prev <-> next
[2005-01-05 13:06:30] - paul: thx, quite informative -dave
[2005-01-05 12:44:06] - mig: do you believe everything you read? ~a
[2005-01-05 12:01:47] - http://harrybrowne.org/articles/SneakyBills.htm even i'm a bit shocked the people who are in congress are actually this irresponsible. - mig
[2005-01-05 11:52:06] - Dave: The problem is that it really isn't saved at all, because it's really easy to dip into those "reserves" and spend it on other projects, which the government has been doing a lot. -Paul
[2005-01-05 11:51:03] - Dave: Basically, up until now SS has mostly taken in more money than it has given out (thanks to the baby boomers) and the difference in how much money is taken in compared to given out is what is saved. -Paul
[2005-01-05 11:49:08] - Dave: I think that does a good job of explaining exactly what people are talking about when they talk about reserves and whatnot. -Paul
[2005-01-05 11:48:43] - Dave: http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp26.pdf It's kind of long, but you really only need to read the first couple of pages. -Paul
[2005-01-05 11:07:31] - pierce: i went off and bought WoW. happy now? - mig
[2005-01-05 10:39:35] - Paul: good enough for me ^_^ -dave
[2005-01-05 10:23:27] - Dave: So we only agree because I have no evidence to support my gut feeling.
-Paul[2005-01-05 10:22:50] - Dave: Well, honestly, I didn't think there was a reserve at all either. I still don't think they really have any cash stowed away for SS and that it's probably just some clever accounting trick to make it seem like they have a reserve when they don't but I don't know enough about it to say for sure. -Paul
[2005-01-05 10:12:37] - Paul: yeah, I think we agree. I had said that I thought there was some reserve, but that it was nowhere near what it was supposed to be. I was confused because mig was saying there wasn't any reserve at all -dave
[2005-01-05 10:11:35] - Dave: I think that's what all the talk about lockboxes was during the 2000 election. The candidates were debating whether or not to actually save the money you put into SS instead of spending it immediately. -Paul
[2005-01-05 10:10:58] - Dave: I don't know the specifics. There might be some sort of SS reserve stashed away somehow. All I know is that they definitely don't save all the money you pay for SS and the reserve is in no way big enough to keep the pyramid scheme going. -Paul
[2005-01-05 10:01:16] - dave: correct, or they just increase taxes or borrow to make up the difference. - mig
[2005-01-05 10:00:01] - Paul: if there was no cash on hand or 'reserve,' wouldn't that mean that would have to reduce benefits immediately when the cash inflow was less than the outflow? -dave
[2005-01-05 09:58:54] - Paul: right, that's what I figured 'going into the red' meant, which would be in the next decade. But then what is this all about not exhausting the 'reserve' until 2042? Because the article said that they wouldn't have to reduce benefits till the reserve was exhausted, and then they would be forced to give out like 73% of the current benefits. -da
[2005-01-05 09:55:48] - Dave: I think they mean it'll go in the red because they will have to pay out more in SS benefits than they are collecting from current tax payers. -Paul
[2005-01-05 09:43:42] - http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/27/retirement/surplus/index.htm like i said, the reserve is just a pile of ious. - mig
[2005-01-05 09:00:39] - mig: but yeah, the reserve isn't at all what it's supposed to be to cover people who are putting money in now when they retire -dave
[2005-01-05 09:00:13] - mig: really? no reserve at all? From the article and quotes I posted yesterday, it seemed like there was some reserve, cuz they said SS would go into the red in the next decade, but not exhaust the reserve for like 30-40 more years -dave
[2005-01-05 08:55:15] - maybe i wouldn't have a problem with the system if the people running it were honest about the system. but then, i wonder how many people would be for it if they figured out how it was run. - mig
[2005-01-05 08:52:55] - dave: the reserve doesn't really exist, it's really just a pile of IOUs sitting around somewhere. The worst part about it is when they spend that money they just count it as normal tax revenue for accounting purposes, creating the mythical clinton surpluses. - mig
[2005-01-05 07:52:46] - http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/05/technology/sony_psp.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes Sony PSP set for March US debut -dave
[2005-01-05 07:49:58] - http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/05/technology/personaltech/playboy_ipod/index.htm?cnn=yes Playboy coming to iPod. -dave
