prev <-> next
[2016-07-21 11:25:47] - anyways, i was being sarcastic. party unity is pretty lame. ~a
[2016-07-21 11:09:17] - paaarty uuuuunity. ~a
[2016-07-21 10:43:35] - a: Fuck party unity. Seriously. So many horrible political outcomes are because of stupid party unity. There is maybe 1 or 2 issues that Trump and Cruz have maybe the same opinion on (always hard to tell when Trump changes his mind every day). Trump insulted Cruz, his wife and his father. Why does Trump deserve an endorsement? -Paul
[2016-07-21 10:07:28] - but, paul, all everybody cares about is party unity. ~a
[2016-07-21 09:55:29] - I'm not the biggest Ted Cruz fan in the world, but I loved what he did last night. He walked into Donald Trump's party and gave a speech which should've been pretty non-objectionable on the face of it, yet ended up causing a furious reaction from Trump supporters. He gained some respect from me. -Paul
[2016-07-20 16:34:17] - paul: I think Castro might have been a pick had the RNC gone with Rubio or Cruz, but like you said, she may not need the "bump" from him for the Hispanic vote. - mig
[2016-07-20 16:32:31] - I would be pretty sure Warren is out as a VP selection, despite her recent enthusiasm for Clinton. I have to believe it's going to be some longtime Clinton loyalist with some political experience (like Tim Kaine). I think Howard Dean might be my surprise guess. - mig
[2016-07-20 13:05:38] - I'm most worried about Booker, because I feel like he could bring some legit excitement to the Clinton ticket and keep some voters with her that might be interested in the LP ticket. -Paul
[2016-07-20 12:41:55] - I'm curious if she feels the need to go with a minority as a VP (Castro could be a sleeper) or if she figures she has them locked up with Trump being largely repulsive to them. -Paul
[2016-07-20 12:37:54] - title: I had money on Kaine and continue to have money on Booker. My guess is that it's a relatively safe pick and probably not a woman (Elizabeth Warren) or progressive that might outshine her (Bernie Sanders). -Paul
[2016-07-20 12:36:41] - mig: I guess. I just feel like that's a very slippery slope to go down. Unless he's specifically throwing out a phone number or physical address and asking people to harass somebody, I err on the side of assigning blame to the people who actually do it. -Paul
[2016-07-20 12:33:00] - paul: well that then goes back to my question from earlier. Once you get to a certain point in internet notoriety and/or fame. Pretty much any post you make is going to elicit some sort of fan reaction regardless of whether you intend for it to happen or not. Milo is almost certainly at that point. - mig
[2016-07-20 12:18:28] - http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/politics/paul-ryan-donald-trump-convention-meeting/index.html Not sure how to share the video on the right, but I thought this was hilarious. Paul Ryan tries to use college football to explain why Republicans should support Trump and it does not go well. -Paul
[2016-07-20 12:13:00] - mig: Right, and maybe this guy is a secret troll leader, but the optics of this just seem bad. It seems like Twitter is taking sides on a political issue and basically silencing one side. As a twitter shareholder, I'm not sure I like the move. -Paul
[2016-07-20 12:11:29] - paul: my understanding was that the ban was because his fight with Leslie Jones "incited" the more hateful and abusive comments she was getting. The exchange between her and Milo was honestly pretty mild for internet standards. - mig
[2016-07-20 12:10:09] - mig: Obviously they are a private company and can do whatever they want, but I feel like they should be erring on the side of freedom of speech unless it's pretty clear somebody is being abusive beyond having a harsh movie review. Was it clear this guy was being abusive? -Paul
[2016-07-20 12:08:52] - mig: Yeah, I don't know if this is the best move by Twitter. I didn't really know anything about this Milo guy, but now I do. So this whole thing has brought him attention, which it sounds like is something he craves. It's also not clear he was really directly involved with any extreme harassing. -Paul
[2016-07-20 12:03:44] - paul: I think that's possibly how Twitter looks at it too, but I wonder if they're just setting themselves up for some real backlash down the road as accusations of selective enforcement (to say, only banning people from one side of the political spectrum) abound. - mig
[2016-07-20 12:01:37] - mig: Morally? That's a super grey area to me. Feel like it has to be a case by case basis. -Paul
[2016-07-20 12:00:40] - mig: No, work only. -Paul
[2016-07-20 11:54:08] - In the wake of Milo Yiannopoulos being permanently expelled from twitter, it brings forward a question I've had myself for a while: If you have lots of e-Fame, to the point where anytime you post anything inspires your many followers to act in some deranged ways, where is the line where you might be morally responsible for their actions? - mig
[2016-07-20 11:39:05] - paul: do you use it for non work conversations? - mig
[2016-07-20 11:31:44] - Daniel: Not sure if you are settled in or not. Hopefully you're still checking the message board. If so, I'm curious your thoughts on an S&P Index Fund (or ETF) vs a total market index fund (to include small and medium sized companies) and international stocks and/or REITs. -Paul
[2016-07-20 11:05:25] - Not sure how many people here use Slack at work, but I'm feeling like a Slack killer right now. I've brought multiple channels to a screeching halt over the past week or so with my comments. It's a little eerie. -Paul
[2016-07-19 16:26:24] - a: No, not with 15% average, just in general. Gary Johnson hasn't hit 15% average yet. -Paul
[2016-07-19 14:59:47] - paul: with 15% average? which examples? ~a
[2016-07-19 14:37:23] - a: Yeah, but there's a lot more examples of third party candidates not getting into the debates.
-Paul[2016-07-19 14:00:20] - ross perot had 18% (was also in the debates). not a libertarian, but at least there's recent precedent that it's possible. ~a
[2016-07-19 13:09:44] - a: Winnable, but I feel like every election there are reasons to be optimistic and excited about the LP hitting certain modest milestones, and every election they seem to manage to fall short. -Paul
[2016-07-19 12:59:55] - paul: well miguel's bet is winnable. i'm not even sure i should have given him 2:1 against. ~a
[2016-07-19 12:00:10] - a: Also true, but considering rooting for the LP is pretty much a lock "lose" every year (unless you're looking for minor victories like breaking 1% or being the margin of difference in certain states) it would feel nice to use money as a salve.
-Paul[2016-07-19 11:55:03] - or lose/lose? ~a
[2016-07-19 11:46:22] - mig: When it comes to the success of LP candidates, I tend to like to bet against it, because that way it's kind of win/win.
