prev <-> next
[2004-06-22 16:03:24] - /paul wonders how this works
[2004-06-22 16:02:58] - Mel: Bye, enjoy your lunch. -Paul
[2004-06-22 16:02:50] - Paul: back in awhile. -mel
[2004-06-22 16:02:42] - Paul: yes. and it would be the same case with people's lives. I still wouldn't call it force, even thought I would think it was wrong. -mel
[2004-06-22 16:01:58] - Paul: damn, I have to go to lunch. anyway I see your point. I'll write more when I get back. -mel
[2004-06-22 16:01:27] - Mel: Yes, and that's why you don't think it's wrong for the government to take people's money, because they have indirect approval, right? -paul
[2004-06-22 16:00:05] - vinnie: ok. well yes, I do feel a moral responsibility for what our government does, even though I have indirect control over it and not direct control. -mel
[2004-06-22 15:59:22] - Vinnie: But that's a different matter because those people can't vote. I'm just wondering if Mel thinks that any action the government takes is justified, basically. -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:58:25] - change "blacks" to "all people outside the US" then. the constitution has no problem there AFAIK - vinnie
[2004-06-22 15:58:15] - Mel: Well, not necessarily. Not everybody pays taxes, after all. The poor don't. -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:57:39] - Mel: Basically, I am asking if you believe the government is ever capable of initiating force against one of it's citizens. -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:56:56] - Paul: in the case of taxes, everyone pays them (althought I know rich people often rearrange their finances so they minimize this). everyone votes and everyone pays. in your example, everyone votes and one race of people dies. -mel
[2004-06-22 15:56:46] - So I was basically just replacing "take your money and give it to the poor" with "take your life" and wondering if you would still say it's not force. -paul
[2004-06-22 15:56:39] - I meant supporting the system, not the action. I think it works as an analogy, and I'm not sure you can have a moral responsbility for something you can't directly control - vinnie
[2004-06-22 15:56:11] - Mel: It sounds like you are saying having the government take your money and giving it to the poor even if you don't want them to isn't force because you can vote (and indirectly control things). -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:54:42] - Paul: ok can you rephrase the question? -mel
[2004-06-22 15:54:28] - vinnie: I still don't think the question is a good comparison. Maybe phrased differently. Yes, people have a moral responsibility for the what they support. of course. I thought Paul was asking somthing more along the lines of whether you have a moral responsibility for what you don't support but is implemented anyway. -mel
[2004-06-22 15:52:32] - the right to property can't be voted away either. It isn't that you aren't allowed to own anything. You just have to contribute to pay for the services that the government provides for everyone. -mel
[2004-06-22 15:52:30] - I gotta agree with paul here. as a moral question, you can't take things like the constitution into account. it's basically whether you believe people have a moral responsibility for something they support - vinnie
[2004-06-22 15:51:42] - Vinnie: I do not see the connection between your analogy and what we're talking about. Care to explain?
(j/k) -paul[2004-06-22 15:50:45] - Mel: So the right to life can't be voted away, but the right to property can be? -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:49:48] - Paul: Certain rights and liberties can't arbitrarily be voted away thanks to our constitution. I'm not sure your hypothetical situation is meaningful. -mel
[2004-06-22 15:48:50] - more like a group of elected representatives voting on laws that affect their constituents. sorry if that's too metaphorical - vinnie
[2004-06-22 15:48:46] - Pierce: Not necessarily. I was counting myself as the chicken and everybody who doesn't believe taxation is theft (the majority, I assume) as the wolves. -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:48:00] - Mel: I used to be on their mailing list too, but I haven't gotten anything from them in awhile. -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:47:09] - Mel: Actually, I have a moral question for you then. If it's not force because you can vote, then if we vote to kill all blacks, would that be force? -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:46:52] - pierce: it says the 20th but that was before we scheduled a move-in date (it also has an outdated move-in date on it). she told me over the phone that we can sign any day before the move-in - vinnie
[2004-06-22 15:46:50] - Paul: be fair, it's more like a pig, a chicken, and a wolf voting on what to have for dinner. - pierce
[2004-06-22 15:46:40] - Paul: nice simile by the way, -mel
[2004-06-22 15:45:59] - Paul: you might find this funny. I am somehow on the republican party's mailing list. I don't know how. I keep getting letters from them and even though I never respond, yesterday they sent me a membership card. -mel
[2004-06-22 15:45:56] - Mel: "Cato depends solely on tax-deductible contributions from Sponsors who share our commitment to a free and prosperous society" -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:45:51] - vinnie: outdated? when were we to have signed by? - pierce
[2004-06-22 15:45:03] - Mel: But that's like the two wolves and a chicken voting on what to have for dinner. -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:44:49] - vinnie: haha. don't worry the debate can't last that long. I have to go to lunch soon. -mel
[2004-06-22 15:44:20] - Paul: I know, the LP link was too brief. I'll check out the Cato info. -mel
[2004-06-22 15:44:11] - *** vinnie takes cover at mel's statement
[2004-06-22 15:43:50] - Paul: Thats all I was asking. Cool. I didn't know there was a libertarian think tank. Who funds it? -mel
[2004-06-22 15:43:23] - Paul: the reason I don't see it as force is because as a citizen of this country, I get to vote and so my level of taxation is indirectly under my control. -mel
[2004-06-22 15:42:27] - Mel: It's a Libertarian Think Tank. Nothing much more to say without a more specific question about it. -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:41:48] - Mel: Actually, the LP link isn't as impressive as I was hoping. Might not be a good read after all.
