prev <-> next
[2005-09-21 14:42:06] - a: it's a heuristic, it helps because there's no way you can possibly model most things exactly, so you have to generalize -dave
[2005-09-21 14:41:17] - a: heck, even legal laws aren't true all the time, that's why there are judges, to catch the exceptions -dave
[2005-09-21 14:41:00] - a: Well, using the term "many" doesn't help much because it's too vague. If it were "most", then you could use that information. -Paul
[2005-09-21 14:40:16] - a: How about saying "Firefox is more secure"? You couldn't say that because there are instances where Firefox isn't more secure. -Paul
[2005-09-21 14:39:58] - how about "many women have trouble making friends with female coworkers". how does this statement help us? ~a
[2005-09-21 14:39:04] - "most of the time i go to work" is a pretty useless statement without "i work ~40 hours a week". ~a
[2005-09-21 14:39:01] - a: ok, then how about "studying harder gets you better grades" or "investing money helps you make money" -dave
[2005-09-21 14:38:17] - plus there's a big difference between "i work 40 hours a week" and "most of the time i go to work". ~a
[2005-09-21 14:36:47] - dave: those aren't rules. rules are like "red haired people hate chocolate". wtf cares? ~a
[2005-09-21 14:36:11] - dave: rules of thumb are dumb. ~a
[2005-09-21 14:36:07] - a: you couldn't say, "I work 40 hours a week" or "I eat lunch at 12:00" -dave
[2005-09-21 14:35:50] - paul: i didn't say they weren't important and i didn't say we shouldn't study them. i just said there are already too many rules of thumb. stop making rules of thumb. ~a
[2005-09-21 14:35:36] - a: that's patently absurd, about only making rules that are true the entire time. You wouldn't be able to say almost anything -dave
[2005-09-21 14:33:56] - a: And I think you should stop being narrow minded and thinking that only things which are always true are important.
-Paul[2005-09-21 14:33:42] - a: i know that's know what he technically said, I'm saying that's what I think he means -dave
[2005-09-21 14:33:22] - a: If you just want a straight answer, then I would say 'yes'. I believe I would work harder in that situation. And no, I don't know for sure. That's just what I think. -Paul
[2005-09-21 14:32:08] - he's only telling me that he'd be more committed to working harder, he didn't actually say that he'd be any less lazy than he is now. ~a
[2005-09-21 14:31:25] - dave: that's not what he said. ~a
[2005-09-21 14:31:08] - amy: i've had this argument with paul before. i told paul something like "stop making rules that are only true most of the time. they aren't rules if they only work in the 'most' and 'usually' cases". ~a
[2005-09-21 14:30:29] - a: I think he is saying that he would work harder if there was something he was more motivated to work for -dave
[2005-09-21 14:27:13] - paul: my question is if you would work harder, not if you would be more motivated to work harder. ~a
[2005-09-21 14:24:30] - paul: nevermind -sam
[2005-09-21 14:23:45] - paul: in what ways would you help dumb and poor people? -sam
[2005-09-21 14:21:50] - Sam: But I would let it affect whether or not I decided to give money to somebody if it didn't affect their survival. -Paul
[2005-09-21 14:21:23] - Sam: But I think what you want to know is that I probably would not let how dumb/lazy I thought somebody was affect whether or not I gave them money if I felt it was necessary for their survival. -Paul
[2005-09-21 14:20:40] - Sam: There are too many other variables to consider for my to properly answer your question how you want it answered. -Paul
[2005-09-21 14:19:47] - Sam: Well, probably not, but that doesn't have much to do with whether or not I think they are lazy and/or dumb. -Paul
[2005-09-21 14:15:11] - paul: well, if they are lazy and dumb, would you give them money? -sam
[2005-09-21 14:10:32] - Sam: Are you assuming I would give them money if I knew they were smart and hard working? -Paul
[2005-09-21 14:08:45] - Amy: Well, then. I suppose we have to disagree to agree.