-Paul[2016-07-19 11:07:45] - paul: And I know it's a long shot. But there's enough of a chance of it happening that I'd be willing to part with $20. - mig
[2016-07-19 11:04:23] - mig: It'll be interesting to see how the Money Comet (www.moneycomet.org) goes and how their fundraising went in July. Lots of money could show interest in the campaign from disaffected Republicans (and maybe Bernie supporters). It would be super cool if people like Romney came out to endorse them as well. -Paul
[2016-07-19 11:04:17] - paul: yep, the populists man who hates the establishment has the backing of the establishment now and his fans are thumping their chests after screaming about the evil establishment for the last several months. - mig
[2016-07-19 10:43:56] - mig: Sounds similar to what happened with the Ron Paul delegates last time around. Somehow the establishment STILL manages to piss off the grassroots despite siding with the presumably grassroots candidate here. -Paul
[2016-07-19 10:30:08] - paul: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/never-trump-delegates-have-support-needed-to-force-rules-vote-225716?lo=ap_c2 - mig
[2016-07-19 09:53:45] - mig: I was sadly mostly on the road during the convention, so I missed it. I heard Cuccinelli was involved in the anti-Trump movement, which raised my respect for him.... until I heard that he's still planning on supporting Trump once he's officially the nominee... -Paul
[2016-07-19 09:52:48] - mig: I'm afraid I'm with Adrian on this one (which given my history on bets recently, that's good news for you). I feel like there's plenty of wiggle room for the committee to come up with some reason he doesn't qualify even if he hits 15%. -Paul
[2016-07-19 09:01:59] - which chaos? the plagiarism? that's all i heard about. ~a
[2016-07-18 16:44:58] - paul: you following the convention chaos? it's kind of glorious to behold. - mig
[2016-07-18 14:52:10] - a: That has always been the most worrying part. There really is nothing stopping the parties who control the debates from shifting the goal posts if Johnson does indeed come close to the 15% threshold, aside from possibly the bad publicity that would result. - mig
[2016-07-18 14:41:56] - mig: yeah, i figured he'd get on enough ballots. the 15% will be the clincher. or a technicality, (if he's on the cusp of 15% i'm sure they'll come up with some bullshit reason he can't attend). ~a
[2016-07-18 13:57:37] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson_presidential_campaign,_2012#Ballot_access so a few things to correct. The 49 state number is incorrect. Oklahoma didn't include him either, but I don't recall the specifics of that. - mig
[2016-07-18 13:53:43] - a: he ran briefly for the GOP nomination in 2012 and dropped out rather early in the process. I forget the specifics of the Michigan law but it amounted to some technicality about some filing deadline. - mig
[2016-07-18 13:38:10] - mig: why did the sore-loser law affect him? which primary did he run in? ~a
[2016-07-18 12:30:33] - aaron: street fighter actually showed up on ESPN2 last night. - mig
[2016-07-18 12:23:39] - "most recently publicly-reported results at the time of the determination. The polls to be relied upon will be selected based on the quality of the methodology employed, the reputation of the polling organizations and the frequency of the polling conducted" etc etc, there's lots there. ~a
[2016-07-18 12:22:33] - mig: they discuss "a"/"b" some: In each election cycle since 2000, CPD has retained Dr. Frank Newport, Editor-in-Chief of Gallup, to assist it in selecting the five national public opinion polls to be used in applying the criteria. Dr. Newport's recommendations have been based on his professional judgment ... ~a
[2016-07-18 12:18:41] - And given the nature of this election, the coverage he's been getting has been pretty yuuuge. The CNN town hall w/ him and Weld was pretty unprecedented. If he gets more opportunities like that to reach potential voters... - mig
[2016-07-18 12:17:15] - If they focus on more recent polling, his chances become much better. - mig
[2016-07-18 12:16:47] - a: it's really going to depend on a) which polls they use, b) the time frame of the polling. - mig
[2016-07-18 12:15:56] - I just saw some polling today that had him around 11-13%. I think the elements are there to give him a to get near 15%. - mig
[2016-07-18 12:15:04] - a: state ballots aren't an issue, the LP has done a good job of dealing with ballot access. In 2012 he was only off Michigan because of a technicality from a "sore loser" ballot law, but otherwise got on 49 state ballots. - mig
[2016-07-18 11:22:33] - for reference, his average polling is at about 7% now. ~a
[2016-07-18 11:13:46] - mig: do you think gj will get on enough of the state ballots and poll at 15% (average)? ~a
[2016-07-18 11:13:07] - now that the bet is confirmed, let me show you what i found: "candidates must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College, and have a level of support of at least 15 percent ... as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average ..." ~a
[2016-07-18 11:12:43] - mig: yay! ~a
[2016-07-18 10:54:06] - a: deal. - mig
[2016-07-18 10:39:48] - mig: i'll even offer 2:1 against. if you put up $20 that GJ debates (in a nationally televised debate) with both clinton and trump, at least those three, i'll put up $40. ~a
[2016-07-18 10:33:33] - mig: sure, i'll bet against. ~a
[2016-07-18 10:27:23] - paul/a: fun bet thought: odds Gary Johnson makes the cut for the presidential debates. - mig
[2016-07-15 11:51:43] - http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/15/politics/jill-stein-green-party-cornel-west-endorsement/index.html Maybe this is the year the Libertarian AND Green parties break out a bit... -Paul
[2016-07-15 10:55:30] - mig: Sure, it totally makes sense based on the issues, but I'm constantly amazed by how people completely ignore the issues and just stick with their tribe when it comes to voting. -Paul
[2016-07-15 10:55:25] - And it's important to note that these people aren't truly republicans/conservative in a general sense but more so that their foreign policy views tend to align with republicans/conservatives for the most part, which is why you're seeing neocon support for Hilary. - mig
[2016-07-15 10:53:40] - Nobody really knows what you're going to get with Trump. I would posit they would rather go with a known entity they can trust to align with their views vs. a wildcard. - mig
[2016-07-15 10:52:10] - paul: I would wager pretty serious. An uber-aggressive foreign policy is pretty much the only thing these type of people care about (which is why they freaked out so much about Rand Paul and even Ted Cruz running). Clinton's foreign policy record and rhetoric is pretty known entity, and aligns very much with what necons want. - mig
[2016-07-15 10:03:38] - a: I initially read it in Reason (http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/20/meet-the-hawks-for-hillary), but if you do a search for "neocons for Hillary", you get a lot of results. I don't know how serious these people are, though. -Paul
[2016-07-15 09:40:26] - mig: i agree with you, miguel. i just *feel* like more bernie people are going to vote for trump than republicans voting for hillary. paul, where did you read about neo-cons voting for hillary? ~a
[2016-07-15 09:35:17] - a: I think the key difference is at the end of the day, a fair amount of never trumpers are still republicans (so they may still relent come election time despite their stance out of party loyalty), whereas a lot of the bernie supporters aren't really democrats (so they weren't really loyal democrats to begin with). - mig
[2016-07-15 00:03:33] - https://wefunder.com/legionm?wf_campaign=htc&wf_source=fb This looks pretty cool and probably not a scam. What do you guys think? -Paul
[2016-07-13 10:00:23] - a: I think a not insignificant number. The neo-cons are at least talking a lot about throwing their support to Hillary, which should give a lot of anti-war democrats pause. -Paul
[2016-07-12 17:14:58] - paul: how many "never-trump" republicans are going to vote for hillary? ~a
[2016-07-12 16:14:42] - So, with Bernie "selling out" and endorsing Hillary, and with the two party mindset being heavily ingrained in people, what percent of Bernie supporters do people think will end up voting for Trump (as seemingly nonsensical as that might be)? -Paul
[2016-07-12 15:40:26] - a: wow!!! what are the odds
- aaron[2016-07-12 15:39:34] - xpovos: right, i think the question is more, "if the dealer offered you $X, what's the largest amount for which you'd accept the deal." obviously if you were setting the price, you'd just set it at a penny
- aaron[2016-07-12 15:05:21] - a: I think the odds are a lot lower than of my taking $100 off aaron with this game.