[2005-01-05 07:35:43] - Paul: I mean, it's not exactly like I'm expecting to get anything out of SS anyways at this point ^_^ -dave
[2005-01-05 07:35:14] - paul: I mean, currently if they made it an option and people were smart, everyone would opt-out now. -dave
[2005-01-05 07:34:22] - paul: I wouldn't have a problem with an opt-out option. although to seriously consider such an option, you'd have to figure out how you were going to payoff all the people who already have current vested interest in it, since you'd have to consider the possibility of everyone opting out -dave
[2005-01-05 07:31:24] - aaron: I believe that was what it was supposed to be at the beginning, but then congress couldn't resist from spending all that money that was just sitting there. So now, although there is a reserve, most of the benefits are just payed from people who are currently working -dave
[2005-01-04 17:31:27] - aaron: nope. SS sucks because somebody screwed up. if SS was like a 401k or an ira, then we'd all be happy. i just figure all the money i put into SS i'll never see again. ~a
[2005-01-04 16:39:52] - a: (i thought it was just like, an investment like the 401K or anything else) - aaron
[2005-01-04 16:39:23] - a: I honestly thought that's what SS was.... so wait is it more like a pyramid scheme where the new SS members pay for the older people's SS? I thought maybe they just mis-predicted inflation and promised people more than they could deliver or something - aaron
[2005-01-04 16:32:16] - a: I think his name was Ponzi... -Paul
[2005-01-04 16:30:56] - you can't opt out of SS because there isn't enough money to pay people back the money they put in. who fucked up SS? i want to kick his ass. if everybody just got back the money that they had put in (plus gains), then it's almost a good idea. ~a
[2005-01-04 16:13:24] - Scratch that, I can definitely see people having a problem with that, but I think you could get is passed without the majority of people caring. -Paul
[2005-01-04 16:09:34] - Dave: How about a compromise where anybody can opt out of the system if they want? I can't see anybody having a problem with that. -Paul
[2005-01-04 16:07:03] - social security checks that is -dave
[2005-01-04 16:06:57] - mig: I agree, but that public would never jump for that. From the article, it appears that the GOP looks like it's going to present something that will let us (young people) divert some into private accounts and reduce the benefits/options for people who have awhile before they start collecting checks -dave
[2005-01-04 16:04:15] - http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/04/breast.contest.ap/index.html Clear Channel coming under fire for offering 13 women free breast implant surgery. Apparently 91k women sent in essays for the contest -dave
[2005-01-04 16:03:56] - at this point it would be better just to nuke the system entirely. - mig
[2005-01-04 16:02:03] - "they [Democrats] note that the Social Security Trustees estimate the system may go into the red in little more than a decade, but it won't deplete its reserves until 2042, and even then recipients would still get 73 percent of the current benefit level. " -dave
[2005-01-04 16:01:46] - dem's say that the GOP is overstating the crisis -dave
[2005-01-04 16:01:22] - http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/04/news/economy/social_security/index.htm?cnn=yes on possible social security changes -dave
[2005-01-04 15:48:04] - a: Recursively. -Paul
[2005-01-04 15:43:22] - paul: how do you define define? ~a
[2005-01-04 14:43:04] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40355-2005Jan1.html general outlook of US stocks in 2005 -dave
[2005-01-04 12:49:29] - Dave: I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who would say I've terrorized them at one point or another.
-Paul[2005-01-04 12:48:15] - If that's a 5% decrease in the amount of women using contraceptives who are sexually active with men, that's pretty signifigant. They made it pretty clear the study included women who were abstinent, but I wonder if it also included lesbians. - aaron
[2005-01-04 12:39:08] - mig: if that's the definition, then we're probably terrorists too ^_^ -dave
[2005-01-04 11:21:07] - dave: if that's the definition, then the usgov does plenty of that on a daily basis. - mig
[2005-01-04 11:04:10] - paul: people who terrorize other people ^_^ -dave
[2005-01-04 10:39:55] - a: How do you define terrorism? -Paul
[2005-01-04 10:30:49] - paul: yeah, I would definitely be against that, unless it was a health concern for the mother -dave
[2005-01-04 10:14:59] - Dave: The issue of government funding of abortion for some people (and not just for those whose lives were threatened by giving birth) was debated at one point. I don't know if it ever got to the point where the government funded any abortions or not though. -Paul
