prev <-> next
[2016-06-01 14:50:11] - So, reviews for Overwatch sound amazing, and as much as I think I have too many games to play already, I'm interested in adding this to my queue. From what I can tell, it's available on 3 platforms (Xbone, PS4, PC), so I imagine if we wanted to play with each other, we would have to be on the same system? -Paul
[2016-06-01 12:01:13] - mig: It sounded like people would want to press charges, but too much time has passed. -Paul
[2016-06-01 12:00:51] - I mean, the Cosby thing blew up for a little bit, and even though it looks like he may actually face criminal charges, he's mostly off the news radar now. - mig
[2016-06-01 12:00:47] - mig: I just see it as a much larger cover up. The Penn State cover-up was a handful of people. According to this article, this Hollywood cover-up is dozens if not hundreds of people. I'm not sure I agree that "nobody cares all that much", especially considering some of the comments in that article. -Paul
[2016-06-01 11:55:51] - paul: well, Penn State was more of a cover up. The incidents were not really known among the general public. Hollywood sexual criminality is sort of an open secret to the point we know names (Roman Polanski, Bill Cosby, Woody Allen) but pretty much nobody cares all that much. - mig
[2016-05-31 13:28:40] - daniel/xpovos: i actually thought of subject matter expert first, and discounted it as not fitting in with the context. oops. ~a
[2016-05-31 13:08:36] - Daniel: Yes, that's correct. Sorry, it's one of those standard acronyms around here. Workplace jargon is fun. -- Xpovos
[2016-05-31 13:05:09] - Subject Matter Expert I'm assuming. -Daniel
[2016-05-31 12:52:58] - what does SME stand for? ~a
[2016-05-31 12:22:15] - Xpovos: Understood, but the same thing could be said of Joe Paterno and the administration at Penn State, right? I don't know, I guess I just don't see the big difference between the two except one has caused outrage and the other seems to be accepted for some reason. -Paul
[2016-05-31 12:16:35] - mig: Bingo. The people who KNOW generally care more about their friends than the damage caused, which isn't actually an unreasonable position. We often are pitted with choices of caring for someone we care about or helping someone we don't know. The rest are people who can guess that it probably is happening, but have the cover of "well, I wasn't sure". -- Xpovos
[2016-05-31 11:59:17] - http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/politics/stephen-hawking-donald-trump-demagogue/ this is getting passed around a lot on facebook, but I don't know why this qualifies as a "big deal". Do people really need their views validated this badly? - mig
[2016-05-31 11:56:10] - paul: I don't know if it's so much a coverup more so that people just ignore it. - mig
[2016-05-31 11:50:51] - Xpovos: But if I'm understanding things correctly, it sounds like there is a massive cover-up with this Hollywood stuff too, in the sense that a lot of people know about it but nobody is talking. -Paul
[2016-05-31 11:17:54] - Sadly relevant, and in case anyone wonders what I do with my life... this was my OT disaster from Friday. Awesome way to start the holiday weekend. http://www.arlingtondiocese.org/pastor-placed-on-administrative-leave/index.aspx -- Xpovos
[2016-05-31 11:09:57] - Sandusky made news in the same kind of way that Gosnell made the news. Or how Ted Bundy made the news. These people are the extremes. The Hollywood story, including folks like Polanski, are much tamer. Still awful, but not on the same scale. Polanski in particular is probably guilty mostly because of bad incidents in his own life prior to the sexual abuse. -- Xpovos
[2016-05-31 11:07:23] - Paul: Within the Catholic story there's also an issue of magnitude in terms of numbers of priests and victims (less than you might imagine, but it's a bigger "pool" than even the nebulousness of Hollywood) but even more important is the scandal of coverup. This issue always gets hushed, but the nature of the hush job matters. -- Xpovos
[2016-05-31 10:31:06] - Xpovos: Also, I don't know how big the Catholic priest stuff is in relation (maybe it's much bigger, maybe smaller), but it has definitely gotten a lot more attention as well. -Paul
[2016-05-31 10:30:29] - Xpovos: It just seems a little at odds with how other things are blown up (I don't want to say out of proportion, but definitely much larger than this news seems to be taken). The Sandusky thing dominated airwaves for a long time and still gets mentioned on sports talk radio, and this sounds like a bigger deal in terms of people involved. -Paul
[2016-05-27 17:27:43] - Case in point: Roman Polanski. -- Xpovos
[2016-05-27 17:27:18] - Paul: As an SME I'll say that little to no recognition is a common issue with the subject in general. This is all (very) old news. Even the allegedly sparking incident for this new round of discussion is "old" news. The fact is that most people just don't care. -- Xpovos
[2016-05-27 13:52:02] - mig: Maybe not, but maybe for Peterson. He's been fairly effectively selling himself as the pure libertarian alternative. -Paul
[2016-05-27 13:48:46] - paul: yeah that's a little embarrassing but is that really going to translate into a push for someone like McAfee? - mig
[2016-05-27 10:39:37] - http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/27/gary-johnson-booed-at-libertarian-party There is a decent chance Gary Johnson will NOT be the Libertarian Party nominee. -Paul
[2016-05-26 16:36:18] - Paul: Thats not funny. We didn't laugh. -Daniel
[2016-05-26 16:36:09] - a: Thats funny. we laughed. -Daniel
[2016-05-26 15:51:06] - http://www.totallyobjectivepoliticalfacts.org/ ~a
[2016-05-26 13:32:03] - http://pagesix.com/2016/05/26/corey-feldman-and-corey-haim-were-being-passed-around-to-hollywood-pedophiles/ I'm a little surprised stories like this aren't getting more attention. Stories like this make it sound like much more than a few bad apples or isolated incidents ("Everybody knew that the two Coreys were just being passed around"). -Paul
[2016-05-25 12:44:10] - a: the singleplayer part is phenomenal. I don't know what to think of multiplayer. It is entertaining, but it's not really the Doom multiplayer of old. - mig
[2016-05-24 15:58:28] - I don't currently have Overwatch. I played the beta a little and it was fun. I'm not sure whether I want to pay 40 bucks for it. I might cave but so far haven't purchased it. -Daniel
[2016-05-24 15:14:20] - does it have a multiplayer? i'd play doom. ~a
[2016-05-24 15:10:39] - mig: doom4? interesting. is it good? ~a
[2016-05-24 13:06:25] - I'm still chugging along through Doom. Daniel sounded like he was getting it if he hadn't already. - mig
