prev <-> next
[2004-05-06 17:45:00] - Dave: Based on what? -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:45:00] - Marriage is basically playing roulette with your finances. You have a 50% chance of having your financial life screwed over, not to mention your socal, emotional, etc. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:44:00] - me too -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:44:00] - paul: she has the reason that she is much more likely to get the old guy to stick with her than the new guy -dave
[2004-05-06 17:43:00] - paul: hmm, interesting statistic. all the divorces that I know of are of the guy leaving the girl -dave
[2004-05-06 17:43:00] - Dave: True, but that doesn't change the fact that if a stronger man comes around and falls in love with her, she has no reason to stick with the other guy. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:43:00] - Paul: ok, I'm reading right now -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:42:00] - Mel: Oh, just read the article instead of having me post everything.
-Paul[2004-05-06 17:42:00] - "Take a hypothetical husband who marries and has two children. There is a 50 percent likelihood that this marriage will end in divorce within eight years, and if it does, the odds are 2-1 it will be the wife who initiates the divorce. It may not matter that the man was a decent husband." -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:41:00] - Dave: I don't think so either. I don't think most people think so deeply about the true ramifications of marriage. That's why there is such a high divorce rate. -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:41:00] - paul: she has the reason that she has the best chance of getting a single man to stay with her, rather than always having some random guy around. the random guy does not have half the incentive to protect/nurture -dave
[2004-05-06 17:41:00] - Mel: Because it is much more beneficial to live together without being married. Marriage is a potentially life destroying thing for a man if he gets divorced. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:40:00] - Dave: That's not as efficient as making sure they survive though (IMHO). -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:40:00] - mel: I don't think they dont' get married because they think marriage is a mistake. Yay for double negatives! -dave
[2004-05-06 17:39:00] - Mel: http://www.mattweeks.com/strike.htm -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:39:00] - Travis: I'm not talking about the actual sex as much as who sticks around. She has no reason to be attached to any single man. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:39:00] - Paul: why do you think marriage is a huge mistake anyway? -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:39:00] - paul: but he could also just have tons and tons of children and some of them are going to survive -dave
[2004-05-06 17:38:00] - paul: marriage is a huge mistake eh? ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-06 17:38:00] - Dave: Assuming the male wants his genes passed on, then he wants the child to survive and the woman is needed to give birth to the child and then to nourish and take care of it. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:38:00] - Paul: I know you think marriage is a huge mistake, but do you think people with longtime gf's don't get married because they think that too? -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:37:00] - Paul: your theory totally discounts the fact that a woman would want her offspring to have good genes and thus she'd want to find one guy and have as many kids with him as possible - travis
[2004-05-06 17:37:00] - -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:37:00] - Mel: That's exactly my point, men evolved to love a single woman while I think women evolved to love, well, whatever man is around maybe (and that's being generous)?
[2004-05-06 17:37:00] - paul: why's it in the male's best interest to proect the women and his child? -dave
[2004-05-06 17:37:00] - Dave: I don't think I would be surprised, but I think that has more to do with the fact that marriage is a huge mistake more than anything else. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:37:00] - Paul: ok actually I see your point. -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:36:00] - Paul: Well attract a man and keep him around. -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:36:00] - In other words. Men have incentive to stick to a specific woman, women only have incentive to attract ANY man. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:36:00] - Paul: Maybe love is just totally different to men and women. -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:36:00] - paul: you'd be surprised at the huge number of guys who have longtime gf's but won't get married to them -dave
[2004-05-06 17:35:00] - Mel: Women just need ANY man to protect them, not necessarily the father of her child. So all she needs to develop is a means to attract men (flirting). -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:35:00] - Mel: It's in the male's best interest to protect the woman bearing his child and protect the child, though. So there needs to be some reason for him to stick with a woman he impregnates (love). -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:35:00] - travis: I think it would be slightly worse if the friend took the "other" away. but both are pretty bad. -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:35:00] - travis: in general I would say yes. they're just irrationally pissed, so they're not exactly trying to reason through everything -dave
[2004-05-06 17:34:00] - dave: but is it better one way or the other? would the person be as equally mad at the friend either way? - travis
[2004-05-06 17:34:00] - Travis: It didn't, I messed up. Sorry.
