here are old message board entries

---

prev <-> next

[2004-07-09 16:36:37] - vinnie: yes, I agree about the buffy threads.  The recaps can be hilarious.  Often harsh but in an intelligent, sarcastic way.  -mel

[2004-07-09 16:36:26] - but lurking is fine - vinnie

[2004-07-09 16:36:04] - the thing that will probably keep me from posting though is that there are too many people. it's pretty much like a free-for-all and I was surprised there were threads about twop members trying to get together IRL - vinnie

[2004-07-09 16:34:44] - mel: yeah, they really get into it on some threads. the buffy ones especially - vinnie

[2004-07-09 16:31:30] - vinnie: That's what I like in general, I think.  This board is also intelligent and often heated.  But heated is what makes things interesting.  -mel

[2004-07-09 16:30:43] - vinnie: Interesting comparing opinions on TWOP.  Heated and intelligent is very well put.    -mel

[2004-07-09 16:28:25] - paul: bball is on, I'm pretty sure - vinnie

[2004-07-09 16:28:13] - mel: yesss - vinnie

[2004-07-09 16:25:08] - i'm a bit busy today, so i think i'm a no go for bball. - mig

[2004-07-09 16:23:26] - vinnie: are you there?  -mel

[2004-07-09 16:14:46] - Is it safe to assume basketball is on for today? -Paul

[2004-07-09 15:33:07] - but nowadays they think anything can make a manga, otherwise courtney love wouldn't have a manga (although it turns out she only vaguely created the characters of "her" manga while other people wrote and drew it) - travis

[2004-07-09 15:32:24] - dave: yup, although it doesn't say whether they're just copying the original series or making up new stuff - travis

[2004-07-09 14:55:27] - travis: haha, is that The Simple Life released as a manga? -dave

[2004-07-09 14:13:23] - travis:  you have a trade waiting from me.  accept! (or not, either way do it quickly). - mig

[2004-07-09 13:58:57] - http://www.tokyopop.com/dbpage.php?propertycode=TSL&categorycode=BCM okay, the world can go ahead and die now - travis

[2004-07-09 13:41:48] - 5,6,7,8, hey hey!

[2004-07-09 13:34:31] - yes. - mig

[2004-07-09 13:30:56] - s/2.6.4\./2.6.7./ ?  ~a

[2004-07-09 13:28:54] - oh i didn't know that.  well i knew 2.6.3 was giving me problems, but 2.6.4 was working fine for me on my old board, i'll go for 2.6.4. - mig

[2004-07-09 13:20:57] - oh yeah . . . the old 2.6.3 and 2.6.4 failed for me for random things too.  try 2.6.7 or 2.4.  ~a

[2004-07-09 13:02:32] - 2.6.4 to be precise.  I downloaded 2.6.7 and am going to try to get it to work on that. - mig

[2004-07-09 13:01:49] - i haven't tried 2.4.  2.6 fails. - mig

[2004-07-09 11:59:46] - so you've tried 2.4 and 2.6 and they both fail?  ~a

[2004-07-09 11:59:18] - Pierce: hehe, sorry. Hope your flight goes ok, delays are so annoying. -dave

[2004-07-09 11:58:11] - it boots fine when i boot it through the 2.2.20 kernel though.  - mig

[2004-07-09 11:56:58] - a:  i got a kernel panic when the kernel tried to initialize the USB devices, when i disabled USB in the kernel, it then just hangs while booting. - mig

[2004-07-09 11:54:32] - And suddenly my concerns about flight delays seem incredibly miniscule.  Thanks, Dave! - pierce

[2004-07-09 11:32:11] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/07/09/foster.parents.abuse.ap/index.html Coupled charged with child abuse. Made children (foster, adopted, own) dig graves in the backyard despite disabilities. Also made to sleep in a metal cage -dave

[2004-07-09 11:14:55] - here's hoping the "chance" of t-storms in chicago won't affect my connection there.  I'm getting in late enough as it is. - pierce

[2004-07-09 11:14:20] - a: thanks. - pierce

[2004-07-09 11:09:09] - have a good flight.  ~a

[2004-07-09 11:06:08] - I know you're not here, and I'm leaving for the airport soonish, so we probably won't be able to get into a debate about it, but I always like picking at that flaw in A-C logic. - pierce

[2004-07-09 11:05:01] - Because as I see it, when our government asks for company records and whatnot, the company has to obey.  If they company disobeys, they are punished by the government.  In a government-free society, what is the impetus for companies to release documents that might be used against them? - pierce