[2016-05-24 12:57:34] - paul: overwatch interests me but it seems like kind of a "lifestyle game" that sucks up all your free time, and i've already got enough of those - aaron
[2016-05-24 12:54:12] - Anybody here planning on getting Overwatch? I still have a ridiculous number of games in my queue (both single-player and multi-player) so I'm not really looking to add another, but the game intrigues me. -Paul
[2016-05-24 11:55:45] - a: i remain unconvinced enough people believe the price of admission to a discussion about politics is engaging in the religious sacrament of voting to sway me on the matter as a argument of practicality. - mig
[2016-05-24 11:47:18] - daniel: https://www.yahoo.com/news/lindsey-graham-support-donald-trump-000000481.html Graham disputes some of this, but it does seem like he's softening. - mig
[2016-05-24 11:43:57] - mig: Oo is Graham starting to come around? I hadn't heard that but that would be a big one. Him and one the Nebraska senators I still thought were strong on the anti trump bandwagon. But maybe thats slipping? -Daniel
[2016-05-24 11:06:22] - mig: "I still do not concur." why? ~a
[2016-05-24 10:42:13] - mig: I read somewhere that as soon as he drops out, Clinton can stop paying attention to him (and his supporters and pet issues) and pivot to the center, but while he's in, she has to continue to pay lip service. Makes some sense. -Paul
[2016-05-24 10:41:13] - I can't tell if I'm pleasantly surprised that Republicans have put up such resistance to Trump, or disappointed that they didn't put up more. -Paul
[2016-05-24 10:14:18] - The Sanders thing does quite fascinating. I get he pretty much has nothing to lose at this point, but other than just staying in for funsies, what is his ultimate goal here? Just to try and force democrats to plank universal health care and the $15 min wage on their official platform? - mig
[2016-05-24 10:12:10] - daniel: true enough, but even some anti-trump hardliners like Lindsay Graham are starting to cave. #NeverTrump does seem to be trending downward of republicans as the general election is nearing. - mig
[2016-05-24 10:00:01] - I think both parties still seem fractured. There are still republican senators in the never trump category. I think that whole Nevada caucus thing was not good for Dems. We'll see how these polls of Trump v Clinton play out on the D side in the next couple of weeks. -Daniel
[2016-05-24 09:42:29] - paul: one thing I find fascinating now w/ Trump is the parties now look like the opposite of what I expected. Republicans are starting to unify around Trump (albeit very reluctantly) while it's the Democrats that look like they may get irreparably fractured. - mig
[2016-05-24 09:26:03] - paul: it's at least a coherent argument. I still do not concur. - mig
[2016-05-23 17:00:56] - mig: "Sometimes, if you want to get anywhere with people, you obey the local customs, even if they seem silly." I thought that was actually a really interesting way of looking at things. -Paul
[2016-05-23 17:00:25] - mig: "Libertarians who want to influence other people might want to drag themselves to the polls if only so that they can later pass this test. One might object that it makes no sense to use voting as a signal for caring. Perhaps, but it makes no less sense than using non-voting as a signal for smartness. We don’t get to choose how others interpret voting." -Paul
[2016-05-23 16:59:59] - mig: http://www.cato.org/blog/do-dont-not-vote I thought you might appreciate this: "This is principally because many people see voting as an act of caring. If you vote, they think you care about your community/state/country. If you don’t, they think you don’t care and – listen up, libertarians – they will be less open to your ideas." -Paul
[2016-05-23 16:58:53] - a: Agreed, there's really nothing better to peg it to, but I still think it's a good thing to keep in mind. -Paul
[2016-05-23 16:58:28] - a: Not yet.
-Paul[2016-05-23 15:46:37] - "we're talking about volatility of those things in relation to dollars, which in itself is volatile" i think this is the correct thing to do, actually. because the dollar is relatively stable it's fair to measure everything against the dollar (source: CPI). if the CPI ever goes haywire, we can just measure everything against the CPI. ~a
[2016-05-23 15:42:10] - wanna place any more bets?
~a[2016-05-23 15:40:26] - My only hope is that Trump can somehow take down the Republican party with him OR that him and Clinton can cause the LP to become a legit force. I'm not holding my breath for either, though. -Paul
[2016-05-23 15:39:56] - Xpovos: My track record predicting things this election means the opposite of whatever I think will happen actually happens. Having said that, it really does seem like Trump might win this. Nothing he says or does seems to hurt him, and I've always maintained that Clinton is a very flawed candidate. -Paul
[2016-05-23 15:27:37] - Paul: I was talking about a Trump presidency while we played Quantum at Miguel's birthday thing. Or yours? I think Miguel's. It terrifies me, but I think he beats Clinton. -- Xpovos
[2016-05-23 15:01:04] - #2. yes. because some, myself included, believe an increase in market-cap ("money supply" is the more-correct wording) will mean a decrease in volatility. it's pretty logical, actually. larger things move up and down more slowly by percentage. (for example look at a single small-cap company vs the s&p). ~a
[2016-05-23 14:22:44] - a: The interesting thing to me is that we're talking about volatility of those things in relation to dollars, which in itself is volatile, so it's hard to tell exactly where the volatility is coming from (gold, bitcoins, dollars, etc). -Paul
[2016-05-23 14:09:06] - #1. i agree(ish). volatility for bitcoin isn't horrible compared to most 3rd-world currencies. in fact, volatility of bitcoin in 2016 is on-par with gold (which is a bad form of money, but an interesting indicator). i wouldn't put more than a few percent of my net-worth in bitcoin because of volatility. ~a
[2016-05-23 14:04:21] - a: over the next few years (presumably enriching you but possibly hurting the long term viability of bitcoin as a currency) or stabilizing? -Paul
[2016-05-23 14:03:28] - a: I was listening to a podcast this morning where they briefly talked about bitcoin and one guy was making his case for why it's not "money". One of his points was that the value of bitcoins right now are too volatile for it to be a reliable store of value. (1) Do you agree and (2) If so, would you rather see the value of bitcoin increase dramatically... -Paul
[2016-05-23 13:54:15] - a: I just didn't think it would happen for another few months. Am I crazy to think Trump might be the favorite in a month? Or is that just me being crazy about how bad of a campaigner/politician/whatever I think Clinton is? -Paul