-- Xpovos[2016-07-12 13:50:08] - xpovos/aaron: haha, what are the odds? the sub-message for today is this conversation. ~a
[2016-07-12 13:48:32] - For the second scenario I'd pay (up to) $25 (?) for the ace of hearts to be removed, since the odds of winning the $100 prize go up by about 25% when you do that. However since in this situation there's no way to guarantee any winnings and there's no "you can't have negative money at the end" stipulation, I might just let it ride and take my chances at 1/4. -- Xpovos
[2016-07-12 13:45:01] - If the dealer has to accept anything, then obviously you pay a penny (or a dollar or whatever the minimum is) in the first scenario to guarantee a win. If it's a competition bidding up to $50 is probably right but bidding higher isn't necessarily "wrong" as with a bid of $99.99 you can guarantee a penny, whereas the other guy could get stuck with nothing. -- Xpovos
[2016-07-12 13:43:33] - aaron: I thought of $50 first as well, but it's all about the framing. Is it a competition? Between me and the dealer? Or in order to ensure I'll pay the maximum possible I'd be willing to pay is it a competition between me and another gamer, we're each independently being dealt aces, but only one of us can have bad results removed by paying and we bid. -- Xpovos
[2016-07-12 13:22:27] - mig: if paul gives me cash when he pays for his trump loss, i can send you bits
~a[2016-07-12 13:11:14] - mig: *Sigh* Do you take paypal? -Paul
[2016-07-12 12:51:46] - paul: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/ given the developments with the FBI, and now this, how would you like to submit payment? - mig
[2016-07-12 09:50:50] - those scenarios are equivalent to the "life or death" thing since it has the same effect of not caring how much money you've spent if you die, but caring how much money you've spent if you live. and i guess the logical answer is $2,000 to all three questions - aaron
[2016-07-12 09:48:13] - "Same situation, 6 doors, 2 prizes, 4 goats. What do you offer from your winnings to replace 1 goat with a prize?" "100 doors, 2 prizes, 98 goats. What do you offer to replace 1 goat with a prize?" - aaron
[2016-07-12 09:47:47] - ah there we go, "You’re on a game show. You can’t leave with negative money. There are 3 doors, 2 with $6,000 cash, 1 with a goat (worth nothing…). You can pick a door, but first you can offer the host $x from your winnings (currently $0) to replace the goat with the prize. What do you offer?" - aaron
[2016-07-12 09:46:21] - hmm reading through the comments on the page though, the math of the problem hinges on the fact that money has no value to you when you're dead -- only when you're alive. but that kind of makes hard math fall apart because now you could rationally say, "i'd pay $100 in both cases" because who knows how much being alive is valued at - aaron
[2016-07-12 09:34:34] - hmm actually, in the second scenario, the cutoff point is... $8.33? you start with a 25% shot at $100, and you're paying to increase that to a 33% chance....? i think xpovos is right, you can't ignore the "half the time you're dead" as that changes the problem - aaron
[2016-07-12 09:28:58] - in the first scenario, the cutoff point is $50. you start with a fifty-fifty shot at $100, so if someone offers you $51 you decline (what, i only get $49 now? i'll take the 50/50) and if someone offers you $49 you take it (nice, guaranteed $51) - aaron
[2016-07-12 00:21:57] - xpovos: for my "four aces" variant, what do you think the correct answer is to both scenarios then? would you pay a different amount for the second scenario? - aaron
[2016-07-09 20:04:22] - Xpovos: I agree with you about ""half the time you're dead aspect is just thrown nonchalantly away", but I've learned in the past that sometimes those things simply don't matter. It's so much like the Monte Hall thing where the new open door just doesn't seem to matter anymore.-Paul
[2016-07-09 11:22:16] - Question D is not 'exactly' like Question C, and even more important Question C is NOT the same as Question B. I think that's the biggest jump in the logic train. That all important "half the time you're dead" aspect is just thrown nonchalantly away. -- Xpovos
[2016-07-09 11:18:50] - I spent some time thinking about it, and who knows, maybe it's just the fever, but I'm pretty sure that the logical positions proposed as equal are not in fact equal. -- Xpovos
[2016-07-08 17:29:02] - Aaron: Yeah, I think I would pay less to remove the ace of hearts, and I don't quite understand why that's not "right" intuitively. Seems like Monty Hall to me.
