prev <-> next
[2004-02-24 13:16:00] - Paul: yeah, i figured you were just doing something like that, i just wanted to make sure you weren't backtracking on your "As for child abuse, I am against it" statement - travis
[2004-02-24 13:15:00] - Xpovos: Honestly, I don't know either. Everybody seems to be entirely too thin-skinned if I seem to offend them so much. If they want to really be offended, go out there and read ANY kind of political commentary on the net. -Paul
[2004-02-24 13:14:00] - Xpovos: you need to initiate more instead of following in the wake of paul's debates
- travis[2004-02-24 13:11:00] - Paul: what I don't get is how people think you're more inflammitory than I am. -- Xpovos
[2004-02-24 13:09:00] - It's also a slight nod of the head to Pierce, in an attempt to be less inflammatory with my wildly radical opinions.
-Paul[2004-02-24 13:08:00] - Travis: It's like Jews might have been considered property in Nazi Germany but they never would be considered that today because the society is different. -Paul
[2004-02-24 13:08:00] - Travis: In general I try to keep any answers about moral rightness as relative as possible because I don't believe there is an absolute good and evil. -Paul
[2004-02-24 13:07:00] - Yeah, something like that. Have we ever figured out which came first, C o E style, Marriage as a slippery slope to polygamy, animalism, incest? -- Xpovos
[2004-02-24 13:05:00] - Xpovos: simpler than what question? whether or not pets are property?
- travis[2004-02-24 13:04:00] - Paul: "since child abuse tends to not be acceptable in today's society, we call them responsibilities instead of property" just sounds like you aren't really against child abuse, just that's more politically correct to do so - travis
[2004-02-24 13:03:00] - Hmm, I think gay marriage is a simpler question. -- Xpovos
[2004-02-24 13:02:00] - and yes, i was basically saying that if children are considered property, then beating them would be no worse (legally, at least) than harming other pieces of property, but that dog=property bit throws some gray area into the mix - travis
[2004-02-24 13:00:00] - Geez, I'm having signature troubles today -- Xpovos
[2004-02-24 12:59:00] - Paul's answer makes more sense.
AFAIK pets are property.[2004-02-24 12:59:00] - paul: babies might taste great but they're awfully high in fat - travis
[2004-02-24 12:58:00] - are pets considered property? (i'm honestly asking, i have no idea what the legal answer is) "the wrath of art-lovers" is much different than the wrath of the legal system - travis
[2004-02-24 12:57:00] - Xpovos: I think he's saying that if children were property, then child abuse would be acceptable. But since child abuse tends to not be acceptable in today's society, we call them responsibilities instead of property. -Paul
[2004-02-24 12:54:00] - Travis: How can there be a lack of child abuse if children are property? I can abuse my property and it can still be wrong. If I mis-treat my dog then I will certainly be accused of wrong doing, and even sentenced with fines or jail time. Or how about an antique that I deliberately destroy, at the very least I risk the wrath of art-lovers. -- Xpo
[2004-02-24 12:53:00] - eliminate all age restrictions (replace with a written test? or suffer the insanity of 2-year olds voting?) or replace them with non-arbitrary age restrictions (you have to be a high school graduate.) Either way makes more sense. -- Xpovos
[2004-02-24 12:52:00] - Travis: You're right. Which is why the service option is so much more appealing, but restricted, because you have to be of an age to actually serve in order to get that benefit. What good can a 12-year old do for his country? He hasn't even finished Algebra yet. So since we want to eliminate arbitrary age limitations, the two options are to ...
[2004-02-24 12:49:00] - Travis: I suppose you're right. As for child abuse, I am against it. Although I'm all for eating babies. -Paul
[2004-02-24 12:48:00] - Xpovos: "a written test for 'citizenship'" doesn't everyone already disdain standardized tests? and no matter who you got to create the test, some group would claim they skewed the test against them - travis
[2004-02-24 12:45:00] - paul: if children were property, there'd no such thing as child abuse, but i suppose now you'll argue there's nothing wrong it that either - travis
[2004-02-24 12:39:00] - a: Property/responsibility. What's the difference? -Paul
[2004-02-24 12:38:00] - I havn't touched on the gay marriage issue, and don't intend to, but it's fun to see religion and government actually duke it out for a change. Gives hope to the "seperation of church and state" we're supposed to have. In general, I agree with Paul, though, which makes sense. -- Xpovos
[2004-02-24 12:34:00] - a: The wonderful world of law and families. No? -- Xpovos
[2004-02-24 12:32:00] - aaron: s/property/the responsibility/ children are not usualy considered property.
~a[2004-02-24 12:31:00] - then you get a lot of people (justifiably?) upset that suffrage isn't uiversal, after all the strife their ancestors went through to get said suffrage, etc. It's a messy situation. I just feel it provides a better/stabler system than the current one, and it eliminates the arbitray age deliniations. -- Xpovos
[2004-02-24 12:30:00] - Travis: Re: Starship Troopers. No, you didn't have to serve in the military, you just had to serve. It did require that you be at least 18 so as to enter into the legal contract, but that part could, in theory, be waived, as it is in our society. A better example might be a written test for 'citizenship' which could be taken at any age. But ....