-Paul[2005-09-21 14:00:42] - Paul: Help them to get to the after-life ^_^ -dave
[2005-09-21 14:00:02] - paul: monetary donations maybe? -sam
[2005-09-21 13:59:19] - Paul: No! I disagree ,) -amy
[2005-09-21 13:58:54] - Sam: Help them in what way? -Paul
[2005-09-21 13:58:36] - Amy: I suppose we can agree to disagree then.
-Paul[2005-09-21 13:57:07] - if the most of victims of katrina were dumb and lazy poor people, would you still help them? -sam
[2005-09-21 13:56:47] - Dave: Sadly, I'm think you might be right about needing more exceptions. -Paul
[2005-09-21 13:54:47] - Paul: I think you needed more caveats and/or exceptions in your statement ^_^ Really, I agree with you though -dave
[2005-09-21 13:54:07] - Paul: OK. I suppose don't disagree that much, but I wouldn't say that "most" [category] people will end up [conclusion]. I would not draw any conclusion about the proportions. -amy
[2005-09-21 13:53:26] - So I'm not saying that everybody who gets an F is dumb and lazy and I'm likewise not saying that everybody who gets an A is a hard-working genius. There are certainly exceptions. I just think the general rule is sound. -Paul
[2005-09-21 13:52:26] - But at the end of the day, the grades that you get usually (again, not always) generally (not perfectly) represent how smart you are and how hard you worked in school. -Paul
[2005-09-21 13:51:21] - I like to think of it a little bit like school. It's true that the grades you get aren't a perfect representation of how smart you are. Some people have tutors which help and others might be the teachers pet... -Paul
[2005-09-21 13:50:20] - Amy: I'm just saying that for the most part, there are solid reasons why people are poor or rich and it's not just entirely due to random chance. Most decently intelligent hard workers don't end up poor and most dumb lazy people don't end up rich. -Paul
[2005-09-21 13:48:40] - Amy: I agree that not everybody has a chance to improve their life. Maybe somebody is born mentally retarded or maybe they're born to a family which keeps them sequestered for their entire life or various other reasons. -Paul
[2005-09-21 13:41:49] - Also, everyone should take a minute to go outside for like 2 minutes, if they can. Because it is absolutely gorgeous outside. And fresh air and sunshine are good for you ^_^ -amy
[2005-09-21 13:41:24] - Oops sorry. I was going to say: Perhaps it is too hypothetical and general for us to argue whether it comes down to "luck" or "intelligence/common sense," and it really depends on the specific situation. -amy
[2005-09-21 13:40:42] - Perhaps
[2005-09-21 13:39:23] - ...to get out of those situations. -amy
[2005-09-21 13:39:17] - I suppose I was trying to desc. specific situations in an attempt at an informal proof by exception, but my general point is that we don't know what it's like, even people who have been there personally do not know the experiences and lifestyles of other people in similar situations. Therefore I do not think we have the right to say that everyone "should" be able... -amy
[2005-09-21 13:30:31] - amy: I also fully admit my inexperience in the area since I've never been in that situation -dave
[2005-09-21 13:29:10] - amy: of course that includes not making bad decisions like doing drugs, shooting someone, getting sent to jail for stealing, etc -dave
[2005-09-21 13:28:48] - amy: yeah, I fully admit that there can be a lot of things that can make it difficult, and that even if there aren't it can be some of the hardest work there is, but I just think that in general if you really put forth the hard work (like working 80-100 hours a week) that you can at least put yourself into better position, maybe help your kids through college, etc -dave
[2005-09-21 13:27:16] - Amy: I'm saying that I think most reasonable people with a decent head on their shoulders will eventually see what the proper recipe for success is regardless of their upbringing. -Paul
[2005-09-21 13:25:35] - a: I think if I was in a worse position than I was in now, then I would be more motivated to work harder, yes. -Paul
[2005-09-21 13:11:51] - ...you are addicted to drugs and every bit of hard work you do is in not giving into drugs, that you can't even think about making your life better beyond that. there are so many possibilities. -amy
[2005-09-21 13:11:17] - dave: well yeah, but maybe we don't really know what it's like, either. what if every job you can get is a dead end. what if every single person in your network is as unsuccessful as you. what if the people around you are going to be jealous of your success and will work to make sure you can't get it. what if... -amy