-Paul[2016-07-08 17:27:54] - Aaron: This game makes my brain hurt, but I feel pretty confident saying I would make the "wrong" decision. -Paul
[2016-07-08 17:26:04] - 1. How much would you pay to remove both red aces from the deck? 2. Let's change the game so now, you lose all of your money unless you hit the ace of spades. How much would you pay to remove to remove the ace of hearts? - aaron
[2016-07-08 17:25:07] - a: maybe if the question isn't framed as russian roulette. you have $100 of play money, and we play a game. i keep flipping cards off a deck until I flip an ace, if it's a red ace you lose your $100. - aaron
[2016-07-08 17:21:01] - a: yeah my answer was basically "pay all my money" too but i felt like that trivialized the problem, particularly after i read their answer - aaron
[2016-07-08 17:09:15] - aaron: i'm with paul. i'd pay all of my money in both situations. "heirs" wouldn't change the math for me any. i might even pay more than all of my money if loans are allowed in the game. ~a
[2016-07-08 17:04:42] - paul: latter. it'll probably be between like 11am and 2pm (probably even between 12pm and 1pm), but it's all just probabalistic. there's ~1% chance (i didn't actually do the math) it'll be outside of that range. ~a
[2016-07-08 16:46:23] - a: Is the halvening based on a specific time? Or is it based on number of bitcoins mined to date and that time is just an estimate of when we'll reach it? -Paul
[2016-07-08 16:44:34] - aaron: I mean, part of me says, given the premise (no heirs), maybe I just pay all my money in both scenarios because I really don't want to die. -Paul
[2016-07-08 16:44:04] - aaron: This is a hard one to wrap my head around because (1) I'm terrible with probability (2) I don't really "get" how the probabilities (or whatever they are) are the same for the two scenarios and (3) It's hard for me to put a number to the scenario in general. -Paul
[2016-07-08 16:33:25] - http://www.thebigquestions.com/2011/01/05/another-rationality-test/ if forced to play russian roulette, how much would you pay to remove 2 out of 2 bullets from a six shooter? how much would you pay to remove 1 out of 4 bullets from a six shooter? - aaron
[2016-07-08 12:55:31] - a: Right now it's chrome on my work laptop, but I did recently stay at some hotels where I used their wifi on my chromebook and it's possible it started then. -Paul
[2016-07-08 12:41:46] - i'm asking, because one possible explanation: you connected to a commercial-wifi, which often intentionally-hijacks your session to redirect you to a place where you can click "i accept" on something to use their wifi. when that session was redirected, your browser may have cached the logo with the first website you went to (which may have been the mb?). ~a
[2016-07-08 12:39:00] - chrome on your laptop? or android? ~a
[2016-07-08 10:50:53] - a: Did you know that the message board now appears to have an AT&T logo in my chrome tab? -Paul
[2016-07-07 21:23:44] - mig: Nope. I'm having a hard enough time keeping up with my normal fantasy baseball league.
-Paul[2016-07-07 16:41:51] - does anyone here do DFS at all for MLB? - mig
[2016-07-07 14:42:51] - http://www.eonline.com/news/778350/sulu-revealed-as-gay-in-star-trek-beyond-according-to-john-cho My outrage meter jumped to "high" when I first read the headline because I thought they were going to be ignoring Demora, but then I read that she was being incorporated and now I think it's pretty clever. -Paul
[2016-07-06 13:55:35] - mig: 23 hours ago he said, "Sensitive negotiations are ongoing. Should drop a little later this week." -Paul
[2016-07-06 13:53:59] - mig: Matt Welch responded to a tweet asking where it was and said something about it coming soon. I think they were negotiating with a guest host or something. -Paul
[2016-07-06 13:39:51] - paul: I was patiently awaiting this week's Fifth Column but then remembered last week Kmele mentioned something about being on vacation. Sad! - mig
[2016-07-06 13:13:20] - a: Yeah, I'm not sweating a percent with something so volatile. Thanks! -Paul
[2016-07-06 12:41:38] - with something a volatile as bitcoin, being within a percent is good enough, imo. ~a
[2016-07-06 12:40:25] - for example: right now http://aporter.org/bit/ (which uses yahoo finance) and http://www.coindesk.com/price/ are less than a percent from each-other. (mine rounds a shit-ton, so we'll just assume they're within a percent). ~a
[2016-07-06 12:39:14] - paul: sure. it'll be close enough. usually the exchanges and indexes are within a percent of each-other. i usually look at bitcoinaverage, bitstamp, bitfinex, or the coinbase rates, but the rest (coindesk, winkdex, gemini, btce, kraken, itbit, localbitcoins, okcoin, and the other chinese exchanges) are ok too. ~a
[2016-07-06 11:19:47] - a: http://www.coindesk.com/price/ Is that a pretty reliable way to get the current bitcoin to USD ratio? -Paul
[2016-07-06 10:59:37] - mig: Are they ruining the NBA? Hard to say. There's something to be said for having a polarizing successful team for everybody to root against, but as you know, I generally prefer a little more balance and would've preferred to have seen another awesome OKC/GS playoff series. -Paul
[2016-07-06 10:58:17] - mig: Can I assume you're asking if I think of them as poorly as the LBJ/Wade/Bosh Heat and LBJ/Love/Irving Cavs? Then the answer is yes, they're now the villainous Yankees of the NBA in my mind (although the Cavs are right there with them). I'll be rooting for most teams against them. -Paul
[2016-07-06 10:47:01] - paul: KD to Warriors. Are the warriors ruining the NBA now? - mig
[2016-07-05 14:33:41] - a: The cookies are good, though. Don't miss out on them.
