prev <-> next
[2015-08-10 11:08:39] - http://i.imgur.com/pMx51sC.png I thought this was a little funny, posted somewhere in response to a similar graphic about what happens to you when you drink soda. -Paul
[2015-08-10 08:44:01] - mig: not sure that i follow your original (2012) argument. that we'd be better off without the epa? or that things would get worse, but not unacceptably worse? if it's the latter, i'd argue that things are already pretty bad, and things getting worse is not something i'd be ok with. ~a
[2015-08-09 23:43:57] - "i'm of the opinion that if there was suddenly no EPA tomorrow morning that we would be dooming america to be a toxic waste dumping ground. ~a" m'kay. - mig
[2015-08-07 16:33:29] - a: Also, Trump got a lot of time to talk (more than twice what Rand Paul got, for instance, and the most of all the candidates there), although maybe that was Fox handing him rope to hang himself with. -Paul
[2015-08-07 16:32:13] - a: Well, it definitely seemed like Trump got asked the most tough questions, but he also was probably the guy with the most weaknesses there, so I think it made sense. -Paul
[2015-08-07 16:26:38] - hmmm. i guess, yeah. so remove ailes from my theory. somebody of power, goes around the halls of fox news, loudly asking everybody "do you hate donald trump? because i hate donald trump." this is what i imagine. ~a
[2015-08-07 15:50:52] - a: if you're going to bring Roger Ailes into this, isn't that an alleging sort of a concrete conspiracy? - mig
[2015-08-07 15:35:04] - mig: it's likely not a concrete conspiracy, so much as everybody at fox news agrees that they hate trump? . . . just spitballing. ~a
[2015-08-07 15:23:04] - Oh, man. Last week's Trolden was really good. I just watched it and I have tears. -- Xpovos
[2015-08-07 15:17:12] - a: I dunno you could be right that Roger Ailes would prefer that Trump not win, but I find any sort of conspiracy by FNC to sink his campaign to be rather silly. - mig
[2015-08-07 15:04:24] - a: I'm confused though, so the Fox moderators shouldn't press Trump on his questionable statements and actions in his past, lest everyone think Roger Ailes is out to "get" Trump? - mig
[2015-08-07 14:09:15] - omg, so cool! now i want a cat. ~a
[2015-08-07 12:07:27] - <a href="http://laughingsquid.com/creative-man-builds-a-feline-feeding-machine-that-requires-his-cat-to-hunt-for-his-dinner/"> someone built a machine where their cat has to "hunt" for food hidden throughout their house - aaron
[2015-08-07 11:41:17] - and the tough questions for Trump were certainly fair ones. - mig
[2015-08-07 11:40:02] - a: they were tough on everybody based on what I've read. Trump simply handled it the poorest. - mig
[2015-08-07 11:09:07] - mig: roger ailes wants donald trump to lose. these aren't "tough questions" to spur a tough debate. these are "tough questions" because donald trump isn't supposed to win. ~a
[2015-08-07 10:58:43] - side note: I wonder if Clinton is going to get anywhere near the same kind of tough questions in any of the DNC debates. - mig
[2015-08-07 10:56:51] - mig: Heh, at least it wasn't during the debate, I guess. I find it weird he was up at 3 am tweeting. Does anybody else think that's a little weird? -Paul
[2015-08-07 10:44:05] - paul: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trumps-twitter-tirade-megyn-kelly-a-bimbo-frank-luntz-a-clown/article/2569781 - mig
[2015-08-07 10:21:20] - paul: i think it goes back to the whole "sound byte" vs. "several hours" thing. I think even his most ardent supporters recognize that a debate is supposed to be a sort of more dignified setting where calling each other poo-heads isn't exactly acceptable. - mig
[2015-08-07 10:16:13] - paul: he tweeted the bimbo comment post-debate. - mig
[2015-08-07 10:15:24] - mig: Wow, he called her a bimbo? I missed that. I thought the moderators did a great job. Lots of super tough questions (not just for Trump). I almost thought they were overly tough at times (almost). -Paul
[2015-08-07 10:14:21] - mig: Said he was no longer a supporter because he was surprised by how Trump was (paraphrasing here) "bombastic, rude and vapid" and I think my jaw literally dropped. How was that a surprise to a supposed supporter? -Paul
[2015-08-07 10:13:28] - mig: I hope he tanks after last night, and logically it would make sense for him to, but Trump has been defying logic for a bit now. I watched some of the after debate polling that Fox News did and one former Trump supporter... -Paul
[2015-08-07 10:13:28] - and whining about the "tough" questions and calling Megyn Kelly (who is universally respected for being tough on everybody) a bimbo isn't going to help him. - mig
[2015-08-07 10:09:23] - paul: speaking of the Trump appeal (and how depressing it is) someone I was talking to made a good point on how Trump's antics are kind of appealing in short sound bytes but gets really grating on people in a debate format where people have to be subjected to it for a few hours. I wouldn't be surprised if he starts tanking from this point on. - mig
[2015-08-07 09:52:09] - It's kind of crazy that Stewart's last episode was on the same night that Trump was in a presidential debate. He didn't want to put it off by one more night so he could take advantage of the gold mine that was Trump's performance?
-Paul[2015-08-07 09:46:20] - aaron: Heh, I love Colbert. Dung-lung. Did he really just come up with that on the spot?
-Paul[2015-08-07 09:46:07] - that whole episode was touching. i'm so sad! 16 years is a long run. ~a
[2015-08-07 09:33:47] - colbert's impromptu speech to jon stewart on the daily show finale - aaron
[2015-08-06 21:47:50] - a: the problems with first past the post voting video, summarizing why first-past-the-post voting systems devolve into an inevitable unavoidable two-party-system, where most people are voting against the party they disagree with, rather than supporting the party they agree with - aaron
[2015-08-06 13:53:43] - has anyone tried steams streaming functionality? I gave it a trying to stream games from dektop pc -> laptop but was a bit underwhelmed by the performance. It was playable but just barely. - mig
[2015-08-06 12:58:46] - "even a quarter of those would cause alcohol poisoning" . . . god damn amateurs. ~a
[2015-08-06 12:50:31] - a: Way too many rules to be practical. Also, I think following even a quarter of those would cause alcohol poisoning. I am tempted to make a drinking game of it, though. Maybe a sip of red wine every time Trump mentions his wealth, somebody complains about not talking enough, or somebody mentions a poor upbringing? -Paul
[2015-08-06 12:37:01] - the official gop debate drinking-game rules ~a
[2015-08-06 12:26:59] - But, I suspect I might be off-base and missing the point of the discussion between you and Aaron, so maybe I should just stay out of it.