[2005-09-21 13:09:58] - amy: you do have to have some sort of basic capability to be pro-active and figure things out yourself tho -dave
[2005-09-21 13:06:32] - amy: yeah, I guess so, but at the same time you wouldn't think someone would need THAT much instruction / direction as to what he could do to better his situation -dave
[2005-09-21 12:27:22] - a: yeah, arnold and porter - vinnie
[2005-09-21 12:27:14] - listening to aretha over and over again. it helps but i'm not going to sound like her. -amy
[2005-09-21 12:27:04] - dave: if your interpretation of what paul is saying is correct, then i disagree with paul .p sometimes the opportunity is just not there. you can hunt down every "successful" person you can think of, but will they necessarily talk to you? and i think watching other successful people can only help to a certain extent, like me trying to learn how to sing by... -amy
[2005-09-21 12:24:32] - World of Warcraft actually created a virtual disease that kills off players and npcs in towns. hilarious - mig
[2005-09-21 12:24:02] - http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/09/19/wow_plague_disease/
[2005-09-21 12:23:49] - mig: i think christian believe that god causes things to happen to people. if not, why would they pray? -sam
[2005-09-21 12:19:24] - vinnie: and it's weird that they would even use aporter.com for email (since they only use aporter.com on the web as a redirect) ~a
[2005-09-21 12:18:21] - vinnie: no! wow. does your cousin work for arnold & porter? ~a
[2005-09-21 12:17:42] - a: did I ever tell you that my cousin's e-mail is actually an aporter.com account?
- vinnie[2005-09-21 12:12:54] - sam: christians, from my understanding believe that god really doesn't have much of a direct impact on the world, in the sense that he doesn't cause things to happen to people. - mig
[2005-09-21 12:05:05] - amy: I think what he may be trying to say is that a poor person should know enough to either watch other successful people, or go find successful people to ask questions to -dave
[2005-09-21 12:04:12] - sam: "poor" is not a noun. ~a
[2005-09-21 12:03:50] - sam: I don't think christianity really has anything to say about it, other than God blessing certain people with intelligence, skill, opportunities. So yeah, they dont' believe God keeps all poor people poor -dave
[2005-09-21 12:01:43] - dave: i mean, do christians think poor people are just poor because god put them in that position? or can the poors do something to get out of poverty with their own effort? -sam
[2005-09-21 12:00:31] - Paul: are you saying that this happens to most ppl in this situation, or that it would have to happen to ppl in that situation in order for them to get out of it? -amy
[2005-09-21 12:00:07] - sam: in a roundabout way I suppose God "chooses" that - but it's more by giving certain people certain skills, intelligence, and opportunities rather than dropping suitcases of money on people's doorsteps -dave
[2005-09-21 11:59:22] - sam: view poverty in what way? Obviously christians are supposed to be charitable. There's nothing that says, you must help low-income families though. -dave
[2005-09-21 11:58:40] - a: Alrighty. -Paul
[2005-09-21 11:58:34] - paul: if you were in their position, are you saying that you would work any harder? ~a
[2005-09-21 11:58:17] - amy: yeah, it's hard to say, but definitely possible. It's like foreign countries trying to become democratic/capitalistic and having a hard time transitioning because no one knows what to do -dave
[2005-09-21 11:58:13] - Amy: I would assume that at some point they would be introduced to people who are successful and if they have an open mind they should be able to see the errors of their previous ways. -Paul
[2005-09-21 11:57:17] - paul: which is why i said "paul: i'll agree to disagree with that. ~a" ~a
[2005-09-21 11:55:39] - a: Anyway, I don't think we're going to convince each other of anything because I think this is just one of those fundamental differences of opinion. -Paul
[2005-09-21 11:55:25] - I don't know know how many people that describes, I'm not going to say "many" or "most" or "some," but I think it is a possible situation. -amy
[2005-09-21 11:54:27] - dave: how do christians view poverty? does god choose who will be poor and who will be rich? -sam
[2005-09-21 11:54:09] - I don't mean that somebody makes bad decisions or does not have intelligence or common sense. I mean that a person was not educated to understand what they have to do. Like if they are in an environment where everyone around them is "unsuccessful," they have no example to learn from, no understanding of the world outside of that. -amy