[2004-07-09 11:02:58] - Paul: let me ask you something... I know you didn't specifically bring up A-C, but you were talking about wholly privatized military and investigative services so I think it's relevant: in an A-C society, what does an investigation agency do if a company simply refuses to release relevant files? - pierce

[2004-07-09 11:00:37] - Paul: No, what we're pointing out is that Dupont didn't warn people about the dangers, and had no ill effects of that omission until they were punished by the government. - pierce

[2004-07-09 11:00:24] - mig:  no i don't.  what is your error?  ~a

[2004-07-09 11:00:21] - Paul: I wasn't saying that the govt. failed to, I said that Dupont hid the fact that it was harmful, not the govt. -dave

[2004-07-09 11:00:03] - paul:  private investigation also doesn't work as well because they don't have the right to investigate certain data wheras the government has many more rights to investigate the inner workings of a company.  additionally private investigation won't investigate what they can't make money investigating on.  (investigation needs more synonyms)  ~a

[2004-07-09 10:39:04] - And with that, I'm off before the criticisms can come in! -Paul

[2004-07-09 10:38:49] - Besides, we don't have a robust private investigative service for companies right now because the government has a monopoly on it. It's like saying that a private military would never work because we don't have one now. -Paul

[2004-07-09 10:37:39] - I'm only on for a couple of minutes so don't expect any further posts, but I again must point out the humor in people saying "look at how the government failed to tell people about the dangers of Teflon. That's why we need the government!" -Paul

[2004-07-09 10:30:56] - a:  know anything about sis motherboards and if they require certain settings in the kernel? - mig

[2004-07-09 10:30:28] - /s/right now/before/. - mig

[2004-07-09 10:22:37] - well i was using apache right now.  but now linux on my machine has been fucked over since i got my new motherboard so i'm just ssh-ing to my machine and using links right now. - mig

[2004-07-09 10:17:39] - via apache?  or ipip?  ~a

[2004-07-09 10:14:07] - a:  yes i do. - mig

[2004-07-09 10:08:50] - mig:  when you're at work, do you route your network traffic through your connection at home?  ~a

[2004-07-09 10:06:51] - also . . . freeness of a market is relative.  relative to most of the markets out there, our market is free.  ~a

[2004-07-09 10:00:44] - mig:  my (?) point is that their cries are not heard by our market.  we have to wait for the government for something to happen.  ~a

[2004-07-09 09:52:37] - mig: well I guess it's really two issues / points: is it good for the govt. to try to protect from these things, and these harmful effects may not have been publicized but for the govt -dave

[2004-07-09 09:51:07] - mig: so in a true free-market economy, it doesn't seem like the public would care enough to not buy it even knowing. So the question is, is it a good thing having the govt. try to protect the consumer from these longterm harmful things or not? -dave

[2004-07-09 09:49:37] - mig: at which point it probably would be fairly difficult to pinpoint the Teflon as the reason for the cancer -dave

[2004-07-09 09:49:01] - mig: So if the govt wasn't doing anything about it, no one would really know until like 50-60 years later when everyone got cancer from it -dave

[2004-07-09 09:48:19] - mig: I wasn't really referring to a group, but was just saying that the news has been out there that the company has known for quite awhile that Teflon has some bad stuff in it, and even though it has come out now, consumers either don't know or dont' care enough to do anything about it -dave

[2004-07-09 09:21:41] - a:  maybe their cries would be heard in a free market.  how do you know that they wouldn't?  right now they're only heard by the government when they it's politically convenient to hear them. - mig

[2004-07-09 09:01:00] - "1B Jason Giambi (parasites) returned to the starting lineup Monday, July 5, for the first time since being diagnosed with intestinal parasites" ... ha! - mig

[2004-07-09 08:56:16] - although to be fair, cleveland brought this upon themselves. - mig

[2004-07-09 08:53:17] - anyone hear about the carolos boozer fiasco?  man, what a slezeball. - mig

[2004-07-09 08:31:30] - http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1621438,00.asp Mozilla flaw allows links to run executeable code on your computer -dave

[2004-07-09 08:13:27] - mig+paul:  yeah!  what dave said.  in your totally free market, the poor public interest group would have no one to go to . . . their cries about a harmful company and a harmful PFOA would fall on deaf ears.  ~a