[2016-05-23 13:53:00] - a: Well, when I saw the early "Trump vs Clinton" match-ups showed a blowout, I figured the numbers would tighten up as the election got closer because they always seem to (well, "always" meaning in the last few elections). I figured at some point between now and then, some polls would show Trump topping Clinton... -Paul
[2016-05-23 13:46:16] - "already"? what does already mean? you think his popularity is on the rise or hers is on the fall? ~a
[2016-05-23 11:47:46] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/hillary-clinton-now-loses_b_10102664.html I don't read too much into polls this far out from the general election, but this is super interesting. Clinton is ALREADY losing to Trump? Should I start stocking up on guns/ammo/food/gold now? -Paul
[2016-05-23 11:23:07] - a: Well, it looks like GOOGL and GOOG haven't been moving exactly in tandem (although they're closer now than they have been). -Paul
[2016-05-23 11:12:24] - i think they should always be a constant ratio of each-other, but i guess i'm not sure why i believe that. you have seen them move in a direction? ~a
[2016-05-23 11:06:51] - a: Yeah. I don't personally usually care much about voting rights, but it's super annoying when deciding which shares to buy, since don't the voting shares usually slightly outperform? -Paul
[2016-05-23 11:03:46] - "this non-voting split seems to be getting more common" god i hope not. why oh why would companies think this is a good idea. what better way to confuse the shit out of your investors? oh let's add a new unnecessary arbitrage where people decide how much voting rights are "worth". and everybody now gets to memorize two (or more) tickers for every company. ~a
[2016-05-23 10:51:09] - a: Especially since this non-voting split seems to be getting more common. -Paul
[2016-05-23 10:50:52] - a: Fair, but I don't need it to keep track of voting rights and splitting into a different ticker symbol and with uneven splits doesn't seem overly complicated to have it handle (although it's complicated to have us manually handle it). -Paul
[2016-05-23 10:42:33] - paul: yes i agree generally. but with the goog/googl split, it was: oh, you get shares of a different ticker symbol (that don't have voting rights) and your number of shares in the old ticker symbol stays the same. oh, also 50.08% of the cost basis goes to some of the shares and 49.92% of the cost basis goes to the other shares, like wtf. ~a
[2016-05-23 10:28:09] - a: Hmmm, so it sounds like there is no ideal solutions. I understand some splits are more complicated than others, but they're common enough. Shouldn't these sites be able to handle them? -Paul
[2016-05-23 09:21:42] - paul: i also use a javascript app i wrote to track things at a higher level. ~a
[2016-05-23 09:20:21] - paul: thank goodness scottrade/vanguard/etc were required to calculate cost-basis for you now because that was a PITA every year. ~a
[2016-05-23 09:19:32] - paul: i still use finance.yahoo.com. it doesn't necessarily help much as i do most stuff manually. it definitely handles simple stock-splits, but harder stock splits are difficult for software to understand automatically (for example, the goog/googl split was pretty non-standard, and finding out the cost-basis in an automated way might have been impossible). ~a
[2016-05-23 08:52:20] - And I have no idea how to do video/animations. So I'm of very little help to you currently. Sorry Paul! -Daniel
[2016-05-23 08:51:49] - I don't own individual stocks! -Daniel
[2016-05-20 18:04:24] - Also, does anybody here know of any super simple ways to make super basic videos/animations? For example, if I wanted to add some pictures/graphs/animations to a podcast? -Paul
[2016-05-20 17:44:02] - What do people here use (if anything) to keep track of their portfolio of individually owned stocks? I've used Google Finance in the past (and now), but have been getting frustrated with obvious problems with it (ie, it didn't do anything with the UA split other than cut the price of my shares in half). -Paul
[2016-05-19 15:43:27] - a: ha ha some of those were great. "book" and "gay garfield" got me - aaron
[2016-05-19 11:06:51] - subway reading the sequel. i can't watch this video because i'm laughing too hard at work. ~a
[2016-05-19 10:40:24] - aaron: They could've done that if Predator 2 hadn't happened, maybe. -Paul
[2016-05-19 10:18:14] - mig: just "force awakens" it. just tell the same story with different characters if they love the story so much - aaron
[2016-05-19 10:16:16] - mig: i don't even get the point of rebooting predator. can't they just tell the same story with a different group of people who's never heard of a predator before? like just tell the original predator story, but it happens in a different counry in a different time, and they haven't heard of predators because i don't know, the government classified the data - aaron
[2016-05-19 10:09:41] - http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/herocomplex/la-et-hc-predator-shane-black-20160517-snap-story.html It might be really getting to the point where I'm starting to get super annoyed by all these reboots. Predator? Is nothing sacred? And they were actually planning on making it a PG-13 movie! - mig
[2016-05-18 16:04:24] - the weird part for me is that journalists seem to be willfully ignorant of this concept as well. ~a
[2016-05-18 16:00:25] - a: Right, it's like nobody can conceive of anything other than voting for one of the major party candidates for President. -Paul
[2016-05-18 15:49:47] - "write in a candidate"
~a[2016-05-18 15:48:53] - "It would be that, or not vote at all -- and I've never not voted." haha. yeah. and there's actually a fourth option that most people don't consider but should: vote for your local representatives (which arguably matter more) and not for the presidential position. ~a
[2016-05-18 15:29:42] - http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/04/politics/never-trump-voters/index.html Ugh, so many words written about how people really don't want to vote for Trump or Clinton and, as far as I can tell, not a single reference to third party candidates. -Paul
[2016-05-13 11:32:30] - a: Sadly, no. Nice gain for you, though. It had been on my list for a while to re-buy, but there were always things I was interested in more. -Paul
[2016-05-13 11:23:57] - paul: still on nvda? i might sell 50% today. ~a
[2016-05-12 14:21:24] - in bitcoin-land, i finally have a debitcard that pulls from a bitcoin balance. once i can get billpay working, i can probably get rid of my bank account. ~a
[2016-05-12 14:18:50] - haha, yeah. give me $200 instead of $100 and i'll transfer you $100 in btc. ~a
[2016-05-12 14:15:04] - a: I was planning on having you pay me in bitcoin when I won our bet about Trump not being the nominee.