-Paul[2004-05-06 17:34:00] - Paul: but on the other hand, it is the male's interest to have as many mates as possible to ensure that he generates offspring. Whereas women need and seek the stability of a single mate to protect them. -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:34:00] - Dave: Very true, but I think if a man spends a certain amount of time with a single female, then he has begun moving from the lifestyle of being a player to being a responsible husband. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:33:00] - Paul: what did you lifespan comment have to do with any of my comments? - travis
[2004-05-06 17:33:00] - travis: I don't think the person who got left would care whether his "other" left him for the friend, or the friend took the "other" away. Pissed-left-person results in both cases ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-06 17:33:00] - Travis: Oh, oh. You're talking about the scenario. I got you now. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:32:00] - dave: yes. that's true. We can't necessarily extrapolate from wife to gf. -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:32:00] - I had a whole theory about how it works out evolutionarily that women don't really need to have developed a 'falling in love' emotion to surivive and breed, but that they only needed to attract men to them, whereas men needed to fall in love with one female in order to help carry on his genes. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:32:00] - paul: like the guy who marries his gf is a much smaller subset of all guys who have gf's -dave
[2004-05-06 17:32:00] - and even if the ex starts going out with the friend soon, why is it assumed that the friend caused the breakup instead of the ex getting out of the relationship to test the waters with the friend? - travis
[2004-05-06 17:31:00] - Paul: I wonder what the statistics are on remarriage (men vs women). I'll have to check and post a link because I'm inetrested to see what the data shows. -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:31:00] - paul: I think the catch is that there is usually a large difference in the relationship a guy has with his gf and the relationship a guy has with his wife -dave
[2004-05-06 17:31:00] - Travis: I think I lost what you were talking about. Can you say again? -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:30:00] - Dave: Yeah I think that might be true too. -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:30:00] - mel: Haha, yeah. I think it would again depend on how cute the guy/girl was as to whether they could get someone to share the banana with them -dave
[2004-05-06 17:30:00] - And the reasoning was because men just are so emotionally devastated by losing their mate that it affects them more. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:29:00] - Travis: I think you answered your own statement.
I remember reading somewhere that divorced and widowed men have shorter lifespans than divorced and widowed women even accounting for the normal difference in lifespans. -Paul[2004-05-06 17:29:00] - paul: you know, you're very right. I think there is some statistic that women get over divorce much easier than men do. Because women have many social relationship to take up the slack. Men in general don't -dave
[2004-05-06 17:29:00] - and i know there's the chance of suspicion that the break-up was caused by the third party, but my assumption in saying it's more okay if the couple is broken up was that there wasn't anything like that - travis
[2004-05-06 17:28:00] - travis: haha, the reverse eh? Must be because the guy likes it ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-06 17:28:00] - Dave: The year I was initiated there was a different variant where we all had fruit (like apples and bananas) and we had to convince strangers to share our fruit with us. Try to get a stranger to share a banana with you. It's pretty hard. they always think there is some sort of catch. That there's something wrong with the banana.
-Mel[2004-05-06 17:28:00] - Mel: I think it's often the girl that is doing the pressuring to get married, but it's also the girl that most often initiates divorce. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:27:00] - Mel: My theory is that women get more superficially emotionally attached to things (and more things than men do) but men get more deeply emotionally connected to things because they don't get emotionally connected to as many things. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:27:00] - mel: I think you're right - I think Paul is a little off in la-la land ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-06 17:26:00] - Paul: but you also have women who stay with a guy that beats her (yes yes, the reverse is true) - travis
[2004-05-06 17:26:00] - Paul: yes, owmen had somewhat of an advantage so I think we had a weighting system based on gender. -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:26:00] - mel: haha, that's so funny. Did you have to do anything like that? -dave
[2004-05-06 17:25:00] - Paul: interesting. But I thought women were supposed to be more emotionally attached. And there is the stereotype that all they are looking for is a guy to marry. In real life, do you think the guy or the girl is most often the one who is pressuring their partner to "take the next step" and get married? -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:25:00] - Dave: I'm going mostly from personal experience and observations, true, but I think there is reason to think it applies to the population as a whole as well. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:24:00] - Mel: Wouldn't the women have some enormous advantage there? -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:24:00] - mel: I don't think that the guy normally would care more about the significant other, but in our particular group, I would say that it holds, and I think that is where Paul is coming from -dave
[2004-05-06 17:24:00] - Dave: There might be some truth to that (guys not having the savvy, not that I am gay). I don't think men's brains are wired for elaborate subtle communication like women's brains are. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:24:00] - dave: we once played this game in college where we would send all the freshmen out on santa Monica Blvd and award points for every phone number they collected from people they hit on. Double points for successful same-sex pick-ups. It was really amusing to watch. Part of our initiation.