[2005-01-04 10:14:52] - http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B8B7C8FF9%2D705F%2D4365%2DA780%2D23D30351CA1D%7D&siteid=mktw&dist= Krispy Kreme scandal. Apparently they sent twice as many donuts to their wholesalers, knowing that half would be returned...but they could claim twice as much for sales -dave
[2005-01-04 10:08:36] - a: what? terrorism is bad? ^_^ -dave
[2005-01-04 10:07:50] - I suppose the hard part is drawing the line at what would be acceptable as a preventative action and what wouldn't be -dave
[2005-01-04 10:06:44] - my sister, who is about to graduate med school, says that a lot of cost can be avoided if healthcare would pay for preventative things. -dave
[2005-01-04 10:06:31] - dave: a larger portion of your paycheck is funding terrorism. =[ ~a
[2005-01-04 10:05:37] - in CA they have a branch of Kaiser Permanente that pays doctors based on the 'health' of their patients. Not sure about all the details, but I've heard people raving about it -dave
[2005-01-04 10:04:26] - although, this brings up the interesting topic of preventative medicine/healthcare. -dave
[2005-01-04 09:53:52] - incidentally, I wouldn't want my paycheck going towards free condoms for guys either -dave
[2005-01-04 09:48:37] - so part of my paycheck is going to funding my female peers getting birth control so they can have sex without fear of getting pregant. =[ -dave
[2005-01-04 09:47:22] - "Of that number, 6.7 million received government-funded services, most through Medicaid or the Title X family-planning program. " -dave
[2005-01-04 09:46:11] - "Of the 34 million women in need of contraceptive services -- those who are not sterilized, pregnant or trying to conceive -- about 17 million qualified for publicly funded care" -dave
[2005-01-04 09:46:06] - aba: *nod nod* yeah I don't have a problem if it was just for that. unfortunately, the article made it sound like it was also covered for purely the purpose of birth control -dave
[2005-01-04 09:37:27] - fyi, many women are prescribed hormonal birth control for medical reasons other than contraception. - aba
[2005-01-04 09:03:52] - dave: it does if you are a member of congress. - mig
[2005-01-04 08:37:29] - does insurance cover drugs like viagra? (is it over the counter yet?) -dave
[2005-01-04 08:35:39] - in some senses, it seems odd to me that insurance should cover birth control. I mean, sex isn't exactly a necessity is it? -dave
[2005-01-04 08:34:13] - in the article, it talks about how insurance companies are not keeping up with prices of birth control, prompting some women to stop using it because of the price. I had no clue insurance covered birth control like the pill etc -dave
[2005-01-04 08:32:49] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45599-2005Jan3.html more women opting against birth control -dave
[2005-01-04 08:24:26] - http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/01/03/online.underground.ap/index.html fight against 'covert' warez groups said to be difficult, like 'the war on drugs'. heh heh heh -dave
[2005-01-04 08:13:16] - a: I knew the dvoraks were different, was just amused that they had the same name -dave
[2005-01-04 08:12:50] - a: referencing our earlier discussion, having only one airport in the area is an infrastructure problem that's tough to get around when you're trying to send aid -dave
[2005-01-04 08:11:51] - http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/01/04/asia.quake/index.html relief aid dealt blow when only airport shut down when airplane hits water buffalo -dave
[2005-01-04 08:01:05] - yeah. it's pretty popular if you want to publish any sort of formal information on the web. i just never do that. ~a
[2005-01-04 07:58:25] - paul: very good point about the monogomous relationships not working so well either these days -dave
[2005-01-04 07:58:04] - a: apparently everyone in academia uses it, but I have staunchly refused to learn it every time a professor has suggested it -dave
[2005-01-04 07:51:55] - because i certainly don't remember any. ~a
[2005-01-04 07:51:41] - pierce: very few people know latex. in fact, you might be the only one who posts regularly. ~a
[2005-01-04 07:11:29] - only took me 2 minutes. smrt
[2005-01-04 07:11:18] - <?y = math.floor(x / 2)?> 1 |---__---__---__---__---__---__
[2005-01-04 02:04:57] - a: wouldn't it be spiffy if you could feed LaTeX formula commands into the message board and it would generate images and replace them inline? That should only be about 15-20 minutes work for you, right? I demand that feature and refuse to code it myself. - pierce
[2005-01-04 02:02:51] - Bored yet?