-Paul[2015-08-06 12:21:41] - mig: And if they decide to vote for Hillary because of the whole "my team must win" mentality, then I think that's stupid and a shame. But if that voter's issues are still more aligned with Hillary than the Republican nominee (maybe taxing the rich and universal healthcare are their top priorities), then I see the logic of voting for Hillary. -Paul
[2015-08-06 12:19:31] - mig: Well, to me, it somewhat hinges on the specific voter and who the Republican nominee is. Considering how hawkish, pro-NSA and cozy with wall-street Hillary is, I could easily see a scenario where a Bernie Sanders supporter might have more in common with the Republican nominee than Hillary. -Paul
[2015-08-06 11:51:49] - So, again, I don't see any logical reason why the Sanders crowd who despise Clinton should vote for her. - mig
[2015-08-06 11:42:40] - want to play spolier and hand the election to a Republican). Even if the prospect could be mildly terrifying to some, the TP has had a moderate amount of success in trying to change the Republican party to something more in line with their political desires. - mig
[2015-08-06 11:40:56] - In some ways, in the whole lesser of two evils thing, I respect the tea party movement a lot more than this current Sanders/Warren progressive movement. The TP is willing to take electoral losses standing for their principles, whereas the liberal version of it doesn't seem to want to (Sanders has said he won't run as an independent specifically because he doesn't...
[2015-08-06 11:39:31] - My father sent me this link this morning. I'm sure it'll be an interesting read for some of you. http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/08/03/analyzing-ancapistan/ -- Xpovos
[2015-08-06 11:36:26] - a: Well, I'm assuming aaron is talking about the cgp grey (google him) video regarding FPTP voting and its drawbacks. I agree with most of the video's main premise (FPTP is a terrible voting system for a representative democracy) except for some small bits (mostly to do with aaron's last point). - mig
[2015-08-06 10:31:08] - paul: hmmm. yeah. sadly the first past the post voting is going to continue to be our norm in the US for the next hundred+ years. unless an unforeseen revolution shakes things up. ~a
[2015-08-06 10:28:48] - a: I haven't seen the video either, but I can probably guess how it goes. Not hard to poke holes in first past the post voting.
-Paul[2015-08-06 10:19:21] - aaron/mig: sorry i haven't seen the video. i apologize if i'm rehashing something, but can you send me the link? ty. ~a
[2015-08-06 09:02:22] - Anybody going to watch the Republican debate tonight? I might try to catch some of it just for the novelty of seeing how Trump handles himself (although I wish Perry had gotten in, since he had been one of Trump's harsher critics). -Paul
[2015-08-05 23:40:46] - aaron: I've seen the video, my opinion that such behavior is hypocrisy does not change. - mig
[2015-08-05 17:02:17] - Aaron: Right, and unfortunately, if abortions rights are important for you, Rand is still pretty pro-life, so he might not be the Republican for you.
Gay marriage and and abortion aren't as high on my list of priorities as foreign policy, police militarization and some other stuff that Rand is good enough on that I can overlook some of the bad. -Paul[2015-08-05 16:57:59] - paul: but yeah there's a short list of republicans (and third party candidates) who i'd seriously consider voting for even though they're not on the democratic ticket, rand paul being one of them. i'd be annoyed if they ended up running and people dismissed them just because they were on "the wrong team" or whatever - aaron
[2015-08-05 16:55:45] - mig: i have a feeling we've watched the same youtube video demonstrating how rational entities are rewarded for voting against their personal best interests in a first-past-the-post voting system, so i'm not going to offend you by breaking this down into to a discussion of gazelles and lions or whatever. but yeah that - aaron
[2015-08-05 16:52:40] - paul: personally i've mostly based my vote on social issues so i haven't had to use my brain to vote. but i'm aware there are republicans who don't necessarily think roe v wade should be overturned or that gay parents should forego adoptive rights and whatever, and if one of them ever runs for president i'll have to turn my brain back on - aaron
[2015-08-05 16:52:36] - If you think Clinton would be a terrible president, I see no logical reason for anyone thinking that to vote for her. - mig
[2015-08-05 16:51:44] - aaron: all of these actions are logically sound and there's not necessarily hypocricy in any of the. No, they aren't. - mig
[2015-08-05 16:51:29] - Aaron: Not bad, but I think you can do better.
-Paul[2015-08-05 16:50:37] - Aaron: Because those are basically the three big issues that Paul staked out "radical" positions on (often before they became popular) that Hillary has been largely very bad to horrible on, and yet I could easily see a bunch of liberal voters mindlessly voting for Hillary over Paul because of partisanship (plus a healthy dose of ignorance). -Paul
[2015-08-05 16:49:54] - paul: (sorry i was trying to think of the most irritating response how did i do) - aaron
[2015-08-05 16:49:24] - paul: you're right, maybe they should wear jerseys like sports teams. right now it's kind of hard to tell which team is which, i don't think i'd vote for a bad guy by mistake but jerseys would make it easier - aaron
[2015-08-05 16:48:46] - Aaron: An example: A voter who cares about police militarization (specifically with regards to inequality with minorities), civil liberties abuses by the government (NSA spying, Patriot Act, etc) and never-ending war that would vote for Hillary Clinton over Rand Paul (in a hypothetical presidential match-up) would make me so mad. -Paul
[2015-08-05 16:46:11] - aaron: I think I agree with you, but the (separate issue) that bothers me is when people just automatically vote for Democrats over Republicans (or vice versa) because "their" team are the good guys and the "other" team are the bad guys. -Paul
[2015-08-05 16:38:14] - mig: hmm, no, some people might think that hillary clinton is a corrupt wall streeter who will be a disaster as president and still vote for her. and some people think that the 2-party-system is corrupt and still vote. all of these actions are logically sound and there's not necessarily hypocricy in any of them, it's just a shitty system to some people - aaron
[2015-08-05 16:20:43] - mig: http://reason.com/reasontv/2015/08/05/5-ways-jon-stewart-was-full-of-shit I thought you might like this one. I felt like the evidence was a little weak, but the first item on vaccines was pretty amusing. -Paul
[2015-08-05 13:48:57] - aaron: those aren't really the same thing. It's one thing to complain about the cost of college, and another to argue that college is worthless and a waste of time. If you argue the latter and still go to college, yes you are a hypocrite. - mig
[2015-08-05 13:26:00] - mig: well yeah, people complain about traffic, but still drive to work. and people complain about the cost of higher education but still go to college. it's not hypocritical to participate in a system you disagree with - aaron
[2015-08-05 12:29:48] - mig: I think that's a different issue (although one that also bothers me) where people just seem to get blinded by their partisanship. Clinton is also fairly vague on her stances on lots of issues, but at least she is a legitimate candidate with a background in politics who has taken stances on issues in the past. -Paul
[2015-08-05 12:25:49] - Though, I would have thought the comments on McCain would have sunk him. It is a little surprising he survived that debacle. - mig
[2015-08-05 12:24:54] - I mean, honestly we saw this to an extent last time with the GOP presidential field. There were all sorts of surges for the stranger candidates like Herman Cain because there was a significant segment that was "anybody but Romney". It's happening with a little more force this time with Trump because there actually is no real front runner at the moment. - mig
[2015-08-05 12:21:47] - Honestly I think that speaks worse for democracy than what will probably be this temporary fascination with Trump. - mig
[2015-08-05 12:19:26] - end up voting for Clinton like the partisan lemmings they are. - mig
[2015-08-05 12:19:18] - paul: we can also look at the democrat side. Over at reddit there's all these people jumping on the Bernie Sanders hype train and talking about how Hillary is this corrupt wall streeter who'd be a disaster as president. But at the end of the day once Clinton becomes the nominee all those same people will ...