-Mel[2004-05-06 17:23:00] - Mel: Maybe care is the wrong word. I think they can get more attached to their significant others than women tend to do. How about that? -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:23:00] - mel: yes, paul is very right, guys say what they think, no subterfuge. We don't have the savvy for subterfuge ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-06 17:22:00] - HAHA. ok good call. Clearly that the solution to all guy/girl problems. Everyone should be gay. -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:22:00] - Mel: Yeah, friendship is a very illogical thing in that respect. You can't just say that there is no reason for them to be mad and so it's ok. You have to remember that humans are sometimes overwhelmed by emotions and can get upset even if there is no reason to. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:22:00] - Paul: so you really think that guys care more about the significant other than girls do? Thats not the stereotype at all, is it? -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:21:00] - paul: Guess I should stop handing out your number to so many guys then ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-06 17:21:00] - paul: You're not? *big shocked face* -dave
[2004-05-06 17:20:00] - Which is why it would be simply wonderful if I were gay.
-Paul[2004-05-06 17:20:00] - Paul: Yeah, i definitely see where you're coming from with that. technically I agree too, but from a practical perspective, the girl is probably gooing to be sad/hurt and the question is to what degree the friend should have considered that. -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:20:00] - Mel: Agreed. I think men just don't have the patience for word games like that. Not to say that men don't lie or anything, but we generally say what we mean and mean what we say. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:18:00] - Mel: Technically, I agree with your roomate. It's none of her business what her ex does now that they broke up. So she would have no right to be mad, but I think that she could definitely be sad and hurt and the friend probably should've thought about that before taking action. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:18:00] - Paul: (continued) even thought something really is wrong. then the bf has to guess. Correct me if I'm wrong, but guys seems to do things like that less. -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:17:00] - Paul: Well that's actually not such a bad lie. I think if a girl were to lie in this situation it would be for shadier motives. It's a more passive-aggresive approach to tell someone they can date your ex but still expect them not to. Kind of like the stereotypical example of when a guy asks his gf, "what's wrong?" And she says "nothing." -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:16:00] - But anyway, my #1 suggestion is to discuss it with the other person, even if you don't think that you'll get a straight and honest answer, because at least then everything is out in the open. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:15:00] - I spoke to several of my friend about this (all girls) and almost all of them thought it wrong for the friend (girl) to date the ex (guy). My roommate was the notable excpetion and she said it was none of the girl's business who her ex dated now that they were broken up. Which is sort of true, but then too simple an approach, I think. -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:14:00] - And guys can lie too. Sometimes they'll lie to you because they don't want to stand between you and happiness even if seeing you with their ex tears them up. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:14:00] - Paul: I know, well that's why i mentioned the 1 year relationship. because that's fairly long in my world anyway. It's definitely not some sort of fling at that point. -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:12:00] - Mel: Something to keep in mind is that guys vary a lot. Some guys have multiple girlfriends in a month and therefore get over them quickly, others get much more attached and it might not ever be ok to "steal" their girl in their eyes. -Paul
[2004-05-06 17:10:00] - 2 weeks? you would wait two weeks? -mel
[2004-05-06 17:09:00] - mel: Hmm. 2 weeks. - aaron
[2004-05-06 17:07:00] - pierce: I do think the reason the people broke up is the biggest factor here, as you mentioned. -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:05:00] - aaron: what if that is the case? That the girl broke up with your friend to go out with you. What do you do then if yoou like her? -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:04:00] - aaron: exactly what i was thinking. -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:03:00] - travis: stealing versus rebounding gets murky. I think if the friend were to get together with the ex right after they broke up, there would be a suspicion that maybe the friend actually caused the breakup. In which case its stealing. -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:03:00] - travis: Well that doesn't work in all circumstances; what if the girl broke up with your friend because she wanted to go out with you? Then it seems a lot more... tensionful - aaron
[2004-05-06 17:02:00] - Paul: I think you're right that it's harder to get a straight answer out of girls. That's part of the problem. A girl can say its ok to date her ex-boyfriend but that doesn't mean its necessarily really ok. -Mel
[2004-05-06 17:01:00] - Paul: it's right that stealing a guy's girl could destroy a friendship, but isn't the tension lessened if the couple is already broken up, therefore it's not stealing just rebounding
- travis[2004-05-06 17:01:00] - It's really interesting to get the guy perspective. That's why I asked. -Mel
[2004-05-06 16:59:00] - Mel: Heh, no problem. I figured that's what happened. You lucked out, the discussion died down a bit. -Paul
[2004-05-06 16:58:00] - Paul: good call. sorry, I had to go for lunch.
-Mel[2004-05-06 16:26:00] - Mig: Definitely an interesting dilemma there. -Paul
[2004-05-06 16:22:00] - http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38373 fucking typos. - mig
[2004-05-06 16:22:00] - http://www.wnd.com/news/article?ARTICLE_ID=38373 "Terri's Law" ruled unconstitutional. - mig
[2004-05-06 16:18:00] - Because if we keep talking, some of the discussion is going to run off the page. -Paul
[2004-05-06 16:17:00] - So I wonder if Mel is even going to get around to reading any of this.