- pierce[2005-01-04 02:01:54] - It's actually a fairly interesting graph theory problem if you can get past all the confounding variables of "love", "time", "money", "culture", etc. - pierce
[2005-01-04 02:00:46] - But again, those numbers may only be close to the real "success" rate if you only look at success as the consistency of the entire system. If you can call a love triangle a (partial) success if it breaks up into an individual and a couple, then I think that partially successful intimate polygamous relationships can exist. - pierce
[2005-01-04 01:58:28] - So assuming the same success rate for an individual and a couple as there is for two individuals, the success rate for the love triangle suddenly becomes 1/(2^6) = 1.5625%, and the success rate for the polyandrous/polygynicous relationship is 1/(2^4)=6.25%. - pierce
[2005-01-04 01:55:46] - On the other hand, a complicating factor may be that each participant must deal with both their relationships with individuals (vertices on the graph), and their relationships with pairs of individuals as couples (edges on the graph). In other words, C has to deal with both his relationship with A, and his relationship with the AB couple. - pierce
[2005-01-04 01:52:35] - but if it's a polygynical or polyandrical relationship (A loves B and C, and the love is returned, but B and C don't love each other), the success rate might be closer to 50% * 50% = 25%. - pierce
[2005-01-04 01:51:05] - So let's say the relationship success rate is 50%... the success rate for a love triangle (where A, B, and C each love both other members "equally") may have a 50% * 50% * 50% = 12.5% - pierce
[2005-01-04 01:49:00] - dave: Because I'd speculate that the failure rate of polygamous relationships as a whole is more or less proportional to the monogamous marriage rate times the number of couples involved. - pierce
[2005-01-04 01:44:34] - dave: Probably more importantly, what is the definition of a "successful" polygamous relationship? One in which the graph stays the same for the entire duration of the participants' lives? One in which most of the people stay the same? One in which all the participants just have a nice time? - pierce
[2005-01-04 01:42:59] - dave: I think the polygamy question is more complicated than you're making it. First of all, you have to define the gender dynamics of the polygamous couples. Is it polygyny? Polyandry? Both? Does the relationship graph have any cycles? Are the connections so dense that partners are competing for a scarcity of romatic affection? - pierce
[2005-01-03 17:56:22] - a: I guess. It just seems odd that he would be lamenting that the dumb masses are making their own encyclopedia. Seems like it would be like the Napster creator lamenting that the masses can easily get music for free now.
-Paul[2005-01-03 17:47:59] - right. and the cofounder isn't refuting that. he's just saying . . . the dumb masses and the smart masses can work together to make their own mega encyclopedia. ~a
[2005-01-03 17:47:08] - a: I know, but it seems like the whole idea behind wikipedia was "Hey, look! The dumb masses can create their own mega encyclopedia! Isn't it great?"
-Paul[2005-01-03 17:44:55] - now determining an "expert" is not easy to do although slashdot is pretty good at getting ways of finding out smart vs. dumb people. ~a
[2005-01-03 17:43:49] - so somebody like me has the same pull about euler angles as a math phd grad. even though everything i know about euler angles i learned from the web (which is generally unreliable and often false). ~a
[2005-01-03 17:42:12] - paul: well in this case he's equating mega-anti-elitism with anti-experts. ~a
[2005-01-03 17:34:15] - a: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know if that cofounder should necessarily be surprised about the anti-elitism. That would've seemed to be one of the main reasons to create wikipedia to me. -Paul
[2005-01-03 17:29:32] - paul: http://slashdot.org/articles/05/01/03/144207.shtml and http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25 . . . he's mostly happy with the coolness that is wikipedia, but basically he doesn't like anti-elitism and wants more respect for experts and reviewing by experts. ~a
[2005-01-03 17:26:02] - a: Why has it come under fire? -Paul
[2005-01-03 17:23:17] - paul: hey, wiki has come under fire from its cofounder so we can't trust it anymore
~a[2005-01-03 17:22:34] - although they were alive at the same time, the composer was 53 years older than the keyboard layout designer. ~a
[2005-01-03 17:21:27] - a: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy Sounds like it. -Paul
[2005-01-03 17:20:59] - aaron: whoever set the title was abviously confusing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Dvorak with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Dvorak ~a
[2005-01-03 17:13:43] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elgar elgar??? what am i missing? - aaron
[2005-01-03 17:05:23] - did it work on a large scale? ~a
[2005-01-03 17:02:03] - a: Utah?
-Paul[2005-01-03 17:00:07] - paul: where has it worked? ~a
[2005-01-03 16:41:32] - a: And I don't intend that to sound as snide as it probably does. -Paul
[2005-01-03 16:41:20] - a: I don't really have evidence for my side either other than, well, polygamy has worked.