[2005-09-21 11:54:03] - They said that I worked so hard to earn money for it. I used to go out and cut the grass in the middle of hot summer days and spend my free time trying to find other odd jobs to do. Their point was that I am lazier now than I was then. -Paul
[2005-09-21 11:53:18] - a: I can't say for sure either, but I suspect that a lot of how hard I work has to do with how comfortable I am with my life. My parents enjoy telling me a story about how when I was young, I really wanted an original Nintendo console. -Paul
[2005-09-21 11:52:09] - I'm not saying everybody starts off the same and that nobody starts off disadvantaged. I'm just saying that if you're born poor then you shouldn't throw your hands up in the air and assume you can only be poor the rest of your life. -Paul
[2005-09-21 11:51:55] - amy: yeah, I guess it's hard to judge how much intelligence the person has to have. I would think many of the things would be common sense, but I'm obviously biased because I haven't been around too many low-income people -dave
[2005-09-21 11:51:23] - paul: i can't say. i don't know. ~a
[2005-09-21 11:51:14] - paul
[2005-09-21 11:50:42] - a: Possibly not, but if you were in their position, are you saying that you wouldn't work any harder? -Paul
[2005-09-21 11:49:50] - amy: yeah, i think they're talking about in this country -dave
[2005-09-21 11:49:35] - amy: I'm just thinking of this country, yes. And even though I forgot to mention it, I always mean to pair good decision making with hard work because even the hardest worker can be undone by terrible decisions. -Paul
[2005-09-21 11:49:26] - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/21/nyregion/21cruise.html "A sex stop on the way home" -dave
[2005-09-21 11:49:14] - paul: i don't think they're being any more lazy than me. ~a
[2005-09-21 11:48:45] - Is there a lot of luck involved in life? No doubt. My last two jobs were a result of luck. However, I think you can definitely help yourself out (and likewise hurt your chances) based on the things you do or don't do. -Paul
[2005-09-21 11:48:23] - i think a person can be willing to work hard, and maybe actually work hard, but not be knowledgable in how to work hard and how to get out of their situation. -amy
[2005-09-21 11:47:55] - bottom end = you mean in this country? people in other countries may not have opportunites to get out of their situation. -amy
[2005-09-21 11:47:37] - a: The important point that people who are poor (and likewise those who are rich) aren't that way just based on luck or some strange randomness, but that there are usually solid reasons for why somebody is in the position that they are in. -Paul
[2005-09-21 11:46:58] - paul: i'll agree to disagree with that. ~a
[2005-09-21 11:45:19] - a: I think most people at the bottom end are there for reasons which are mostly laziness and bad decisions made by either them or their parents or both. -Paul
[2005-09-21 11:35:28] - paul: which more important point? ~a
[2005-09-21 11:35:13] - paul: do you think that most people at the bottom are lazy? ~a
[2005-09-21 11:35:09] - a: I would say we are in agreement about one point, but not necessarily about the other (and probably more important) point. -Paul
[2005-09-21 11:32:05] - I mean, if you could show that most women who played poker won money and most men who played poker lost money, then I don't think it's unreasonable to say that most poker winners would be female and most poker losers would be male. -Paul
[2005-09-21 11:30:50] - a: I agree that it's not exactly a logical argument, but I do think it makes sense nonetheless. If you believe that most hardworkers move up and most lazy people move down, then I think it's not a big stretch to say that most people at the bottom are lazy and most people at the top are hardworking. -Paul
[2005-09-21 11:28:39] - how should people help the poors or the homeless? what does welfare do exactly? -sam
[2005-09-21 11:21:58] - paul: plus aren't we in agreement anyways? ~a
[2005-09-21 11:09:01] - paul: there's a very large middle ground. ~a
[2005-09-21 11:08:40] - paul: like, you're either with us or against us. that kind of logic is trouble. ~a
[2005-09-21 11:07:03] - paul: and that's why i said that it can't "kinda" be inferred. it's not just a small logical fallacy. it's a HUGE logical fallacy. ~a
[2005-09-21 11:05:54] - Dave: He's got a good point. If he says that one more time, then I think he's got you cornered.