[2004-02-24 12:30:00] - Aaron: But yes, it does seem to be better that a child be given to a loving guardian than to be handed over to the state. -Paul
[2004-02-24 12:29:00] - Aaron: Well, I'm not generally for the state giving "incentives" to do anything. Too much social engineering for my liking. -Paul
[2004-02-24 12:15:00] - Surely that's in the best interest of the state as well - aaron
[2004-02-24 12:14:00] - paul: What about giving homosexuals incentive to adopt? With the current system, if one of the gay parents dies, the child will become property of the state - aaron
[2004-02-24 11:37:00] - I think the results that they are talking about is the fact that their money is being used to create this kind of programming and they don't like it. -Paul
[2004-02-24 11:34:00] - Travis: Regarding women and technology - There were (I think ) four things about that article that I found interesting/amusing. You found one, now let's see if you can find the rest.
-Paul[2004-02-24 11:31:00] - Travis: I can't imagine why those two girls would want to give oral sex to those guys. Can they already tell that those guys were destined for riches or something? -Paul
[2004-02-24 11:15:00] - http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?S=1653703 "You can also change the channel or file a lawsuit. But you may not get results." changing the channel won't get me the result of not watching the program that offends me? curse that satan! - travis
[2004-02-24 11:12:00] - so the women want to be respected in the realm of technology, but they still want products named in a certain way to connote fluidity or whatever? how exactly are companies not thinking about women (which implies thinking more about men) when creating products? (i can understand in marketing, but a TV's a TV) - travis
[2004-02-24 10:57:00] - http://www.wpmi.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=1B965B36-59D7-41D5-843A-2464E2E93F30 so, they wanna kick the kids out of school, leaving the girls no skills but oral sex to earn a living with and the guys with their pimp skills - travis
[2004-02-24 10:56:00] - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3966261/ For my own safety, I'll refrain from making any comments about this article. -paul
[2004-02-24 10:56:00] - HAHAHA, what a deliciously biased article. I'm willing to bet that in 20 years we'll all be sitting around wondering what the fuss was all about. -Paul
[2004-02-24 10:54:00] - I would respond by saying that until recently, any definition of marriage referred to different genders as well. -Paul
[2004-02-24 10:54:00] - http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html but none of it matters because we're all gonne die
- travis[2004-02-24 10:53:00] - no, because any definition of marriage involves another person. is it possible for a person to rape him/herself? - travis
[2004-02-24 10:51:00] - Travis: Then I believe the question has to be asked, can a person marry themselves? -Paul
[2004-02-24 10:43:00] - as long as the marriage is mutual on both (or all in the case of polygamy) sides, i think it should be allowed (yes, that would allow incest but it would disallow people from marrying their dogs to gain tax breaks) - travis
[2004-02-24 10:31:00] - http://angrypeons.com/stories.php?story=04/02/12/8007535 I covered a lot of this in Miguel's journal. It basically comes down to the fact that I want everybody to get the tax breaks and financial benefits that the government arbitrarily (in my mind) gives out to married people so I would like to see it be all or nothing. -Paul
[2004-02-24 10:28:00] - I dunno, I haven't thought this through too much because you're kinda asking me to fit my beliefs into a system I greatly do not like. -Paul
[2004-02-24 10:27:00] - It would be like giving dogs the right to vote but no other animal. I say either let all animals vote (let anyone marry) or don't let them vote at all (don't let, well, anybody marry I guess
) -paul[2004-02-24 10:26:00] - If you allow homosexual marriage, but continue to disallow polygamy and in family marriage and the like, then I believe that you are turning homosexuals into a special exception more so than helping to bring about more equality. -paul
[2004-02-24 10:24:00] - So if you're going to allow any one group to marry, it might as well be them. -Paul
[2004-02-24 10:24:00] - There is an ever so slight reason for the government to favor heterosexual marriages over homosexual ones - they can provide the state with children to carry on in the future. -Paul
[2004-02-24 10:23:00] - Travis: Well, firstly I want to stress that this is not the ideal situation in my mind at all. Having said that, I approach the matter as one of equality (yes, equality). -Paul
[2004-02-24 10:20:00] - paul: so why should straight people afforded the luxury of their "different" marriage? from the eyes of a gay person or a polygamist, the heterosexual couple is abnormal - travis
[2004-02-24 10:18:00] - and that would seem to be the point adrian jumps in screaming about eugenics