-Paul[2004-06-22 15:41:25] - Paul: what's the deal with the Cato Institute anyway? -mel
[2004-06-22 15:41:23] - Mel: I don't like to think of myself as selfish. I prefer thinking of it as not wanting to see others have their hard earned money taken away and given to people who are often lazy (IMHO) just because I happen to think the poor should be taken care of. -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:40:10] - pierce: no, it doesn't say anything about the lease at all, except an outdated date-to-sign-by - vinnie
[2004-06-22 15:40:07] - Paul: I just read the bowlingfortruth link. It sounds like the kid should have been taken into custody by the state. sad story. just a sec while I read the lp link.
-mel[2004-06-22 15:39:32] - http://www.cato.org/research/welfare/index.html Or here
-paul[2004-06-22 15:38:31] - also, does it say anything in the offer letter about what we need to bring to sign the lease? - pierce
[2004-06-22 15:38:12] - vinnie: I'll call you at your office when I head out of here, just in case I get caught up on my conference call or anything. - pierce
[2004-06-22 15:37:02] - Paul: yes, I have started believing that. The needs of the many do matter. Even from my own selfish perspective because I live in this society too. -mel
[2004-06-22 15:36:58] - Mel: http://www.lp.org/issues/welfare.html Suggested reading.
-Paul[2004-06-22 15:36:22] - Mel: Oh, I disagree with welfare because of your reasoning too. But my biggest beef with it is that people are forced to do it. And I do see it as force, because I have absolutely no way of saying "I would rather not give money to poor people" without getting thrown in jail. -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:35:45] - Paul: hmm. well I should find out more about whether and to what extent welfare in reality works. -mel
[2004-06-22 15:35:11] - Mel: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few? -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:35:05] - Paul: What I used to resent about taxes (and welfare) is that they redistribute our country's wealth. not the force aspect. -mel
[2004-06-22 15:34:02] - Paul: ah. I don't see it as force. So we have/had entirely different reasons to oppose welfare. -mel
[2004-06-22 15:33:54] - Mel: I agree that it's better for society that kids be cared for by their parents too. I just don't think welfare solves the problem in most cases. -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:33:26] - Paul: I used to oppose welfare because I found it unfair that some people get free money when everyone has an equal opportunity to find work here. Even illegal immigrants can find work and support themselves successfully. -mel
[2004-06-22 15:32:38] - I have no problem with people giving poor people money. Even if they are lazy welfare moms who just keep having kids and collecting charity. I just have a problem when you force others to do it. -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:32:20] - Paul: Its better for our society that kids be cared for by their parents, that they have a place to sleep and eat. Then they won't go arounf finding guns and shooting people. or turning to a gang to make up for the family they don't have. I think in some cases welfare is better for society from a practical standpoint. I used to resent taxes. -m
[2004-06-22 15:32:03] - Mel: I wonder, why did you used to oppose welfare for purely ideological reasons? I only ask because I oppose welfare mostly because you're forcing people to pay it, rather than because people are getting free money. -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:29:40] - mel: ha, interesting. I never thought welfare could be more economically efficient - vinnie
[2004-06-22 15:29:11] - Paul: so if its not cheaper, and the kid could have been cared for by his mother (which is clearly better than no one) then it seems silly for me to oppose that she get welfare purely for idealogical reasons. It made me think that sometimes welfare is ok. Not in all cases, but in some cases. -mel
[2004-06-22 15:28:51] - http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/kayla.htm Related to that story, here is how it was slightly misrepresented by BFC. -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:28:45] - pierce: I called them three times but no one is picking up. so I suggest we just go there - vinnie
[2004-06-22 15:28:13] - Mel: What you're saying sounds right, but I cannot confirm or deny it.
-Paul[2004-06-22 15:27:47] - Mel: I don't recall, sorry.