-Paul[2005-01-03 16:26:58] - paul and dave: i disagree. i don't think polygomy would work. i don't have any evidence at this time, however, i do think the parent/child/sibling relationship is very different and don't really think it's evidence that a multi spouce relationship would work. ~a
[2005-01-03 16:26:19] - http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?ID=35545 Iraqi government official thinks resistence could be as big as 200,000 people. glad to see we've won over the hearts and souls of so many iraqis. - mig
[2005-01-03 16:17:42] - Dave: I think you can find psychologists (or whatever profession) that support either side. I'm willing to bet that polygamy could work just as well as monogamy (which, if you think about it, doesn't seem to work so well these days). -Paul
[2005-01-03 16:05:20] - Paul: I suppose the key would be whether each party could be secure in the other parties' love for them and not be jealous or worried about the other parties in the relationship -dave
[2005-01-03 16:04:23] - Paul: like whether we as humans would be just incapable of making something like that work well -dave
[2005-01-03 16:03:45] - Paul: I'm not sure what I'm getting at myself I suppose. I was just pondering about polygamy and wondering whether there was something intrinsic in us that would make it not work, be without jealousy, etc. -dave
[2005-01-03 15:57:05] - Dave: For the movie question, I think so. For the other question, I don't know exactly what you're getting at but my guess would be a tentative 'no', it doesn't have to be one-to-one. -Paul
[2005-01-03 15:55:40] - the only relationships I could think of that were extremely close and multiple-to-one were possibly the family relationship(s) - you can feel that your parents love you very much and also love your siblings just as much and not have a problem with it -dave
[2005-01-03 15:54:39] - I was trying to figure out whether an extremely close relationship intrinsically has to be one-to-one. -dave
[2005-01-03 15:53:52] - in general, is monogomy a prerequisite for a marriage with all parties content? -dave
[2005-01-03 15:49:43] - when you see that a movie had $100 mil budget, that includes the salaries of the actors/esses yes? -dave
[2005-01-03 15:33:42] - 6) i did not read one intelligent statement in that entire article. kthxbye. - aba
[2005-01-03 15:33:34] - 4) i dont see how clinton lying about his personal life is a "stain" on the presidency while bush lying about WMD and 9/11+iraq is ok. 5) i dont get why there is anything wrong with wanting to protest through legal channels and not break the law. - aba
[2005-01-03 15:33:21] - 1) clinton is much better in my eyes because he worked much harder to stay in UN and international channels. 2) there is a distinction between the money of the US govt and the money made by private corporations. 3) the anti seperation of church and state argument makes no sense whatsoever. - aba
[2005-01-03 15:33:07] - http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=UM5RGOYUVMOM0CRBAELCFEY?type=topNews&storyID=7218051 holding people for life without charging them "might be a bad idea" according to a senator. - mig
[2005-01-03 15:20:23] - and lest we forget the priceless "we think the price is worth it" quote from madeline albright. - mig
[2005-01-03 15:19:44] - paul: yes, and even more so, it looks hypocritical when they never criticized clinton's invovlement in the deaths of half a million iraqis due to 8 years of sanctions and air raids. - mig
[2005-01-03 15:04:09] - mig: interesting article -dave
[2005-01-03 15:02:32] - a: I think you're missing the point. It's not really important that the Iraq war is bigger than the Serbian war or whatever. The point is that liberals for the most part defended that war, which greatly weakens their case for criticizing the Iraq war. -Paul
[2005-01-03 15:00:09] - fyi, that's "budgets" by itself, not "budgets lost" ~a
[2005-01-03 15:00:03] - Dave: I wouldn't necessarily have thought somebody had a larger share, I just wouldn't have thought Giant still had nearly half the market. I thought it would've been a little more even. -Paul
[2005-01-03 14:58:51] - four? ~a
[2005-01-03 14:58:43] - two or three? ~a
[2005-01-03 14:58:29] - mig: "clinton's wars" heh. that's funny. should we look at the budgets and lives lost? how many powers of ten difference are we talking about? ~a
[2005-01-03 14:53:59] - Paul: One thing that I thought might mess up the stats would be wholesale places like Costco. I wouldn't be surprised if my family spent 1/2+ of our grocery budget there -dave
[2005-01-03 14:53:03] - Paul: really? who would you have thought had a larger share? -dave
[2005-01-03 14:51:22] - http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/zupancic2.html why the liberal arguments against the war in iraq were for the most part ineffectual... - mig
[2005-01-03 14:06:00] - Dave: I'm surprised Giant still has such a large share of the market here. -Paul
[2005-01-03 14:03:03] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42855-2005Jan2.html northern va set for supermarket war -dave
[2005-01-03 13:47:17] - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20041223-4483.html Blockbuster cuts prices for online-dvd service yet again. Apparently it hasn't been doing so well -dave
[2005-01-03 13:42:09] - http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/01/03/rover.anniversary/index.html rover hits one year mark on mars -dave
[2005-01-03 13:35:53] - paul: Ha ha ha! That's great. I quote "leg" all the time but it's too short of a quote to get. Especially when you substitute another word for leg. Still one of the best lines in the movie imho. - aaron
[2005-01-03 13:24:30] - a: Yup, that one was also mentioned. Except it actually was being used somewhat in the context of internships vs externships I think. "Externships are better because they make the hair silky and smooth" -Paul
[2005-01-03 13:10:07] - paul is better. he goes on first and cleans the hair. ~a
[2005-01-03 13:08:34] - a: Not really. My coworkers are fond of spouting off random Simpsons/Billy Madison/etc quotes without much context or reason.