- travis[2004-02-24 10:18:00] - concerning the marriage within family: the most interesting point that "fred on gay marriage" article made was how we don't stop people with recessive genes for diseases from marrying, which seems to be along the same line of reasoning why we disallow familial marriage - travis
[2004-02-24 10:11:00] - Travis: Ah, ok. I misunderstood. Assuming the system now, I think I would support legalizing gay marriage IF they also legalized the other forms of outlawed marriage as well (polygamy, marrying in family etc.) -Paul
[2004-02-24 10:07:00] - yeah - i mean i don't think marriage should be connected to gov't... but given that it is, and that's not going to change, I think the gov't needs to make it gender-blind - aaron
[2004-02-24 09:52:00] - paul: adrian meant you weren't supposed to think about any other options (i.e. removing marriage from gov't) or consequences (making other things legal), just whether gays should be allowed to marry in the current system with no other changes coming as a result - travis
[2004-02-24 09:43:00] - Xpovos: in starship troopers, don't you have to serve in the military to get the right to vote? and to serve in the military you had to graduate high school. seems like almost the same thing we have now, you're just adding another requirement on top of age - travis
[2004-02-24 09:23:00] - a: If you remove marriage as a government matter, then all it becomes is a religious ceremony and a title (along with whatever benefits businesses would attach to said title). If gays can find a religion to marry them, then I can't see any reason why I should particularly care. It's their religion and their lives. -Paul
[2004-02-24 09:12:00] - "I was just saying that IF gay marriage is allowed, then you WILL get people asking why THEIR abnormal definition of marriage is still illegal." let us concentrate on you and not other people. ok, assume that all else aside (making other things legal, or removing marriage as a gvt matter), do you think that gay marriage should be allowed? ~a
[2004-02-24 09:09:00] - Which involves deciding which of a number of partners gets to decide medical decisions (or if it's a vote or whatever). Legislating something kinda means you have to get involved in the sticky issues involved in it. -Paul
[2004-02-24 09:08:00] - Pierce: I don't tend to define marriage from a government perspective but if I were, then I would say that if the government wants to legislate marriage, then it has to accept some of the responsibility inherent to that. -Paul
[2004-02-24 09:05:00] - I mean, think about it, there are plenty of dangerous and stupid things in this country which we technically allow but we never really see happen. -Paul
[2004-02-24 09:03:00] - The key thing (in my mind) is not to make the mistake of associating allowing something with it necessarily happening. We can allow 2 year olds to drive, but I HIGHLY doubt we would ever see one exercising that particular "right". -Paul
[2004-02-24 09:01:00] - As for what I believe, I tend to think (and I admit that I haven't thought about this much so I reserve the right to change my mind) that there shouldn't be age limits on things like driving and drinking (not sure about voting). -Paul
[2004-02-24 09:00:00] - Travis: In respose to age limits - Yes, there are usually justifications for the ages but I believe that they are very flawed justifications that have little bearing on the real world. -Paul
[2004-02-24 08:57:00] - Which I don't think will stop the government at all, because they draw arbitrary lines all the time. I'm just saying that logically it wouldn't seem to make sense to me. -Paul
[2004-02-24 08:56:00] - And from there, I was saying that it seems like it would be difficult to rationalize legalizing gay marriage while still keeping other forms of "different" (since abnormal doesn't sound right) illegal. -paul
[2004-02-24 08:55:00] - I wasn't saying gay marriage is a bad thing or that it will definitely lead to man-sheep marriage. I was just saying that IF gay marriage is allowed, then you WILL get people asking why THEIR abnormal definition of marriage is still illegal. -Paul
[2004-02-24 08:53:00] - I didn't intend to make ANY judgements regarding whether or not age limits/sexual orientation limits or whatever were justified. I was only saying that IF you change one seemingly arbitrary line then you call into question all the other arbitrary lines. -Paul
[2004-02-24 08:52:00] - Travis: I would be happy to debate the merits of whatever age limits the government has established but I want to make sure that my original point was clear. -Paul
[2004-02-24 08:04:00] - capable, it's the responsibility of parents to make sure they don't drive. After that, it's the parents and their own. I figure that is pretty much the cut and dry libertarian view, though. -- Xpovos
[2004-02-24 08:03:00] - Travis: I'm not sure what the cut and dry position is on voting and driving age. My own opinion is that voting should be limited, but not in an arbitrary age-way. See Starship Troopers for more details on a potential non-arbitrary limitation. Not saying that's the one I want, just it is one. As for driving, until a person is physically ......