[2004-07-09 07:45:44] - http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/09/news/newsmakers/buffett_lunch.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes Lunch with Warren Buffett...sells on ebay for 200k. Apparenlty this is an annual charity deal that Buffet does -dave

[2004-07-09 07:43:17] - oops, stupid dirty girl, no little -dave

[2004-07-09 07:42:39] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/08/girls.name.ap/index.html Riordan jokingly told 6 year old girl that her name meant stupid dirty little girl. Even though he has apologized profusely and the girl and mother say the issue is over, apparently the media won't let it rest -dave

[2004-07-09 07:39:36] - http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1836585 Apparently Kings backed out of talks to acquire Shaq. -dave

[2004-07-09 07:38:31] - http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1836674 yay, Ginobli probably returning to Spurs -dave

[2004-07-09 07:33:33] - this brings to mind the discussion we had about whether the free-market can control products that are harmful. Obviously no consumers care or know enough about the harmful effects of Teflon, and teh company isn't telling anyone either -dave

[2004-07-09 07:32:17] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37628-2004Jul8.html Dupont being fined by the EPA for not disclosing health / environmental problems with a chemical in Teflon -dave

[2004-07-08 21:22:46] - Hehe. I saw the title and was like, "ooooo! scrabble sex tape!" but then my eyes caught up with me - aaron

[2004-07-08 17:07:31] - paul: well, for one the people make money off it, and also comp copies come out before stores get them and companies don't like having content leaked - travis

[2004-07-08 17:05:54] - http://www.thejournalnews.com/newsroom/062404/a0124teentape.html isn't this advice the opposite of what you normally hear: "'If you want to do something stupid with your life, don't do it when you're young; you have a whole life ahead of you." - travis

[2004-07-08 17:01:46] - Travis: Strange, I wonder why they care. -Paul

[2004-07-08 17:00:03] - paul: one guy was just outright caught selling comp copies, another lady they went to court over where the comics came from - travis

[2004-07-08 16:50:02] - http://www.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=42292&cat=Science I can't tell if this is parody or not. -Paul

[2004-07-08 16:34:47] - Travis: How did they find out it was the free copies that she sold? -Paul

[2004-07-08 16:31:28] - and there was a case of a comic book company employee who sold her free copies on ebay.  she got fired for it (i think, it might be in court right now) - travis

[2004-07-08 16:30:48] - this doesn't support either side, but just a note about employee discounts, i've known people who get fired for taking advantage of that, so companies do realize there's a risk involved - travis

[2004-07-08 16:29:22] - Last days of work are always so sad. -Paul

[2004-07-08 16:24:04] - 00100100001111110110101010001000100001011010001100

[2004-07-08 16:14:37] - Dave: Adieu! -Board

[2004-07-08 16:12:08] - and with that, I bid the board adieu ^_^ -dave

[2004-07-08 16:11:40] - Let me just say that talking online sucks, it's so much harder to explain things -dave

[2004-07-08 16:10:45] - paul paul paul

[2004-07-08 16:08:24] - Paul

[2004-07-08 16:08:06] - Paul: because there is a business reason behind giving employees the advantage. Insider trading has nothing to do with the business and more to do with one person specifically trying to help out another -dave

[2004-07-08 16:06:58] - Paul: Yeah I agree to a certain extent. Like I said, it's just all about who's supposed to get the advantage and who's not -dave

[2004-07-08 16:05:02] - Dave: Right, and if we're talking about legality alone then I don't think we have anything to debate. I'm just saying that it seems like they are morally the same but legally different and I don't understand why. -Paul

[2004-07-08 16:04:17] - Dave: Well, I wasn't thinking about it in terms of investors. I was thinking about it in terms of consumers. Everybody who shops at that store that doesn't get an employee discount is "hurt" in that they aren't getting that discount. That's the same way that investors are hurt by insider trading. They don't get the advantage. -Paul

[2004-07-08 16:01:34] - Paul: the difference is really just a legality. It is legal for some people (employees of a company) to get benefits from the stock that other people don't. Insider trading is when people who aren't supposed to be allowed to get the benefit, get it. -dave

[2004-07-08 15:58:26] - Paul: Because it IS legal for companies to give specific people a discount on stock. That's what stock options are -dave

[2004-07-08 15:57:20] - that why I liked my gambling analogy. I think it's closer to the market example than the sale. it's closer to a pure distribution of money than a store is - vinnie