[2015-08-05 11:03:23] - aaron: Doesn't Scott Walker have a noticeable bald spot on the back of his head?
-Paul[2015-08-05 11:02:53] - aaron: Well, she was at least a successful politician (at the time she was picked for VP nominee, I think she was a fairly popular governor). Either way, that just proves my point more. People sometimes (often?) make really questionable voting decisions, and I'm not talking about just political positions I disagree with. -Paul
[2015-08-05 11:02:30] - paul: out of all of the candidates, donald trump looks the most like an angry grampa, and that's something republicans value in their presidential candidates. jeb bush doesn't look old enough, and scott walker has too much hair - aaron
[2015-08-05 10:59:57] - paul: i don't know if it's any sillier than republican support for sarah palin back in 2012. the two political parties just value different qualities i guess - aaron
[2015-08-05 09:34:37] - I know it's early, but the fact that his campaign is polling so high (not just leading, but by a big margin) on a campaign of virtually zero substance among people who are presumably at least moderately politically engaged... well, I don't know how that can't shake somebody's faith in democracy.
-Paul[2015-08-05 09:33:31] - I know I sometimes catch some flack for my belief that democracy isn't actually all it's cracked up to be and that I actually DON'T want to encourage the politically apathetic to vote at all costs, so I wanted to point out exhibit A for my cynicism: Donald Trump's polling numbers. -Paul
[2015-08-04 10:05:46] - Given the situation as a whole, ramming through this policy and just blowing off the advice of several people who brought up concerns, and given that it looked like he did this in large part as a political statement and for the attention, it really shouldn't be surprising it went poorly. - mig
[2015-08-04 10:00:11] - daniel: I'm not surprised that the more talented employees got mad and left, especially after being told off by the CEO when they brought up any concerns. A little surprised that some clients bailed on him, I'll admit. It's not so much the plan itself, but the kind of brute-forcish way he tried to get it through. - mig
[2015-08-04 08:50:36] - aaron: Which part of the "you shuldn't eat dogs" bit is internally inconsistent? Is it the lack of external verification of intelligence? I actually don't care one whit about the dogs, but your logic is intriguing. I can understand the other argument for being 'logical, but stupid', though you might phrase it better. -- Xpovos
[2015-08-04 08:50:32] - mig: re the 70000 minimum wage, I found parts of it surprising. I was surprised at how many people it upset. I'm not sure I would have seen that coming, maybe that makes me naive somehow? http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/834682-the-only-time-you-look-in-your-neighbor-s-bowl-is -Daniel
[2015-08-03 17:52:58] - a: for example "you shouldn't eat dogs because they're too intelligent" is an invalid viewpoint, but "the government should treat gay marriages differently because gays can't have biological children" is a valid viewpoint.. one is inherently wrong-er than the other, and i see this encryption viewpoint as valid, even if i also think it's wrong - aaron
[2015-08-03 17:49:46] - a: right, well over the years i've lowered my standards as to what constitutes a valid viewpoint
i don't think the viewpoint makes sense, but i at least think it's internally consistent. it's like, okay i disagree but that at least technically makes sense i guess - aaron[2015-08-03 17:03:39] - a: Fair enough. Agree to mostly agree.