[2004-02-24 01:36:00] - a single "companion" who is able to take on those tasks on behalf of another. Polygamy would be ruled out for that scenario because it takes away the one advantage: simplifying those complicated legal issues. - pierce
[2004-02-24 01:33:00] - forgive me if I'm reiterating something, I came to this argument after it had already scrolled off the page. Paul: it depends on why you're defining "marriage" from a government perspective in the first place. With respect to medical decisions or inheritance priorities, it makes sense for any person to be able to define - pierce
[2004-02-23 23:13:00] - well, i'm guessing the libertarian view is there shouldn't be any age restrictions at all since that would infringe on people's right? so we should allow kids who can't even see above the dashboard to drive a car and who can't multiply two numbers to choose a president? - travis
[2004-02-23 21:11:00] - Travis: No, they're pretty arbitrary. 21 for drinking is less-so because it was forced upon the federal government by MADD who then enforced it on the states in the form of "Do it or we won't fund your roads". -- Xpovos
[2004-02-23 20:02:00] - any other lines (16 for driving, 21 for drinking) i have no idea where they came from, probably some sort of statistical study or something done ages ago that should really be redone to be valid today - travis
[2004-02-23 20:01:00] - i think the the age limit of 18 is the "arbitrary" line because that's when most people graduate high school and the government would like people that can vote to have at least that level of compentency (nevermind if school actually makes the people intelligent) - travis
[2004-02-23 17:27:00] - But in addition, I also think it's arbitrary that we restrict marriage to two people (I'll leave the sheep out for simplicity). -Paul
[2004-02-23 17:26:00] - Travis: No, it has less to do with the reasons than it has to do with the arbitrariness of where the lines are drawn. I think it's just as arbitrary that we draw the voting age at 18 (or whatever it is) as it is that currently only women and men can marry eachother. -paul
[2004-02-23 17:25:00] - time to break the mood with music: http://www.vektor7.com/audio/r&d/bent.mp3 - travis
[2004-02-23 17:23:00] - well, i would think the reason behind not letting 12 year olds vote is because they don't have the knowledge/experience to do so, so is the theory gay people don't have the same capability to marry as straight people? - travis
[2004-02-23 17:14:00] - Anyway, in order to avoid confusion, I don't want to seem like I am saying all this as some sort of point against gay marriage, I'm just defending those that say that allowing gay marriage would raise these sorts of questions. -Paul
[2004-02-23 17:12:00] - I think a better comparison would be why we don't allow, say, 12 year olds to vote. -Paul
[2004-02-23 17:10:00] - Travis: Ok, I thought that might be where he was going with that. My answer would be that we don't have anybody lobbying for sheep to vote AND because there are more reasons that can be given for why sheep shouldn't vote than why we can't marry sheep. -paul
[2004-02-23 17:02:00] - okay, i think adrian's point was that we changed the laws to let women vote (i.e. let gays marry) and it didn't lead to sheep being able to vote (i.e. letting people marry sheep) - travis
[2004-02-23 16:47:00] - a: Nono, you're supposed to ask why I don't think that mailboxes should be able to vote now.
-Paul[2004-02-23 16:40:00] - i give up
~a[2004-02-23 16:37:00] - a: I don't see why women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Why don't my previous statements make sense now? -Paul
[2004-02-23 16:36:00] - i want to know if you think women should be allowed to vote. if so, then your previous statements don't make much sense. ~a
[2004-02-23 16:19:00] - a: Uh, they tend to vote liberal more so then men? I don't know what you're looking for. -Paul
[2004-02-23 16:17:00] - oh, so what's your view on women voting then? ~a
[2004-02-23 16:13:00] - Hell, I think I was trying to draw comparisons between the two of them. -Paul
[2004-02-23 16:12:00] - a: I'm sorry, I must've been unclear somewhere. It's not different at all and I wasn't trying to say it is. -Paul
[2004-02-23 16:09:00] - ok, then explain to me how allowing gay marriage is any different than allowing women to vote. it's replacing one arbitrary line with a different arbitrary line. ~a
[2004-02-23 16:04:00] - a: I don't know if I get your point... I'm supposed to defend YOUR arbitrary line now? -Paul
[2004-02-23 16:03:00] - a: I know I'm using the same arguments... that was my point. I was defending it as a reasonable point to make. -Paul
[2004-02-23 16:02:00] - a: Why allowing polygamy is a logical extension of allowing gay marriage? Because if you're removing one condition of marriage (different genders) then there doesn't seem to be a reason why you shouldn't remove the others (two people, not related, only humans etc) -Paul
[2004-02-23 16:02:00] - if we're going to erase one arbitrary line (women voting) then you better be prepared to answer questions about why we can't erase another arbitrary line. ~a
[2004-02-23 15:59:00] - paul, you're using the same arguments that aaron was talking about. why can black people vote, why can women vote, why are black people considered more than three fifths of a person? if black people are considered more than 3/5ths of a person, then what's to stop my cat from being considered a person. ~a
[2004-02-23 15:57:00] - paul: i asked first. ~a
[2004-02-23 15:50:00] - Travis: Oh, I wasn't trying to dodge anything. I wasn't aware I was being asked that question. I guess the best answer to your question is that I don't think ANY kind of marriage should be illegal. -Paul
[2004-02-23 15:48:00] - If we're going to erase one arbitrary line (gay marriage) then you better be prepared to answer questions about why we can't erase another arbitrary line. -Paul
[2004-02-23 15:47:00] - that was a nice dodging of the question there, but you never gave any reasons why marriage should be legal but gay marriage illegal - travis