[2004-07-08 15:57:12] - Paul: if the employees were able to resell the merchandise they bought at a discount, then it would decrease the value of the stuff everyone else bought. That's why I was making the distinction that it is illegal for them to do that -dave

[2004-07-08 15:56:06] - Paul: well it isn't irrelevant, because the employee discount will benefit just the employee and not hurt the other investors. Insider trading hurts the other investors because it decreases the value of their stock -dave

[2004-07-08 15:55:15] - Dave: Oh, is that all we're talking about? Then yes, I agree that what she did was probably illegal. -paul

[2004-07-08 15:55:13] - paul: no, my bad. I can see now you were responding to dave's point down there and not mine - vinnie

[2004-07-08 15:54:40] - Vinnie: No, sorry, I wasn't keeping track of the other conversation. I only caught the last thing you said. -Paul

[2004-07-08 15:54:10] - Dave: That's irrelevant though. The point I am making is that employee discounts hurt everybody who don't get them in the same way insider trading hurts people who don't get the information. -Paul

[2004-07-08 15:53:58] - Paul: I'm not really trying to comment on whether insider trading should or shouldn't necessarily be legal/illegal. I'm more saying that Martha Stewart should be punished because it is illegal -dave

[2004-07-08 15:52:25] - paul: I pointed out a few posts ago that if insider trading weren't illegal the strongest markets would impose it anyway. I thought that's what we were arguing about - vinnie

[2004-07-08 15:51:48] - Paul: I think another distinction about insider trading is that it is illegal. So everyone expects it not to happen and acts accordingly. If it was legal, then everyone would have the ability to try to compensate for it which would then be ok. It's the fact that investors are told that it is illegal and then someone does it that makes it bad -dave

[2004-07-08 15:50:19] - Paul: But even with employee discounts, the employees are prohibited from taking that merchandise and reselling it at the normal price -dave

[2004-07-08 15:50:06] - Vinnie: We're talking about self-imposed rules? -Paul

[2004-07-08 15:49:40] - Dave: I think I know what you're saying, but I still don't think that makes a big enough difference to me. There are millions of things out there that some people are excluded from which aren't illegal. People not born in the US can't be president, does that mean being president should be illegal? -Paul

[2004-07-08 15:48:34] - paul: well, I think we can both come up with examples of self-imposed rules from other things that help or hurt (steroids, for example, I think most people feel hurt baseball). you need an example of a market that gets along well that allows insider trading, or at least an example that parallels better than a sale - vinnie

[2004-07-08 15:48:13] - Dave: Ok then, think of it more as an employee discount then. -Paul

[2004-07-08 15:47:13] - Paul: Somehow it feels like I'm not explaining this correctly. Like the law doesn't say anything about some people finding information other people couldn't find. It's just about the availability of that information to everyone, regardless of who finds it or not -dave

[2004-07-08 15:45:01] - Paul: but in a retail store having a sale, everyone has the chance to get there and buy stuff. Not so with insider trading -dave

[2004-07-08 15:41:23] - Danie: I think insider trading feels like a retail store having a sale to me. Some people get a better deal and everybody else get's "hurt" in that they don't get helped. -Paul

[2004-07-08 15:40:49] - vinnie:  thing is though, the government has decided to impose those rules on the market, regardless of whether the market wants those rules or not. - mig

[2004-07-08 15:38:25] - vinnie: yeah, I agree with you. Practically that's what it comes down to though, even if it is a federal law -dave

[2004-07-08 15:37:25] - mig: I actually could see the case for everything, but I'm not sure about everyone -dave

[2004-07-08 15:34:43] - Mig: I would say that everything outside of US territory is also property of the US government, or so it seems. -Paul

[2004-07-08 15:34:33] - hahaha, your debate is more interesting - vinnie

[2004-07-08 15:34:08] - all I mean to say is that insider trading feels like stealing if it's against the rules of the market (which I think it would be in most cases, if it weren't explicitly illegal). you're breaking a contract, same as not giving someone goods they've paid for. I don't care about the technicalities of what a casino charges you with - vinnie

[2004-07-08 15:33:37] - well if you want to go even deeper honestly it seems that everything and everyone inside the US is property of the US government. - mig

[2004-07-08 15:30:18] - Paul: just for the record, I'm not sure where I stand on the matter, but I'm just trying to explain the reasoning behind the current laws -dave