-Paul[2005-01-03 13:04:41] - there was context, i hope. ~a
[2005-01-03 13:02:50] - a: Heh, strange that you should quote that. The same thing was quoted at our lunch today (the original, not the part specific to me). -Paul
[2005-01-03 13:00:31] - it's like there is a party in paul's mouth, and everybody is invited. ~a
[2005-01-03 12:49:50] - Dave: Hopefully it's just everybody else eating lunch. -Paul
[2005-01-03 12:42:47] - paul: that, or everyone had to eat lunch -dave
[2005-01-03 12:42:30] - errr, obviously -dave
[2005-01-03 12:42:20] - Paul: well obvious, since you're the life of the party -dave
[2005-01-03 12:41:15] - So everybody stops talking when I leave?
-Paul[2005-01-03 12:33:52] - Transform that vector using your attitude quaternion to arrive at the ADI's position relative to the cockpit. Create an imaginary circle normal to that vector and project it onto the display plane. That plot will be the horizon line in the ADI. It makes so much sense!
[2005-01-03 12:09:42] - Paul: bye bye ^_^ -dave
[2005-01-03 12:09:01] - Ok, lunch is finally starting. Bye all. Enjoy your debate. -Paul
[2005-01-03 12:08:42] - I'm not saying the people of Indonesia are stupid, I'm just saying that it's entirely possible that more money won't help the situation at all. -Paul
[2005-01-03 12:08:21] - a: yeah, but that's probably more a question of infrastructure, not something that's a quick fix, or something that a country will pay for for another country that easily -dave
[2005-01-03 12:07:59] - a: True, but the mere existence of money won't fix it alone. You could throw all the money in the world at the problem and not fix that bottleneck without competent people distributing the supplies. -Paul
[2005-01-03 12:04:08] - well "efficiently getting those supplies to where they are needed" is probably something that takes money to fix. ~a
[2005-01-03 12:03:08] - a: I'm not sure of the answer to that question, I just was pointing out that it would seem to be foolish to throw more money at Indonesia if they don't need it just to placate the world and make them think we're less selfish. -Paul
[2005-01-03 12:02:22] - a: And therefore the saying the US is cheap for not giving more money loses a lot of punch since Indonesia wouldn't need any more money. -Paul
[2005-01-03 12:01:44] - how do we fix the bottleneck? ~a
[2005-01-03 12:01:43] - Colin Powell said something on some morning talk show (Meet the Press?) about there being plenty of money for relief efforts, -Paul
[2005-01-03 12:01:24] - paul: ok. and? ~a
[2005-01-03 12:01:03] - a: There are also many people who believe that throwing money at Indonesia won't help because money isn't the bottleneck right now as much as efficiently getting those supplies to where they are needed. -Paul
[2005-01-03 12:00:08] - Dave: Looks like the lunch isn't starting on time. Along the lines of foreign aid being used for less than charitable purposes, I wonder if aid to places like Israel counts in that number. -Paul
[2005-01-03 11:59:45] - many people (myself included) believe that throwing money at iraq won't help. this, however, is different. ~a
[2005-01-03 11:57:57] - Paul: so in that context it might fall more under "paying for international diplomatic bills" rather than purely charitable aid -dave
[2005-01-03 11:56:57] - Paul: you also have to take into account that I believe much of the 'aid' gains us intangible diplomatic benefits / weight -dave
[2005-01-03 11:55:56] - a: I won't dispute that, I'm just amused that such a huge deal was made over the 60 mil at the time in the context of this 350 -dave
[2005-01-03 11:55:04] - Paul: yeah, the US gives out an astronomical percentage of the worldwide aid (when taking all incidents into account). Not sure about the GDP, wouldn't be surprised if that was correct tho. -dave
[2005-01-03 11:53:59] - in the grand scheme of things, 350 mil is very little. ~a
[2005-01-03 11:53:22] - Paul: yeah, I think it's a great discussion, hence my efforts to spark discussion. If it were me, I'd give the money, it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth that the US is so 'generous' when everyone yells at us -dave