[2004-02-23 15:43:00] - Why can't 15 year olds drive? Why can't 20 year olds drink? Why can't I marry my sister? I'm not trying to pass morality here, just saying that, like it or not, these questions get asked. -Paul
[2004-02-23 15:42:00] - I agree that lines are always arbitrarily drawn in matters like voting and marriage and the like. All I'm saying is that every time you change where the line is drawn, there are going to be questions about why you drew it there. -Paul
[2004-02-23 15:41:00] - a: Perhaps you can explain to me the logic of allowing gay marriage but not polygamy then. -Paul
[2004-02-23 15:20:00] - like i could just as easily say, and even logically, i think you have to admit that it wouldn't make sense to make marriage legal but keep gay marriage illegal. ~a
[2004-02-23 15:17:00] - why wouldn't it make sense to make gay marriage legal but keep polygamy illegal? laws have set arbitrary lines (ex. people under the age of 18 can not vote) like that since the beginning of time. not everything (outside of libertarianism and authoritarianism) is so black and white. ~a
[2004-02-23 15:00:00] - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3209223.stm jesus struck by lightning - vinnie
[2004-02-23 13:34:00] - Travis: Maybe the word 'coordinated' narrows it down to recent events. Civil Disobedience as been around for awhile, but only recently has it really gone global I think. -Paul
[2004-02-23 13:32:00] - And even logically, I think you have to admit that it wouldn't make sense to make gay marriage legal but keep polygamy illegal. -Paul
[2004-02-23 13:30:00] - Aaron: It may not make any sense logically, but it makes sense legally. When the Supreme Court overturned the Texas sodomy law on the ground of the right to privacy, it opened the legal door up to a LOT of other activities. -Paul
[2004-02-23 13:15:00] - if you search for "coordinated civil disobedience" as a phrase, almost all the results are about the grey album or the war in iraq, so i guess it's a new concept? - travis
[2004-02-23 13:15:00] - tsk. If women are allowed to vote, then what's to stop sheep from voting? Why can't my 4-year old son vote? Or what's to stop my mailbox from voting? I'm so tired of listening to the "if gays can marry anybody can marry" line of reasoning in every anti-gay-marriage argument I hear. it doesn't make sense - aaron
[2004-02-23 13:14:00] - did anything ever come from this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3105444.stm (the beatles' record label, apple corps, sued apple over itunes) - travis
[2004-02-23 13:02:00] - Ah, coordinated civil disobedience. Has it ever accomplished anything worth mentioning? -Paul
[2004-02-23 12:56:00] - Now there's a publicity stunt to be proud of. -- Xpovos
[2004-02-23 12:47:00] - http://www.greytuesday.org/ "Tuesday, February 24 will be a day of coordinated civil disobedience: websites will post Danger Mouse's Grey Album on their site for 24 hours in protest of EMI's attempts to censor this work" - travis
[2004-02-23 12:46:00] - http://www.lynchwalker.com/images/EyeofGod.jpg (safe for work, it's just astronomy) - travis
[2004-02-23 12:34:00] - Travis: I heard about that Grey Album on CNN actually. Several weeks ago. No mention of any copyright issues at that time. Technically, he's screwed. Artisically, copyright to the extent we have now is a disaster. -- Xpovos
[2004-02-23 11:11:00] - http://fredoneverything.net/GayMarriage.shtml Fred on Gay Marriage. He does a good job of touching on most of the topics from a libertarian-leaning perspective. -Paul
[2004-02-23 10:59:00] - http://www.illegal-art.org/audio/grey.html vocals from jay-z's "black album" put over music made entirely from samples off the beatles' "white album" - travis
[2004-02-23 00:38:00] - No - BAAL is this really old game. I know it was on Amiga. It might have been on other systems too. I think it was a gradius clone. - aaron
[2004-02-22 23:12:00] - do you think the diskette labelled "BAAL" is the expansion pack to diablo II? (/nerd) - pierce
[2004-02-22 23:10:00] - ooh, ooh, and next week is #100, which may have a very funny anniversary celebration - pierce
[2004-02-22 23:09:00] - that's two very funny sbemails in a row. maybe the drought is over! (knock on wood) - pierce
[2004-02-22 23:08:00] - heheheh, that was really good. updated 2-22 too, though it says updated 2-23 (and it's still before midnight your time, so unless the brothers chaps are in jolly old greenwich mean time, it's incorrectly labelled) - pierce
[2004-02-22 22:56:00] - http://www.elftor.com/elftor.php?number=184 tee hee democrat primary elftor - aaron
[2004-02-22 22:55:00] - hee hee. the musical strongbad email is the funniest one I've seen in a while - aaron
[2004-02-22 11:06:00] - http://www.collegiatetimes.com/index.php?ID=3154 vt community gathers to support gay marriage
[2004-02-21 14:04:00] - well, a parser, for one. - pierce
[2004-02-21 12:15:00] - who needs context? ~a
[2004-02-21 00:54:00] - a: context? - pierce
[2004-02-20 17:19:00] - tokenizing and parsing must be very easy steps (time wise). my tokenizer/parser can tokenize/parse about 150 thousand lines of code per second. code generation must be the slow part. ~a
[2004-02-20 10:12:00] - http://www.theonion.com/news.php?i=1&n=0 osama bin laden found inside each of us - aaron
[2004-02-19 20:20:00] - That should have been an onion article, but it presents a paradox. The researcher they quoted was flat-chested, which implies that she was not intelligent enough for the study to be accurate, which means that she is intelligent enough, which implies... ow my head. - pierce
[2004-02-19 17:33:00] - Should'a been an Onion article, but isn't. http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/entnews/wwn/20031127/106994520005.html -- Xpovos
[2004-02-19 17:28:00] - i'm in training again, pierce, so no internet most of the day - vinnie
[2004-02-19 17:21:00] - Travis: Not sure if I can listen to any of those while at work...
