand). I would 2x check to see if it'd work with an ATI card. - mig
[2014-12-01 13:07:58] - mig: I don't think so? The model number appears to be "EVGA P55M SLI". Considering it has SLI in the name, that sounds like a good sign.
-Paul[2014-12-01 13:01:52] - paul: is it an ATI brand board? - mig
[2014-12-01 13:01:49] - mig: i don't know
- aaron[2014-12-01 13:00:27] - paul: another thing I would check out before trying it is looking at power consumption and your power supply. One of the early pitfalls I found out is if you try to chain 2 cards together and they consume more power than your supply can handle, the computer will just shut itself off. - mig
[2014-12-01 12:54:25] - mig: I believe my machine is from about 4 years ago, and I thought I made sure that it would support it. Thanks for the info. -Paul
[2014-12-01 12:53:16] - though if your PC is from the last 2-3 years they typically support one or the other (but usually not both). - mig
[2014-12-01 12:53:08] - http://www.cnet.com/news/the-count-counting-pi-to-10000-places-will-drive-you-batty/#ftag=CAD590a51e Video of the Count (from Sesame Street) counting pi to 10,000 digits. -Paul
[2014-12-01 12:52:42] - your motherboard needs to support it too. - mig
[2014-12-01 12:52:31] - paul: I guess so, though I'm not familiar with ATI's equivalent to Nvidia's SLI. I know you have to be careful with SLI at least. They need to be the same model of card (not just have the same chipset) or the parallel gpu processing won't function. So I would take care to find the exact model of the card you're trying to add. - mig
[2014-12-01 12:49:29] - Mig: A google search is returning stuff that's like $300, and that just doesn't seem right considering it's such an old card. -Paul
[2014-12-01 12:48:41] - mig: Do you know if it's still possible to get an ATI Radeon HD 5850 to pair up with the one I currently have in my computer? When I got my current machine, I went with one board thinking I could always upgrade by adding another, but now I'm worried I might not be able to find another. -Paul
[2014-12-01 11:50:35] - aaron: is your board pcie or agp? - mig
[2014-12-01 11:49:42] - apparently the 900 series came out 2 months ago, so I guess it's pretty recent. - mig
[2014-12-01 11:48:53] - mig: and yeah, apparently the geforce 260 is literally 5 years old so it wasn't an exaggeration as much as a statement of surprise... - aaron
[2014-12-01 11:48:06] - mig: actually yeah! that's about 4x faster than what i'm running right now (dual GeForce 260), if you're done with those that would be great - aaron
[2014-12-01 10:25:01] - aaron: I'm actually considering possibly doing another card upgrade, do you want 1 (or 2) nvidia 660 TIs? - mig
[2014-12-01 10:24:41] - Dragon Age is on sale at Amazon today for $45. -Paul
[2014-12-01 10:23:52] - aaron: actually some video card progress has snuck up on me too. I just noticed nvidia is up to the 900 series now (I could have sworn they were still in the 700s not too long ago). - mig
[2014-12-01 10:11:35] - aaron: are you sure it isn't because your computer might be 5 years old? - mig
[2014-12-01 10:05:27] - i bought dragon age this weekend, and my computer became five years old suddenly... there are video cards literally 8 times as fast as mine, when did this happen - aaron
[2014-11-30 21:21:21] - a: that's a type of shaming I can get behind. - mig
[2014-11-29 13:39:01] - idiot shaming ~a
[2014-11-28 14:38:31] - mig: Yeah, I posted that before reading the article. I've read it now and just feel unqualified to respond. Anything I say will be biased by not being black, which seems silly, but is actually fair in the mindframe he's staked out. -- Xpovos
[2014-11-28 12:20:00] - the whole thing rests upon the somewhat dubious assertion that rioting somehow results in less unarmed black men being shot by police. How that follows is something of a mystery to me, as I'm pretty sure it'll result in the opposite. - mig
[2014-11-28 12:16:19] - This actually isn't even broken window theory, as the author isn't even pointing to the typical economic activity that follows the "broken window" but some rather absurd applications of economics regarding human life and human responses. - mig
[2014-11-28 12:08:18] - mig: Classic broken window theory of economics.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt1W0F0yObg -- Xpovos
[2014-11-28 12:03:47] - I'm still trying to figure out which is more nonsensical. The claim wanton property destruction and looting is morally justified, or the claim that is economically beneficial. - mig
[2014-11-28 11:51:11] - no, i'm afraid this author is being quite serious. - mig
[2014-11-28 11:44:37] - mig: Any chance it was being used ironically? Please? -- Xpovos
[2014-11-28 10:39:11] - I actually heard read the word "riot-shaming" today. My mind if fucking blown. - mig
[2014-11-26 16:26:16] - paul: btw, i'm willing to make a prop wager on RG3 for next year depending on how things work out in the offseason. - mig
[2014-11-26 14:39:10] - a: no, it's not in OSPD or SOWPODS. no scrabble.