-Paul[2004-05-06 16:08:00] - paul: I agree, in this age of liberated women, it is definitely changing -dave
[2004-05-06 16:07:00] - Dave: You might be right (but I think that is really starting to change now). -Paul
[2004-05-06 16:04:00] - paul: hmmm, yeah, that's a tough judgement call to make. Consider this, guys are much more likely to hop from gf to gf than girls are from bf to bf -dave
[2004-05-06 16:03:00] - Dave: Right, and I agree. Although I personally think, and this will probably get me into trouble, that guys tend to care more about their significant others than girls do. -Paul
[2004-05-06 15:59:00] - paul: I agree, that is probably the biggest thing. What maybe I meant more to say tho, is that just because girls may "care" about more things doesn't mean they care any less about stealing a guy -dave
[2004-05-06 15:53:00] - Dave: I agree, although I remember reading somewhere that the biggest thing that a guy can do to destroy his friendship with another guy is to steal his girl. I think that guys CAN be nonchalant about most things, but the thing that is most likely to piss them off are issues involving women. -Paul
[2004-05-06 15:51:00] - mig: hmmm, interesting, my assumption would have been that the obligation was there for both guys and girls -dave
[2004-05-06 15:50:00] - sorry my mind is kind of fried after working on this horrid webapp all day. - mig
[2004-05-06 15:50:00] - paul: at the same time, guys are much more nonchalant about things in general. -dave
[2004-05-06 15:50:00] - oh crap, typo, insert "ask permission" after "obligation". - mig
[2004-05-06 15:49:00] - paul: yeah, it just seems to be that guys have an unspoken obligation to date someone who has some sort of connection to one of his friends (siter, ex-gf, etc), while no such obligation exists for females (though i could be very, very wrong about this). - mig
[2004-05-06 15:46:00] - But I can also see Miguel's point that when a guy falls in love with a girl, he doesn't often ever fall out of love with her. -Paul
[2004-05-06 15:46:00] - Well, I think it's definitely more complicated when girls are involved because it's harder to get a straight answer from them. -Paul
[2004-05-06 15:44:00] - mig: yeah, just watch "mean girls" to see twisted girl social structure at work - travis
[2004-05-06 15:41:00] - mig: in general, girls make up a whole lot more social do's and don'ts than guys do -dave
[2004-05-06 15:40:00] - mig: hmmmm, I'm not sure if that perception is correct -dave
[2004-05-06 15:40:00] - paul: i dunno, just seems that guys have more "rules" about stuff like this than girls do. - mig
[2004-05-06 15:37:00] - Mig: I'm curious why you say that. -Paul
[2004-05-06 15:24:00] - Pierce: Yeah, it would really suck if this good friend and their former significant other can't stand eachother. -Paul
[2004-05-06 15:22:00] - Yeah, what Paul said... talk to the friend (assuming you're talking about yourself). Also consider what it would be like to have them together on a social basis, assuming they're no longer friends with each other. - pierce
[2004-05-06 15:22:00] - I would just say that to me it would seem a guy would have more issues with his friend dating someone he recently broke up with than a girl would have with a friend of hers dating someone she just broke up with. - mig
[2004-05-06 15:21:00] - Aaron: I think there is that too, because no matter how well the friend takes it, dating the person is definitely going to put stress on the friendship. -Paul
[2004-05-06 15:21:00] - But if it was one of those "we grew apart as people" breakups, then a few months for a year relationship seems reasonable/right/safe. - pierce
[2004-05-06 15:21:00] - In any event, more than the gender of the parties involved, what matters is how the relationship was left. If it was one of those catastrophic, throwing-large-objects-at-each-other kinds of breakups, then I'd say it'll never be right/safe. - pierce
[2004-05-06 15:21:00] - The easiest thing to do with guys is to just talk to them about it. I think you'll usually get a pretty honest and straight forward answer from them. Either "Fuck no!" or "Sure, I don't give a damn". -Paul
[2004-05-06 15:20:00] - Mel: I think it entirely depends on how much you value the friendship - aaron
[2004-05-06 15:20:00] - Mel: I can't speak for girls, but for guys it can really vary. Some guys can date somebody for a year and get over them fine while others have a much harder time. -Paul
[2004-05-06 15:19:00] - heh, for some reason, your last comment made me think of Lawrence from Office Space, and what he'd do with a million dollars.