-Paul[2004-02-19 17:09:00] - not all that good/amusing, but the talking intro and the "knock knock. who's there? cock!" repeated near the end are enough to kill a few minutes, http://www.pinksteel.org/wefight4cock_rough.mp3 - travis
[2004-02-19 17:01:00] - mp3s composed using gameboy sound effects, wouldn't be surprised if everyone else already found this, http://www.bitshifter.cc/audio.php - travis
[2004-02-19 16:58:00] - other than that, i'm avoiding as much as work as possible by reading and rereading documents and planning the hell out of my code before i actually do anything (also helps that i'm working on my company's main project, now, too, so i don't wanna mess any of it up) - travis
[2004-02-19 16:57:00] - well, i had one of my longest commutes today since i moved. stupid accidents slowing down traffic - travis
[2004-02-19 16:37:00] - I know what you mean, though, everything seems quieter, like the rest of the world is on some holiday that I don't know about. The metro wasn't as crowded this morning. Maybe it has something to do with the sunny and nice day outside? -Paul
[2004-02-19 16:36:00] - Pierce: I can't speak for others, but I've actually been fairly busy at work today (despite the amount of comments that I've posted today). -Paul
[2004-02-19 16:21:00] - was this ever posted here? http://adrugwarcarol.com - travis
[2004-02-19 15:31:00] - chirp chirp - cricket
[2004-02-19 15:19:00] - Why is it so quiet today? Almost no journal entries or comments, or message board posts. - pierce
[2004-02-18 17:40:00] - Tsk. Of course! I don't agree with high insurance prices I have to pay, but I still drive a car... because the alternative is just too inconvenient. It makes complete sense to condemn something you still use. It's not fallacious at all - aaron
[2004-02-18 15:54:00] - There are justifications (in my mind at least) for using things that you also condemn (me using the metro, for instance) but it does seem to open yourself up to a lot of criticism. -Paul
[2004-02-18 15:09:00] - i think the euphamism you're looking for is "biting the hand that feeds you" - aaron
[2004-02-18 13:51:00] - yeah, isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? i think it would only make sense if the guy behind it was a minority that wasn't receiving any scholarships. ~a
[2004-02-18 12:16:00] - http://edition.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/02/15/whites.only.ap/ New scholarship created for whites only. I find it amusing that the guy behind it is receiving his own minority scholarship...
-Paul[2004-02-18 09:36:00] - Xpovos: I know it's not either's birthday, but it's the day we celebrate it. -Paul
[2004-02-18 09:35:00] - http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994691 Fertile women rate other women as uglier. -Paul
[2004-02-18 00:00:00] - I think it's sometimes their birthday - depending on the year - aaron
[2004-02-17 23:11:00] - Paul: It's not Abe's b-day. It's not Washington's either. So they just chose a Monday inbetween so people could have a 3-day weekend while nominally paying lip-service to two Presidents. -- Xpovos
[2004-02-17 17:56:00] - That's because as a university from a southern state, Virginia Tech doesn't celebrate the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.
-Paul[2004-02-17 17:07:00] - i didn't even know there was a holiday
-kris[2004-02-16 23:20:00] - or had to, since it already happened - vinnie
[2004-02-16 23:20:00] - i'm in the same position as aaron. i have to defer it because of training this week - vinnie
[2004-02-16 20:11:00] - http://www.silicon.com/hardware/desktops/0,39024645,39118341,00.htm So easy, even a woman can use it. -Paul
[2004-02-16 17:54:00] - http://www.fanta.dk/default.htm -- Xpovos
[2004-02-16 15:54:00] - Yeah, I'm at work too. It's interesting how inconsistent national holiday recognition is... - pierce
[2004-02-16 15:45:00] - i don't - aparna
[2004-02-16 15:13:00] - But at least i have an extra holiday to use later on in the year - aaron
[2004-02-16 15:13:00] - I have it off, but I have to defer the holiday to get work done - aaron
[2004-02-16 14:18:00] - i do - mig
[2004-02-16 13:12:00] - Do other people have off today? (monday) - pierce
[2004-02-16 10:09:00] - That article was horrible, miguel. "West Virginia will have 3x as many theatres showing it as Rhode Island" Amazing deduction! West Virginia is more than 3 times the size of Rhode Island. I also loved the implied inference that all Jews are wealthy liberals. -- Xpovos
[2004-02-13 14:29:00] - http://sports.espn.go.com/rpm/news/story?id=1733619 Doesn't he realize that by saying someting about embracing diversity, he IS embracing politics? -Paul
[2004-02-13 12:23:00] - Mig: I think that's a perfect example of bias in the media. There isn't anything really wrong with how it's written, but it definitely has a bias to it. -Paul
[2004-02-13 12:15:00] - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111307,00.html note the tone of the fox writer in this article. mel gibson wanting to show his movie only where people are likely to want to see it. how shocking! - mig
[2004-02-13 10:36:00] - I completely forgot it had to be a sitcom character, thought of it as tv. it still got me for Jack though - vinnie
[2004-02-13 10:05:00] - Do sitcoms have to be funny? Hmmm.... I guess they do. - aaron
[2004-02-13 09:32:00] - aaron: Buffy, yes... 24 and ER, no. Maybe not in later seasons, but Buffy had many episodes where the primary point was humor, not action or drama. ER rarely (if ever) does that, and I can't think of the last "funny" think I saw in 24. - pierce
[2004-02-13 08:53:00] - Anybody have any suggestions on good websites to visit for mainstream news and to find out how the stock market is doing? I used to use washingtonpost.com for that but I'm looking for something new now. -Paul
[2004-02-13 00:05:00] - Sorry. I'm bad - aaron
[2004-02-12 22:31:00] - aaron and vinnie: check your VT email please - travis
[2004-02-12 21:33:00] - http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/news/20040211p2a00m0dm010000c.html Cross Japan off the list of places to visit...