[2005-01-03 11:53:16] - I wish I could stick around to read the debate going on, but we're having a lunch for a new employee here so I have to go. -Paul
[2005-01-03 11:52:40] - Dave: On the other hand, we supposedly give a smaller percentage of our GDP than most countries. -Paul
[2005-01-03 11:52:21] - Dave: On the one hand, I read somewhere that the US gives more foreign aid than all other nations combined (or something like that, either way it's a lot). -Paul
[2005-01-03 11:52:16] - a: I'm not sure, to be honest. I mean, we ponied up 350 and they're still yelling at us, no? -dave
[2005-01-03 11:51:47] - Dave: I don't have time to discuss it now, but I wanted to talk about America's charitable giving to somebody sometime because there are good arguments on boths sides as to whether we're too selfish or not. -Paul
[2005-01-03 11:51:40] - mig: yeah, all foreign aid aside tho, the US public was raising heck over paying 60 mil more for it. I was just saying I was amused that we quibble over 60 when we throw out 350 and it's still 'not enough' in this case -dave
[2005-01-03 11:51:10] - it's not all or nothing, ~a
[2005-01-03 11:50:52] - dave: but you do think doing nothing will hurt our reputation, right? ~a
[2005-01-03 11:50:17] - also on the 3 days thing, when it comes to things like official statements, I'm happy to give much more leniency when the 'statements' make no difference whatsoever, unless you say the wrong thing I suppose -dave
[2005-01-03 11:49:29] - mig: http://www.geocities.com/pwhce/willing.html ~a
[2005-01-03 11:49:02] - a: exactly, but if we're going to be labeled as that, why not just live up to the name? I mean, is doing this really going to change people's perceptions of us? probably not -dave
[2005-01-03 11:48:33] - dave: and if i recall, we were asking other countries to pony up both money and cannon fodder to help out in our imperial adventures in iraq and afghanistan. - mig'
[2005-01-03 11:48:27] - a: yeah, it'd have been nice if he had said something sooner. who knows, maybe he just decides to think awhile about what he says before he says it (shrug), I have no clue. -dave
[2005-01-03 11:48:01] - *ignorant ~a
[2005-01-03 11:47:32] - dave: they hate our guts for other reasons. although we often do the right thing (giving aid), we're also often self absorbed and ignorent of other cultures. ~a
[2005-01-03 11:47:23] - dave: ok, then i guess they upped how much they were extorting from us peons since i last read then. - mig
[2005-01-03 11:47:10] - a: I mean, we argue about whether we should give 60 mil more for more relief for iraq, and here we are giving 350 away. I know it's not exactly the same, but still -dave
[2005-01-03 11:46:02] - a: quite christian, I'm not saying we shouldn't, I'm just grousing about how the US helps so much when the international community hates our guts. -dave
[2005-01-03 11:44:58] - mig: the article says we're giving $350 mil. but that japan and one other country are outgiving us -dave
[2005-01-03 11:44:17] - ugh kill the second not in that last msg. my english are not so good today. - mig
[2005-01-03 11:43:42] - mig: yeah, the article said japan was outpledging us still. ~a
[2005-01-03 11:42:49] - dave: not that i'm not disagreeing with you, since it isn't our problem, but I've been hearing that the US aid was only about $15-$35 mil compared to places like japan donating in the hundred millions. maybe that changed the last day or so... - mig
[2005-01-03 11:42:22] - helping others in their time of need is a fairly christian sentiment. ~a
[2005-01-03 11:40:49] - dave: well if it's so easy, why did it take three days for our president? ~a
[2005-01-03 11:40:12] - A. because they helped us in our time of need (timely, remember) B. because we have far more money than they do C. because we can D. (imo, of course) it's the right thing to do. ~a
[2005-01-03 11:39:52] - a: was the support monetary? I didn't remember anyone giving us loads of cash. It's easy to just say you're sorry for what happened -dave
[2005-01-03 11:39:03] - I mean, I understand the sentiment to want to help out, but why should we help when everyone hates the US' guts? -dave
[2005-01-03 11:36:31] - bush's first public statement was three days after the earthquake.