-Paul[2005-09-21 11:05:09] - dave: boo anecdotal data!
~a[2005-09-21 10:34:57] - which I think is probably the trend, people migrating up -dave
[2005-09-21 10:34:15] - if you think about it actually, most upper-middle / upper class families have few children, 1, maybe 2. And then adding in all the single ones and deaths, that population is probably always decreasing. So for it to stay teh same, or grow, it has to be fed by people from the lower ranks -dave
[2005-09-21 10:32:44] - Dave: Yeah, I guess "dumb" isn't really the right word. It's more like "making the wrong decisions". -Paul
[2005-09-21 10:32:04] - Paul: and it's much harder to improve your standard of living when you have 4-5 mouths to feed -dave
[2005-09-21 10:31:05] - Paul: one of the problems is probably that a decent portion of the poor people procreate a bunch and create a huge number of more poor people. -dave
[2005-09-21 10:29:48] - a: And if that's true, it's also not a stretch to say that therefore most people on the bottom are dumb/lazy and most people at the top are smart/hard working. Not saying it's a logical proof at all, though. -Paul
[2005-09-21 10:29:03] - a: Hence why I just said "kinda be inferred". I wasn't trying to say that it's a direct logical correlation, but if you believe that most hard workers move up then it would seem to follow that lazy and dumb people move down... -Paul
[2005-09-21 10:28:22] - a: also, the father of one of my managers went from 0 money to CEO of a large company -dave
[2005-09-21 10:27:51] - For the record, I think this is one of those big differences of opinion which seperate people with free-market like tendencies and people with more modern liberal tendencies so I don't think there's going to be much changing of minds here.
-Paul[2005-09-21 10:26:56] - paul/sam: that's obviously a mammoth logical falacy. the alternative of working-your-ass-off is not being-dumb-and-lazy. there's a HUGE middle ground. like dave said, we're all in the middle ground (i assume). ~a
[2005-09-21 10:26:08] - a: they may not become millionaires over even hundred thousandaires, but they probably would be much better off than where they started. - mig
[2005-09-21 10:25:55] - a: my grandfather had absolutely 0 money coming over. A lady from a church let them live with her and his first job was as a dishwasher -dave
[2005-09-21 10:25:03] - a: yeah, I guess I shouldn't have said plenty, but I know a decent number of asians who did it -dave
[2005-09-21 10:24:30] - a: are you saying that I"m judging from anecdotal data, or you want anecdotal data? -dave
[2005-09-21 10:23:25] - a: true, but they do more often than not improve their standard of living by a significant amount i would guess. - mig
[2005-09-21 10:21:56] - a: Because it's something that can kinda be inferred from the previous statement if you agree with it. -Paul
[2005-09-21 10:20:57] - dave: boo anecdotal data? ~a
[2005-09-21 10:20:16] - dave: dirt-poor immigrants don't go to upper-middle or upper class very often. ~a
[2005-09-21 10:19:55] - a: I actually don't think it's obviously wrong. I don't know about dumb, but I think in general people in the US are lazy -dave
[2005-09-21 10:19:18] - a: yeah, I guess my comments are also general statements. I dont' think anyone disagrees that there are some who just have horrible luck even if they work hard -dave
[2005-09-21 10:18:58] - sam: no. why would i think something so obviously wrong? ~a
[2005-09-21 10:18:34] - paul: i kind of figured you wouldn't have argued that everybody has a chance "always". if you add "generally", then i agree. ~a
[2005-09-21 10:15:47] - sam: there are also plenty of examples of dirt-poor immigrants going from absolutely nothing to upper-middle / upper class in their own lifetimes -dave
[2005-09-21 10:13:56] - sam: of course by work hard, I really mean work hard, something not many of us on this msg board probably do. I know I don't -dave
[2005-09-21 10:13:22] - sam: so put in another way, I don't think many smart, hard-working people stay poor for long -dave