-Paul[2004-02-12 17:33:00] - And I think 24 is just as much a sitcom as like... buffy or ER... it's all fuzzy to me - aaron
[2004-02-12 17:32:00] - If you don't know the gender of Snowball II, then which question does it ask you next? i mean.... some people might know things other people don't know - aaron
[2004-02-12 17:32:00] - Well "i don't know" complexifies things, because it doesn't narrow anything down - aaron
[2004-02-12 17:23:00] - How does Jack Bauer fit in? 24 isn't a sitcom, nor is that character a dictator. - pierce
[2004-02-12 17:14:00] - if it is, more options = less questions - vinnie
[2004-02-12 17:13:00] - I actually like the idea of "I don't know" as an option. does it complexify anything? I guess it depends on how it's set up, but I think this is your standard addventure type thing - vinnie
[2004-02-12 17:11:00] - i still like the site though - vinnie
[2004-02-12 17:09:00] - oops, "worst" = "longest" - vinnie
[2004-02-12 17:08:00] - yeah, people aren't very good at coming up with questions. I laughed when I saw "is this the worst day of your life?" (Jack Bauer's opening line on every episode of 24 season 1) - vinnie
[2004-02-12 17:08:00] - Aaron: I think the instructions say to answer "no" if you don't know the answer. -Paul
[2004-02-12 17:03:00] - Did Betty Rubble live in the mid-west? Uhhhh.... I don't know. Maybe. There should be an "unsure" answer, although that would complexify the algorithm immensely i'm sure - aaron
[2004-02-12 17:02:00] - It also has problems with questions that don't apply to certain sitcoms. "do you live in the mid-west" for instance - aaron
[2004-02-12 16:13:00] - Aaron: I wouldn't give up so "soon". If you answer no to most of the questions, it has no choice but to eventually start getting into some of the more specific ones in order to get information from you. I think it took close to 40 questions for it to catch that I was Darlene from Roseanne. -Paul
[2004-02-12 15:39:00] - "do you drive a taxi?" "are you in love with a vampire?" etc.... - aaron
[2004-02-12 15:37:00] - Hmmm maybe i gave up too soon then. After 20-30 questions it usually gets too specific and i stop playing - aaron
[2004-02-12 15:35:00] - it got me for "the great gazoo", unless you were the one just added it - vinnie
[2004-02-12 14:36:00] - It should have a reverse-guesser, where you put in a sitcom character or dictator and it shows you what questions it might ask to get to that point, and the answers to those questions. - pierce
[2004-02-12 14:33:00] - I don't know about you all, but I think it's a disgrace that we still can't have oral and anal sex in public.