- aaron[2014-11-26 13:19:28] - wtf. four letter word, completely made up on accident. wonder if it's allowed in scrabble. found it because of this comic referenced (again) on xkcd. ~a
[2014-11-26 13:13:02] - mig: Mark (my coworker) and I came up with the Rams as a funny destination. I could be intrigued by RG3 on the Eagles. I could see him going back to his rookie season form there. -Paul
[2014-11-26 12:31:26] - It's kind of weird that philly is even an option, but it does like Nick Foles has become the sequel of Kevin Kolb and they probably will sour on Sanchez. - mig
[2014-11-26 12:26:16] - paul: it'll be interesting to see where he goes. Right now the funniest ones (that people are taking somewhat seriously) are philly and st. louis. - mig
[2014-11-26 12:24:39] - mig: Sounds good. I look forward to seeing him struggle on the Raiders next year.
-Paul[2014-11-26 12:10:33] - ars, western union doesn’t like spoof ad, files dmca takedown claim. thank you, barbra streisand. ~a
[2014-11-26 12:09:56] - paul: we'll agree to disagree there. Let's revisit this in a year, assuming he is actually playing somewhere else and the redskins don't just hold on to him on the roster next year out of spite. - mig
[2014-11-26 12:05:09] - mig: I'm pretty confident that RG3 won't be going somewhere else and having success. I would feel pretty comfortable putting the under on 5 playoff games started for him for the rest of his career. -Paul
[2014-11-26 12:03:57] - mig: I mean, I get your point, and there will probably always be exceptions, but at some point you have to play the percentages. RG3 has started more games than Colt McCoy, by my count, so doesn't Colt McCoy deserve more of a chance too? -Paul
[2014-11-26 12:03:37] - are going to feel pretty dumb a year or 2 from now. - mig
[2014-11-26 12:03:25] - All I'm saying I think it's too soon imo to give up on him (feel free to disagree). I think there's just a tendency in the NFL to just give up on QBs way too soon just because things get a little rocky, and I think this'll probably turn into a situation where Griffin goes somewhere else and be pretty good, and all the lynch mobbers like the sport junkies from 106.7
[2014-11-26 11:53:04] - mig: Brees is more comparable, but by his third year starting, he was pretty good and seemed to be on an upswing. -Paul
[2014-11-26 11:51:21] - mig: Aaron Rodgers is completely different. He didn't take a long time to develop, he was stuck behind a HOF QB. He was great almost as soon as he was thrust into the starting role. -Paul
[2014-11-26 11:46:07] - Incidentally, both QBs won superbowls. - mig
[2014-11-26 11:45:35] - Or let's even take Drew Brees. Everyone thought he peaked when he left San Diego, but clearly he didn't. - mig
[2014-11-26 11:44:44] - paul: I can find other examples too. Let's take someone who we can definitely agree is one of the top 3 QBs in the league: Aaron Rodgers. People forget it took him a long time to develop into the QB he is now. He not only sat behind Favre for several years but took a few years of lumps before he finally "got it". - mig
[2014-11-26 11:20:19] - Aaron: Sure, not saying being selfish is inherently bad. I just think the situation is more complicated than the "all data should be equal" soundbite. -Paul
[2014-11-26 11:16:58] - mig: Congratulations, Flacco! You're now above average in my eyes!
-Paul[2014-11-26 11:16:40] - mig: Interesting. I didn't think he was necessarily having a good year this year, but there HAVE been a bunch of QBs above him that have dropped off some. I guess I agree. At this point, I might have a hard time coming up with a dozen or so QBs I like better than him. -Paul
[2014-11-26 11:09:18] - The # of QBs I'd take over Flacco btw has definitely decreased during this season, btw. - mig
[2014-11-26 11:08:14] - paul: no it doesn't. But in Flacco's case, he did play a huge part in getting them there and winning it. - mig
[2014-11-26 11:08:07] - paul: netflix definitely has a selfish reason for wanting net neutrality, because they're competing with things like FIOS and Comcast's on-demand services. gandhi had a selfish reason for wanting the independence of india too, it's OK to be selfish - aaron
[2014-11-26 11:06:14] - mig: Fair comparison. I don't think just winning a super bowl validates you as a good QB, though. The Ravens are even the poster child of winning with a below average QB. I'm sure a team COULD win a super bowl with RG3, but I don't think he improves a team's chances. -Paul
[2014-11-26 11:05:20] - paul: yeah I would agree with that. I think they should go to Cousins, but the PR sting if he falls flat on his face again would be insane. - mig
[2014-11-26 11:04:01] - paul: I just think it's too soon to give up on him. I do find this somewhat analogous to Joe Flacco I think (strangely though, most of the derision that Flacco was a bum who could never win came outside of Baltimore). The Ravens probably had plenty of opportunities to dump Flacco, but they stuck with him and they won a fucking super bowl. - mig