[2005-09-21 10:12:44] - sam: i think if someone works hard, they can achieve at least a minimalistic standard of living, meaning clothing, housing, food, etc. I also think that if they work hard and are relatively smart, that over say 2 maybe three generations, they can achieve middle-class status -dave
[2005-09-21 10:07:01] - sam: "comfortably" is something that still means very different things to different people. - mig
[2005-09-21 10:06:27] - a: do you think poor people are generally bumb and lazy? -sam
[2005-09-21 10:04:06] - Sam: All I'm saying is that I don't think the people who are rich and the people who are poor are that way purely because of random chance and dumb luck. I think hard work and intelligence plays a certain role in it. -Paul
[2005-09-21 10:03:28] - Sam: I certainly agree that there could be very stupid or very unlucky individuals out there who are going to have a crappy life no matter how hard they try. -Paul
[2005-09-21 10:02:06] - sam: I think you misunderstood what I said. Everybody always seems to forget how I stress that I think it's GENERALLY and not ALWAYS. -Paul
[2005-09-21 09:53:21] - some people live comfortably in homeless shelters. i'll guess not very many, but some. ~a
[2005-09-21 09:52:08] - a: living comfortably? -sam
[2005-09-21 09:44:42] - sam: it also depends on your definition of decent. ~a
[2005-09-21 09:41:49] - what is it about early autumn that makes the sky seem so blue? is it my mood or is the sky actually blue-er. ~a
[2005-09-21 09:15:25] - a: i think paul might disagree with that. paul, what say you? -sam
[2005-09-21 08:31:30] - anon: there's also a certain "luck" factor. if he/she comes from an unprivilaged background and just coincidentally runs into problems when it matters, then imo they could still fail to make a decent living no matter how hard they try. ~a
[2005-09-21 08:26:37] - do you think anyone in US can make a decent living if he/she works hard enough regardless of the background?
[2005-09-21 08:21:33] - because americans are rich. ~a
[2005-09-21 08:20:16] - how come victims of katrina is getting so much more help and compassion than other unfortunate people in the world? -sam
[2005-09-21 08:19:53] - how come victims of katrina is getting so much more help compassion than other unfortunate people in the world? -sam
[2005-09-21 08:15:41] - aaron: "it causes your thumb to move back and forth absurdly quickly, far faster than a human can actually move it under his own power. Which is great for two things that I can think of" i think it's cute that he only explains one of the things that he can think of. ~a
[2005-09-21 08:03:14] - will the new orleans saints build a new stadium? -sam
[2005-09-20 23:24:00] - http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3143949 hehehe, thumb vibrator for help in track + field type games - aaron
[2005-09-20 18:02:25] - kisyfb: keep it simple, you fat bastard.
[2005-09-20 18:00:07] - - pierce
[2005-09-20 18:00:02] - paul: wow, a chill went down my spine when I read that
[2005-09-20 17:49:30] - a: yes i'm working at the pentagon. -sam
[2005-09-20 17:05:52] - http://www.ananova.com/entertainment/story/sm_961345.html?menu Ice-T to produce Hasselhoff rap album -Paul
[2005-09-20 15:53:18] - paul: i agree. ~a
[2005-09-20 15:52:57] - reason #339 why i hate reality tv. ~a
[2005-09-20 15:46:36] - http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/20/makeover.suit.reut/index.html "Makeover" sued over woman's suicide - aaron
[2005-09-20 15:45:46] - a: This if is too many. -Paul
[2005-09-20 15:44:00] - paul: that depends on the if. ~a
[2005-09-20 15:43:14] - a: One is a lot too many. -Paul
[2005-09-20 15:42:25] - paul: there's only one if. ~a
[2005-09-20 15:33:25] - a: That's a bunch of "ifs". I'm still not seeing the newsworthiness. -Paul
[2005-09-20 15:28:51] - the point is that he's locked up but he might not be totally locked up in the future. in the near future (if the psychologists get their way) he'll be chasing the jodie fosters of the world. ~a
[2005-09-20 15:27:28] - a: Yes, but he's locked up now. Even if he wasn't, I don't quite think him wanting a girlfriend is worthy of a news article. -Paul