-Paul[2015-08-03 15:52:08] - paul: yeah . . . i definitely see where you're coming from, and mostly agree. but the "less directly" is exactly why i think they should be treated differently. ~a
[2015-08-03 15:50:41] - a: I kind of see your point, but guns also generally don't explode by accident either. I would counter than a minority of people use guns to kill people just like a minority of people use encryption to (much less directly, admittedly) kill people. -Paul
[2015-08-03 15:45:18] - also I don't think we as citizens have any obligation to make things easy for law enforcement. There job is supposed to be hard, for very good reasons. - mig
[2015-08-03 15:43:05] - daniel: i don't see this happening in the near future. in the olden days, cops had to a physical presence: they physically found clues, interrogated suspects, etc etc. they're going to have to go back to doing that again to find success being cops. ~a
[2015-08-03 15:39:57] - http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-company-copes-with-backlash-on-70000-minimum-wage/ a pretty interesting experiment by this CEO, but I can't say I'm surprised by the results. - mig
[2015-08-03 15:33:51] - paul: it's an imperfect analogy. if locks/encryption exploded sometimes by accident, or if locks/encryption could be used to kill people, it'd be a little closer. ~a
[2015-08-03 15:32:43] - a: My understanding of the concern is that encryption will outpace law enforcement's ability to crack it and that there is a point where they won't be able to see the contents of some conversation even with a warrant. That seems like it would makes things clearly worse for law enforcement from now. -Daniel
[2015-08-03 15:23:36] - aaron: "he's arguing that nobody in the world should have access to knives, because someone might eventually use them to cut a nose" I don't want derail this conversation, but I think that's how a lot of 2nd Amendment supporters (for lack of a better term) feel about arguments on gun control. -Paul
[2015-08-03 15:06:15] - daniel: it's definitely possible to get around even the best and most current encryption. oblig ~a
[2015-08-03 15:06:02] - daniel: "If encryption gets good enough then a warrant doesn't matter which does seem a difference to me" encryption is no different from a good lock. with a warrant, you can get around a good lock; with a warrant you can get around encryption. ~a
[2015-08-03 14:59:27] - aaron: semantics? is the point "valid"? i guess it depends on your definition of valid. it's (imo) not easily supportable. it's as valid as saying, as you suggest, knives should be illegal. in other words, i don't think "knives should be illegal" to be a valid viewpoint. ~a
[2015-08-03 14:59:03] - a: or i mean the CIA can give terrorist organization fake encryption kind of like what they did with the sasser worm, but i don't think that requires american corporations to opt in. it just needs some smart CIA engineers and some misplaced trust by ISIS. that's a valid approach too - aaron
[2015-08-03 14:57:32] - a: i guess the most invalid part of the article is his solution, "let's get ISIS to use a form of encryption which the US government can break easily", i don't think that will work. i think ISIS will continue to use good forms of encryption, but maybe if CNN asks them nicely enough... - aaron
[2015-08-03 14:56:27] - mig: i think differently of fox news because of, primarily, their op-eds. i don't think labelling something as an op-ed releases a news organization from culpability of their actions. ~a
[2015-08-03 14:55:35] - a: i think the author's point is valid, it's just very narrow minded. sort of the opposite of cutting off your nose to spite your face. he's arguing that nobody in the world should have access to knives, because someone might eventually use them to cut a nose - aaron
[2015-08-03 14:52:56] - a: why would it make you think differently of CNN? I understand you disagree strongly with the article, but it's clearly an op-ed and that the author is speaking only for himself. - mig
[2015-08-03 13:59:00] - a: All of those things you listed have ways the gov / agency can get around with a warrant. If encryption gets good enough then a warrant doesn't matter which does seem a difference to me. I wouldn't argue that encryption should stop or anything but I don't think its a spurious argument. -Daniel
[2015-08-03 13:59:00] - a: I could make the argument, but my heart wouldn't really be in it, and I feel like you're really looking for somebody who strongly believes that. To be clear, I do agree that encryption makes the CIA/FBI's jobs harder, but that's not a good enough argument to ban it (or whatever). -Paul
[2015-08-03 13:48:06] - daniel: yes, i do believe encryption makes it harder for the cia or the fbi to operate. but i believe locked doors, sealed envelopes, whispering, and privacy in general make it harder for the cia or the fbi to operate, so it's a (danerously) spurious argument. i'm actually changing my opinion of cnn ( and you?
) based on their argument. ~a[2015-08-03 13:07:20] - a: I didn't read the article but from the headline I would agree that encryption makes the security agencies lives harder. If easy super secure encryption is widely available it makes it harder for the CIA or the FBI or whoever to operate. Are you disagreeing with that premise? -Daniel
[2015-08-03 12:46:24] - a: i doubt you'll find anyone on this board agreeing with this viewpoint, especially since it's a pretty (sub)standard scare-mongering article, you could literally substitue a whole lot of societal menaces for "encryption" (and he even provides a few in his introduction as well). - mig
[2015-08-03 11:31:15] - encryption a growing threat to security. please, somebody who agrees with this viewpoint, let us have a conversation. ~a
[2015-08-03 10:09:37] - a: yeah! i think it's the best it's ever been, i mean if you're going with the family or friends to just goof off. we had a lot of fun. - aaron
[2015-08-02 13:23:32] - has it gone downhill at all? is it still awesome today? ~a
[2015-07-31 11:39:30] - they had all these animatronic characters and voices and stuff, they really put a lot of love into that course - aaron
[2015-07-31 11:39:05] - http://m.fairfaxtimes.com/article/20150402/NEWS/150409625/woody-x2019-s-golf-range-to-close-after-35-years&template=fairfaxTimes did you guys know woody's golf range is closing? sad
i went there about 3 months ago and was surprised how much the mini golf had changed - aaron[2015-07-29 16:58:57] - paul: yeah, i don't think it's particularly nefarious either, since it's apparently a thing for media members to sometimes meet with the president off the record like this, but it seems a little out of character for Stewart to do so. - mig
[2015-07-29 16:52:25] - mig: I personally don't think there's anything nefarious going on there, but it does just add to the slight annoyance I get whenever Jon Stewart gets on his high horse and berates the media for being too chummy with politicians and not doing their jobs. -Paul
[2015-07-29 15:25:49] - Or maybe it isn't. If they were just chatting about the Chicago White Sox's world series chances then yeah, not much intrigue, but if it was something like, "hey Putin's been a real pain in the ass, can you hammer him pretty good on tomorrow's show for me", I think that would be indeed interesting. - mig
[2015-07-29 15:16:35] - a: it just seems to be a very un-Jon Stewart thing to do, given the reported nature of the meetings. - mig
[2015-07-29 15:13:14] - interesting why? ~a
[2015-07-29 15:08:40] - Personally I find it interesting he's met privately with the president a few times and nobody's known about it till now. - mig
[2015-07-29 15:07:11] - a: i was referring to myself mostly since I've posted a bit on here on Stewart recently. - mig
[2015-07-29 14:59:04] - why is this anti-jon? what's interesting? i don't think i understand your thesis. that he's a biased newsman? even if true, he won't be in this position for long. ~a