-Paul[2016-07-05 14:32:22] - a: Also, the pace can be weird in that it sometimes feels too fast (lots of material to cover in not a lot of time) but also sometimes feels slow (lots of downtime, sometimes excessive amounts of time for exercises to allow people who are lagging to catch up by getting help from instructor). -Paul
[2016-07-05 14:31:01] - a: I think you get out of it what you're willing to put in. You can go there and sit there passively and learn virtually nothing, or you can engage the instructor and try out new things and learn a lot. Keep your expectations level, though, since there's often only so much you can learn in a 1-5 day course. -Paul
[2016-07-05 14:29:48] - a: The impression I had gotten from working there (and taking some of their classes) is that they were generally the best in terms of knowledgeable professors and material compared to their immediate competitors (Global Knowledge, etc), but that you paid more for it. Of course, I have no experience with their competitors so it's hard to say. -Paul
[2016-07-05 14:27:10] - paul: what's your opinion of learningtree vs their competitors? i'm thinking of taking a class with excella consulting. ~a
[2016-07-05 10:13:14] - Maybe this had to be translated from German to English and that's why it's scattered? http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/brexit-editorial-the-trouble-with-plebiscites-a-1101235.html -- Xpovos
[2016-07-03 06:23:12] - paul: yup. and it's very fast! I take it out to the trails next weekend. ~a
[2016-07-02 11:16:02] - a: Re: title. Did you get a new bicycle? -Paul
[2016-07-01 22:49:30] - Daniel: I'm always leery of solutions that seem to be overly simple without any downsides or losers. Life very rarely seems to work that way. -Paul
[2016-07-01 22:48:46] - Daniel: I also second Miguel's point (which no minimum wage advocate I've seen has ever had a satisfactory response to) about how if a $15 minimum wage is just a net win everywhere, then why isn't a $100 minimum wage even better? -Paul
[2016-07-01 22:47:19] - Daniel: I didn't read the article (but I have read many that sound similar), so I don't know if he addressed this, but the problem I usually have with that line of thinking is that not everybody gets that increased wage. Some jobs just aren't worth $15 an hour and get replaced by machines. Those people who lose their jobs become worse consumers. -Paul
[2016-07-01 22:38:39] - a: I wish I had been buying Monday, but I was out of town and was too busy to.
Luckily some of the stocks I had my eye on still seem to be down from the Brexit madness. -Paul[2016-07-01 16:16:02] - The point about rising CEOs salaries supposedly debunking the "higher minimum wage leading to less jobs" was also pretty nonsensical. First off, CEO wages are generally driven by demand. There's also the matter of scale. Giving the CEO a $100k raise is going to cost your company less than giving your 100k workers a $2 raise. - mig
[2016-07-01 16:02:27] - And why stop at $15? If there's real belief in this "creating customer" effects, why not shoot higher. Why not $50/hr? $100/hr? - mig
[2016-07-01 16:01:31] - daniel: it does feel inflationary. And I'm skeptical it would actually work out that way. Its underlying assumption is that a majority of the supposedly increased disposable income will go towards the employers that will raise their wages. I doubt Walmart employees will shop more at Walmart if they get a massive raise, they may just go to Costco instead. - mig
[2016-07-01 16:01:09] - I did say long winded... His whole part is pretty rambly. -Daniel
[2016-07-01 15:32:15] - "Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution." I'm going to have a hard tiem continuing after seeing this nonsense was something an actual human wrote. But I'll continue. - mig
[2016-07-01 15:09:13] - oh article link - www.topinfopost.com/2014/06/30/ultra-rich-mans-letter-to-my-fellow-filthy-rich-americans-the-pitchforks-are-coming -Daniel
[2016-07-01 15:09:06] - Long winded article but has some interesting ideas / points once you get to them about raising the minimum wage. Namely the idea that raising the minimum wage creates consumers which in theory offsets the price of having to raise wages. Though isn't that somewhat inflationary? I dunno, I never can decide on how I come down on minmum wage. -Daniel
[2016-07-01 12:27:41] - mig: agreed. especially situations like this where nothing was really wrong. i was buying like crazy monday evening. ~a
[2016-07-01 09:57:26] - a: my 401k has mostly recovered from the brexit hysteria. Market do eventually correct themselves. - mig
[2016-06-30 12:20:55] - xpovos: "x-wing" refers to the name of the miniatures game (why they didn't go with something like Star Wars dogfighting or something more generic I don't know). - mig
[2016-06-30 11:57:20] - mig: THOSE ARE TIE FIGHTERS! -- Xpovos
[2016-06-29 13:44:38] - http://i.imgur.com/sttqYZ2.gif i got a big kick out of this today. You can replace "X-Wing" with any other gaming hobby for the same effect. - mig
[2016-06-29 09:25:04] - a: the problem is that a lot of the panicking people have a lot of power, which means there's potential for a lot of irrational decisions which is fueling the corresponding market panic. - mig
[2016-06-28 23:41:02] - a: I know very little about this whole Brexit stuff, but it does seem like there's a LOT of people overreacting a lot to it. If I listened to social media and to some in the actual media, racist fear-mongering fascists have led ignorant British sheep to a decision that will destroy the British economy. -Paul
[2016-06-28 23:39:12] - a: Pretty much in Pittsburgh, at Maki's parents' house. -Paul
[2016-06-28 13:12:30] - mig: "irresponsible fearmongering" shouldn't the efficient market see through fear mongering? ~a
[2016-06-28 12:37:30] - a: near pittsburgh? - mig
[2016-06-28 12:21:39] - a: irresponsible fearmongering. I get that there's a fair amount of uncertainty in the implications for UK leaving the EU, but you had the outgoing PM declare Uk leaving could start WW3 and other hyperbolic nonsense. - mig
[2016-06-28 11:38:43] - also . . . ouch to british exit: why the fuck have i lost 6% of my savings exactly? asked differently, why did brexit effect the market like it did? ~a
[2016-06-28 11:15:14] - where was dave's wedding? ~a
[2016-06-27 14:46:39] - aaron: /eyeroll. - mig
[2016-06-27 14:05:55] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/27/super-racist-pool-safety-poster-prompts-red-cross-apology/ 'super racist' pool safety poster prompts red cross apology - aaron
[2016-06-27 12:48:28] - https://geod.itch.io/3dnes 3DNes -- an NES emulator which renders stuff in 3D. it obviously doesn't know out-of-the box stuff like, "pipes are round" or "doors are flat" so there's some fiddling you have to do for each game? but i guess that fiddly stuff is saved in a file and eventually there'll be community files for every game. pretty neat - aaron
[2016-06-27 08:14:17] - judge bans "artist" from all national parks . ~a