- pierce[2004-05-06 15:14:00] - mig: interesting. how is that? what would you say in either case (two guys + one girl vs two girls + one guy)? -Mel
[2004-05-06 15:11:00] - mel: gender matters. - mig
[2004-05-06 15:08:00] - hey guys, how right/wrong is it to date someone a good friend was in a 1 year relationship with up until a few months ago? Does the answer depend at all on the gender of the people involved? -Mel
[2004-05-06 15:07:00] - dave: I think a blue background is ok. -Mel
[2004-05-06 15:06:00] - dave: I think the animations (with text/bullets flying around) are overused. A tasteful comic (like Pierce said) is a way better idea, I think. Just my opinion. -Mel
[2004-05-06 15:02:00] - thanks for the advice guys ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-06 14:59:00] - I think to get people's attention, especially in a classroom setting, a tasteful comic on your slide is a great deal more beneficial at keeping attention than animations. - pierce
[2004-05-06 14:58:00] - Dave: I agree with aaron; a little flair is acceptable, but it's better to err on the side of simplicity than to have your audience sit there while you go on a clicking frenzy just to get your whole slide up. Keep in mind what it will be like if you have to backtrack one slide and then go forward again... - pierce
[2004-05-06 14:44:00] - That doesn't mean I'd do a letter-by-letter fly-in with gushysplat.wav on each one
but I think showing a little creativity, to make your presentation stand out, may actually be rewarded in a classroom environment.... - aaron[2004-05-06 14:43:00] - dave: Oh, if it's for a class I think animations and colors are safe! If I were writing a presentation for like, a government customer or someone wearing a tie, though, I would have different standards. - aaron
[2004-05-06 14:36:00] - aaron: presentation of a final project for class. what do you think about colors, like a blue background? Too much? -dave
[2004-05-06 14:32:00] - dave: Personally I think it depends on the nature of the audience/presentation. If it's something formal, I'd keep it boring - aaron
[2004-05-06 14:21:00] - Dave: I don't have much experience in creating Powerpoint presentations and I have no idea which is asthetically more appealing, but I know most people have their points either fly in somehow or "fade" in (like appearing pixel-by-pixel). -Paul
[2004-05-06 14:14:00] - looking for some powerpoint advice. Is it better to make your bulleted points just appear on mouse-click or do something more flashy like fly in from left etc? -dave
[2004-05-06 13:35:00] - Sean Combs = P. Diddy - pierce
[2004-05-06 13:30:00] - who's sean combs? ~a
[2004-05-06 13:21:00] - Tee hee hee! Sean Combs was denied his royalties on a technicality! That's very funny to me - aaron
[2004-05-06 13:14:00] - Dave: And those artists probably didn't even notice that they were getting cheated out of all that money. -Paul
[2004-05-06 13:11:00] - the funny thing is that those artists include people like Dave Matthews and Gloria Estefan -dave
[2004-05-06 13:10:00] - http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2004/may/may4a_04.html RIAA forced to return $50 million that is hasn't given to artists because they didn't keep current information of where the artists were -dave
[2004-05-06 12:23:00] - Aaron: Ah, ok. I wouldn't have minded if you had said something like that. -Paul
[2004-05-06 12:16:00] - Paul: Something along the lines of "love is hard to find" - aaron
[2004-05-06 12:13:00] - Aaron: What tired cliche? -Paul
[2004-05-06 12:11:00] - (carefully phrased to avoid repeating some kind of tired cliche) - aaron
[2004-05-06 12:10:00] - Paul: Extremely low! I guess a test group like that is hard to come by - aaron
[2004-05-06 12:07:00] - Aaron: What's odd about your link, is that the study only included 24 people. Isn't that amazingly low? -Paul
[2004-05-06 12:00:00] - I heard a "Hey Ya" ringtone the other day - it didn't work very well, but the high bell-sounding-synth part was distinct enough that I could tell which song it was - aaron
[2004-05-06 11:49:00] - Mig: That would be awesome if you could use your own midis as ringtones. I have at least a dozen good candidates for ringtones on my computer. -Paul
[2004-05-06 11:49:00] - Aaron: That kinda makes sense to me. Men get less violent and aggressive when in love and women seem to get more competitive and whatnot. -Paul
[2004-05-06 11:47:00] - and it's an often repeated fact that the hardware behind the nintendo power glove was worth far more than its cost - vinnie
[2004-05-06 11:46:00] - there are phones that let you program your own ringtones, not sure about midis. I made my brother a depeche mode ringtone - vinnie
[2004-05-06 11:42:00] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/05/06/offbeat.love.reut/index.html "Love" causes changes in testosterone level to fall in men, and raise in women - aaron
[2004-05-06 11:36:00] - are there phones that let you use your own midis for ringtones? or are there no phones that let you do that yet. - mig
[2004-05-06 11:31:00] - Pierce: That would be a pretty awesome ringtone. Vinnie and I both want to find one for the door chime in B5. -Paul
[2004-05-06 11:30:00] - Dave: I've heard of such crazy things before, where parts of something is worth more than the device itself.