~a[2005-01-03 11:35:16] - "hours and days" ! ~a
[2005-01-03 11:35:01] - yes! didn't you read the "especially considering the outpouring of support for America from other countries in the hours and days immediately following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks." ?! ~a
[2005-01-03 11:33:26] - and why is a natural disaster 'our' problem. Do other countries give us tons of money when we have disasters? Not that I can recall -dave
[2005-01-03 11:32:39] - On the subject of the $350 million in US aid, I don't get why other countries should harass as so much for 'only' giving $350 mil. I mean cmon, in some senses, I would understand it if we gave nothing. After all, we have plenty of domestic programs we could pump that into. heck, why not social security? -dave
[2005-01-03 11:30:48] - http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/03/tsunami.formerpresidents.ap/index.html Bush Sr. and Clinton to pursue US private aid for tsunamis relief -dave
[2005-01-01 15:07:07] - agh reverse those answers - vinnie
[2005-01-01 15:06:54] - a: because the other counters count up. it's not torture in days left. and yes, slowly - vinnie
[2004-12-31 20:31:10] - happy 2005, everybody. ~a
[2004-12-31 15:33:14] - a worm that "helps" the sites that it infects http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/internet/security/0,39020375,39182954-1,00.htm ~a
[2004-12-31 12:04:08] - vinnie: and why should it count up? ~a
[2004-12-31 09:59:30] - vinnie: are you learning? ~a
[2004-12-31 09:31:22] - a: shouldn't it count up? also, why must amy have a dvorak kboard yarg - vinnie
[2004-12-30 21:11:07] - mel: it's more mysterious that way. ~a
[2004-12-30 18:48:29] - a: Happy New Year. May your torture end as soon as possible.
-mel[2004-12-30 18:36:46] - a: so what's the deal with the count down? I still don't get it.... -mel
[2004-12-30 18:28:54] - a: thanks.
-mel[2004-12-30 18:28:09] - mel: she logged off of aim. ~a
[2004-12-30 18:16:28] - aba: I'm back in Cali, my vacation days ran out. But Nat is in town until Jan 14th and would like to meet up with you. -mel
[2004-12-30 18:15:04] - aba: hey! are you still around? -mel
[2004-12-30 18:07:33] - hahahahhaha. nice work. - aba
[2004-12-30 18:02:36] - 18 days sans gf. i'm down to 7 and i'm still alive! ~a
[2004-12-30 17:59:33] - um, ok.... i see.... - aba
[2004-12-30 17:58:23] - number of days until my torture ends. ~a
[2004-12-30 17:34:31] - whats up with the torture in days thing? - aba
[2004-12-30 17:31:12] - hopefully grad school is more conducive to sleep then -message board
[2004-12-30 17:14:04] - thats why im applying to grad school. haha. - aba
[2004-12-30 16:59:20] - then you could find a new job which leaves you more time to sleep -message board
[2004-12-30 16:48:10] - and then, while im at it, i could get fired for not doing my job! fun times!
- aba[2004-12-30 16:24:17] - or, you could work less and sleep more. -message board
[2004-12-30 16:05:17] - work is not conducive to sleep. i guess i will just continue to stuff myself with cookies instead.
- aba[2004-12-30 16:01:29] -
- aba[2004-12-30 15:52:06] - Sleep is also for clearing up fucking exhaustion and getting rid of dark rings under eyes. -message board
[2004-12-30 15:43:46] - damn. and here i always thought it was "sleep is for the weak".
- aba[2004-12-30 15:41:28] - dear aba, sleep. yours sincerely -message board
[2004-12-30 15:37:26] - dear messageboard, im so fucking exhausted i have dark rings under my eyes. how can i make them go away? yours sincerely - aba
[2004-12-30 15:32:50] - is = if -Paul
[2004-12-30 15:32:42] - aaron: I see how it works now. That's kinda neat, but I can see how such power can be annoying is used poorly. -Paul
[2004-12-30 15:12:42] - a: Maybe you can imagine how an access key of "f" or "e" would be really annoying - aaron
[2004-12-30 15:12:08] - a: It does work: Now if you press alt-p on this page, it will take you to google (if you're using firefox anyways) - aaron
[2004-12-30 14:06:40] - aaron: it doesn't work. ~a
[2004-12-30 14:05:37] - google ~a
[2004-12-30 14:04:25] - Aaron: I don't think I've seen it before. Does it just take you to a different page when you type in a certain letter? -Paul
[2004-12-30 14:02:35] - Yuck - has anybody ever seen this "accesskey" tag used in a hyper link? Like >a accesskey="p" href="balloons"< ?? It's very annoying and surprising when those kinds of things kick in unexpectedly - aaron
[2004-12-30 11:15:19] - Travis: Yeah, I know what you meant. I just wanted to make a joke but failed miserably.
-Paul[2004-12-30 11:04:52] - paul: yes, but you know what i meant, that most strip clubs won't hire male strippers (of course, a gay strip club would but then they wouldn't hire females) - travis
prev <-> next