[2014-11-26 11:00:41] - mig: I do kinda think Cousins deserves one more chance, though. -Paul
[2014-11-26 11:00:29] - mig: If Colt McCoy gives them the best chance to win right now (and I think he might), then I'm fine with them starting him (even though it might hurt their draft pick). -Paul
[2014-11-26 10:59:57] - mig: I kinda with the lynch mob in the sense of I'm done believing RG3 is a franchise QB or even the best QB on their roster. I'm not saying McCoy or Cousins is the future, but I don't think RG3 is either, and so there's no reason to give him preferential treatment. -Paul
[2014-11-26 10:43:39] - so, that RG3 thing? I guess the lynch mob got what they wanted... - mig
[2014-11-26 09:23:12] - a: Obviously it's not THAT simple, and it gets complicated with these third party intermediaries and their own peering agreements. -Paul
[2014-11-26 09:22:46] - a: What it (very) basically boiled down to is that Netflix and Google (as big producers of media for consumption on the internet) wanted special treatment from the ISPs to help facilitate moving their data around. The ISPs wanted to be paid by Netflix and Google for this special treatment. Google and Netflix didn't want to pay. -Paul
[2014-11-26 09:21:16] - a: I really wish I could find an article I read before which was pretty good about explaining some of this stuff (google hosting servers within ISPs, etc) and how most of the companies involved have selfish reasons for backing their side of NN (not just the ISPs, but Netflix and Google too). -Paul
[2014-11-26 09:21:12] - aaron: "i guess i assumed netflix 'connected to the internet themselves' whatever that would even mean." no, it's both. the "internet" is wholly owned by companies. so, if you want to connect to the internet yourself, you have to talk to a company. ~a
[2014-11-25 16:01:08] - aaron: Yeah, that's a big reason I try not to have a strong opinion on net neutrality, because I don't have a good idea of how the internet works. I know Netflix uses third party companies to connect to the ISPs, but I'm hazy on the stuff like direct peering and whatnot. -Paul
[2014-11-25 15:40:46] - mig: interesting read, it sounds like it was unintentional on netflix's part and intentional on cogent's part. i didn't realize big companies like netflix relied on other companies to connect to the internet, and that they could get throttled on their side. i guess i assumed netflix "connected to the internet themselves" whatever that would even mean - aaron
[2014-11-25 15:02:38] - xpovos: indeed. not a very bright joke. Not even that funny really. - mig
[2014-11-25 14:56:49] - mig: I'll admit it's more humorous than offensive, but still pretty stupid. -- Xpovos
[2014-11-25 14:49:59] - xpovos: i'm not sure I can get worked up over that. - mig
[2014-11-25 14:46:18] - So, sticking with the racism issues: Rick Patino? -- Xpovos
[2014-11-25 14:42:06] - http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2014/11/25/how-netflix-poisoned-the-net-neutrality-debate/ a rather unflattering assessment on how Netflix may have possibly mislead (perhaps unintentionally) people on the whole throttling fiasco with Verizon/Comcast. - mig
[2014-11-25 14:33:52] - a: Sure. It's not a magic bullet (no horrible pun intended). Ideally they would be made as difficult to tamper with as possible. I would hope that if a situation like this happens, though, and the camera was disabled, it would reflect poorly on the cops and indicate they had something to hide (similar to Lois Lerner's emails, for instance). -paul
[2014-11-25 14:22:40] - I do think, however, that the police departments themselves have a very strong incentive to try and enforce body camera rules the best they can if they do actually start using them. - mig
[2014-11-25 14:21:54] - a: sure, that's a pitfall. It certainly loses value if we can't make sure that the rule to use them is reliably enforced. Aside from trusting Police Departments to strictly enforcing body camera policies I'm not sure what else to do to ensure bad cops don't tamper with them. - mig
[2014-11-25 14:09:34] - or "lose" them when they have something incriminating on them? they'll only become useful to the cops to exonerate themselves, but the public will never be able to use them in practice. bad cops will continue to be bad cops. ~a
[2014-11-25 14:08:11] - paul/mig: won't cops know how to disable the cameras? and make it seem like it was a problem with the cameras? ~a
[2014-11-25 13:15:19] - mig: I think the PR thing is huge. Cops can do a SWAT raid at a house and shoot the dogs and nobody cares. But if there's a video... people go crazy. -Paul
[2014-11-25 13:13:20] - if they commit bad enough misconduct. - mig
[2014-11-25 13:12:57] - Also, video evidence would make it a lot easier to get rid of bad cops. A lot of the time, even when cities pay out wads of money to misconduct victims, the offending cop usually gets to keep their job (after getting paid leave while the incident is being adjudicated). If there's video that produces really bad PR, I think you'll see less bad cops keep their jobs ...