-Paul[2004-05-06 11:28:00] - You know what I'd really like to have? A cell phone ring that played the "invinicibility star" music from Super Mario Brothers. That would make me the coolest person on Earth. - pierce
[2004-05-06 11:21:00] - paul: that is if the drive is removeable - not all mp3 players have it setup so you can remove it easily -dave
[2004-05-06 11:21:00] - paul: yeah, the funny thing is the micro-drive is really expensive if you want to buy separately. Like if you buy the mp3 player, you can take the drive out and sell it for a profit -dave
[2004-05-06 11:13:00] - Dave: So it really is just because of high demand? It makes sense, since I see some places where people offer to sell you the player WITHOUT the microdrive in it.
-Paul[2004-05-06 11:10:00] - paul: I believe it is because the micro-drive in a bunch of mp3 players is in high demand because it goes in a lot of players. Like I believe the ipod mini uses the same drive and it is out of stock as well because of it. -dave
[2004-05-06 11:09:00] - mig: I think a part of it is like kuro5hin says - the controversy will give them publicity on its own - aaron
[2004-05-06 11:06:00] - mig: they said that it will be viewable from the high stands and when they do overhead shot on tv, but that's about it -dave
[2004-05-06 11:06:00] - paul: It's because it's in such high demand that it is out of stock at most places. Estimated arrival at mwave.com is 5/10/04, estimated arrival at newegg.com is 5/17/04 -dave
[2004-05-06 10:52:00] - how bizarre. you hardly get any good view of the bases during a tv broadcast or from anywhere in the stands, so i'm curious as to how they think that advertising would be effective. - mig
[2004-05-06 10:40:00] - Whoops, I may have copied the wrong link. Here's the real article: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/5/165728/6687 - pierce
[2004-05-06 10:37:00] - Hey, does anybody know if the Creative Labs MuVo2 4GB player has been released yet? I haven't been able to find any new ones for sale but it seems like some people have used ones and amazon.com said it was released in January. -Paul
[2004-05-06 10:35:00] - My ultimate finals matchup would be Kings vs Pacers. The only problem is that I would hate to see either team lose. I might actually prefer a Pacers/Spurs or Kings/Pistons matchup so at least there is a team for me to root for. -Paul
[2004-05-06 10:33:00] - pierce: your article got changed. it's an article about poaching and at first i thought the author was going to draw a very weird analogy. ~a
[2004-05-06 10:30:00] - of those two, I'd much rather the Kings win but I think Spurs won't have a problem at all beating them - vinnie
[2004-05-06 10:29:00] - Kuro5hin has an article related to the whole baseball thing... it's not particularly insightful, but interesting nonetheless. http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/3/163534/9327 - pierce
[2004-05-06 10:26:00] - I really want the Spurs to win, but then it's going to be sad if the Spurs and Kings meet since I like them both =/ -dave
[2004-05-06 10:24:00] - I'm surprised it's taken this long for advertising to infiltrate the game like this. I would've thought this kind of advertising would've happened before companies started spending millions on naming rights to stadiums. -Paul
[2004-05-06 10:21:00] - dave: That baseball thing is pretty hilarious. I can't put anything past advertisers anymore... Hmmm... Well i'll bet they'll never put advertising on Nascar windshields, I think. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't do that.... maybe - aaron
[2004-05-06 10:15:00] - i watched it. good game. I'd never count the Lakers out. well. maybe if they lose the next game - vinnie
[2004-05-06 10:13:00] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5702-2004May5.html it's kinda interesting that we import so much beef from Canada. Isn't beef / cattle supposed to be America's thing and not Canada's? -dave
[2004-05-06 10:09:00] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4373-2004May5.html HEHE, they're going to put advertising on baseball bases and other in-game things -dave
[2004-05-06 10:06:00] - Dave: Since I don't get cable, I haven't been able to see a lot of the playoffs. Sounded like a good game though. I have the Spurs winning it all again this year in my playoff bracket so I'm not going to bet that the Lakers come back. -Paul
[2004-05-06 10:00:00] - anyone see spurs vs. lakers last night? Good game ^_^ Any bets on whether Lakers can come back? -dave
[2004-05-06 07:33:00] - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4891758/ BMW drivers have more sex -dave
[2004-05-06 00:12:00] - 40000th post! yay me. ~a
[2004-05-05 20:28:00] - mel: I originally read about the fossil-fuel thing in a review of a fossil fuel car on motortrend.com. They said that the study was published in Science I believe -dave
[2004-05-05 20:28:00] - pierce: interestingly enough, this came up at work. And yeah, the fossil fuel plants theoretically can deal with the pollution much better than in every single car. On the other hand, the japs make cars that generally put out cleaner air than goes in them, which is amusing -dave