[2004-07-08 15:29:34] - vinnie: no idea about online gambling -dave

[2004-07-08 15:28:18] - Paul: If it's your land yes. But technically any land in the US is really the govt's and the govt is just sort of giving you certain rights to it -dave

[2004-07-08 15:27:47] - mig: what about online gambling? I swear there has to be some law against getting money from a game or something without using their rules - vinnie

[2004-07-08 15:27:41] - vinnie:  if you go to a casino that permits card counting, you can card count all you want. - mig

[2004-07-08 15:27:37] - mig: actually they will just tell you that you can't play blackjack there anymore. You're free to play the other games -dave

[2004-07-08 15:27:29] - Dave: Even on private land? -Paul

[2004-07-08 15:27:02] - Paul: if you own an island off the coast, you can hire whoever you want ^_^ -dave

[2004-07-08 15:26:29] - Paul: well, I know you don't really agree with this either, but the govt. "gets" the right to it because they are the ones who are creating the environment to do business in the first place -dave

[2004-07-08 15:25:16] - vinnie:  you aren't charged, with card counting though.  you are usually charged with trespaassing on casino property, because you violated one of the rules that you agreed to abide by when you entered. - mig

[2004-07-08 15:24:48] - Dave: *Shrug* I just don't see where the government gets off telling me who I have to pay money to. -Paul

[2004-07-08 15:24:18] - vinnie: it's not illegal to "count" cards. As in you keep track of what cards are all on the table etc. But they won't let you play anymore -dave

[2004-07-08 15:22:32] - Paul: ahhh ok. Most interesting -dave

[2004-07-08 15:22:27] - mig: I'm fairly certainly it is illegal. otherwise, I could be in cahoots with a blackjack dealer or something and make off with millions. what're they gonna do? just throw me out? - vinnie

[2004-07-08 15:21:37] - Dave: Because then I wonder why we don't force people to have friends of every gender and race also. -Paul

[2004-07-08 15:21:00] - dave:  i don't think they should, however:  i don't think they should be forced at gunpoint to be told who they can and can't hire by the government. - mig

[2004-07-08 15:20:55] - Dave: I think that if I don't want to pay somebody of a certain race money to do a job then I shouldn't be forced to. -Paul

[2004-07-08 15:19:25] - bah, curse this browser and it's silly form cache! - mig

[2004-07-08 15:18:30] - dave:  that was the big thing that was irritavinnie:  it's not *illegal* though.  they just throw you out of the casino if you're a card counter.  HUGE difference. - mig

[2004-07-08 15:17:38] - Paul: Ahh. How about discrimination? Do you think companies should be able to discriminate based on race or gender? -dave

[2004-07-08 15:17:28] - or a better example is gambling. it is profitable to make card counting against the rules so casinos do it. the practice of keeping track of cards seems fair to me (hell, almost instinctual) but hey, they say it's illegal, so it's illegal - vinnie

[2004-07-08 15:15:57] - Dave: Right, I guess I just don't understand the common tendency to make unfairness illegal. -Paul

[2004-07-08 15:14:29] - yes, the "fair" playing field is the reason it's not allowed. I think a market without it could certainly work, but would not thrive as well. think of it as a salary cap - vinnie

[2004-07-08 15:13:44] - Paul: It's kinda like discrimination, companies can't selectively give out information -dave

[2004-07-08 15:13:15] - Paul: so if some company released info but no one payed attention to it but one person, and that person bought the stock or whatever, then it's perfectly fine, it's only when there's the inability to get the same information that it's illegal -dave

[2004-07-08 15:11:21] - Paul: the difference is that everyone has access to the information on the internet. But not everyone has access to the information that the insiders get -dave

[2004-07-08 15:10:51] - Paul: you can look at it from the perspective that people in a company aren't supposed to reveal potentially stock-changing information except in an official way. If someone gives that information to someone on the sly, then it's illegal -dave

[2004-07-08 15:10:16] - Dave: Well, I understand how it can be unfair. But it seems like it's unfair in the same way that reading information on the internet about how a company is doing is unfair. -Paul

[2004-07-08 15:09:12] - Paul: yeah it's kinda funky that way, until you realize how damaging it can be. Like the inside trader makes lotsa money right? But that money comes from somewhere...and it's from all the other people who didn't have access to the info. I think people just want a "fair" playing field -dave

[2004-07-08 15:07:49] - Because that's the only difference I can think of between insider trading and legal trading. -Paul