[2005-09-20 15:26:16] - paul: no not really that newsworthy . . . except that time before when he wanted a girlfriend: look where it got him. ~a
[2005-09-20 15:24:13] - yes, i understand the confusion. however, which ip address is "yours" isn't always clear. esp if you're behind a router that does ip masquerading. clearly when i'm at home, i'm not publishing "my" ip address because "my" ip address has no meaning on the internet. ownership of ips is defined by the network that you're on. ~a
[2005-09-20 15:20:55] - a: true true. but you said you "publish your IP address" not "publish an IP address" because if you're spoofing, you can publish someone else's IP address -dave
[2005-09-20 15:17:38] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901826.html "Hinckley Wants Girlfriend, Psychologist Says in Court" Clearly, this is important news. -Paul
[2005-09-20 15:10:45] - ianane (network engineer). ~a
[2005-09-20 15:10:17] - at least in my mind that makes sense. ~a
[2005-09-20 15:09:53] - dave: spoofing (masquerading in the more legitimate form) is no different. you're still publishing an ip. which ip is "yours" is all an artafact of (and enforced by) the infrastructure. ~a
[2005-09-20 15:01:10] - a: unless you spoof it! -dave
[2005-09-20 14:38:32] - *Confidential, even. Too bad the show was just okayish. - pierce
[2005-09-20 14:37:56] - wow, Kitchen Confiedential is a weird confluence of people I like from other things. Will from Alias, Harold from Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle, Xander from Buffy, and Sam from Freaks and Geeks. - pierce
[2005-09-20 14:19:44] - sam: where do you work? ~a
[2005-09-20 14:09:19] - heh heh. so am i .p -amy
[2005-09-20 14:00:37] - don't think too hard... it's pretty simple -sam
[2005-09-20 14:00:10] - a: well, i wanted you to decipher it. -sam
[2005-09-20 13:58:31] - sam: it says YX32 02 M'I ~a
[2005-09-20 13:57:26] - can anyone guess what the title says? -sam
[2005-09-20 13:18:05] - . . . and sorry if i shouldn't have asked. ~a
[2005-09-20 13:17:18] - sam: yes you publish your ip address every time you send an ip packet. which is why i asked. ~a
[2005-09-20 13:10:18] - -sam
[2005-09-20 13:10:15] - a: can you see my ip address?
[2005-09-20 13:09:24] - GoogleNet—massive Google WiFi in the works? http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000853054453/ -sam
[2005-09-20 12:56:54] - sam: do you work at the pentagon? ~a
[2005-09-20 12:56:30] - yes I realize those statements are sort of contradictory
- vinnie[2005-09-20 12:56:08] - on the plus side: one could theoretically leave after polysics depending when they get on, and the other bands in the line-up seem fun from the clips on AMG - vinnie
[2005-09-20 12:54:54] - aaron: http://www.talkingheadclub.com/new_site/ they are on the 28th. the reasons I am unsure about going are a) I don't think we'd be getting back any earlier than 2AM b) they are not headlining so that means they'll have a shorter set. I doubt it will sell out or anything, so I may decide last minute - vinnie
[2005-09-20 12:30:57] - sam: yep. but the other quote made it pretty clear (at least taken as english & literal) that an uncovered head was not the same as a shaved head. ~a
[2005-09-20 12:15:30] - a: & dave: "And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved." doesn't that mean uncovered head is like a shaved head? -sam
[2005-09-20 11:57:26] - i mean, it's no coincidence that there is no zeros until the 32nd digit. ~a
[2005-09-20 11:55:42] - i have a hunch that there are exactly 1337133713371337 zeros in decimal-pi. ~a
[2005-09-20 11:30:53] - pierce: nm. i typed that a while ago and never hit enter. you've already discussed that point. ~a
[2005-09-20 11:30:27] - pierce: are you then saying that all irrational numbers (in decimal) must use all 10 digits? ~a
[2005-09-20 11:29:34] - http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/DentalHealth/tb/1756 bottled water helping cause cavities (because of lack of fluoride vs tap water ) -dave