[2014-11-25 13:12:37] - Aaron: Although, it's worth mentioning, there apparently ARE some sorts of forensic evidence that is pretty flimsy in terms of how reliable it is. -Paul
[2014-11-25 13:12:00] - Aaron: At the very least, we could pretty solidly dispute ONE side's account considering how different they are. -Paul
[2014-11-25 13:11:32] - Aaron: I think you're always going to have the doubters, but hopefully this would push those people to the fringe. Right now, there are maybe half a dozen people who really know what happened in Ferguson. If we had cameras, everybody would have a much better idea of what happened. -Paul
[2014-11-25 13:10:58] - aaron: Chicago is probably an outlier, but I have to imagine the costs nationwide are pretty significant. - mig
[2014-11-25 13:09:35] - aaron: if the case is high profile enough and there are enough people with agendas, it's just unavoidable. There could have been a full video of the Martin/Zimmerman confrontation that could have led to acquitting Zimmerman and I'm sure people would still gripe about the verdict. As long as it makes incidents less nebulous that is satisfactory- mig
[2014-11-25 13:07:18] - paul: hmm, i wonder how many misconduct suits happen annually though, would it really offset the cost? actually though, personal cameras are getting cheap, you're right. the tax burden would probably be negligible. good call - aaron
[2014-11-25 13:05:39] - paul: but good things have happened in the places where these cameras are mandatory, so i'm at least hopeful. but i'm still worried it'll fall apart once there's one high profile case and people will just dismiss the camera footage, just like they dismiss forensic evidence or audio recordings or anything else - aaron
[2014-11-25 13:05:33] - aaaron: Actually, even taxpayers should be fine with it, because it should reduce the amount of money police departments (ie, taxpayers) have to pay out for police misconduct suits. -Paul
[2014-11-25 13:04:32] - a: meh, I'm fine with tax money going to oversight methods that have actually been proven to be effective. - mig
[2014-11-25 13:04:27] - paul: but yeah i'm in favor of cameras on cops. a part of me is skeptical that you know, if this case happened and the cop wore a camera, people would be saying "why didn't we see this footage for 2 weeks, they messed with it" and if a third party like Burger King handled it, they'd be saying "the cops paid burger king to doctor it" - aaron
[2014-11-25 13:02:49] - paul: or taxpayers
- aaron[2014-11-25 13:01:39] - and people who hate taxes. ~a
[2014-11-25 12:58:14] - Aaron: Cops wearing cameras seems to be win-win. Citizens should be for it because it helps prevent police misconduct and good cops should be for it because it protects them from false charges of misconduct. The only people who should be against it are the bad cops. -Paul
[2014-11-25 12:51:17] - It's been my understanding that officers are supposed to file a report whenever they discharge their firearm, let alone when a person is killed by it, but I guess that's not correct ... - mig
[2014-11-25 12:47:52] - a: yeah that is really fishy. I don't know how in the world an officer wouldn't be required to write a report about an incident that caused a fatality. But that is the power of police unions in some places I guess. - mig
[2014-11-25 12:45:26] - "Wilson did not complete an incident report about the shooting, after being advised by a union lawyer not to do so" why the fuck isn't this a requirement? wait, is it a requirement? hmmm. ~a
[2014-11-25 12:42:05] - or the idea that they'd be in this tight scuffle in the car, and while the cop is grabbing his collar he announces, "i'm going to shoot you!" before pulling out his gun... like, yeah okay? maybe that could technically happen but wow that's some suspension of disbelief - aaron
[2014-11-25 12:40:21] - like a cop would drive by yelling obscenities at you, and they'd run right up to his door, "oh gosh i have to hear what this guy has to say!!" it just sounded completely insane, like something a child would make up. but, it does make me wonder if cops will all be wearing cameras at some point in the future - aaron
[2014-11-25 12:38:52] - paul: personally I think wilson was in the right, i read dorian johnson's eye witness report and was literally shaking my head trying to imagine how any of this sounded plausible to him.... - aaron
[2014-11-25 12:01:40] - aaron: I am somewhat tempted but not sure as of yet if it will work out... ~g
[2014-11-25 11:27:51] - and that's in addition to the normally large benefit of the doubt police officers usually get in these type of situations. - mig
[2014-11-25 11:18:57] - paul: sure it could very well be the right decision, but the process getting there seemed very tainted by misconduct by the police and potentially the prosecutor in charge, and I have a hard time faulting people for getting upset about that. - mig
[2014-11-25 11:00:43] - mig: I'm more conflicted because of the police response, but from what I've heard, it sounds like the right decision was made. I'm sure there was some pressure to scapegoat the cop by some people. -Paul
[2014-11-25 10:59:18] - There's evidence there but it doesn't imo overwhelmingly indicate his innocence, and I think that that evidence should have the opportunity to be scrutinized in a court of law. - mig
[2014-11-25 10:57:14] - I know there's been evidence thrown around that seem to indicate that Wilson was in the right, but I do feel there is enough to warrant a trial at least, and the only reason I believe we aren't getting one is because of WIlson's status as a police officer. - mig
[2014-11-25 10:53:58] - paul: I'm much more conflicted in this case. Probably because there won't be a trial. - mig
[2014-11-25 10:51:09] - So, I vaguely recall people here being upset about the Trayvon Martin verdict. Wondering how people feel about Ferguson. I equate the two because I feel like they have a lot in common. -Paul
[2014-11-24 16:37:58] - aaron: out of town.
otherwise, i'd say yes. ~a[2014-11-24 16:15:22] - Aaron: Just heard of it a day or two ago. Wasn't planning on it, but Gurkie gets to decide.