[2015-07-29 14:43:37] - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/us/politics/jon-stewart-secretly-met-with-obama-at-white-house.html I don't want to make it seem like I'm on an anti-jon stewart rampage but these interesting stories about him (to me, at least) keep popping up. - mig
[2015-07-29 13:40:26] - I guess they could have also gotten Joaquin Benoit but I don't know how much of an improvement that would have been over what they have now. - mig
[2015-07-29 13:37:35] - OTOH, this was probably the only available way for them to improve the bullpen it looks like. Getting Chapman or Kimbrel was probably not possible and I guess the Mets were willing to offer more for Clippard. - mig
[2015-07-29 13:36:39] - That's my only reservation. I'd much prefer to have Papelbon be the set up guy, and there's a risk this could really mess with Storen's psyche, especially since they also picked up Papelbon's option for next year (again, another condition for Papelbon accepting the trade). - mig
[2015-07-29 13:35:12] - paul: Papelbon's pretty solid (1.59 ERA, 0.98 WHIP, 17/17 on saves, 40ks in 39 innings). The only problem is they're essentially forced to replace Storen as the closer with Papelbon because that was the only way to get him to accept a trade to DC. - mig
[2015-07-29 13:06:12] - mig: Haven't been following non-Nationals baseball this year, but has Papelbon turned things around some or is he still in decline? Nats definitely needed bullpen help, although I would've liked Clippard coming back. -Paul
[2015-07-29 10:34:44] - so that umm, Papelbon trade? Probably will be unpopular, but I sort of understand it. - mig
[2015-07-28 16:32:12] - paul: it's also why I tend to roll my eyes when I hear the "we should be more like Europe because of how enlightened they are!" refrain, like Sanders does in this interview. - mig
[2015-07-28 16:04:08] - paul: in that sense, yes, but when if you also believe the Koch's are the masterminds behind the republican party for this election cycle then this just doesn't make any sort of sense given the current attitude of republicans toward immigration. - mig
[2015-07-28 15:30:05] - mig: I think it's more the second point: If some rich business owner is for it, it must be bad. I kind of understand his point about open borders in the sense that democratic socialists aren't always pro-immigrant. Europe has had a lot of clashes with immigrants and their governments. -Paul
[2015-07-28 15:17:44] - and if a rich person favors a particular policy, it must be bad. Which in this case he's probably making the libertarian (the only group I think that might be consistently as a whole in favor of open borders) with the Kochs, which to him, must mean that open borders are bad. - mig
[2015-07-28 15:13:33] - paul: what amazes me is how you can breakdown his policy preferences into one singular concern: does it fuck over the rich? Whether a particular policy actually helps the poor seems to be a secondary concern. - mig
[2015-07-28 15:05:31] - mig: Yeah, I'm not sure I've ever heard of anybody accusing the Kochs of trying to get rid of the concept of the nation-state. I'm disappointed that they didn't touch on his thoughts on guns. -Paul
[2015-07-28 14:57:40] - paul: Sanders asserting that open borders viewpoint is part of the right wing conspiracy blew my fucking mind. - mig
[2015-07-28 14:55:19] - Daniel: I mean, if I have $1000 in gold and $1000 in USD and the government forces me to sell my gold for $500, my purchasing power ends up being $1500. That doesn't seem significantly different from the government leaving my gold alone but decreasing the purchasing power of my USD by half, which leaves me with the same purchasing power as the previous scenario. -Paul
[2015-07-28 14:45:51] - Daniel: I agree with Adrian that this is all basically semantics, and I also agree with you that's it's different. In my mind, it's all varying degrees of governments basically stealing wealth from citizenry. Sometimes it's more blatant (taking gold/raisins/etc) and sometimes it's more subtle (increased money supply, whatever Greece has been doing, etc). -Paul
[2015-07-28 14:20:16] - http://www.vox.com/2015/7/28/9014491/bernie-sanders-vox-conversation I haven't read it all yet (it's been a super busy day at work), but I've heard this is an enlightening interview Ezra Klein does with Bernie Sanders. Some of his answers might surprise his supporters. -Paul
[2015-07-28 14:13:22] - a: Well, it was too short an article to get too in depth. Yes, the growth of the money supply has been a very important development. It's a big deal to Austrian economists. -Paul
[2015-07-28 13:34:17] - mig: yes there is, and yes it will. since 2000, the m2 is up: yen=40%, euro=130%, usd=150%. 150%, that's crazy. that's like 7% every year. wtf. ~a
[2015-07-28 13:31:59] - a: Isn't there usually a service charge for converting currency. The USD would have to be constantly going down in value to even make that practical if you want to minimize or protect yourself from the devaluation. - mig
[2015-07-28 13:27:14] - daniel: if one day i decided i wanted to stop using usd because i decided the m2 had gotten too big, i could, except for two problems. 1) if anybody decided they wanted to pay me in usd, i'd have to accept it, and i'd have to immediately convert to (say) the yen. 2) i have to pay my taxes in usd. so, every year i have to convert some (say) yen into usd. ~a
[2015-07-28 13:25:46] - daniel: I think he might have meant just in general? Since the USD is the only legal tender here, typically you can't buy any goods and services with yen or the euro. - mig
[2015-07-28 12:25:17] - a: How would being able to pay taxes in euros or yen change anything? I'm confused by that point. You would have to get those euros and yen somehow that didn't involve US dollars presumably? -Daniel
[2015-07-28 11:40:08] - daniel: well it's all semantics imo. stealing and theft are probably the wrong word. but when you combine it with our inability to pay taxes with euros or yen, then it becomes a problem because you're forcing me to use a currency that you're making worthless by printing at a dangerously fast rate. ~a
[2015-07-28 11:34:40] - Paul: That doesn't sound the same at all to me. Thats monetary policy affecting how much your money is worth. Which is not stealing or taking directly. -Daniel
[2015-07-28 11:34:35] - i'm surprised that article doesn't discuss the m2. ~a
[2015-07-28 10:50:17] - a: http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2013/03/22/guess-who-else-is-stealing-money-from-bank-depositors/ It's a bit of a stretch, but you could make an argument the federal reserve has basically been stealing from all Americans for... I guess around a century now. -Paul
[2015-07-28 10:10:35] - a: I could maybe see something like this begin attempted in the EU if there are more crisis are they deem it the only way to save the Euro. - mig
[2015-07-28 10:03:57] - a: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/world/americas/supermarket-chain-denies-venezuelas-charges-of-food-hoarding.html it's not exactly the same thing, but I feel it's similar: scapegoating "hoarding" for failed economic policies. Though perhaps FDR meant well, while in Venezuela it's pretty obvious the government is trying to deflect blame for its failures. - mig
[2015-07-27 16:54:25] - a: Right, which is partially why I consider it outright theft (there's also the force part, obviously). I was just pointing that out that even this example isn't just the government flat out stealing people's gold. Like I said before, this kind of stuff still happens today (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horne_v._Department_of_Agriculture). -paul