-Paul[2016-05-12 14:03:02] - paul: etf
(i had to put in a one-time-use email address to read the end of the article) reading the whole story, i totally understand why there is no etf and there maybe never will be. so don't hold out hope: just buy vanilla btc if you think it's worth it ~a[2016-05-12 14:00:33] - a: Yes, but using different logic.
-Paul[2016-05-12 13:58:21] - paul: how far do you take that logic? do you think heroine should be legal? (i do not). ~a
[2016-05-12 13:53:47] - a: Doing nothing is still a possibility without banning payday lending, though. As a general rule, I don't like to think of more options being available to people as being a problem. More choices usually seem like a good thing. -Paul
[2016-05-12 13:23:14] - mig: regarding an underground lender, that might not always be worse than a payday loan
(but obviously can be). still doing "nothing" is always a possibility. i do it all the time when i think every avenue looks lame, but i'll admit i've never been confronted with really-really-bad situations where doing nothing would be super lame. ~a[2016-05-12 13:21:35] - from getting payday loans, it would probably cause worse terms for the first group. -Paul
[2016-05-12 13:21:32] - paul: that is interesting information. again, i'm not anti-payday because of just such a potential. ~a
[2016-05-12 13:21:16] - And get into more and more trouble with it. The problem is how to differentiate between those two groups when part of the whole appeal of payday loans is not needing a lot of credit information. Also, that second small group happens to be where a lot of the profit comes from, so even if that group could be identified and selectively banned... -Paul
[2016-05-12 13:20:04] - a: what if "A" may not be content to do nothing? If a legal avenue is shut down for a short term is unavailable, and "A" decides go to an underground lender where they don't just have to worry about high interest, but also potential loss of life and limb? - mig
[2016-05-12 13:19:55] - From my understanding of the issue, the majority of people use payday loans responsibly and are satisfied with the process. They actually use it as a better alternative (fixing the car so you can get to work and not lose your job, etc). The problem is that a minority aren't responsible and and up rolling those loans into new loans... -Paul
[2016-05-12 13:09:49] - mig: i'm not anti-payday; please remember this, but i'll make an argument anyways. "what is 'A' to do?" nothing. doing nothing is better than getting into hotter water with a high-interest loan. using a payday loan (nb, can) turn a bad problem into a worse problem. ~a
[2016-05-12 11:51:40] - mig: Bailout from the government.
-Paul[2016-05-12 11:47:35] - "A" cannot get a loan from a bank. His credit is shit and he's too much of a risk. If payday lenders are outlawed (and that's the ultimate goal of these people), what is "A" to do? - mig
[2016-05-12 11:46:45] - a: the thing I would like to see the anti-payday loan crowd answer: Person A is in need of money.
[2016-05-12 11:45:06] - daniel: moreover, a lot of what he wants isn't even popular among enough Rs that I'm not sure what of his agenda he'd be able to accomplish were he to win. - mig
[2016-05-12 11:37:15] - Daniel: I hope you are right, but the presidency has been expanding in power a lot in recent elections and if anybody seems like the type to try to push the limits (or even flat out ignore them), it would seem to be Trump. Heck, I'm even worried about the stuff he might do that he IS legally allowed to do. -Paul
[2016-05-12 11:24:56] - Moving out of the country based on a single election would seem a little crazy. I don't think Trump would be a good pres but I think the system is set up so that he can only do so much. D's in the Senate start stonewalling and as long as R's don't get to 60 and totally agree with Trump then I think we are ok. -Daniel
[2016-05-12 11:22:11] - yes, the same rick. the rickiest rick. ~a
[2016-05-12 11:15:27] - paul: yeah, actually, i'm surprised we were able to get any contingencies at all. most of the buyers in arlington we were getting beaten out by on other homes removed *ALL* of their contingencies. but our contract has something i've never seen before: a contingency that helps the *seller*. it expires on wednesday, so here's hoping. ~a
[2016-05-12 11:12:47] - a: Congrats! The Rick whose information I provided to you? There are a lot of contingencies, but they are to protect you as much as the seller, I think. -Paul
[2016-05-12 11:11:38] - a: I thought the podcast episode I linked to did a good job of covering both sides. -Paul
[2016-05-12 11:10:47] - paul: i'm pending on a house (thanks, rick!), so trump-or-not, i'm in nova for at least the next 5 or 10 years. (of course, i'm hoping we actually making it to closing: *so many contingencies*) ~a
[2016-05-12 11:10:46] - a: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/payday-loans/ I generally tend to be on the side of payday loans not being as evil as most people think. One thing I think a lot of people don't realize is that the interest rates seem crazy high because they are annualized rates when most payday loans are short term (much shorter than a year). -Paul
[2016-05-12 11:08:08] - a: Well, my joke was going to involve them not realizing it.... or maybe with it breaking away. -Paul
[2016-05-12 11:03:07] - paul: haha i made that joke too! you know, colorado is still part of the united states. ~a
[2016-05-12 11:02:24] - you mean borrow money at *CRAZY INTEREST RATES*. i don't know what i think about payday loans. i think i have the same opinion of payday loans as i do as gambling. they're dangerous. people are bad at math. the people that are the worst at math are also the people that can be the most harmed AND helped by them. they're also sometimes probably good (useful or fun). ~a
[2016-05-12 10:59:44] - a: I was going to make a joke about Pierce and Nina, but yours is better. -Paul
[2016-05-12 10:59:25] - a: What can I say? People have a right to borrow money, but they DON'T have a right to find people of the same gender attractive.
-Paul[2016-05-12 10:59:03] - paul: stephen. ~a
[2016-05-12 10:58:45] - I think our roots here are too deep, and I don't think Gurkie would ever go along with a drastic change based solely on a presidential election, but I do think it would be time to start stock-piling food and gold.