[2004-07-08 15:07:19] - Like if you don't buy or sell stock or are part of a business, then I don't think it applies to you -dave

[2004-07-08 15:07:13] - Dave: Well, what I was saying is that I don't understand how knowing more than somebody else is suddenly illegal. -Paul

[2004-07-08 15:07:13] - dave: I getcha - vinnie

[2004-07-08 15:06:38] - Well, I think you agree not to use insider trading when you're buying or selling stock and also it's a law for businesses to reveal certain information in a certain way -dave

[2004-07-08 15:03:18] - well, basically what I'm trying to make the distinction between is whether you agree not to use insider trading when you buy or sell stock, or whether it's just a general law that the govt puts on us. this is really for paul's sake, not mine - vinnie

[2004-07-08 14:56:48] - vinnie: I don't think I understand what you're getting at =/  What difference does it make if the laws are federal or specific to the market? The laws are federal I believe because there are stipulations on what, when, and how companies have to divulge certain information -dave

[2004-07-08 14:54:25] - why would markets allow insider trading though? it seems like a bad idea anyway - vinnie

[2004-07-08 14:53:39] - dave: oh ok. that changes my position a little, I guess - vinnie

[2004-07-08 14:51:22] - vinnie: errr, are federal laws -dave

[2004-07-08 14:51:15] - vinnie: I believe the laws on federal laws -dave

[2004-07-08 14:51:11] - as morally wrong as not giving someone goods they've given you money for at least (I haven't decided if keeping contracts should be considered any part of morality) - vinnie

[2004-07-08 14:49:47] - dave: you've got it. and I guess what paul is saying is that morally, there's no wrong done, but aren't the rules of using the stock market explicit to that market and outside of even a govt action? - vinnie

[2004-07-08 14:47:17] - I think the general idea is that everyone should have an equal chance at the information -dave

[2004-07-08 14:45:50] - I don't know all the rules, but that's the general gist of it I think -dave

[2004-07-08 14:44:59] - So by simply buying or selling the stock based on the information that only you knew, you could make a ton of money, but either selling or buying again after the stock price went up or down after the news went public -dave

[2004-07-08 14:44:08] - anyone else had a chance to act on the information. -dave

[2004-07-08 14:44:00] - Paul: Not exactly. Insider trading is when you get information before anyone else knows it. Like say someone in a company always called you and told you about their news releases an hour before they actually released them. That's insider trading because you could buy stock when it was good news and sell when it was bad news, all before -dave

[2004-07-08 14:42:52] - paul: huh? - vinnie

[2004-07-08 14:36:16] - Dave: But doesn't it hurt people in the same way that ANY trading hurts everybody else? -Paul

[2004-07-08 14:32:53] - no you daren't -dave

[2004-07-08 14:31:52] - *** a wonders "dare I trust dave's summary of the article?"

[2004-07-08 14:25:32] - wow weird.  ~a

[2004-07-08 14:25:27] - *** a wonders "dare I trust dave's summary of the article?"

[2004-07-08 14:20:33] - Paul: well, theoretically, insider trading hurts all the other people who hold stock in teh company -dave

[2004-07-08 14:19:58] - mig: it's just a judge of how good or how bad of an inside-trader that person is ^_^ -dave

[2004-07-08 14:19:52] - mig: and correct me if I'm wrong, but was anybody actually harmed by her actions? -Paul

[2004-07-08 14:19:26] - mig: I think they actually ended up convicting her of impeding the investigation or trying to falsify evidence as opposed to insider trading if I remember correctly. And even if it was insider trading, what the stock does afterwards shouldn't have any bearing at all on whether to convict someoen of insider trading or not -dave

[2004-07-08 14:14:11] - so i have to ask, exactly what was it that she did that was so horrible that she's going to jail? - mig

[2004-07-08 14:13:01] - dave:  the worst part about the martha stewart case is that ImClone stock has actually gone up in value considerably since she sold it. - mig

[2004-07-08 13:51:51] - oops, 10-16 months -dave

[2004-07-08 13:51:35] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/08/martha.stewart.ap/index.html martha stewart retrial denied. She's supposed to get 10-12 month in prison during sentencing -dave

[2004-07-08 13:26:36] - was it a typo? the backslash key is pretty far from single quote - vinnie

[2004-07-08 12:50:43] - shorter appendages, heh heh -dave

[2004-07-08 12:44:01] - travis:  no no.  i totally agree.  i can tell everything about you just by looking at the color of your skin and the length of your shorter appendages.  ~a

[2004-07-08 12:42:07] - oh, nevermind.  it was a vinnie typo.  ~a

[2004-07-08 12:41:53] - ' problem again?!  how annoying.  ~a

[2004-07-08 12:41:36] - *** vinnie wonders "dare I trust dave's summary of the article?"