-Paul[2014-11-24 16:09:29] - aaron: leaning towards no. - mig
[2014-11-24 16:02:39] - are any of you guys going to this TJ alumni day thing this saturday? the 15th anniversary? - aaron
[2014-11-24 09:42:52] - Aaron: I thought we did something similar. I have vague memories of rooting for a CPU character against other ones... -Paul
[2014-11-24 09:36:42] - paul: yeah! i'm surprised we didn't think of it - aaron
[2014-11-24 09:26:38] - aaron: Haha, love it! That's totally something we would've done in college, I think. -Paul
[2014-11-24 08:34:28] - http://i.imgur.com/V7wN6Ms.jpg how to decide what to order for dinner - aaron
[2014-11-21 15:56:05] - aaron: http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/21/kids-tweet-thanksmichelleobama-for-shitt Just saw this article after your post and thought the timing was too good to not point out. Also, I love how the original headline appears to live on in the URL...
-Paul[2014-11-21 15:33:27] - THANKS OBAMA - aaron
[2014-11-21 14:09:23] - it messed up both bones and big bang! So sad! Now I will have to watch them on demand and sit through the commercials... ~g
[2014-11-21 12:05:08] - Aaron: That was one of the shows she was upset with. I think the other was Bones. -Paul
[2014-11-21 12:04:51] - Aaron: Yeah, that would probably change your perspective a bit. I wonder if I was irrationally biased by the geth being mindless enemy drones in the first game. -Paul
[2014-11-21 12:00:22] - aaron: and they never will. ZING ~a
[2014-11-21 11:54:41] - paul: time to vote for a third party, they have never interrupted any of my tv shows - aaron
[2014-11-21 11:54:20] - paul: yes, obama's immigration speech interrupted the new Big Bang theory episode, that's probably why gurkie is upset
i am upset too - aaron[2014-11-21 11:53:38] - paul: i didn't play the first game, so my view on the geth was radically different. my first exposure to the quarians was as irrational technophobic insane people, and my first exposure to the geth was mostly positive, so i immediately sided with legion and... yeah tali didn't like me very much during my first playthrough, especially in ME3 - aaron
[2014-11-21 10:38:49] - mig: I did too, but apparently they had some coverage? I dunno... -Paul
[2014-11-21 10:38:29] - paul: i thought the networks declined to air it. - mig
[2014-11-21 10:36:48] - thanks, obama, for screwing up gurkie's dvred shows. ~a
[2014-11-21 10:35:23] - mig: Didn't watch it or even read any coverage of it yet, but I know Gurkie was annoyed because it screwed up her DVR'd shows.
-Paul[2014-11-21 10:14:18] - so, that immigration speech last night? woohoo? - mig
[2014-11-21 10:14:12] - aaron: I feel like I am a little more distrustful of AI than lots of people, though. For the longest time in Mass Effect, I was totally on the "geth are soulless machines that are just out to kill us and don't deserve pity" train. It wasn't until I realized the "paragon" thing to do was to sympathize with them that I changed my tune. -Paul
[2014-11-21 10:06:02] - paul: (yeah i know) - aaron
[2014-11-21 10:05:54] - paul: what if it gave you its source code
- aaron[2014-11-21 09:59:57] - Aaron: Yeah, that's what I meant by "be benevolent". If we had a super-intelligent AI that we were sure would be helpful, it would seem to be a no-brainer to let it loose so it could help us. Not sure how I could be convinced it wouldn't be hostile, though. -Paul
[2014-11-21 09:50:01] - aaron: Hmm, the person "pretended" to be a super-intelligent AI? Sounds like Mr. Rabbit might be loose. -- Xpovos
[2014-11-21 09:46:40] - paul: i think it's something more complicated and wonderful. i mean a transhuman AI can do things like cure cancer, sequence the human genome, eliminate birth defects, design a rocket capable of near-lightspeed travel, if i were talking to someone who could do stuff like that and prove it, i'd probably give them whatever they wanted to - aaron
[2014-11-21 09:39:44] - Aaron: I figure it has to be either that the "AI" convinced the person it would be benevolent or it was some kind of guilt trip, right? -Paul
[2014-11-21 09:35:35] - both times there was just a single followup post to the message board, "i decided to release the AI". nobody except those two people knows why! and it wasn't anything obvious like, "oh the human acting as the gatekeeper offered the guy $200", they've got some protocols you can read about. i wonder what it was - aaron