[2015-07-27 16:43:48] - ha. there you go. $20/troy-ounce. that's insane. the price of gold mid-1933 was around 50% more than that. not only were they forced to sell, they were forced to sell at a crazy price. that'd be like being force to sell at $700/troy-ounce today. ~a
[2015-07-27 15:21:29] - a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102#Effect_of_the_order First sentence. They turned in their gold and got money in return. If you didn't turn it in, then there was a fine (punishment). -Paul
[2015-07-27 15:15:34] - "sell their gold for money", hmmm, i thought the punishment was confiscation. where does it say the punishment was a purchase? regardless, no, i can't imagine selling something that was illegal to possess: the sale price would probably be severely depressed. ~a
[2015-07-27 14:49:19] - a: I could see a lot of people argue that the gold confiscation wasn't even taking people's money at all. Heck, our government still does a lot of similar stuff to this even now where they take people's property (by force), but they pay them for it. -Paul
[2015-07-27 14:48:31] - a: Sure, I think we agree it's a similar direction, but not exactly the same. Still, isn't reducing the principle of bonds just as much taking money as forcing somebody to sell their gold for money? -Paul
[2015-07-27 14:02:43] - i don't think so, no. banks won't let your withdraw your money, that's in a similar direction. reducing the principle of bonds, that's in a similar direction. nothing where they literally take your money. ~a
[2015-07-27 13:44:29] - a: With gold specifically, or just currency in general? Either way, I would bet on it. We've seen stuff in that direction with Greece already, haven't we? -Paul
[2015-07-27 13:40:49] - (here in the US, or alternatively in an E.U. country) do you think we'll see something like that again in the next 40 or 60 years? ~a
[2015-07-27 13:11:17] - a: I'm super busy at work today, but I can give you a short opinion now: I feel like it was basically outright and blatant theft and, like many of FDR's ideas, a completely misguided attempt to pull the country out of the depression. -Paul
[2015-07-27 12:59:08] - all: what is your opinion of Executive Order 6102? (related, 6111, 6260, 6261? ~a
[2015-07-24 13:33:54] - And lastly, I thought it was funny that both Cenac and Wallace thought of the same source of Stewart's impression (Kingfish from Amos 'n' Andy). - mig
[2015-07-24 13:17:15] - Moreover, if this tidbit had been made public at the time of the bit, it almost certainly affected how people would have viewed it, which again, is kind of sad. - mig
[2015-07-24 13:15:11] - Anyways, it would be amusing to me (and at the same time, pretty sad) if there are people who back then thought the Herman Cain bit was fine but then re-evaluate it and decide to become offended retroactively once they find out a black man who isn't conservative took offense and start going "Shame on Jon Stewart!". - mig
[2015-07-24 13:13:48] - mig: Right, which I would be much more okay with if he also didn't play the holier-than-thou role off the set in criticizing other media outlets. -Paul
[2015-07-24 13:08:38] - paul: it just seems that way to me. It does seem like whenever Stewart is challenged on any point in any of his interviews, he either gets really incredulous or just throws up his arms and say, "C'mon I'm just supposed to be a funny guy!". - mig
[2015-07-24 13:07:47] - mig: As mentioned before, I more have an issue with his rant when he was on Crossfire and pretty much his whole crusade against the media in general (which is impressive, since it's making me sound defensive of the media, which I don't hold a high opinion on). -Paul
[2015-07-24 13:06:28] - "Conservatives, Faux News, LOL" - mig
[2015-07-24 13:06:27] - mig: Eh, I don't know if I have an opinion on whether or not he is thin-skinned. This is the first person I've heard of with beef working with Stewart and the other examples just seem like the natural reaction for somebody living in such a PC world. -Paul
[2015-07-24 13:06:12] - 3) And if it somehow does, that's will also be interesting. Chris Wallace actually grilled him in an interview on Fox News on that impression basically asking him "hey isn't that sort of racist?", to which Stewart answered with "I do lots of funny voices!". From my recollections, the reaction to any critcism such as Wallace's was pretty much ...
[2015-07-24 13:01:38] - 2) I wonder how much renewed interest that impression will get, at the time there wasn't much outrage IIRC. - mig
[2015-07-24 12:59:59] - Actually, even in TDS, he can get really defensive, like when he begged for forgiveness for making a joke about not voting, or his introduction to the Redskin fans vs. Native American's segment. - mig
[2015-07-24 12:58:30] - 1) Jon Stewart really is pretty thin skinned outside of TDS. Everytime he gets called out he gets really uber defensive about it. - mig
[2015-07-24 12:57:56] - paul: so I said this interests me for quite a few reasons (and interestingly, none of them were whether the impression was actually offensive or not), I might as well go list them. - mig
[2015-07-24 12:54:13] - mig: Nevermind, I just watched the bit. I actually thought it was fine (and funnier than I remember), but I'm also an insensitive jerk, so what do I know?
-Paul[2015-07-24 12:51:21] - mig: I don't even remember the Jon Stewart "Herman Cain" voice. Was it at all racist or just a dumb voice like the other ones he normally does? -Paul
[2015-07-24 12:06:36] - http://www.mediaite.com/online/jon-stewart-to-wyatt-cenac-fck-off-im-done-with-you/ a pretty interesting Stewart anecdote, at least to me, for a whole host of reasons. - mig
[2015-07-23 16:30:11] - anon:
~a[2015-07-23 16:17:24] - Obama, I am dissapoint.
[2015-07-23 16:13:10] - mig: i hold obama and alexander super responsible for the snowden thing even though it's a bush fuckup. i can't seem to find my quote from before when talking with paul, so i'll make a new one: prism/xkeyscore has changed my opinion of the obama administration. i was "approve", i am now "disapprove". ~a
[2015-07-23 16:00:59] - no, sorry, not sarcasm. it's his job to fix the shit that somebody else fucked up. ~a
[2015-07-23 14:12:42] - " it is completely his job to fix this horrible problem that somebody else made for him to take care of." i read that as sarcasms, was I incorrect? - mig
[2015-07-23 13:21:00] - i also don't give obama a free pass on prism nor guantanimo. it was absolutely his job to fix both of those problems that bush/cheney created. ~a
[2015-07-23 13:19:55] - "so because Bush was terrible, Obama should get a free pass on everything?" no this isn't a bush thing, all presidential campaigns are chocked full of bullshit promises. ~a
[2015-07-23 13:14:12] - mig: prism and xkeyscore go against the constitution and his oath to uphold it, not a campaign promise. ~a
[2015-07-23 13:02:25] - Is what happened to Eric Snowden all Bush's fault to (meaning no blame for Obama), under this logic? - mig
[2015-07-23 13:00:32] - a: so because Bush was terrible, Obama should get a free pass on everything? - mig
[2015-07-23 12:58:48] - a: I disagree with this particular promise. Sure it's one thing if this one something that was just a throwaway one-liner at some random campaign event. But this promise was a major one, made repeatadly and pretty strongly, akin to Bush I's "read my lips no new taxes" (which he obviously got a lot of grief for). - mig
[2015-07-23 12:57:43] - "Bush promised a humble foreign policy with no nation building." lol. i'll stop reading there. ~a
[2015-07-23 12:54:11] - mig: "do you really think it's that ridiculous to harp on a president who made a pretty explicity campaign promise for taking so long to finally make it a priority?" yes i do think that is completely ridiculous. because most people seem to be ok ignoring campaign promises entirely. if you succeed on 10% of your campaign promises, you're above the fray. ~a
[2015-07-23 12:48:05] - Xpovos: Or especially if they read the message board.