-Paul[2004-06-22 15:25:20] - Paul: well the point they made was that it wasn't actually cheaper for the state to have the mom riding the bus so far to work. It actually would have been cheaper to just keep her on welfare. I hope I'm remembering that right. Does that sound right? -mel
[2004-06-22 15:23:51] - Mel: Yes, I remember that scene/story. -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:22:13] - Paul: I'm also no longer opposed to welfare. Do you remember the scene in Bowling for Columbine where the kid killed his classmate with a gun that he found at home? And his mom was riding a bus to go work someplace really far away so she couldn't watch him? -mel
[2004-06-22 15:18:42] - Paul: about taxes, I used to be more idealistic. But my new conclusion is that really, I can afford to contribute to our roads/school/police etc and I don't really mind doing so. -mel
[2004-06-22 15:14:37] - It gets easier to do with practice, I think, although there are always going to be different situations which can be awkward. -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:13:51] - Mel: 'How' is simple. There have just been some situations where it's been necessary for me to say no to people. The most recent example being when somebody at my work wanted me to sign a document I didn't want to sign. I just had to tell him no. -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:09:14] - Paul: yes, I think that's true. So how did you start getting better at saying no? Did you just start making a conscious effort? -mel
[2004-06-22 15:07:34] - I think we're programmed too much as children to just obey and say yes and try to please everybody that we don't know how to stand up for ourselves sometimes when we get released into the real world. -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:07:00] - Mel: That's probably why you hate being pressured.
I used to have a hard time saying 'no' and I still do, but I'm learning fast because I've found out it can be very useful. -Paul[2004-06-22 15:05:46] - Paul: I really hate being pressured into anything. And I'll admit I have a hard time saying no to people. -mel
[2004-06-22 15:03:22] - Mel: But you'll never know what it's like until you give it a try. How do you know it's not something you'll enjoy? Yes, I did see Bowling for Columbine. -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:02:37] - Pierce: I guess it depends on your definition of violence, but it seems like if every gunshot wound turned into a stab wound then the magnitude of violence would at least stay the same (I think it would increase since stabbings seem inherently more violent than shootings to me). -Paul
[2004-06-22 15:01:25] - Paul: Did you see Bowling for Columbine? -mel
[2004-06-22 15:00:58] - Paul: I'm not afraid of getting brainwashed, but I don't think it would be fun to go to this Landmark intro session if the whole time they will be pressuring me to give them money and sign up for seminars (which also cost money). The whole idea seems all messed up to me. -mel
[2004-06-22 14:59:30] - Paul: I dunno, would violence be "just as prevalent" in a hypothetical world without guns? I don't think it would affect the level of usage of massive weapons (nukes, bombs), and even if every gunshot wound turned into a stab wound I think the cumulative magnitude of violence would be decreased. - pierce
[2004-06-22 14:48:32] - Pierce: Quite possibly. But there are also many people who hate guns and wish the world was free of them even if violence was still just as prevelant. -Paul
[2004-06-22 14:46:16] - Paul: I think most people who "wish" for a world without guns are actually wishing for a world where violence is not necessary as an equalizing force. Those who support the second amendment while having such a wish are those who recognize the impracticality of achieving such a world. - pierce
[2004-06-22 14:45:28] - Mel: Nope. They really did seem to be incredibly lazy in terms of trying to get us to convert. The movie we saw, though, was hilarious. -Paul
[2004-06-22 14:43:38] - Paul: nobody tried to get your checkbook? interesting. did they at least get your contact info? -mel
[2004-06-22 14:39:25] - Mel: I was debating it. I wasn't going to although I figure I probably should just so others can hear what it was like. I have no idea what they were expecting but after the movie ended, we stood outside for a little bit and finally left without having anybody talk to us or try to convert us. -paul
[2004-06-22 14:38:16] - Pierce: It's not so much that people WANT to live in a world with guns, it's just that you hardly ever hear libertarians saying something like that. And I would dare say that a lot of people wouldn't want guns to disappear completely. They are the great equalizer. -Paul
[2004-06-22 14:37:46] - Paul: will you write a journal entry about it? Weird that they would be unprepared to respond to people curious about scientology. what kind of people are they expecting? -mel
[2004-06-22 14:36:41] - Mel: Heh, well then just go without your checkbook (and without telling your friend) and see what's going on for yourself. Unless you're afraid of getting brainwashed.