If only Gurkie would let me build an underground bunker... -Paul[2016-05-12 10:58:42] - "it has nothing to do with me preferring companies to people" no, i believe it's that you prefer payday loans to gay rights (joking) ~a
[2016-05-12 10:52:00] - Obviously, that was me. Sorry. -- Xpovos
[2016-05-12 10:51:46] - Paul: I was tempted to move there regardless of a presidential shift. It looked like a pretty awesome place to live if I could swing a job that would maintain a similar or better quality of life. But Katie wasn't interested.
[2016-05-12 10:42:47] - http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/11/trump-surges-in-support-almost-even-with-clinton-in-national-us-poll.html So, I know we mentioned that Canadian island's ad as a joke (or, I assume as a joke), but is anybody here serious about leaving the country if we end up with President Trump?
-Paul[2016-05-12 10:41:39] - a: Okay, why switch it to Comcast? Why not just switch it to Google to make it more of an apples to apples comparison? I would be just as worried (if not more so) if Google said they didn't want to allow ads for gay dating sites or something similar. Despite what you desperately seem to want to believe, it has nothing to do with me preferring companies to people. -Pau
[2016-05-11 18:35:01] - a: Given the government scrutiny involved with payday lending, I'm wondering how "voluntary" this decision made by google was. - mig
[2016-05-11 17:37:46] - paul: that's why i switched it to comcast. ~a
[2016-05-11 17:04:07] - a: And it's even worse considering Google's power in the online advertising market. It would be as if Barilla didn't sell pasta to gays.... AND they were the only pasta seller in town. -Paul
[2016-05-11 17:01:48] - a: Because in this case, this isn't Google just saying that they don't like X and so they won't feature it in their commercials. It's them saying they don't like X and so they (basically) won't do business with them (at least not on the same level as other things). -Paul
[2016-05-11 17:00:52] - a: If you wanted something more equivalent to the Barilla situation (but still flawed), it would be as if Barilla refused to sell pasta to gays. -Paul
[2016-05-11 16:59:59] - a: I'm not saying either is good, and it has nothing to do with company vs person (I would just as concerned if not more so if Google decided to not show any ads from blacks or hispanics). -Paul
[2016-05-11 16:55:30] - what about comedy central or more accurately comcast? should they allow whatever ads? or would you think it's ok if comedy central or comcast said "we don't want gay people in our ads"? what if google said "we don't want gay things advertised on our ad network"? i really have a hard time finding your line sometimes. ~a
[2016-05-11 16:53:08] - i don't see why one moral decision about what ads are "good" and which are "bad" is ok, and the other is not ok. is it because in one of them you're discriminating against a person, and in the other you're discriminating against a company? i guess i shouldn't be surprised that it's ok to denigrate a person, but boy howdy you better not denigrate a company. ~a
[2016-05-11 13:13:03] - a: In this case we're talking about Google specifically making the decision that a completely legitimate and legal business is morally wrong somehow and needs to be punished in terms of ad placements. -Paul
[2016-05-11 13:12:20] - a: Sure, they aren't showing homosexual couples, but there's probably a ton of inter-racial couples they're not showing, or couples without kids, or single moms or whatever else. -Paul
[2016-05-11 13:11:41] - a: About only showing heterosexual families (I can't actually remember). I'm less worried about that. I don't think they're similar enough to equate. With Barilla, we're talking about a finite number of commercials that they're running and one small subset of people they're not portraying in their commercials. -Paul
[2016-05-11 13:09:56] - a: is that really an apples to apples comparison? We're talking about how a company might market its own product (Barilla) vs. a seller of advertising space in general (google). - mig
[2016-05-11 12:14:51] - paul: ok, sounds like you don't support google's new advertising approach. how about barilla and their old advertising approach? (before they changed it) did you support that? ~a
[2016-05-11 12:03:36] - Paul: Yeah, the whole "mission report, December, 1991" thing is confusing. He clearly knows, but maybe he needs proof? Or maybe he knows something, but not enough? Ah, I think I just figured it out. I'll e-mail to avoid spoilers for now. -- Xpovos
[2016-05-11 11:59:06] - a: They have every right to do it, but that doesn't mean I can't be worried about it. Just because a company has a right to do something doesn't mean I support it. -Paul
[2016-05-11 11:57:27] - paul: i'm surprised you're worried. that doesn't seem like you. google is a private company. they have the right to decide who to do business with and not-with. doesn't this seem like a very anti-paul sentiment? ~a
[2016-05-11 11:56:12] - http://techcrunch.com/2016/05/11/google-to-restrict-ads-for-payday-loans/ I'm really worried about the path this puts google on, considering the power they have in terms of online ads. Payday loans now. Fast food chains tomorrow? -Paul
[2016-05-11 11:25:42] - Xpovos: The thing that confused me (and I'll try to be vague) was: Did the villain know about "the big reveal" at the beginning of the movie? He had to have, right? Otherwise he wouldn't have known to enact his plan. However, if he did, then why did he have to enact his plan? -Paul
[2016-05-11 10:49:18] - a: No rush at all. I'll just spoil the movie for everybody! -Paul
[2016-05-11 10:38:56] - yeah, sorry, i'll look at it later. ~a
[2016-05-11 10:38:25] - "aporter.org is currently unable to handle this request."