[2004-05-05 19:30:00] - As for hydrogen leakage, I have no idea what the effects or likelihood of such an event would be. - pierce
[2004-05-05 19:29:00] - Also, fossil fuel plants could concentrate their pollution to a smaller area, when compared to the massive sprawl of the roadways and vehicles. - pierce
[2004-05-05 19:28:00] - Mel: I'm obviously not familiar with the numbers, but isn't it possible that large fossil fuel plants are more efficient in their fossil fuel usage than a million individual cars? Perhaps efficiently using fossil fuels to make clean hydrogen is better than inefficiently using fossil fuels in each individual device. - pierce
[2004-05-05 18:50:00] - aaron: wow, did yoou see how many varieties are out of stock?? -Mel
[2004-05-05 18:49:00] - Travis: there has been a lot of related research where I'm at, in the southern California area (-not- the bay area). There are all sorts of hybrid and electric car companies ding some heavy R&D down here and hiring local college students. -Mel
[2004-05-05 18:48:00] - http://www.bananaguard.com/ Are you fed up with bringing bananas to work or school only to find them bruised and squashed? - aaron
[2004-05-05 18:30:00] - you guys might have gone home already. Well I think the big problem with a fuel cell economy is not the potential problem of hydrogen leakage causing ozone damage. I think the big problem is that hydrogen is currently generated from fossil fuels using power plants fueled by fossil fuels. How can hydrogen be a "clean" fuel then? -Mel
[2004-05-05 18:14:00] - dave: where was that quote from (about a fuel-cell economy)? -Mel
[2004-05-05 17:14:00] - Aaron: That's what amuses me. I'll bet it has something to do with some perverse sense of going after a 'celebrity' or something. -Paul
[2004-05-05 17:10:00] - paul: I don't understand how you get chicks by wearing a wedding dress. It seems like that would turn off women in at least 2 different ways. - aaron
[2004-05-05 17:05:00] - Aaron: Yeah. -Paul
[2004-05-05 17:01:00] - The thing about the wedding dress? - aaron
[2004-05-05 16:52:00] - http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/040505 I find the last story on this page to be amusing. -Paul
[2004-05-05 16:44:00] - Travis: HOV is mass transit, in a way. It's the government's way of trying to turn cars into mini mass transit vehicles. I would be glad to be rid of both HOV lanes and publically funded mass transit. -Paul
[2004-05-05 16:40:00] - Paul: but you should be happy since HOV cuts down on mass transit and you hate mass transit, so either take your air pollution or keep mass transit
- travis[2004-05-05 16:30:00] - California, always on the cutting edge of pollution. -Paul
[2004-05-05 16:23:00] - it's also interesting that all the research on that topic has been done in the bay area (of california, i assume) - travis
[2004-05-05 16:16:00] - no, I just found an article online about it that makes sense to me. very interesting - vinnie
[2004-05-05 16:15:00] - Vinnie: First, because people spend more time on the road driving around and picking people up to get on the HOV. And second because restricting the lanes to HOV only causes more traffic on the normal lanes than there would otherwise be, which causes more pollution. -Paul
[2004-05-05 16:14:00] - Vinnie: I guess I should be specific and say that having lanes be HOV instead of being normal traffic lanes increase pollution. -Paul
[2004-05-05 16:09:00] - Dave: Well, they had to send out extra trucks to pick up the recycling, and those trucks put some more pollution into the air. -Paul
[2004-05-05 16:07:00] - whoa, hov lanes increased pollution? i never heard about that - vinnie
[2004-05-05 16:02:00] - paul: haha, recycling increased air pollution? -dave
[2004-05-05 15:58:00] - Dave: It was like when they found out that recycling increased air pollution, or that HOV lanes increased air pollution. Strangely ironic. -Paul
[2004-05-05 15:38:00] - "nearby Cal Tech researchers rolled a stink bomb into the hydrogen party. According to their report, recently published in the journal Science, a full-fledged, hydrogen fuel-cell economy (that is, one in which all fossil-fuel combustion is replaced) could result in some short-term ozone-hole problems. " hehe, I'm amused -dave
[2004-05-05 15:25:00] - http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1795379 New Nets Owner doesn't want to have the government force people to leave to make room for his stadium. -Paul
[2004-05-05 15:22:00] - http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page3/story?page=lakerfans/040505 Why Lakers fans suck. -Paul
[2004-05-05 14:06:00] - http://www.ok-cancel.com/ this comic was linked in dewey's journal. it's quite funny although it only started a few months ago (the most recent comic is a little weird though - read from the beginning) - vinnie
[2004-05-05 13:57:00] - paul: yes, it's good to have that settled ^_^ -dave
[2004-05-05 13:52:00] - Dave: Now you know it's true, since I have confirmed it with my own opinion.