-Paul[2004-06-22 14:34:15] - Paul: actually what really made me think twice is that he said I should bring my checkbook to the intro meeting. ?? He emphasized that and that's when I started worrying. -mel
[2004-06-22 14:33:22] - Paul: huh? Who wants to live in a world with guns? - pierce
[2004-06-22 14:33:15] - Paul: No I haven't. I was going to, but I started getting uncomfotable with my friend's hard sell. He wouldn't take no for an answer and I hate being pressured into things. Which really turned me off to the whole idea. -mel
[2004-06-22 14:29:24] - Mel: Have you at least given it a try (landmark education)? -paul
[2004-06-22 14:28:46] - Mel: It was a little weird. On one hand, I was very unimpressed by their outreach. They seemed totally unprepared to address people who were curious to learn about scientology. On the other hand, there was a lot of stuff going on in that building and I was impressed by how organized they were as a whole. -Paul
[2004-06-22 14:27:40] - http://www.landmarkeducation.com/ And my friend now sounds like a salesman. he has a response for every reason I give for not wanting to go. -mel
[2004-06-22 14:27:31] - Mel: Your perspective has changed from what to what? -Paul
[2004-06-22 14:26:10] - Paul: One of my friends is part of this organization called The Landmark Forum. He told me about it casually about a month ago, then started calling me every week to try to convince me to go. I swear it sounds like a cult. Very freaky. -mel
[2004-06-22 14:25:04] - Paul: oh yeah, how did that go anyway?? did you already discuss it on the message board? I was wondering about that. -mel
[2004-06-22 14:23:55] - Paul: well my whole perspective on taxes has changed. -mel
[2004-06-22 14:23:21] - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0270557/quotes Funny, funny quote from the Scientology Orientation video. I was trying not to laugh the entire time but when the narrator said this I couldn't hold it in. -Paul
[2004-06-22 14:17:25] - Mel: Probably because you feel obligated (?) to contribute money to others with less whereas I tend to more feel like it's my money to do with as I please? -Paul
[2004-06-22 14:15:38] - Pierce: Right, I know. But it's very rare that you find a libertarian who says he wishes he lives in a world without guns (even if he supports the second ammendment). -Paul
[2004-06-22 14:14:06] - Paul: Thats not how I feel. Now that I make a decent wage, I am more willing to contribute through taxes because I feel less worried about my own financial well-being. -mel
[2004-06-22 14:14:04] - Paul: he does support the protections of the second amendment, though... so I'm not sure you can call him nonlibertarian because of that. - pierce
[2004-06-22 14:12:15] - Mel: Really? I'm easily the opposite. Seeing how much money the government takes out of my paycheck and how much it costs for stuff makes economic issues hit home a lot more for me. -Paul
[2004-06-22 14:10:14] - Paul: Hmm, well having a real job has made me care less about economic issues and more about social issues. But that doesn't mean its generally true. -mel
[2004-06-22 14:04:42] - Mel: But I agree with you, I get the feeling (reading his blog) that stuff like health care is more important to him than taxes and he seems to hate the same things liberals hate (corporations, guns). -Paul
[2004-06-22 14:03:47] - Mel: Which normally makes you care more about economic issues, doesn't it? -Paul
[2004-06-22 14:00:58] - Paul: Yeah, I see your point actually. He isn't a true libertarian. And he does seem to care a lot more aboput social issues than economic ones. maybe because he probably has a lot of money.
-mel[2004-06-22 13:56:45] - Pierce: Exactly, I don't know why he isn't a big Nader fan. -Paul
[2004-06-22 13:56:14] - Pierce: I think he horribly misunderstand what a libertarian is considering what he says in Mel's link and that he voted for Nader. -Paul
[2004-06-22 13:55:45] - he doesn't seem too focused on the economic aspects of libertarianism, only the social ones. So I think he's a liberal who has been disillusioned by the democratic party. - pierce
[2004-06-22 13:55:31] - Mel: Thanks, that does a much better job than my ramblings.
-Paul[2004-06-22 13:54:53] - Paul: well, he claims to be a "left-leaning libertarian", yet he voted for Nader in 2000, which would seem to support your theory. - pierce
[2004-06-22 13:54:14] - Paul: On the link I posted, he calls himself a liberal. -mel
[2004-06-22 13:52:49] - undemocratic electoral system (I THINK that was something he said, but I don't recall exactly). -Paul
[2004-06-22 13:52:20] - Pierce: It's less of a "one specific example" type thing and more of a general feel I get by browsing the site. All of his links and recommended reading and stuff are things that I would expect liberals to read. There were also some entries awhile ago when I recall him talking about how Bush stole the election by subverting the... -Paul
[2004-06-22 13:50:28] - Pierce: He discusses his political views here: http://www.wilwheaton.net/activismlinks.php -mel
[2004-06-22 13:47:00] - Paul: I don't really feel like searching through the history of his blog... do you have any top-of-your-head examples of (A) Wil Wheaton claiming to be libertarian, and/or (B) Wil Wheaton supporting something that is in conflict with A? - pierce
[2004-06-22 13:46:50] - Mel: I'm not sure how exactly that makes me better than him. It just makes me different than him. -Paul
[2004-06-22 13:41:01] - Paul: so at least he's not libertarian. you're better than him that way. -mel
[2004-06-22 13:38:46] - vinnie: can you give them a call and make sure we don't need anything we don't already have? - pierce
[2004-06-22 13:37:44] - pierce: ok! - vinnie
[2004-06-22 13:36:11] - vinnie: I have a conference call at 4:30, but it usually doesn't last too long and I'll try to head out right afterwards... so optimistically 5:30. - pierce
[2004-06-22 13:32:30] - pierce: so should we go today? I'm fine with that. tell me a time you can be there, if so - vinnie
[2004-06-22 13:30:56] - Mel: I'm not a big fan of his blog either, but I think it's just because I find it boring. -Paul
[2004-06-22 13:30:32] - Pierce: It's kinda like I look at him and see everything that I'm NOT, but could've been. -Paul
[2004-06-22 13:30:02] - Pierce: I didn't know that. No, I think I mostly resent him because I'm a little jealous. After all, here is a guy that's a little older than me and yet seemingly infinitely better in every way. He got to be on one of my favorite TV shows, he is somewhat famous in a geeky way, has written a book, is married, etc. -Paul
[2004-06-22 13:29:02] - pierce: I dunno. I figured we probably just needed to go there. I'm gonna bring my big pile of stuff they've given me - vinnie
[2004-06-22 13:28:50] - Paul: seriously, why do you dislike him? I find his blog to be interesting and often funny. -mel
[2004-06-22 13:28:07] - pierce: haha. -mel
[2004-06-22 13:27:54] - If so, I can give you that... I have a hard time forgiving him for that myself.