-Paul[2016-05-11 10:35:16] - hopefully threads didn't get broken by the php update. i'm totally sure i haven't tested them
good luck! ~a[2016-05-11 10:34:08] - paul: message board documentation ~a
[2016-05-11 10:09:39] - Xpovos: I agree with what you're saying about humans being bad at comprehending the bad alternatives, but in many of these cases it seems almost impossible to ignore the fact that aliens/Ultron were about to kill/enslave everybody. Even the thing with Scarlet Witch at the beginning clearly saved a lot of lives on the ground. -Paul
[2016-05-11 10:08:05] - Xpovos: Maybe I said the opposite, but I meant the same thing you said. The villain's plan was too complicated and reliant on luck to succeed. In fact, I'm not even sure why he thinks it would work. Hmmm, I'm afraid to say more because of spoilers. How do we create a sub-message board again? -Paul
[2016-05-11 09:42:05] - Particularly in the context of an environment where not everyone really understands fully just how bad those alternatives that got prevented are. Ultron killing all of humanity is clearly awful. But it's also incomprehensible. So it's far easier to focus on the fact that there was a battle between various powered people, and a city got dropped. -- Xpovos
[2016-05-11 09:40:35] - Daniel: I can "get" that portion. People never think about the bad that could have happened, they always only focus on the bad that actually did happen. We're programmed to think about things like that, like our failure to understand the low odds of lotteries and stuff like that. This fits with human nature. It's not rational, but it makes sense. -- Xpovos
[2016-05-11 09:22:43] - Yeah I think I'm in agreement, it was well executed but the premise seems odd. Also why is everyone mad at the avengers for collateral damage when literally the other side was trying to destroy the world. Like I get it that collateral damage is bad but everyone seems to be losing perspective over there in their world. -Daniel
[2016-05-11 09:17:02] - Which is kind of the opposite of what Paul just said... but I'm talking about the plot specifically, not the movie overall. The movie overall was executed brilliantly, in Marvel-style. Well paced, witty, and full of action. -- Xpovos
[2016-05-11 09:16:11] - Daniel: I saw Civil War on Monday. Thoughts: surprisingly more neutral on the good/bad of such a plan of action than Winter Soldier was. T'Chala and Peter Parker were scene stealers. Overall very good. The biggest flaw I found was that the villain's plan is too complicated to actually succeed. The concept is fine, but the execution is flawed. -- Xpovos
[2016-05-11 09:14:01] - a: We recently replaced our dryer. The new one came and the guys couldn't install it because we had a non-standard outlet. It was frustrating, but educational. Also a pretty easy fix. Our microwave uses a standard outlet. -- Xpovos
[2016-05-10 16:13:28] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDdaWKQJ_JE&feature=iv&src_vid=SBU6QA_i5HQ&annotation_id=annotation_3888473067 Here's a side-by-side with the original trailer. -Paul
[2016-05-10 16:11:27] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBU6QA_i5HQ I don't know why, but I really love this. It's somebody filming a budget live action version of the Civil War trailer. To me, it's got the perfect mix of slavish devotion to the original and satire. It looks super cheap, obviously, but they also obviously put a ton of work into it. -Paul
[2016-05-10 14:58:55] - Daniel: I don't know if I could name politicians in either party who specifically support any of those things without looking it up. I'm not saying it's exactly equal, and it's always interesting to me that the divide on certain issues isn't nearly as wide as I think. For instance, I read somewhere that some 30-40% of Democrats don't believe in global warming. -Paul
[2016-05-10 14:25:29] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience#Left-wing_antiscience Well there you go. -Daniel
[2016-05-10 14:25:15] - Paul: I guess I'm not aware - though there totally could be - liberal politicians with those view points. I think I could come up with R politicians (TX school board) who fall into the categories I was talking about. -Daniel
[2016-05-10 14:23:58] - daniel: you might not personally count fighting with teacher's unions as being "anti-educations", but plenty of dem politicians certainly do. - mig
[2016-05-10 14:19:57] - Daniel: "wanting to teach creationism and wanting to white wash history" Not sure where the white-washing history part comes from (not disagreeing, just not sure what you are referring to), but neither of those seems "anti-education", just a difference of opinion on what to teach. -Paul
[2016-05-10 14:17:41] - Daniel: Similarly with nuclear power, there is a tendency for environmentalists (primarily on the left) to think that nuclear power is some horribly dangerous thing to be shunned, when it's actually one of the best alternative sources of energy in terms of it being "clean", safe and actually able to provide enough power. -Paul
[2016-05-10 14:15:46] - Daniel: However, there appears to be a segment of the population (more prevalent in liberal circles) that believes that GMOs are harmful and don't believe in vaccinating their children. -Paul
[2016-05-10 14:15:06] - Daniel: Not sure what the exact question is that you are asking, but I'll try answering what I think you're asking. In terms of the safety of GMOs and vaccines, there appears to be no valid scientific evidence that GMOs are more harmful than non-GMO food or that vaccines cause autism. -Paul
[2016-05-10 14:05:35] - Paul: Whats the anti-science part of gmo's, vaccines, or nuclear power for the liberal side of the spectrum? I'm honestly unaware of anti-science positions on that side. I think the R's being associated with anti-education comes from wanting to teach creationism and wanting to white wash history. I wouldn't count fighting with teacher's unions against Rs. -Daniel
[2016-05-10 13:18:05] - Daniel: I'm curious why you say they're anti-education, though. Is it because they are traditionally not pals with teachers' unions? -Paul
[2016-05-10 13:17:27] - Daniel: I disagree with conservatives being the "anti-science" party. Yes, some have some anti-science positions (global warming, evolution) but so does the Democratic party (GMOs, vaccines, nuclear power). -Paul
[2016-05-10 12:50:39] - I would certainly agree that there are smart conservatives but I would probably also agree with someone that in general I think liberals are more open minded than conservatives. But yeah prejucide/stereotyping is pretty much taking the general and applying it to the specific so the article doesn't seem wrong. -Daniel
[2016-05-10 12:48:19] - mig: I'm not sure I would read all of that into the entire movement. I think that conservatives don't do themselves a lot of favors when it comes to being associated as the party of anti-education and anti-science. I think those are kind of big things in universities. -Daniel
[2016-05-10 12:37:44] - paul: it also exposes the shallowness behind the whole concept of "diversity!" For these people it's not about getting different perspectives and ideas from others, but more about checking boxes off their multicultural scavenger hunt so that they can pat themselves on the bat about how wonderful people they are. - mig