-Paul[2015-07-23 12:46:56] - Paul: As long as they don't read the message board. -- Xpovos
[2015-07-23 12:29:10] - Xpovos: You too could be the front-runner for the Republican nomination for a few weeks! -Paul
[2015-07-23 12:19:08] - http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/why-progressives-shouldnt-support-bernie-120484.html kind of a shocking article coming from someone like Barney Frank, and also makes me a little sad at the same time. - mig
[2015-07-23 11:40:44] - paul: probably doubly so for me. I'd be branded as a race-traitor, somehow, even though I advocate for open borders. - mig
[2015-07-23 11:39:09] - Paul: Take the Trump-path. Tell it like it is! -- Xpovos
[2015-07-23 11:34:44] - a: I was trying to say something nice about Obama and somehow it came out as me blaming him for stuff. This is why politics would never suit me.
-Paul[2015-07-23 11:33:55] - Particularly a promise that was pretty central to his campaign? - mig
[2015-07-23 11:33:04] - a: I know you're being tougue-in-cheek (or I assume you are), but I wouldn't say I was "blaming" Obama for Gitmo. Assuming he successfully closes it, he gets props from me, I just still wish he had done it much earlier. That doesn't seem like it should be a controversial opinion on the board here.
-paul[2015-07-23 11:32:57] - a: do you really think it's that ridiculous to harp on a president who made a pretty explicity campaign promise for taking so long to finally make it a priority? - mig
[2015-07-23 11:30:46] - a: I compare it to why I was luke-warm on praising him for his gay marriage "evolution". Yeah, it's great, but I wish he had done it years ago before the polls and courts kind of swung in his favor. That doesn't mean I don't wish gay marriage had been legalized decades/centuries ago. -Paul
[2015-07-23 11:29:02] - a: I think I mis-communicated that "6 years ago" line. I was trying to contrast giving props to Obama vs criticizing Obama for not closing it sooner in his presidency. I didn't mean to imply it was his fault or remove blame from others. -Paul
[2015-07-23 11:27:31] - i'm perfectly happy giving obama blame for not cleaning up the mess that bush/cheney created. it's lame that it's taken him 6 years to clean up the mess somebody else created. it is completely his job to fix this horrible problem that somebody else made for him to take care of. i'm glad we all agree.
~a[2015-07-23 11:26:23] - a: The only way I consider it Obama's fuck-up is that it was an obvious mistake that he campaigned against and still didn't close until the last minute (assuming it gets closed at all). Yes, in the grand scheme of things 90+% of the blame lies with other people (primarily Bush). -Paul
[2015-07-23 11:24:44] - mig: well if that was case, i think we would be saying, i would still wish this was done 10 years ago. ~a
[2015-07-23 11:24:06] - a: Or not even opened at all. -Paul
[2015-07-23 11:23:59] - a: Because I couldn't have expected Obama to be able to close it when he was a Senator under Bush's presidency.
I wasn't clear, but the second comment was strongly tied to the first (give Obama props for closing it, but I wish he would've done it when he first assumed office). Ideally, sure, it would've been closed during Bush's presidency... -Paul[2015-07-23 11:22:41] - And if he does utlimately fail to shut it down, it should be a stain on Obama's presidency. - mig
[2015-07-23 11:21:18] - a: 6 years ago because he made a very explicit and strong promise to close the facility. Yes, we know Bush bears the responsibility for creating the damn thing in the first place. - mig
[2015-07-23 11:20:52] - "Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson . . . stated in an affidavit that top U.S. officials, including President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, had known that the majority of the detainees initially sent to Guantánamo were innocent" ~a
[2015-07-23 11:18:23] - oh, i get it. 6 years ago because you think guantanamo bay was obama's fuck-up? if he fails to shut it down, it was his mistake and his failure alone? ~a
[2015-07-23 11:17:06] - paul: why 6 years ago? guantanamo bay detention camp was a major stain on our justice system's record 10 years ago. ~a
[2015-07-23 11:00:16] - paul: what's inexcusable to me still, is the holding of people there that our government has concluded aren't linked to terrorism. That could have been dealt with even if it was just the evil meanie republicans (which I still don't buy as an excuse) keeping him from closing the facility. - mig
[2015-07-23 10:38:14] - Although I would still wish this was done 6 years ago. -Paul
[2015-07-23 10:37:59] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/23/gitmo-to-go-carter-in-iraq-and-iran-on-the-hill-again/ I know people sometimes say I don't give Obama credit for the good things he does. If he can manage to close Gitmo in a good way (and not just shuffle all the prisoners somewhere else), I'll give him some grudging props. -Paul
[2015-07-23 09:23:59] - hah, i feel like /r/nottheonion might get too meta. ~a
[2015-07-23 09:11:12] - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-nuclear-deal-satirical-website-the-onion-accidentally-breaks-story-about-the-us-offering-missiles-to-is the onion accidentally broke a news story a day before it happened - aaron
[2015-07-23 09:07:41] - Daniel: I read some stuff on backdoor Roths, but it wasn't super informative and I think taxes were still applied. I'll do some more research later. Thanks. -Paul
[2015-07-23 09:07:13] - a: Well, there's lots of perfectly legal ways to avoid taxes that appear to be "too good to be true" (like using Ireland as a tax haven), but I agree this sounds fishy. -Paul
[2015-07-23 07:02:34] - Paul: I think there is a way to do the conversion but I'm not super up on it and I don't know if its tax free or not. Try google'ing backdoor roth or something like that. -Daniel
[2015-07-22 22:03:36] - paul: no i don't know how to do that, sorry. sounds pretty fishy to me . . . if that's something you could do, then shouldn't everybody be doing this? put everything into a non-roth, convert it to a roth for free, profit? it smells like tax fraud. ~a
[2015-07-22 19:25:59] - sorry the message board was down today! i was having that room painted. ~a
[2015-07-22 09:10:50] - By which I mean you got your money put it tax deferred (since it was originally a traditional IRA or 401(k)) and eventually get to withdraw it tax free (since it would end up being Roth). I heard something to that effect on a podcast but it sounds too good to be true. -Paul
[2015-07-22 09:10:01] - I don't want to hijack the will talk, but I wanted to throw out another question before I forget: Does anybody know anything about converting a traditional IRA (or 401(k)) to a Roth IRA (or Roth 401(k)) in such a way as to actually (presumably legally) avoid taxes both ways? -Paul
[2015-07-22 08:50:49] - Daniel: I was just thinking on the way into work today that I really need to finish work on my will. I had started something through a site that my work offered for free before (unfortunately I don't remember the name). I'm also interested in any recommendations people might have (even LegalShield).