[2004-07-08 12:39:58] - I wonder what the dropout rate for other groups is -dave

[2004-07-08 12:39:35] - Interesting fact that Cosby quoted "50% of black males drop out of high school" -dave

[2004-07-08 12:39:16] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36090-2004Jul8.html Cosby supporting two black males for college. -dave

[2004-07-08 12:30:23] - a: i just assume everyone is totally honest, unbiased, and complete when they put a summary of the link's contents - travis

[2004-07-08 12:07:36] - *its  ~a

[2004-07-08 12:07:03] - travis:  always judge a book by it's cover?  ~a

[2004-07-08 11:43:10] - vinnie: or you've learned how to predict what an article will say based purely on the url - travis

[2004-07-08 11:39:44] - yep.  i thought it was quite ammusing too.  i wondered if you would notice.  ~a

[2004-07-08 11:37:42] - a: yes, like my accidental self-incrimination that I do follow your links! d'oh! - vinnie

[2004-07-08 11:33:55] - well they didn't have to incriminate themselves before.  now they do.  self incrimination is fun!  ~a

[2004-07-08 11:31:11] - they didn't have to keep recordings before? huh - vinnie

[2004-07-08 11:29:48] - unless you're the first, but what are the chances of that ever being true? - vinnie

[2004-07-08 11:29:06] - http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/07/08/0155226.shtml?tid=123&tid=153&tid=99  bad words are bad.  ~a

[2004-07-08 11:28:41] - ~a: it's an argument you can use to avoid doing anything! - vinnie

[2004-07-08 11:22:58] - vinnie:  isn't that an argument that we can use to not read your journal?    ~a

[2004-07-08 11:21:40] - Vinnie: By the time it's posted here it's already "so yesterday"? -Paul

[2004-07-08 11:19:04] - let me just say that I don't read any links you all post for that purpose. it's better to shun the bandwagon (ie. be above it) than jump on it late - vinnie

[2004-07-08 11:17:20] - Paul: I was the forerunner! -dave

[2004-07-08 10:42:33] - Dave: I just read that article. -Paul

[2004-07-08 10:41:47] - bleh, effect -dave

[2004-07-08 10:37:43] - http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=hughes_frank&id=1836022 Interesting speculation on the intentional on unintentional affect of Kobe talking with the Nuggets on his trial -dave

[2004-07-08 10:08:51] - Dave: I guess you probably read the more respectable ones that actually focus on the candidates instead of their wives. -Paul

[2004-07-08 10:00:31] - Paul: I dont' know how I've missed it - especially since I read a lot of articles on politics -dave

[2004-07-08 09:58:59] - *clap* -Paul

[2004-07-08 09:58:14] - you forgot the *clap* - vinnie

[2004-07-08 09:56:09] - Vinnie: Every night. -Paul

[2004-07-08 09:50:09] - the private space launch was much better before it sold out - vinnie

[2004-07-08 09:47:54] - Travis: I figured. Maybe that's the kind of soundtrack that the actual movie needed. -Paul

[2004-07-08 09:47:25] - Dave: I can't believe you hadn't heard that. The media has been making a decent amount of fuss over the fact that his wife is rich and outspoken. -Paul

[2004-07-08 09:47:22] - paul: there's no talking anyway, just music and a few grunts - travis

[2004-07-08 09:46:12] - wife was -dave

[2004-07-08 09:45:59] - Paul: haha, that ketchup thing is funny. And I didn't know kerry's was was the Heinz heiress -dave

[2004-07-08 09:42:38] - Travis: You're just a poser fan of the private space ship launch. Trying to jump on the bandwagon now that it's become popular. -Paul

[2004-07-08 09:42:03] - Travis: Agreed, that was a much better movie. And I didn't even have the sound turned on. -Paul

[2004-07-08 09:37:43] - like the type of people that claim they listened to a band long before they were popular and are thus more hardcore fans - travis

[2004-07-08 09:36:49] - a+paul: hopefully you both caught my joking sarcasm about people trying to prove they're forerunners - travis