[2016-05-10 12:14:30] - paul: at least it's out in the open now? - mig
[2016-05-10 11:31:04] - Daniel: My guess is that the cost of Supernova dwarfs the costs of the trades themselves, since part of the Foolish way is to hold stocks for long periods of time, so it's not like there's a lot of buying and selling every day. Also, Supernova is fairly expensive as TMF services go. -Paul
[2016-05-10 11:29:32] - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?_r=0 I'm wondering what people here think of this article. It goes towards something I've sometimes brought up myself: Liberals like to think of themselves as super tolerant, but the tolerance seems to extend only to people who think the same way they do. -Paul
[2016-05-10 11:27:57] - But thats also more complicated and maybe overly so for the purposes of the FAQ. -Daniel
[2016-05-10 11:27:42] - Paul: Yeah and I'm not sure it puts SuperNova under the S&P but something to consider. I guess also we should ask if S&P is the right index to compare to? That could help or hurt since I don't know where the answer goes but if those stocks that are being picked by SuperNova would fall into a different index then the benchmark should probably be different. -Daniel
[2016-05-10 10:46:21] - Daniel: Ah, gotcha, yes. That's pretty tough to factor in because it varies for everybody. -Paul
[2016-05-10 10:45:31] - mig: I was talking with a coworker about the inevitability of losing Strasburg, and mentioned I was sad, but I understood not wanting to overpay for a pitcher with an injury history. Having said that, a part of me is happy they're keeping him. -Paul
[2016-05-10 10:16:53] - Paul: The cost for Supernova might only be the flat fee but if you do the trades to follow the advice then those have costs. So that should count. It might still come out ahead but should still factor in. -Daniel
[2016-05-10 10:15:05] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/nationals-journal/wp/2016/05/09/stephen-strasburg-signs-seven-year-175-million-extension-with-nationals/ considering the other deals I've seen for starting pitchers of this caliber, this feels like a bargain, strange as it sounds. - mig
[2016-05-10 10:07:24] - Daniel: I saw Civil War. I mostly really liked it, but I did think the bad guy's plan really falls apart on any kind of examination. I also questioned a LOT of Tony's decisions. -Paul
[2016-05-10 10:06:24] - Daniel: "can he keep it up". I agree the answer is: "Who knows?" That's always been the crazy thing with the market to me. Past returns are no guarantee of future results, but it's all we have to work with. -Paul
[2016-05-10 10:04:29] - Daniel: Supernova is a flat fee service, which means you buy the service (for $x for a year) and that's the only cost. So obviously if your portfolio is $50k it's going to eat into your returns much more than if your portfolio is $500k. -Paul
[2016-05-10 10:02:36] - Daniel: Sorry. I was logged in so I wasn't sure if they asked for an email or not (although I suspected they do). You can put in a garbage email OR just unsubscribe. If you put in a real email address, though, you WILL get a lot of emails.
-Paul[2016-05-10 09:03:26] - Anyone else see Civil War yet? My thoughts on it would be that the premise is very stupid but then the execution is very well done. If that makes sense. The ending is also very good which always helps. -Daniel
[2016-05-10 08:58:07] - And the answer is who knows! -Daniel
[2016-05-10 08:58:00] - Paul: Also I don't see costs talked about anywhere on that site. Its cool that he's beaten the market so far. I imagine it would be a little closer after fees/taxes if you are actively trading to keep up with the recommendations but maybe you come out ahead a bit still. Thats always the gamble though is thats great that he has beaten the market, can he keep it up?
[2016-05-10 08:48:17] - paul: your link requires an email to read. boo. -Daniel
[2016-05-09 17:36:00] - a: I get access to all the TMF services as a perk for being employed here, so I check out some of the missions to get ideas for my own portfolio. Not sure if that counts as "using" or not. I'm not mimicking any of their portfolios exactly. -Paul
[2016-05-09 17:35:06] - a: Ah, sorry. It's the normal abbreviation for that service here. The price always varies a bit depending on the open and whatever benefits are being offered, but I believe it's typically somewhere like a thousand dollars a year. I believe it's the second most expensive service TMF offers. -Paul
[2016-05-09 17:28:27] - paul: how much is the service? SN is definitely Satoshi Nakamoto, you can't have that acronym. also, are you using supernova? ~a
[2016-05-09 17:24:29] - a: In that there is no percentage charged to manage your money with SN, you just pay a flat fee for the service. -Paul
[2016-05-09 17:24:04] - a: "isn't this the point of a mutual fund?" I'm not entirely sure what you mean. The Supernova product is a little like a mutual fund, except you yourself make the decision on if you want to follow the recommendations vs having the trades made for you. The fee structure is also different. -Paul
[2016-05-09 17:04:32] - paul: huh, interesting! isn't this the point of a mutual fund? so i can just put money on someone else's strategy? what does daniel think about this? (i'm guessing he's against it, but i don't want to put words in his mouth) ~a
[2016-05-09 16:56:48] - a: http://www.fool.com/vip/supernova/faq.html You had mentioned previously being interested in the performance of some of the TMF stock picking services vs the market. I think that link should take you to a FAQ that lists (near the middle of the page) some of the Supernova missions and how they've performed vs the market since inception. -Paul
[2016-05-09 10:45:49] - a: my washer/drier use a weird nonstandard outlet, i don't remember which one of those it is but it was a pretty big plug. honestly i thought it was the NEMA TT-30 but i'm probably misremembering - aaron
[2016-05-06 17:28:00] - and plasma cutter? ~a
[2016-05-06 17:27:40] - same question for your microwave. ~a
[2016-05-06 17:27:06] - wow, i had no idea there were so many plug types in the US. which plug do you guys have on your drier? ~a
[2016-05-06 12:23:31] - i mean, if he would consider any non-Clinton vote to be a "vote for Trump". - mig
[2016-05-06 12:23:03] - or really any vote that was for Clinton. - mig
[2016-05-06 12:22:23] - daniel: I was actually wondering if he would consider a non-voter as a "vote for trump". - mig
[2016-05-06 12:21:51] - mig: So if you writing in Ted Cruz you're good to go? Excellent. -Daniel
[2016-05-06 12:19:08] - on fb feed today - a demand of unfriending if you are a) #bernieorbust or b) voting for Trump. These next several months are going to be fun (or dreadful). - mig
[2016-05-05 12:45:25] - mig: Me neither. -Paul
[2016-05-05 12:42:19] - paul: I'm stil not sure what he has to apologize for. - mig
[2016-05-05 12:36:40] - http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/vicente-fox-apologizes-trump-222842?cmpid=sf It's probably the mature, responsible thing to do.... but I still wish he hadn't apologized.