-Paul[2015-07-22 08:49:28] - Daniel: Katie and I wrote a will together shortly after we had Theresa... speaking of which, we probably need to update it. Anyway, to answer your question, we used some software because our situation is pretty simple. We bought it off Amazon for like $60 and it seemed fine, but I'm not going 'recommend' it, either. -- Xpovos
[2015-07-21 21:53:16] - Anyone on here have a will? Did you do it online or with a lawyer? If so do you have recommendations for a lawyer / website? Thanks! -Daniel
[2015-07-21 17:50:05] - imo, "good" depends on the fee. is it .2% per year? or 2% per year? ~a
[2015-07-21 17:28:38] - a: Fair, I just worry that it won't be a "good" ETF. Don't ask me what constitutes a "good" ETF. I have no idea.
-Paul[2015-07-21 16:26:05] - paul: no i don't care about them. i care about a bitcoin etf. ~a
[2015-07-21 16:13:40] - a: I suppose, but I'm a little unreasonably biased against ETFs and Winklevii. Do they have any claim to fame other than suing their way into money from Facebook? -Paul
[2015-07-21 16:00:00] - i'm a little worried the etf will never come but then again i was also worried gbtc would never come. ~a
[2015-07-21 15:59:29] - paul: yeah, that's why i told xpovos "i'd honestly probably just give you a piece of paper with the bits on it". alternatively, if you only care about the investing (gold-ish) nature of bitcoin, you'd do better to wait for the elusive winklevoss etf. ~a
[2015-07-21 15:52:49] - a: And by "lose" your money, you mean lose my access to my wallet by forgetting my "password" (12 words?)? To be honest, I'm actually a little more interested in "investing" in bitcoin than using it right now, so I would be more into a super safe way to store like $1,000 in bitcoin than a more convenient $50. -Paul
[2015-07-21 15:23:40] - i don't know much about that, sorry. i don't think it's new, but i know i don't use it
~a[2015-07-21 15:20:55] - Oooh. Is the taint measure new? I remember that discovering the highly traceable nature of bitcoin (a security feature, but an anti-anonymizer as well) and being a little concerned about it. I don't recall any taint measures before. -- Xpovos
[2015-07-21 15:20:03] - haha, yes. mr. iou can now be found here
~a[2015-07-21 15:18:28] - a: Mr. IOU is back in business? -- Xpovos
[2015-07-21 15:18:15] - a: Gracias for the links/data; and the bits. Confirmed receipt. -- Xpovos
[2015-07-21 15:16:28] - xpovos: don't worry, you didn't mess it up. there's a very long checksum. i sent you a few bits. not enough to spend, but enough to have. if your configuration is to show the currency in "bits", you should see 3,000 bits. ~a
[2015-07-21 15:14:22] - xpovos: more details ~a
[2015-07-21 15:14:09] - xpovos: 2048 words, yes. the 12 words are enough data to store your master private key and a checksum ("HD" key is what it's called). it's as secure as storing your key in hex. the word-list is designed with humans in mind. ~a
[2015-07-21 15:12:38] - I appear not to have messed it up, though. Woo! Go,go typing skillz! -- Xpovos
[2015-07-21 15:10:53] - 17ZKmvqXoTzTzdb2Nv2X7khQixVCdk13DK (ugh, the odds I DIDN'T mess that up are small. That's why they're all QR codes, I guess.) -- Xpovos
[2015-07-21 15:08:55] - xpovos: if you paste your *public* address here (it starts with a "1") i'll send you some bits. ~a
[2015-07-21 15:08:40] - a: Anyway, given that, I'll agree it's more secure than say a 12-digit alphanumeric password, but how secure is it? -- Xpovos
[2015-07-21 15:07:59] - a: A question about the 12 words, which you may not be able to answer. The words do not appear to be completely random. When I was asked to write them back in to confirm it was obviously pulling the word list from a dictionary--a fairly small one at that. Maybe 5000 words? -- Xpovos
[2015-07-21 15:07:04] - paul: i have a few stories of friends (at work) that have lost their money. nobody has had their money stolen though. it's just been loss of data. they didn't write down their 12 words. ~a
[2015-07-21 15:06:15] - paul: understood. for storing small amounts, usually this is ok, right? if i keep $40 on my phone, for spending, and someone hacks my phone, i won't cry to anybody about my lost $40. in reality, you're more likely to "lose" your money than have it stolen, which is why you have to make sure to write down your 12 words. ~a
[2015-07-21 15:04:05] - by=my ~a
[2015-07-21 15:03:49] - mig: i've never used it. but, here's my opinion of the coinbase wallet: it's trustworthy for sure, but the coins are stored on the server. i never keep by bits stored on someone else's server. mycelium on android is good because the bits are stored all on your phone. ~a
[2015-07-21 13:27:05] - a: So while I'm into the idea of dabbling in bitcoin, and getting a wallet for my android device and whatnot, I'm worried about what happens when something goes wrong. I assume if I lose my phone or it gets stolen, my bitcoins would be lost then? -Paul
[2015-07-21 13:26:07] - a: One of the big barriers for me is that I know so very little about bitcoin in a practical sense and I know it's fairly unforgiving to ignorant people in the sense that if you get your wallet stolen, you can't go crying to your credit card company to get charges forgiven (if you get my awkward analogy). -Paul
prev <-> next