-Paul[2004-02-12 14:27:00] - I stumped it on "Gazoo" but in its defense, I may have answered some of the questions wrong. Is gazoo gay? - aaron
[2004-02-12 14:07:00] - ha, that dictator/sitcom is great. it got me 5/6 and I didn't know a few of the answers - vinnie - vinnie
[2004-02-12 11:52:00] - http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/news/story162524.html does this mean we'd be able to have oral sex? woo
-kris[2004-02-12 10:34:00] - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=572&ncid=572&e=3&u=/nm/20040211/lf_nm/bangladesh_grameen_dc_1 this seems to work a lot better than welfare. - mig
[2004-02-12 01:20:00] - http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/ae/movies/jump/2377429 making theme parks in Iraq.... -kris
[2004-02-11 20:03:00] - Well okay sometimes.... it does a really bad job for some characters - aaron
[2004-02-11 19:58:00] - The funny thing is, I don't think I could guess a random sitcom character in as many questions as this game takes - aaron
[2004-02-11 19:56:00] - Do you have a human form? Do you have a message receiver in your head? Do you wear suspenders? - aaron
[2004-02-11 17:14:00] - http://www.smalltime.com/dictator.html This is awesome fun. -Paul
[2004-02-11 15:44:00] - http://www.theonion.com/4006/top_story.html Saddam Hussein Rules Over Cell with Iron Fist - aaron
[2004-02-11 15:42:00] - yeah, it depends what you read - vinnie
[2004-02-11 13:40:00] - Travis: Looks like you're right. Seems like only a little over half of them require registration right now. I imagine it's their attempt to make the conversion gradual. -Paul
[2004-02-11 13:20:00] - hmmm, take off the ")" in that url and it should work - travis
[2004-02-11 13:20:00] - you sure? i just read the "Bush Plans To Back Marriage Amendment" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30326-2004Feb10.html) article without registering - travis
[2004-02-11 10:00:00] - booooo - aaron
[2004-02-11 09:41:00] - washingtonpost.com sucks now. It looks like they are requiring registration.
-paul[2004-02-10 09:46:00] - i rub you
[2004-02-09 12:40:00] - Ok, so long as we're all in the same boat. -- Xpovos
[2004-02-09 01:46:00] - oh.. i'm guessing they are people who read his LJ. (ha!) i don't know him.. i just like his comics. -kris
[2004-02-08 15:05:00] - kris: I think he means the people who replied to the LJ comment. - aaron
[2004-02-08 14:08:00] - Xpovos: any of which people? -kris
[2004-02-07 22:06:00] - The cartoon is funny, but who are any of those people? -- Xpovos
[2004-02-07 16:32:00] - http://www.livejournal.com/users/rain_luong/35838.html -kris
[2004-02-07 14:50:00] - aaron: not when i click on it. ~a
[2004-02-07 14:11:00] - Well the first two are microsoft saying, "remove linux and install windows" and the third is some other site, "remove windows install linux" so... it's even-handed - aaron
[2004-02-07 13:32:00] -
~a[2004-02-07 13:27:00] - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=delete+partition+install+windows ... This search made me laugh a little. - aaron
[2004-02-06 12:44:00] - yes. i understand that it overcomes the public's ability to express its outrage, but how does it overcome the public's opposition? man, the government sucks. ~a
[2004-02-06 12:15:00] - People won't be able to boycott airlines which leak their information, unless they avoid flying altogether - aaron
[2004-02-06 10:45:00] - "To overcome public opposition to providing such data to the government, the TSA has indicated it will order all airlines to uniformly turn over the requested information." how will this overcome public opposition to providing the data to the government? ~a
[2004-02-06 10:02:00] - it does seem pretty impossible to make money on music right now though. I thought I read somewhere that even itunes is losing money - vinnie
[2004-02-06 10:01:00] - i really don't feel sorry for tower. their business model sucked. they weren't priced low enough to compete with best buy et al, and they stubbornly stuck with their high prices even though they could have concentrated on more profitable markets like dvd - vinnie
[2004-02-06 09:24:00] - That doesn't really make sense to me. Did the 911 terrorists have a history of criminal violence? This doesn't sound like it will work - aaron
[2004-02-05 22:56:00] - http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/air-j21.shtml All US airline passengers to undergo government background checks -kris
[2004-02-05 19:53:00] - I feel sorry for tower. It seems so impossible right now to make money selling music - aaron
[2004-02-05 19:53:00] - It's not like you see fruit stands opening up and selling fruit for $0.30, then filing for bankruptness two months later - aaron
[2004-02-05 19:52:00] - I just don't understand why music vendors are so aggressively competitive compared to other markets - aaron
[2004-02-05 17:29:00] - Vinnie: Witches explain what all those homely single women do in their spare time. Can you explain that?
-Paul[2004-02-05 17:26:00] - for me, most people's belief in god is only rational because so many people share that belief and more importantly, because it attempts to explain what we still don't know, i.e. our creation. witches don't fall into either of those categories - vinnie
[2004-02-05 17:22:00] - yeah, tower blew. their discounts were good, but very few and far between - vinnie
[2004-02-05 17:20:00] - Which seems to indicate that freethinkers think that a belief in God is irrational. -Paul
[2004-02-05 17:19:00] - And contrary to what the website claims, I most certainly got a atheist feeling from the freethinkers meetings I attended. -Paul
[2004-02-05 17:19:00] - From the Freethinkers at Virginia Tech website -Paul
[2004-02-05 17:18:00] - "A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief." -Paul
[2004-02-05 17:04:00] - paul: no. ~a
[2004-02-05 16:58:00] - a: Because isn't the very basis of the freethinkers that a belief in god is equivalent to believing in witches and demons? -Paul
[2004-02-05 16:12:00] - aaron: quick! this seems to have become the bizarro-adrian messageboard, post your comment about god vs. witches and demons now! - pierce
[2004-02-05 16:05:00] - paul: i think it is very rational. ~a
prev <-> next