[2004-07-08 09:33:57] - http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1277881&sdm=web&qtw=480&qth=300 cause lego makes everything better - travis

[2004-07-08 09:31:25] - Vinnie: Oh, right. Mine was about how it was successful though. I consider that to be a different subject. I had actually read Mel's article and remembered it when I posted mine. -Paul

[2004-07-08 09:29:08] - paul: you were second to post it. mig was third. mel was first, although in fairness her article was posted prior to the launch - vinnie

[2004-07-08 09:25:57] - Dammit, when is Cinema De Lux going to post their showtimes for Saturday and Sunday? -Paul

[2004-07-08 09:25:12] - travis:  so did i.  ~a

[2004-07-08 09:20:34] - Travis: So did I. -Paul

[2004-07-08 09:15:43] - Paul: and in my defense i read about it before anybody posted any links here - travis

[2004-07-08 09:13:05] - Vinnie: In my defense, I think I was the first to post it. -Paul

[2004-07-08 09:12:29] - http://www.talonnews.com/news/2004/july/0707_w_ketchup.shtml Some W Ketchup to go with your Freedom Fries? -Paul

[2004-07-08 09:08:54] - like I pointed out I think the private space launch thing was posted thrice - vinnie

[2004-07-08 09:08:33] - dave:  it's still on the front page.  after this message gets posted, it will be the last link on the page.  ~a

[2004-07-08 09:02:01] - Dave: Heh, it's ok. It happens all the time to me where I will comment about an article I read and it turns on the article I read was something somebody posted on the message board. -Paul

[2004-07-08 08:55:41] - Paul: actually I thought I had read all the articles everyone had posted, which is why I thought it strange that I missed one -dave

[2004-07-08 08:52:30] - Dave: I see how it is. You don't read articles I post. -Paul

[2004-07-08 08:43:25] - a: ahh, srry. I didn't remember seeing one posted. -dave

[2004-07-08 08:19:25] - dave:  didn't they already mention that in the article that paul posted?  ~a

[2004-07-08 07:43:54] - and you can even control the rate at which it releases hydrogen by varing the intensity of the light -dave

[2004-07-08 07:43:32] - other applications for nano-tech is medicine (where they have extremely small glass spheres that hold medicine and release it at a given rate) and those same glass spheres are trying to be used to hold hydrogen for fuel cells. Apparently they have it so that if you shine a specific light on the glass sphere it will release hydrogen -dave

[2004-07-07 17:48:47] - paul: by!  -mel

[2004-07-07 17:47:38] - Mel: Yeah, makes me wish I had written it sooner so I could talk to people more. As it is now, it's time for me to go home. Bye all! -Paul

[2004-07-07 17:46:53] - Paul: your blog entry sparked a lot of comments.  -mel

[2004-07-07 17:35:20] - Mel: Yeah, I know. It's something that has happened to a lot of people in journals before. Maybe we should have Adrian change the message board so as not to confuse everybody. -Paul

[2004-07-07 17:31:58] - Paul: haha.  I've gotten too used to the message board.  So I am used to starting to type with "Paul: " which is somewhat amusing in itself.  -mel

[2004-07-07 17:30:26] - Mel: No problem, I have lots of practice at it thanks to Pierce -Paul

[2004-07-07 17:30:05] - http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page3/story?page=turner/keiraknightley "What's amazing about this Guinevere is she's so strong. She's very manipulative. She's very calculating," Knightley said. "She's on top in the love scene which we rarely see. That's good." -Paul

[2004-07-07 17:27:05] - Paul: Thanks for fixing my mistake on your blog.  -mel

[2004-07-07 17:21:53] - a: thanks for forwarding the reunion e-mail to me.    -mel

[2004-07-07 17:17:02] - Travis: Yeah, different from those nanotubes. Personally, I think they're lying about all this talk about stuff 10,000 times smaller than a human hair and we can't prove them wrong because we can't measure it. -Paul

[2004-07-07 17:16:27] - travis: very, very small combs. - pierce

[2004-07-07 17:15:26] - "10,000 times thinner than a human hair" how the bloody hell do they manipulate stuff that small? - travis

[2004-07-07 17:14:31] - http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/07/07/HNgediode_1.html i'm guessing that's what dave was talking about - travis

[2004-07-07 17:13:21] - paul: wait, you mean different from what dave was talking about, right? cause i know what i was talking about - travis

prev <-> next