-Paul[2004-05-05 13:51:00] - mig: I think it's a little naive to think that all of the abortions that happen now would just happen illegally if abortion was made illegal. Some would, yes, but I think it would be a relatively small number -dave
[2004-05-05 13:50:00] - paul: yeah, that's what I had figured too. But, like you, I wasn't sure how true my assumption was -dave
[2004-05-05 13:49:00] - dave: then they'll do so through illegal means. maybe if this was earlier when abortions didn't happen as often, but the horse has already left the barn in this case. - mig
[2004-05-05 13:48:00] - Dave: I think, although I admit I have little basis for this, that abortions these days are normally the result of a lack of planning, foresight, or money for birth control. I think in most cases, the availability of abortion doesn't factor into a person's mind before having sex. -Paul
[2004-05-05 13:45:00] - paul: yeah, that's what I had thought, but then I thought of the huge number of abortions that happen. What about those people? -dave
[2004-05-05 13:45:00] - yeah - vinnie
[2004-05-05 13:44:00] - Dave: As long as birth control is still around and accesible, I don't think maing abortion illegal would have too big of an effect. -Paul
[2004-05-05 13:43:00] - Vinnie: I think there are some people, in some situations where that might apply. I just don't think it's common enough to warrant saying that it generally applies or whatever. -Paul
[2004-05-05 13:42:00] - vinnie: =P -dave
[2004-05-05 13:42:00] - or in the same vein. If abortion was illegal in all forms, do you think that would change the likelihood of women to have sex? -dave
[2004-05-05 13:42:00] - certainly the people that currently have STDs would have more sex if they didn't exist, so yes
- vinnie[2004-05-05 13:42:00] - Dave: The only thing that's really missing is some silver bullet for STDs, then you would probably see promiscuity (male AND female) at it's highest (although you might need a breakdown of certain social taboos like adultry and pedophilia for that to happen). -Paul
[2004-05-05 13:41:00] - how about STDs. Do you think that if they didn't exist, or cures for them existed that people would have more sex? -dave
[2004-05-05 13:40:00] - well, I figure there's still got to be someone who is swayed away from sex because of the risks, that was pushed over the threshold because of emergency contraceptives. but probably not a significant amount - vinnie
[2004-05-05 13:39:00] - paul: good point, maybe the female sex level has been saturated, HEHE -dave
[2004-05-05 13:38:00] - well not generally, because not many people use emergency contraceptives to my knowledge, but I think other protective methods probably generally increased promiscuity, like condoms - vinnie
[2004-05-05 13:36:00] - Vinnie: I think the question is whether or not the promiscuity of women can get any higher. Women already can pretty much have as much sex as they want without fear of pregnancy as long as they take their birth control. Are there really any women out there who are having less sex because there aren't emergency contraceptives available? -Paul
[2004-05-05 13:36:00] - *i think
[2004-05-05 13:36:00] - i dave was implying generally. ~a
[2004-05-05 13:34:00] - paul: totally in agreement, in fact, I'm not even sure if this is even a controversial opinion. a new sex safety measure crops up = people have more sex. just like the introduction of those bars on roller coasters probably increased the popularity of those rides
- vinnie[2004-05-05 13:32:00] - Vinnie: In other words, you probably wouldn't see any noticeable difference in the statistics, but I think you could certainly find a couple hundred or thousand women each year who would testify that the presence of emergency contraceptives changed their actions towards sex and birth control in some way. -Paul
[2004-05-05 13:30:00] - Vinnie: But I think it would be quite common for some women to occasionally decide to have sex when they wouldn't normally have or do it without birth control when they normally would have if they know emergency contraceptives are available. -Paul
[2004-05-05 13:29:00] - Vinnie: Perhaps you are right in that I wasn't as strong in my dissension as I should've been. I think in general that women aren't having more sex and using less birth control just because there is an emergency contraceptive. -Paul
[2004-05-05 13:27:00] - oops, heh. andrew = xpovos - vinnie
[2004-05-05 13:27:00] - andrew: and i certainly don't get your statement about women being promiscuous regardless of the presence of birth control. i'd say probably most women who are promiscuous are so because they can be so safely. you don't give people much credit - vinnie
[2004-05-05 13:25:00] - paul: for shame! how could you not stick to your guns? dave asked whether there is no increase, and I certainly think that's not true. I definitely think there are some women who are more promiscuous knowing that there is a failsafe after regular birth control methods - vinnie
prev <-> next