- pierce[2004-06-22 13:27:24] - Paul: because he was Ashley Judd's first on-screen kiss? - pierce
[2004-06-22 13:26:40] - Paul: why do you resent him? - pierce
[2004-06-22 13:25:55] - Pierce: Well, I didn't dislike the character at all, and even though I don't know the actor, I have a feeling I wouldn't like him if I met him (and I resent him a bit too). -Paul
[2004-06-22 13:24:25] - Paul: seriously? I mean, I can understand not hating the character as much as some people seem to, but I can barely fathom disliking the actor more. - pierce
[2004-06-22 13:23:37] - vinnie: do we have to call them in advance to sign the lease? I can do it today if we don't need to give them a ton of notice. We don't need to bring anything besides our signing hand, right? - pierce
[2004-06-22 13:22:25] - Pierce: Actually, I think I'm one of the few trekkies who don't actively hate Wesley. I could never understand why everybody hated him. I actually think I dislike the actor MUCH more than the character. -Paul
[2004-06-22 13:21:12] - pierce: e-mailed you - vinnie
[2004-06-22 13:19:34] - Paul: admit it, it's just your personal bias against Wesley Crusher. - pierce
[2004-06-22 13:19:10] - And as far as I can tell, Ayn Rand seemed to actively dislike libertarians. -Paul
[2004-06-22 13:17:57] - Mel: http://www.wilwheaton.net Just go read his blog and little bit. I think it's fairly obvious (to me at least) that he's a progressive liberal (assuming there is any difference between the two terms). -Paul
[2004-06-22 13:16:44] - Or Moby. I don't see him as a libertarian at all either. -Paul
[2004-06-22 13:15:52] - Paul: haha. I like that. why wouldn't you say that Wil Wheaton is a libertarian? I don't know anythign about his poltical philosophies. -mel
[2004-06-22 13:11:44] - Mel: I've heard it said once that economics is the class that is most likely to turn somebody into a libertarian. -Paul
[2004-06-22 13:10:22] - For instance, I would never say that Wil Wheaton is a libertarian, no matter how much he claims to be one. -Paul
[2004-06-22 13:09:56] - Paul: woah, I think its cool there are a bunch of nobel prize winners in economics who are libertarian. -mel
[2004-06-22 13:07:06] - Mel: http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities.html There are a lot of people who have called themselves Libertarians at one time or another. Whether they truly are or not is questionable. -Paul
[2004-06-22 13:05:56] - Paul: Cool. Well I think I would consider the Libertarian Party to be "larger" than the Green Party. Hey, did you know Dave Barry is a libertarian? I didn't -mel
[2004-06-22 13:02:25] - Mel: I think that's exactly the same as the information found in the wikipedia link I put into Pierce's journal. -Paul
[2004-06-22 12:58:42] - Pierce and Paul: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/United-States-Libertarian-Party an interesting discussion (with statistics included) of whether the Libertarian Party is the third biggest party or not. -mel
[2004-06-22 12:46:45] - http://www.papersplease.org/hiibel/video.html Link to the police video of the Hiibel arrest. The end sounds kinda like a porn video.
-Paul[2004-06-22 11:57:59] - http://espn.go.com/espy2004/s/04bestplaynominees.html?POLL178=3F8000000C000006A7AD600 So hard to pick one. I like how it's so easy to eliminate the baseball one though.