[2016-06-24 23:05:33] - congratulations on #2: man, that's so cool. I have a close friend that's thinking of moving back to tx as well. He's looking at jobs there. Honestly, considering his style I think he'd be happier not in nova. ~a
[2016-06-24 14:29:22] - Naw, she went to college at Smith in Northhampton Massachesusehtheseututsits. I went to college at Southwestern University in Georgetown TX (just north of austin). -Daniel
[2016-06-24 14:17:19] - did you guys go to college together? also, where? ~a
[2016-06-24 14:05:43] - Free willing babysitters is also a strong perk. -Daniel
[2016-06-24 14:05:25] - Moving back to TX was mainly about kids and family, though housing prices were a factor as well. -Daniel
[2016-06-24 14:05:05] - a: Andrea got her job out of college up here. I was ok moving up here because I thought it would be easier to start a career. -Daniel
[2016-06-24 12:46:35] - omg, that sucks! what made you decide to move back to tx? actually, the real question i have is, why did you decide to move to va in the first place? ~a
[2016-06-24 09:16:35] - For those that haven't heard, I'm sorry I didn't get to tell you in person, today is my last day of work at Pragmatics and in a few weeks (July 12th) Andrea and I will be moving back to TX. Its something that had always been an idea that 'some day' we would do that. Once she was pregnant with #2 we decided 'some day' had arrived. -Daniel
[2016-06-23 14:12:12] - Daniel: I read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress many years ago. I barely remembered that character's name, and probably only because it was so unique. Not sure I can name literally any other character in the book right now without looking it up. -Paul
[2016-06-23 12:58:14] - Paul: I had to google it
-Daniel[2016-06-23 12:55:30] - Xpovos: http://i.imgur.com/nido04b.png -Paul
[2016-06-23 12:41:38] - Paul: Welcome to rational anarchism. Population you, me and Bernardo de La Paz. -- Xpovos
[2016-06-23 12:35:20] - I still consider that to be wrong and invalid. -Paul
[2016-06-23 12:34:09] - Xpovos: Agreed from a practical standpoint (hence why I framed my position as "extremely idealistic"). I mostly am just trying to make the point that I don't care if 51% of congress writes a law taking away freedom of speech and the president and SCOTUS signs off on it (hence making it completely "legal")... -Paul
[2016-06-23 12:30:32] - E.g. What happens when your right to liberty impinges upon my right to life because you fully intend to hunt me down and kill me if you are able. Clearly government needs to be able to infringe your right to liberty to ensure my right to life. -- Xpovos
[2016-06-23 12:29:26] - Paul: More of a Declaration of Independence thing than a Constitution thing. The problem with genuinely inalienable rights is that they become absolute and then we have a problem with equally inalienable rights are in conflict. Not only is there a conflict, but there's no hope of a legislative or juridical solution. -- Xpovos
[2016-06-23 12:10:11] - which by definition is "unable to be taken away". -Paul
[2016-06-23 12:10:00] - Xpovos: I probably agree that it's good that there is a process to amend the constitution (after all, the bill of rights were amendments and the constitution codified slavery). I disagree with the idea that a democratic government should be allowed to take away "rights". Rights shouldn't be handed out by the government. They should be inalienable... -Paul
[2016-06-23 12:04:18] - Paul: Oh i haven't been arguing right vs wrong on that front. Just possible vs not. I would agree that the 1st amendment should not be overturned. -Daniel
[2016-06-23 12:03:45] - But if the general populace believes that an extant right is unnecessary or dangerous, they can and should be able to remove it. Politicians can push for it, but they can't force it without the will of a super majority. That's not democracy. -- Xpovos
[2016-06-23 12:02:37] - Longer answer now. A political PROCESS is not the WHIM of POLITICIANS. The fact that there is a process to amend the constitution is good (I disagree with Paul) and it has been used largely to EXPAND rights. The one specific counter-example was repealed a few years later by another amendment. -- Xpovos
[2016-06-23 11:48:12] - Short answer 'cause I'm on the phone and typing one-handed... Hint: we don't have a democracy. -- Xpovos
[2016-06-23 11:41:53] - Daniel: Just because it's allowed through our political process doesn't make it at all right. Perhaps this gets to our fundamental disagreement when it comes to democracy where I don't think it's all its cracked up to be. -Paul
[2016-06-23 11:40:44] - Daniel: How likely it is to be overturned is completely beside the point to me. My point is that it absolutely SHOULDN'T be overturned. Technically, our government could completely (and legally) decide tomorrow to revoke the first amendment or jail all muslims without trial or any other crazy thing to violate our rights. -Paul
[2016-06-23 11:37:28] - "If a government bureaucrat can put your name on a secret list on the bureaucrat's own whim or even using secret standards and, as a result, you have lost a fundamental liberty, then the feds have transformed a natural right into a governmental gift". -Paul
[2016-06-23 11:37:22] - http://reason.com/archives/2016/06/23/no-fly-no-buy-means-no-freedom I'm normally not a fan of Napolitano's writing style, but I think he makes some good points here. -Paul
[2016-06-23 11:36:52] - -Daniel
[2016-06-23 11:36:51] - Xpovos: Just because its super unlikely and hard to do doesn't mean impossible. The entire bill of rights could be overturned if enough people agreed / voted for it. I'm not even sure how you guys are asserting otherwise. You aren't really asserting otherwise, you're just pointing out the fact that its super unlikely which I totally agree with but isn't the point.
[2016-06-23 10:59:26] - paul: most of this current conversation has centered around blacks and hispanics, since historically there have been very few of us admitted to TJ. - mig
[2016-06-23 10:56:26] - The more divided people are on issues in general, the less likely there will ever be another constitutional amendment, because the requirements to have an amendment require a super-majority of the kind we just don't see. -- Xpovos
[2016-06-23 10:55:40] - I'll argue that in our system rights in fact ARE NOT subject to the whims of politicians because the process for holding a constitutional convention or otherwise instituting a constitutional change, while possible, are draconian and haven't been done since 1971. The political climate since then has been a strike against amendments ... -- Xpovos
[2016-06-23 10:53:23] - mig: Having said that, it wouldn't surprise me at all if such things happened. You gather 400 teenagers together for 4 years and you're bound to have a bunch of knuckle-headed comments even with the brightest of people. -Paul
[2016-06-23 10:52:19] - mig: Aaaaaand, I just saw your note about changing to topic. Sorry.