[2014-11-21 09:33:56] - but, a sufficiently powerful AI could convince a human to release it. there were two threads where someone said "oh, i could never be convinced to release an AI," and someone replied, "OK talk to me for 2 hours, i'll pretend to be an AI. if you keep me in the box i'll give you $10, so you have some stake in it. but you can't tell anyone what we discussed" - aaron
[2014-11-21 09:32:21] - http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/aibox xkcd talked about this "AI box" experiment which made me look it up, it's pretty funny. it's this theory that if someone ever created a super-intelligent AI, they might be worried about the ramifications so they'd put it on a sealed computer, with maybe only terminal access to communicate with it - aaron
[2014-11-20 15:30:32] - I'm not a fan of clickbait farms like Buzzfeed, but I'll admit to being intrigued enough to click this and post it here. http://www.buzzfeed.com/maycie/watch-these-three-grandmas-smoke-weed-for-the-first-time -- Xpovos
[2014-11-19 16:38:55] - paul: what's unbelievably silly was this particular workaround was only going to work if people didn't realize what was happening until it was too late to do anything about the provision. Now that we all know about it, years before it's set to be implemented, congress is almost certain to kill it. - mig
[2014-11-19 16:26:01] - mig: It's frustrating that it seems like even when it's realized that a certain government regulation is causing problems (employment subsidy), that instead of anybody even considering just getting rid of that rule, the solution is instead a more complicated and indirect workaround in the form of another rule. -Paul
[2014-11-19 16:24:20] - I can't see this Cadillac tax provision surviving now at this point. - mig
[2014-11-19 16:23:49] - http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/18/politics/gruber-obamacare-promises/ I found this to be a fascinating read, if for no other reason that I had wrongly thought that the ACA was actually not going to change the tying of health insurance to employment, though it is accomplished in a very obscured and roundabout way. Though, the jig is up on this now, though, right? ...
[2014-11-19 15:42:07] - paul: yeah that would be cool! i've been playing at game parlor on tuesdays, and an ashburn gaming group on fridays. i miss our game nights! - aaron
[2014-11-19 14:56:54] - Aaron: We need to have another game night soon. Maybe we can fit one in before the end of the year... -Paul
[2014-11-19 14:23:43] - mig: also, the way you choose your action and assign dice to each phase sounds like it offers a lot of really interesting decisions. i'm really eager to try it out - aaron
[2014-11-19 14:23:20] - mig: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1219658/review-and-rules-summary-after-two-plays-gencon-20 there's a new "Roll For The Galaxy" board game coming out this November. i'm not usually interested in dice games, but this one sounds like a really cool streamlined easier-to-teach version of race - aaron
[2014-11-19 09:52:05] - strangely, I was willing to let Tate go because I thought he'd be injured a lot (which is why I took a flyer on Terrance West). I didn't think he'd just play badly enough to get released. - mig
[2014-11-18 19:38:52] - mig: Yeah, I think I got the better end, but ... it's not obvious. And the better end of a turd is still a turd. I had so many reasons for confidence in Tate and he's been absolutely awful, definitely one of my worst over-valuations in a while. -- Xpovos
[2014-11-18 16:49:40] - xpovos: I'm looking back towards our trade from the keeper draft, Ben Tate for (practically) Toby Gerhart. Worked out great for the both of us, right? - mig
[2014-11-18 11:31:38] - a: I know anecdotal evidence is pretty much a contradiction in terms, but sometimes my experiences just run so counter to what people tell me, that I have a hard time reconciling. I can't wrap my head around the Hollaback Girl video because nobody has ever catcalled me.
-Paul[2014-11-18 11:27:46] - i thought you'd like that.
~a[2014-11-18 11:26:02] - Aaron: Definitely enjoying the discussion, though. Like I said before, I'm still on the fence with this issue, and it's good to hear other perspectives from people because, as Adrian said, if it doesn't bother me it doesn't exist.