-Paul[2004-06-22 11:42:22] - Travis: True, but wouldn't a thong appeal to more people than a vibrator? -Paul
[2004-06-22 11:40:31] - Paul: i think once they made the Hello Kitty vibrator, a thong is rather tame - travis
[2004-06-22 11:24:54] - http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=40841 Hello Kitty thong. Has a picture of a thong but otherwise SFW. -Paul
[2004-06-22 10:58:40] - Pierce: I believe you meant to be talking to me? -Paul
[2004-06-22 10:58:11] - http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:tCEKSNVW-OYJ:mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.doc+drudge%3F&hl=en Ok, I didn't read this at ALL so I'm definitely not vouching for it or anything, but I figured some of you with too much time on their hands might want to read through this attempt to determine bias in the media. -Paul
[2004-06-22 10:57:04] - pierce: really? there have been a grand total of about two words that that's happened for for me - vinnie
[2004-06-22 10:55:40] - vinnie: I'm actually getting turned off to m-w too, since a lot of the words I look for are in their "unabridged" dictionary which they cruelly taunt me with. - pierce
[2004-06-22 10:55:14] - paul: well, not only do I like m-w.com more for definitions I also use it for the thesaurus - vinnie
[2004-06-22 10:55:08] - Vinnie: A part of me wants to see Kobe stay with the Lakers and Shaq and Phil go to the Knicks and have them meet in the Finals. What a match that would be. -Paul
[2004-06-22 10:53:56] - Vinnie: I use the "define" keyword in google instead of m-w.com now. -paul
[2004-06-22 10:52:44] - pierce: excellent. m-w.com at my fingertips - vinnie
[2004-06-22 10:50:38] - I don't know about the size of the google box, I don't use firefox (I use the main Mozilla branch) - pierce
[2004-06-22 10:50:28] - paul: yes, the shaq deal should be interesting to see. if somehow the magic could get him like francis said...(not gonna happen, but wow could that team do well) - vinnie
[2004-06-22 10:49:59] - or "google" to http://www.google.com/search?q=%s - pierce
[2004-06-22 10:49:05] - vinnie: then, if you want to be able to type "wiki Libertarianism" in the address bar, you need to find out the URL for searching for a given string and replace the string with "%s"... like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%s - pierce
[2004-06-22 10:48:16] - Vinnie: I wonder if we'll see an even bigger (in more ways than one!) Shaq deal? -Paul
[2004-06-22 10:48:01] - vinnie: there should be a "keyword" field, where you can put something like "wiki". - pierce
[2004-06-22 10:47:40] - 2) is there a way to expand the google/search box. it is too small for my liking - vinnie
[2004-06-22 10:47:31] - vinnie: go to the bookmark manager, and get properties on the bookmark you want to have a keyword for. - pierce
[2004-06-22 10:47:08] - Vinnie: But it sounds almost EXACTLY the same. Single fashion designer. 3 kids? All we need now is a minister as a love interest. -Paul
[2004-06-22 10:47:01] - oh, I have firefox questions for those who know more: 1) how do I make keywords? the help doesn't even have an entry for it - vinnie
[2004-06-22 10:46:21] - http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/?GT1=3584 An entirely too long article about Moore's new film and how the author disagrees with it. At least he didn't just call Moore fat.
-Paul[2004-06-22 10:46:20] - i switched to firefox so no more ie problems for the time-being - vinnie
[2004-06-22 10:45:47] - incidentally, that's a terrible photo of Lori Loughlin. - pierce
[2004-06-22 10:44:46] - let me know if anyone has any issues with my journal in IE. I got tired of how ugly it looked but I still can't figure out how to cleanly emulate position: fixed in IE, so I just made it absolutely positioned from the top. - pierce
[2004-06-22 10:43:57] - wow, that t-mac deal is big. and I also think that works well for both teams - vinnie
[2004-06-22 10:43:50] - I didn't read it carefully enough. - pierce
[2004-06-22 10:43:22] - Paul: n/m, I understand now. - pierce
[2004-06-22 10:43:20] - paul: yes, but that's also the plot of like four tv shows. it's a very common premise in movies and TV - vinnie
[2004-06-22 10:42:58] - Paul: wrong link? - pierce
[2004-06-22 10:37:32] - http://entertainment.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=161866 Didn't they already make this a movie called "Raising Helen"? -Paul
[2004-06-22 10:03:43] - mig: then I wouldn't worry about automake and autoconf... as long as there aren't complex dependencies (which is your judgement call). - pierce
[2004-06-22 10:02:17] - Mig: So the "sources" claim, but I still won't consider it fact until I see something official. -Paul
[2004-06-22 10:00:29] - paul: it's official if the bobcats don't take any players that are unprotected in the deal. - mig
[2004-06-22 09:56:32] - no, but i wanna make sure if i move the code to another linux box that it compiles fine. - mig
[2004-06-22 09:44:45] - mig: are you going to have to pass this code around to other people who might have to work it into their own programs? - pierce
[2004-06-22 09:39:20] - And if T-Mac is going to like having to pass to Yao every time down the court. -Paul
[2004-06-22 09:39:04] - Travis: I heard it was a done deal on the radio "according to sources" but I'm still not willing to believe it until I hear it from the respective teams. On paper, this looks like a good deal for both teams but I just can't help but wonder if McGrady will suffer the same kind of bad numbers Francis did under Van Gundy. -Paul