-Paul[2016-05-05 12:26:35] - http://www.roanoke.com/news/education/higher_education/virginia_tech/wall-street-journal-columnist-invited-to-speak-at-tech-after/article_6747ad7a-518a-57af-836 of local interest, perhaps. - mig
[2016-05-05 12:12:24] - mig: Yeah, who knows? This whole damn campaign makes no sense. Who would've guessed people like Christie, Jindal, Carson and Huckabee would've endorsed Trump? -Paul
[2016-05-05 12:05:39] - paul: at the same time his campaigning theme (talking seriously about issues, be above name-calling) almost make his supporting or helping Trump extremely contradictory. - mig
[2016-05-05 11:56:49] - a: I don't know why you wouldn't be serious. He never really had any confrontations or attacks on Trump. In a way, he was almost the friendliest towards him out of the candidates. -Paul
[2016-05-05 11:53:05] - a: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/trump-john-kasich-vice-president-222802 maybe serious. - mig
[2016-05-05 11:37:12] - paul/daniel/mig: maybe kaisch was helping trump on purpose. (not serious) ~a
[2016-05-05 11:31:36] - Daniel: Unless he just wanted to siphon votes away from Cruz. -Paul
[2016-05-05 11:31:21] - Daniel: I think you're right (and I could just be repeating mig here), but for weeks (months? how long ago was the Ohio primary?) the best chance of a contested convention was for Kasich to drop out and let all the anti-Trump support coalesce around Cruz. Instead, he bizarrely stuck around for no reason I can fathom... -Paul
[2016-05-05 11:23:45] - Yeah I think they just sucked at the whole never trump / contested convention idea because they couldn't stomach actually telling their supporters to vote for the other candidate. Comedy(? Tragedy?) or Errors on their parts I think. -Daniel
[2016-05-05 11:08:45] - daniel: right, but Kaisch has been arguably undermining Cruz's campaign for quite some time, and doing so after it was very apparent that his only chance at the nomination (albeit very slim) was to boost Cruz in places to siphon delegates from Trump. - mig
[2016-05-05 11:04:26] - I think Kasich needed Cruz to get a contested convention where there existed the slim possibility that the R establishment would give him the nomination. Once Trump won Indiana and Cruz left the possibility of contested convention went way down. -Daniel
[2016-05-05 10:17:34] - paul: hotair has presented that as a theory, and it's pretty convincing. I guess amongst more mainstream republicans, while they wring their hands about Trump, at the end of the day, they despise Cruz more. I'm still perplexed by that, but that what it appears to be. - mig
[2016-05-05 06:48:56] - And then he decides to drop out. The only thing that makes sense to me is that he hates Cruz and wanted to just stick around to siphon his votes and didn't really care about the nomination or Trump. That might even explain why he backtracked on their deal to split states. -Paul
[2016-05-05 06:48:02] - I forgot to mention this yesterday, but I just completely don't understand how Kasich's mind works. He's literally had no shot of getting enough delegates to win the nomination outright for weeks (months?) and yet stayed in the race anyway until Cruz dropped out, presumably giving him a greater ability to get votes... -Paul
[2016-05-04 16:29:41] - I'd never even thought of him making his daughter the VP. That would be crazy. -Daniel
[2016-05-04 16:16:19] - mig: yeah, it's not very specific. "odds" . . . ok, odds of what? odds that they're being considered? odds that they would accept? odds that trump will put them on a short-list? odds that they like chocolate? who knows. ~a
[2016-05-04 16:13:55] - a: likelihood of accepting seems to be the only thing that makes sense. - mig
[2016-05-04 16:13:17] - yeah i doubt those are correct. unless they're the odds that they would accept the position? ~a
[2016-05-04 15:37:16] - http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-running-mate-455736 Do I not understand odds, or are these numbers super inflated? -Paul
[2016-05-04 14:41:56] - mig: I guess, but Rubio made fun of the size of Trump's genitals. That has to count for something.
-Paul[2016-05-04 14:29:26] - And now Kasich is officially out too. Trump as the nominee is about as done a deal as we get now. -- Xpovos
[2016-05-04 14:17:37] - I mean, Trump didn't poke fun at Rubio's wife or insinuate that his father was involved in the Kennedy assassination. - mig
[2016-05-04 14:14:05] - paul: sure, it was, but the Trump v Cruz thing was on quite another level and much more personal. - mig
[2016-05-04 13:43:24] - mig: Eh, Rubio and Trump got pretty personal too, but Rubio eventually admitted he would support Trump. -Paul
[2016-05-04 13:37:14] - paul: I cannot fathom Cruz endorsing Trump after all that nonsense about his wife and father. That would take an enormous swallowing of pride. - mig
[2016-05-04 13:33:46] - mig: Every election I keep thinking the major parties can't come up with worse candidates, and every time they prove me wrong.
-Paul[2016-05-04 13:32:31] - mig: I want to see how many #NeverTrump people end up endorsing him or if some actually stick to their guns. I would love it if some (Cruz, Jeb, Rubio, etc) could stick to not supporting the candidate, but I'm not holding my breath. -Paul
[2016-05-04 13:30:22] - They're both terrible candidates, and it's actually quite amazing to see a general election basically decide on which one is really the least terrible. - mig
[2016-05-04 13:29:57] - On the flip side, much was made about how the Republicans had such a deep base of young talent to pull from (Rubio, Cruz, Paul, Christie... even guys like Jindal once upon a time) and they all got trounced by a lifelong democrat and friend of the Clintons who likes single payer health care and makes fun of former POWs. -Paul
[2016-05-04 13:29:41] - paul: it'll be interesting to see how is more fired up: #neverTrump or #neverHillary. - mig
[2016-05-04 13:28:11] - It just boggles my mind. Clinton is a terrible candidate in terms of firing up her base. She lost a big lead to a relative unknown Senator 8 years ago and made a Socialist a viable candidate this time around. -Paul
[2016-05-04 13:26:53] - I was doing pretty well on PredictIt until my bets against Trump and Clinton started looking REALLY bad. -Paul
[2016-05-04 13:26:24] - mig: As far as I know, I'm losing money to Adrian for Trump and you for Clinton.
-Paul[2016-05-04 13:13:12] - mig: Me too! Totally didn't think he was going to go anywhere. That seems to have been pretty wrong. -Daniel
[2016-05-04 13:06:32] - well either way, I was incredibly horribly fucking wrong about that whole Trump thing. - mig
[2016-05-04 10:32:11] - paul's trump bet is with me. and it's looking pretty bad for paul. i tihnk unless he has lots of other bets i don't know about, he's going to end up in the red. ~a
prev <-> next