As a minority myself (I'm sure I was the minority in some way... were males the minority? Non-Asians? Can I count as non-Asian? Yes, I'm being tongue-in-cheek here, just to be clear) I didn't notice anything of the sort at TJ. -Paul[2016-06-23 10:50:55] - Daniel: "All rights are suspect to the whims of politics." I won't speak for Xpovos here, but my thinking is that rights SHOULDN'T be subject to the whims of politicians. I know that's an extremely idealistic view of things, but I think it's an important distinction between rights and privileges. -Paul
[2016-06-23 10:48:21] - Daniel: "if one of my rights is threatened all my rights are threatened" More or less. I think we have stuff like due process to protect people and actions that AREN'T democratically popular (otherwise we wouldn't need them). It's like free speech to me. If you aren't willing to defend the most vile and disgusting speech, you're not really for free speech. -Paul
[2016-06-23 10:45:29] - Daniel: Do you think the people in Guantanamo have had due process? Because I don't see a significant difference between that and these secret lists. -Paul
[2016-06-23 10:45:03] - Daniel: "Those seem like two separate ideas". Okay, I guess I ask you what your definition of due process is, then. Because it seems to me that very few people know how anybody gets added to these secret lists and I'm not sure it's clear there are any rules behind it. To me, it seems effectively arbitrary, and I don't see how I can square that with due process. -Paul
[2016-06-23 10:27:31] - HS, and I'm just wondering if this is something I've just been either oblivious to, or something that just all in all, just never bothers me, or whether I just weirdly never got subjected to any of this in either HS (or even college, really). - mig
[2016-06-23 10:26:28] - Not to hijack the conversation here, but there's been a personal curiosity brought about by a fb thread raging about minority experiences at TJ. Mostly alleging experiences soured a bit by not so subtle brushes with racism (like hinting they were only here because of affirmative action). One of those people relaying those experience was someone I knew fairly well in
[2016-06-23 10:19:08] - daniel: i'll get behind your gun control amendment as long as you think of a new right we can get that we didn't have before. 'cause governments like reducing rights and i don't see them adding new ones very often. ~a
[2016-06-23 10:14:04] - a: And that if enough people all decide on something they can make the political change happen. Would it take a crap ton of people? Sure! More than currently seems possible? Sure! But possible. -Daniel
[2016-06-23 10:13:15] - a: I don't see it happening. But the system allows it. Thats what I was saying, so I think the point that are rights are determined by the rights we choose as a group is true. -Daniel
[2016-06-23 10:11:18] - sorry. 38. the rules on amending the constitution are actually kinda complicated. ~a
[2016-06-23 10:09:27] - doh. ~a
[2016-06-23 10:09:24] - daniel: yeah, i said to discount that. because, come on, you don't see 34 state legislatures actually amending the constitution regarding overriding the second amendment any time soon in this country, do you? ~a
[2016-06-23 10:06:51] - a: That said I certainly don't think that will happen at all. I don't expect the 2nd amendment to go away any time soon. -Daniel
[2016-06-23 10:05:51] - a: But the system allows for the constitution to be amended. So if everyone in the US decided to get rid of guns tomorrow, we could start voting in people and make that happen. So yes all of our rights are subject to our political process which is in some way subject to popular vote. -Daniel
[2016-06-23 10:04:31] - Xpovos: All rights are suspect to the whims of politics. Congress could repeal amendments. I think currently our system defines the ability to own a gun as a right. I think I would be fine if it were a privilege. Thats probably a fair assessment. -Daniel
[2016-06-23 10:03:33] - daniel: it doesn't work exactly like that. you can have as many people as you want on your side, voting in congress to make laws, voting how you want, doing awesome stuff . . . these laws might be unconstitutional if they infringe on the bill of rights. (assuming we discount the unlikely situation where you amend the constitution) ~a
[2016-06-23 09:54:54] - It's not so much a fear that government can or will change/limit/restrict other rights in the future if this is permissible, but that it redefines the very notion of a right into something that is only a privilege. And then all privileges are suspect to the whims of politics. By nature, all rights are equally important. -- Xpovos
[2016-06-23 09:53:45] - Daniel: Well, what you're talking about is a difference between a Right and a Privilege, really. A right is something that cannot be limited like this without it causing serious issues. A privilege of course can. The fact that you feel gun rights are a "lesser" right indicates to me that you feel they are privileges not, in fact, rights. -- Xpovos
[2016-06-23 09:01:16] - Paul: The underlying principle of your argument seems to be that I should think if one of my rights is threatened all my rights are threatened? Like I should care about my gun rights because maybe the gov changes/limits/restricts some other right next? Is that accurate? -Daniel
[2016-06-23 08:55:24] - Paul: I don't think due process means innocent until proven guilty. Those seem like two separate ideas. I'm saying I think some rights are more important than others. I don't think gun rights are overly important so I care way less about those. I don't think that means I'm ok with all rights being treated that way. -Daniel
[2016-06-22 17:36:23] - Daniel: Not trying to put words in your mouth, but that's what it sounds like you are saying. You are fine with people having rights taken away arbitrarily (ie, being put on a secret list) unless and until they can prove their innocence (get off the list)? -Paul
[2016-06-22 17:35:13] - Daniel: Hmmm, then I'm still confused. I think we have a different definition of "due process". I believe in innocent until proven guilty, whereas you seem to be okay with a guilty until proven innocent model in this case? -Paul
[2016-06-22 16:00:46] - On a meta level, I think its funny that our discussion started out of the point that online political debates are often not fruitful and hard to do. HA. -Daniel
[2016-06-22 15:55:45] - a: And the whole one vs the other came up from a point Paul tried to make ealier. I would agree that in general its not ever a this or that thing. My larger point is that I don't overly care about my right to own a gun so I'm fine with Congress passing laws that limit that right. -Daniel
[2016-06-22 15:55:04] - a: Isn't that kind of how the system works though? If there are enough people like me, we vote, we get people in Congress they make laws. If there are more people like you then other people get voted in. My point is that for me, I'm fine voting for someone who had strict gun control laws because that right for me isn't that important. -Daniel
[2016-06-22 15:52:41] - daniel: i like that you only really care about one. that's allowed. but i don't think you (or others) should decide for me that i should only be allowed to have one. because, i think that's what you're suggesting? ~a
[2016-06-22 15:47:08] - a: I was setting up the choice to illustrate value. I'm not sure deciding one is more important is meaningless. I think that the way people act and vote would reflect which they thought was more important thus which one is more important is not meaningless. Its cool if you want both. I only really care about one. -Daniel