[2004-06-22 09:31:55] - paul: i saw the t-mac/houston trade on the tv in the elevator, and it's not just rumor: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1825839 - travis
[2004-06-22 09:28:40] - single executable. not any complex dependancies that i know of. - mig
[2004-06-22 09:19:30] - mig: is it generating multiple library files? multiple executables? a single executable? are there any complex dependency relationships? - pierce
[2004-06-22 09:18:12] - not very large. - mig
[2004-06-22 09:11:18] - Mig: how large is the project you're compiling? it seems like a project of any significant size is going to be ten times as much of a bitch as using those tools. - pierce
[2004-06-22 08:48:14] - http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=32473 Why does it seem like whoever wrote this article was far more sympathetic to the robber than the person he was trying to rob? -Paul
[2004-06-22 08:46:02] - http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1825777 I hope the Expos don't come to Northern Virginia. -Paul
[2004-06-22 08:44:22] - http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5263552/ What irks me is that this article goes on about how there are other third party candidates and then there is the poll on the right side which lists Bush, Kerry and Nader only. -Paul
[2004-06-22 08:42:16] - http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/156886-7282-010.html Supreme Court rules that people must identify themselves to police. -Paul
[2004-06-22 08:38:44] - http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/spaceshipone/flightday.html Pictures of the flight (although I'm a bit confused by the sign). -Paul
[2004-06-22 08:30:41] - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3811881.stm Private craft makes space history. -Paul
[2004-06-22 08:22:29] - Anybody hear about the T-Mac to Houston rumors? I'm not so sure McGrady will enjoy Van Gundy's defensive give-the-ball-to-Yao system anymore than Francis did... -Paul
[2004-06-22 07:55:57] - becuase they are a bitch to use. - mig
[2004-06-22 07:55:33] - pierce: i know the advantages, i'm just asking if using them is really all that necessary? - mig
[2004-06-22 06:11:01] - pierce: "he knows about those kinds of things" i mean in general. ~a
[2004-06-22 00:33:14] - That's my understanding, at least. - pierce
[2004-06-22 00:33:03] - None of them are strictly necessary for anything, as none of them actually do anything in and of themselves. But they all make your life easier. - pierce
[2004-06-22 00:32:31] - mig: the advantage of autoconf is to make dealing with external dependencies better. The advantage of automake is to make dealing with internal dependencies better. The advantage of ant is, I dunno, [insert broad XML-is-good proselytizing here]. - pierce
[2004-06-22 00:30:41] - a: I do? - pierce
[2004-06-21 23:02:09] - (rhymes with glove?) - aaron
[2004-06-21 23:01:54] - These contests that advertise "WIN A SUV" make me dread how the marketeers are pronouncing "suv" - aaron
[2004-06-21 22:05:10] - re: ant - ant.apache.org (you'll also need to use cpptasks and possibly ant-contrib (both at http://sourceforge.net/projects/ant-contrib/ )) ant is very easy to use (however if you ever get automake/autoconf working, let me know because i'm very interested) ~a
[2004-06-21 21:58:21] - and make sure to ask pierce, he knows about those kinds of things. ~a
[2004-06-21 21:57:47] - mig: you could use ant. ~a
[2004-06-21 21:54:34] - just throwing this out there for anyone who might know. is it really necessary to use autoconf and automake to have code compile correctly across any linux system? - mig
[2004-06-21 18:07:06] - so i guess we're gonna have to hire groundskeeper willy to deprogram paul this weekend? - travis
[2004-06-21 17:50:50] - and MJ didn't even have the added publicity of a rape trial
- travis[2004-06-21 17:41:10] - dynasties also just produce the kind of buzz that draws in the people who don't otherwise care about basketball. same reason basketball viewership was so strong around the time of MJ - vinnie
[2004-06-21 17:40:28] - And with that, I'm out of here to go see the Scientology flick. If you all never hear from me again, just assume I up and joined them.
-Paul[2004-06-21 17:39:52] - I think proof of that is this year's finals. The last two games were blowouts and yet they had huge ratings because I think people wanted to see the Lakers lose. -Paul
[2004-06-21 17:37:11] - Whereas when it comes to something like Spurs/Nets, lots of people might not watch because they don't care who wins. -Paul
[2004-06-21 17:36:45] - Travis: At least the Red Sox are a dynasty in the respect that they always are a good team (they just never go all the way). I think you're right that the reason dynasties are so "popular" are because people often watch to root for the other team just as much as to root for the dynasty. -Paul
[2004-06-21 17:33:03] - paul: dynasties probably give good ratings because haters always wanna see the champs fall, but imagine the ratings of the cubs/red sox series (although those are sorta like dynasties of losing
) - travis[2004-06-21 17:32:06] - Mel: That's kinda the reason why parity is unpopular. San Antonio and New Jersey loved it when the Spurs and Nets played for the championship, but since neither is a dynasty (and they are both in small markets), the ratings were a lot lower. -Paul
[2004-06-21 17:31:46] - travis: no, not more info than I wanted.