-Paul[2014-11-18 11:23:40] - Paul: I think it might, it's at least close. The thing is, that's already against the law (collusion). The difficulty is in having the government have enough power to investigate and punish the companies for colluding when the lawyers are very good at demonstrating that what they're doing isn't colluding, it's canoodling. -- Xpovos
[2014-11-18 11:20:55] - Aaron: "to marginalize other companies, so that smaller companies can't make money" Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is happening, though. I get the fear that it might, and it's legitimate, but I think that's all it is right now. -Paul
[2014-11-18 11:19:07] - a: "A likely explanation for recent slowdowns is that Netflix usage went up, but peering and transit bandwidth didn't. Verizon and Comcast also haven't joined Netflix's "Open Connect" content delivery network, which can improve Netflix performance by placing video caches closer to customers." -Paul
[2014-11-18 11:18:44] - http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netflix-performance-on-verizon-and-comcast-has-been-dropping-for-months/ Ars Technica seems pretty pro-NN in general, but they're also pretty thoughtful, and I think they give Comcast a fair shake that they might not be 100% evil here. -Paul
[2014-11-18 11:17:48] - a: Sure, and this is where I am ignorant, so I try not to pass judgement, but I think it's complicated to say just to what extent Comcast/Verizon might've been intentionally throttling Netflix or just maybe passive-aggressively using benign neglect. -Paul
[2014-11-18 11:16:59] - paul: but it's big companies paying other big companies tons and tons of money to marginalize other companies, so that smaller companies can't make money. and i think that's bad. sometimes it's not preventable, or maybe it's the best of a long list of bad options. but in this case, i think there's a much better alternative (net neutrality) - aaron
[2014-11-18 11:15:41] - paul: i don't know, i see this as a big problem. you could trivialize things like, EA getting exclusive deals to make video games bsaed on the NFL, cable companies getting a government-provided monopoly to dig lines to people's homes, or yeah the whole verizon having propriety rights to a US wireless spectrum. none of this "matters", none of it is "important" - aaron
[2014-11-18 11:14:12] - Aaron: Totally fair. I just would like to be a lot more confident that it IS a NN issue and that the rules that would be put in place would successfully fix the problem with a minimum of unintended consequences. I am not convinced of any of that right now. -Paul
[2014-11-18 11:14:01] - paul: on the other hand, when comcast was intentionally (imo) throttling netflix, i noticed it. i know you probably don't understand aaron's points because you haven't lived it. if it doesn't bother paul directly, it doesn't exist (/s). things were bad. i guess i left that out of my "i haven't had any issues like that in years" statement. oops. ~a
[2014-11-18 11:13:17] - paul: (although my 30-day trial of netflix was really, just vinnie forgetting to log out of my smart TV and telling me it was OK to use his account
) - aaron[2014-11-18 11:11:52] - a: Truth. I don't necessarily need my movies to start right away, but I would prefer a larger buffer so it didn't get interrupted as much. Still, though, I feel like Netflix strikes a good balance. I don't recall a ton of buffering problems lately. -Paul
[2014-11-18 11:11:02] - paul: yes, comcast and verizon are preventing people from signing up for netflix. i personally tried a 30-day trial of hulu and netflix last year, and didn't sign up for multiple reasons, one of which was the inconsistent streaming quality. again, i don't know if that's an NN thing or just a "shitty connection at certain times" thing, but it's their fault - aaron
[2014-11-18 11:10:39] - Aaron: But they didn't, and Redbox streaming eventually got discontinued because nobody used it, so I just feel like this isn't likely to be a big problem. -Paul
[2014-11-18 11:10:27] - paul: "I'm amazed we can stream video as well as we can" i am also amazed. internet speeds are really pretty awesome. i wish the software we used let us configure buffer sizes so we could buffer up a movie and watch through the buffer. hitting play and having a 4k movie just start right away is an unrealistic and unnecessary requirement. ~a
[2014-11-18 11:10:05] - Aaron: Yeah, and I totally see that. But Verizon partnered up with Redbox to offer a streaming service to compete with Netflix, so if anybody ever had motivation to do something super shitty and block Netflix or something, you would think it would be Verizon. -Paul
[2014-11-18 11:08:45] - Aaron: It seems like an overblown reaction to a problem which technically could happen, but hasn't yet and seems unlikely. It would be like government mandating 20% tips on every meal because sometime, somewhere, somebody might tip 0% on a $500 meal and that would suck for the wait staff. -Paul
[2014-11-18 11:08:40] - paul: right, i guess i'm just a glass-half-empty guy. but to me the worst case scenario that has happened is that 200 other streaming providers refused to pay a multi-billion dollar company, so their service remained shitty - aaron
[2014-11-18 11:07:24] - Aaron: Comcast/Verizon wasn't preventing people from going to Netflix. They just were possibly maybe making the experience not as wonderful as it could be. -Paul
[2014-11-18 11:06:22] - Aaron: Sure, no, I totally get why it sounds like a horrible thing, but as far as I can tell, that specific scenario hasn't happened anywhere. The worst case scenario that has happened is that a multi-billion dollar company paid some money to another one to increase their service. -Paul
[2014-11-18 11:05:07] - paul: i know i keep bringing up shitty analogies but it's just like -- youtube, amazon, netflix, i'm not worried about them, i'm worried about the idea that in the future if you want to stream high-quality content, you'll have to be a huge company with your hands in 100 different pockets or your content will be throttled everywhere - aaron
[2014-11-18 11:04:42] - a: Well, there was also, " i rented two movies from amazon last month", but point taken. Doesn't the fact that we're only talking about a few problems over the course of years mean something, though? Frankly, I'm amazed we can stream video as well as we can these days considering how unthinkable this was a decade ago. -Paul
[2014-11-18 11:03:12] - paul: but it is still a really shitty problem. how would you feel if you finally opened like, your dream company and for some reason, customers never came to your store, and you couldn't figure out why, and it was because you didn't pay money to a company you never heard of in a country you don't live in so they kept your customers away - aaron
[2014-11-18 11:02:29] - paul: "I haven't had any issues like that in years that I can recall" i don't think you read aaron's comment "two years ago at adrian's party" (it was over three years ago) i haven't had any issues like that in years that i can recall either. ~a
[2014-11-18 11:02:22] - But if Verizon overbought spectrum at auction and is selling it for revenues... well, that's capitalism at work, right? -- Xpovos
[2014-11-18 11:01:48] - aaron: I don't know about the fees situation, but it's certainly plausible. But that has to do with government regulation all over again. Now this is a situation where without government regulation, it'd probably be a mess, because you'd have 10,000 companies all competing for the same spectrum and it'd just be noise. -- Xpovos
[2014-11-18 11:01:33] - Aaron: Right, and so my first thought wouldn't be that the solution is that Verizon and Amazon need some better connections between them... not that it's some issue where data packets have to be treated equally. I could be totally wrong, though. Wouldn't be the first time.