[2016-06-22 15:42:37] - daniel: let me be more specific. i disagree with your premise. it's a false dichotomy: i wouldn't choose one of those two rights to keep, i'll keep both. deciding which is "more important" is meaningless. they're incomparable, i want both, and i see both as important. ~a
[2016-06-22 15:41:52] - Paul: I think I'd support a law that said only shotguns and bolt action rifles were legal in the US. Anything else is out. I'd probably be fine with that. So really up until somewhere near that point more restrictive gun laws aren't going to bother me. -Daniel
[2016-06-22 15:40:01] - Paul: I don't know that such a bill would stop mass shootings. I don't know that I need that hurdle to be cleared for me to support more restrictive gun laws. I think my bar on that front would be pretty low. -Daniel
[2016-06-22 15:39:13] - Paul: I'm fine with such a bill. I think a bill that did the same with voting would be worse. I think both still have due process. Maybe you are dissatisfied with the due process of getting off the watch list but maybe thats what needs to be addressed not the concept? -Daniel
[2016-06-22 15:30:07] - Daniel: Okay, so you don't support the bills to prohibit firearm sales to people on terror watch lists (or however it's phrased)? I guess I assumed incorrectly based on your response. -Paul
[2016-06-22 15:28:18] - Paul: I'm confused I think as to what exactly we each think the other is asserting. You were perturbed by the idea of tying the no fly list to the ability to buy guns and compared that to the right to vote. I think losing your right to vote is worse. I support due process in both cases though? -Daniel
[2016-06-22 15:21:15] - Daniel: I guess we have different definitions of due process? I am not considering congress passing a law saying that the government can arbitrarily decide who can and cannot have a gun to be "due process". I'm talking about judges and "reasonable doubt" and all that jazz. -Paul
[2016-06-22 15:20:32] - the punctuation in that sentence didn't make any sense... I think its supposed to be a comma instead of a period. I don't get a gun, I'm not upset. -Daniel
[2016-06-22 15:20:02] - Daniel: Also, as weird as this might sound, I think I value somebody else's right to a gun more than I value my own right to vote. Even though I vote fairly often, I realize my vote is essentially meaningless, whereas a gun could be a matter of life or death to many people. -Paul
[2016-06-22 15:19:39] - Paul: Sure I can support due process, but if the due process of Congress determines I don't get a gun. I'm not upset. -Daniel
[2016-06-22 15:18:59] - a: If I had to choose I would definitely choose the right to vote over the right to have a gun. -Daniel
[2016-06-22 15:18:46] - Daniel: Not sure I understand what you mean by rights we have and rights we don't. I understand you not caring about your right to a gun, but do you understand why I support due process even for rights I don't care as much about? -Paul
[2016-06-22 15:18:12] - a: Really? I think I could defend it. How is the right to a gun equal to the right to vote? I mean we don't have rights to own lots of objects. Why is a right to own a specific object more important the right to vote and have a voice in the political system? -Daniel
[2016-06-22 15:12:15] - Paul: I mean there are already rights we have and rights we don't. I'm not going to be upset if my right to guns gets lost. -Daniel
[2016-06-22 15:11:09] - daniel: "the concept of taking away someone's right to vote is way worse than taking away their right to a gun" i don't give a shit about guns, and i'm pretty liberal, and even i don't agree with this one. ~a
[2016-06-22 15:01:10] - Daniel: Right, and I totally get that, but I still don't think that's a good excuse. First they came for the guns... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_... -Paul
[2016-06-22 14:39:08] - Paul: I don't know if its the same for everyone else but for me the concept of taking away someone's right to vote is way worse than taking away their right to a gun. I realize 2nd amendment and all that but eh its less important to me. -Daniel
[2016-06-22 14:30:09] - Imagine the outrage if Republicans floated bills to take away voting rights of Muslims who are on secret lists that it's nearly impossible to get off of. Yet, because we're talking about those damned guns, we're perfectly fine with taking away a person's right with no due process. -Paul
[2016-06-22 14:26:54] - This is a part of why I'm annoyed about people getting all emotional when it comes to guns. I would normally hope that civil liberties minded Democrats would be against getting rid of due process for people in place of secret lists (especially ones likely to target people based on ethnicity or religion). -Paul
[2016-06-22 13:25:31] - mig: Yeah just as a different idea, it would be an interesting though experiment if all gun sales required a judge's approval. -Daniel
[2016-06-22 13:11:25] - not all, just sales involving those on the "bad person list". - mig
[2016-06-22 13:08:49] - mig: If all gun sales required a judge's approval. Now that would be interesting. -Daniel
[2016-06-22 13:01:31] - This highlights another annoyance of mine, given the continuing narrative that all republicans are beholden uncompromising slaves doing the evil NRA's bidding. It appears here that the GOP did in fact offer a legislative compromise, and Dems decided to piss all over it because it wasn't their "perfect" solution. - mig
[2016-06-22 13:01:23] - mig: It certainly seems impractical. -Daniel
[2016-06-22 12:59:41] - http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/senate-gun-votes-224560 "The Republican proposal, which was written by Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas, would halt a sale only if a judge found probable cause that the person trying to buy the gun is involved in terrorist activities. Democrats say that burden of proof is too high." - mig
[2016-06-22 11:58:18] - Daniel: Oh, I definitely think there is an element of that when it comes to media coverage. Same reason why the pretty white girl that goes missing becomes a national obsession but not the dozens of minorities that go missing in between. -Paul
[2016-06-22 11:53:24] - Paul: To throw out a potentially offensive thought. Its quite possible that the mass shootings are a bigger political issue than most handgun murders because handgun murders happen to "them" and mass shootings might happen to "us". Though again I would agree from a utilitarian number perspective mass shootings aren't high on the list of problems for the US. -Danie
[2016-06-22 11:49:18] - So if you're really serious about meaningfully impacting gun deaths, you either have to address the suicide problem OR the inner-city handgun violence. Trying to fix gun violence by focusing on these mass-shooters is ignoring the larger problem. -Paul
[2016-06-22 11:48:06] - I wish I could find the article, but there was a good one (but very long) that discussed ways to try to reduce gun violence that might actually work. It started off by explaining how the majority of gun deaths are suicides, but if you exclude those, then you realize the majority of gun homicides are disproportionately coming from urban minorities using handguns. -Paul
[2016-06-22 11:42:51] - http://reason.com/blog/2015/12/07/obama-wants-to-ban-assault-weapons-but-d Here's a good article, with this quote, "AR-15-style rifles like those used in San Bernardino fire "low-caliber rounds that are less deadly than those used in many handguns"". -Paul
prev <-> next