I didn't start watching basketball until college so I am lacking in basic basketball history. -mel[2004-06-21 17:31:36] - pierce: i only have 2 component devices (dvd and ps2) going to my tv, both hooked directly into the tv. my gamecube is hooked up using s-video - travis
[2004-06-21 17:30:19] - mel: basketball hasn't had much variety in the past decade or so: bulls 3 years, rockets 2 years, bulls 3 years, spurs, lakers 3 years, spurs, pistons (more info than you wanted, but there ya go) - travis
[2004-06-21 17:28:22] - Paul: ok. well I didn't realize that. Over here in LA, of course people prefer that the Lakers continue to win championships. But I assumed other cities wouldn't feel the same way. -mel
[2004-06-21 17:27:48] - Mel: The Bulls were basically two seperate 3 year dynasties with a couple of years in between (while Jordan was giving baseball a try). -Paul
[2004-06-21 17:27:05] - Mel: Sorry, I can't really find any links to back me up. I just remember reading and hearing that championship games/playoffs tend to get better ratings when there is a dynasty involved (Yankees, Lakers, Bulls, etc). -Paul
[2004-06-21 17:22:38] - travis: how long was the bulls dynasty? -mel
[2004-06-21 17:22:16] - Paul: really? where did you see statistics? do you have a link? -mel
[2004-06-21 17:21:58] - pierce: e-mailed you back - vinnie
[2004-06-21 17:20:36] - Travis: I personally dislike dynasties (didn't like the Bulls either) so you're preaching to the choir for me.
-Paul[2004-06-21 17:20:11] - travis: how many component video devices do you have going into your tv? do you use a switcher of some sort? - pierce
[2004-06-21 17:19:54] - Travis: I guess you're right, I wasn't sure he was making the max amount. In a way, getting a longer contract is kinda like making more money because it's guaranteed. -Paul
[2004-06-21 17:19:09] - dynasties can be viewed both ways, most people enjoyed the bulls dynasty but nowadays you hear people complain about how many great players didn't (malone, ewing, etc) or almost didn't (robinson) win a championship because of that team - travis
[2004-06-21 17:17:46] - Paul: then why would kobe be motivated by money? he should already be earning max (i'd think, at least) so all he can do is get a longer contract - travis
[2004-06-21 17:16:56] - Mel: I don't think it's regardless at all. If you're a Laker fan, it's probably breaking you up to see your precious team collapsing like this. Besides, statistics seem to indicate that the average audience prefers dynasties over parity. -Paul
[2004-06-21 17:15:37] - Travis: True, but that's only because there is now a limit to how much money they can make.
-Paul[2004-06-21 17:14:44] - Paul: Regardless of whether you are a fan, the Lakers have dominated for many years now. Breaking up the team should change that, causing mroe competition, making things way more interesting. -mel
[2004-06-21 17:12:36] - same with marbury being tossed from nets to wolves to suns to knicks - travis
[2004-06-21 17:11:40] - shaq and t-mac want out of their teams because of teammates, etc., so even though they can expect to make same or more money by being traded i don't think that's their motivation (for those two specifically) - travis
[2004-06-21 17:10:46] - Mel: Depends on if you are a Lakers fan or not. -Paul
[2004-06-21 17:06:45] - Paul: nope. well regardless, this will be good for basketball, won't it? Its change and that is good. -mel
[2004-06-21 17:05:35] - Mel: I guess professional athletes just don't think like we do.
-Paul[2004-06-21 17:03:57] - Paul: yeah, I would think that once you pass some threshold of wealth, other factors (like location, teammates, coach) would outweigh a money difference. but that's just me. -mel
[2004-06-21 16:59:49] - Mel: It's surprising how often sports is about the money, I think. It seems like athletes are always going wherever they can get paid the most even though I can't imagine them actually needing any more money. I would think they would want to stay where they have roots but it rarely happens when they turn down bigger contracts. -Paul
[2004-06-21 16:58:18] - Mel: I honestly don't know. If Phil really wanted to stay, would Buss not rehire him? That would be a HUGE risk considering he would be turning away a coach with 9 rings. I think it's more likely Phil felt unwanted and didn't feel strongly enough to stay and so he didn't force Buss' hand. -Paul
[2004-06-21 16:58:05] - vinnie: in addition to the questions in my email, do you know yet when exactly you're going to be moving in? - pierce
prev <-> next