-Paul[2014-11-18 11:01:16] - paul: but you could literally have the one computer on one ISP streaming from netflix fine, and amazon poorly, and another computer on a different ISP in the same location streaming from netflix and amazon fine, and you still wouldn't 100% know if it was a network neutrality problem. it doesn't mean it's not an issue - aaron
[2014-11-18 10:56:12] - paul: no, i'm not sure whether or not it's a NN problem spefically, it could just be a "not enough bandwidth" problem. all three incidents i cited involved watching movies around peak internet hours of 7-9 pm - aaron
[2014-11-18 10:55:47] - Aaron: For the record, it's an honest question. I'm legitimately unsure if NN would help or hurt in these situations, and that's why I think I am leaning slightly away from it. It just sounds like a pretty massive change to maybe/hopefully make it so people don't have to buffer movies as often. -Paul
[2014-11-18 10:54:28] - Aaron: I mean, I haven't heard of claims that Verizon was unfairly throttling Amazon (not saying it's not out there, just that I haven't heard it). Maybe if Amazon was allowed to pay for fast lanes with Verizon you wouldn't have such issues? -Paul
[2014-11-18 10:52:53] - aaron: Huh, sounds like you've had worse luck than me with video streaming. I haven't had any issues like that in years that I can recall. Still, do we know if that's a NN problem? An argument could be made that it's an example of why NN is bad... -Paul
[2014-11-18 10:50:50] - xpovos: we could have 10,000 wireless providers but we'd still have shitty fees just because it's how the USA decided to handle the problem of multiple companies sharing one wireless spectrum (oops) - aaron
[2014-11-18 10:50:24] - xpovos: cell phone providers have the additional issue that (and i'm completely wrong about the specifics so bear with me) in the USA they all have to pay verizon to use their wireless spectrum, which is why we have things like text messaging fees and bandwidth restrictions while other countries like germany don't - aaron
[2014-11-18 10:48:49] - paul: and two years ago at adrian's party, we watched about 2/3 of a movie and then had to stop. i mean, you're right these are trivial problems, but it's just an internet provider. you pay them to provide you internet, and sometimes they don't provide internet. - aaron
[2014-11-18 10:48:15] - There isn't a single metropolitan area that has anywhere near 5 broadband providers. I'd imagine 4 is tops. Cable, phone, T-line, sattelite. -- Xpovos
[2014-11-18 10:47:14] - a: Two choices is what we have, arguably. Two isn't enough. You need about 5 for a viable market, I think. Look at cell phone service providers. Sure there are the big two, Verizon/AT&T, but there are significant other major players like Sprint and T-Mobile, as well as 'discount' providers like Cricket. And that's AFTER major consolidation. -- Xpovos
[2014-11-18 10:46:23] - paul: well, specifically i rented two movies from amazon last month and had to deal with about 30 minutes of pausing, presumably because amazon isn't netflix, so verizon isn't giving them any special network priority - aaron
[2014-11-18 10:43:53] - a: Definitely agreed on competition. Even just having wireless level competition (where you can choose between 4 carriers) would be an improvement. Look at the progress that's being made by T-Mobile and Sprint. -Paul
[2014-11-18 10:38:33] - aaron: And even if there was a "problem", Netflix paid Verizon and now it's apparently "fixed". Problem solved? Ultimately, why do I care if multi-billion dollar company A pays multi-billion dollar company B or vice versa? -Paul
[2014-11-18 10:37:31] - Aaron: Also, frankly, I don't see what's currently going on as some horrible situation that needs fixing. I'm on Fios (which supposedly was the poster child for crappy Netflix service) and never noticed any problem. -Paul
[2014-11-18 10:33:33] - aaron: Sure, I get that. The reason I think I disagree is because I see the NN solution as being extremely imperfect to where I don't even know if it would work but I AM sure it would have a bunch of negative unintended consequences. -Paul
[2014-11-18 10:16:44] - 10-20 choices is unrealistic of course. but are two choices too much to ask for? ~a
[2014-11-18 10:15:24] - paul: in 12 months, would i rather have "perfect paul world" or "net neutrality", i don't really care honestly, they both sound great. but one of them is a remote possibility (very remote) and the other one sadly isn't - aaron
prev <-> next