[2005-09-20 11:29:31] - pierce: oh, thhe whole thing about the 28-day cycle not being the "natural" cycle and also the linke between estrogen-fat-breast cancer, though admittedly i was skimming by the time they had drawn conclusions about how to solve the brest cancer problem -amy
[2005-09-20 11:29:22] - a: I actually take back my statement. In retrospect, my whole argument was an example of a special relationship between all irrational numbers and base-2 that is not applicable to base-10; and since I can imagine an irrational number with infinite 1s and 0s in base-2 that only uses two or three digits in base-10 (0.2522522252222...), my argument is faulty. - pierce
[2005-09-20 11:27:07] - sam: yeah, I think adrian is right. those verses seem to say that hair isn't a headcover -dave
[2005-09-20 11:22:44] - amy: I'm not sure what part of the article you skimmed, but it seemed hardly an indictment of the pill; it was just suggesting that the way we've been administering it is suboptimal. - pierce
[2005-09-20 11:21:01] - aaron/pierce: mathamatitions still haven't proven it. and they're trying, also. ~a
[2005-09-20 11:20:41] - pierce: very interesting article. i couldn't read the entire thing, but i skimmed it; i have always thought the Pill was evil, partly for reasons that the article points out. -amy
[2005-09-20 11:11:11] - a: I agree with aaron's hunch. I mean, if you think about the binary representation, both 0 and 1 have to appear infinitely, otherwise it would be a rational number, right? I see nothing special about the relationship between base-2 and pi that makes it a special case compared to the relationship between base-10 and pi. (not logical, but my hunch) - pierce
[2005-09-20 11:03:02] - a: I have a hunch all numbers 0-9 occur infinitely in the decimal expansion of pi - aaron
[2005-09-20 10:57:38] - vinnie: WOW! I have to go! Where are the details? - aaron
[2005-09-20 10:46:03] - aaron aaron aaron aaron aaron polysics are playing in baltimore next Wed. I am soooooo tempted - vinnie
[2005-09-20 10:45:03] - http://www.gladwell.com/2000/2000_03_10_a_rock.htm fascinating article on the history and nature of the pill, and its originator. - pierce
[2005-09-20 09:58:36] - aaron: what's your hunch? ~a
[2005-09-20 09:27:21] - i've got a hunch - aaron
[2005-09-20 09:27:15] - a:
[2005-09-19 23:47:51] - it is not known which (if not all) of the digits (0 to 9) occur infinitely often in the decimal expansion of π. weird. ~a
[2005-09-19 18:13:32] - "If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off" this means that hair is not a cover. you can't cut hair off if you have no hair. ~a
[2005-09-19 18:12:37] - sam: it seems like according to that hair is not headcover. unless there is a translation issue or something. ~a
[2005-09-19 17:55:51] - dave: according to that i think the hair is considered as headcover. -sam
[2005-09-19 17:54:54] - dave: 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 = "And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head." -sam
[2005-09-19 17:17:52] - There! -Paul
[2005-09-19 17:17:46] - http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/forums/a/frm/f/67909965 -Paul
[2005-09-19 17:17:19] - Or not... -Paul
[2005-09-19 17:17:12] - Pierce: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/ forums/a/frm/f/67909965 Oops, the link got messed up. This one works. -Paul
[2005-09-19 16:50:48] - Pierce: I would say there is usually a thread or two per page which is slightly relevant to home theater stuff.
-paul[2005-09-19 16:50:03] - Pierce: Oh, there's not a home theater forum exactly. At least not one that I know of. I mostly did my reading in the Audio/Visual Club (http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/forums/a/frm/f/67909965). -Paul
[2005-09-19 16:46:14] - paul: where is the ars technica home theater forum? I haven't been able to find it. - pierce
[2005-09-19 15:41:19] - pierce: ahhh, well I'd never heard of the latter part of your statement before. -dave
[2005-09-19 15:40:33] - dave: I dunno, maybe it's part of the catholic dogma, but I seem to remember a strong suggestion in church that he was king of the jews in heaven because of his relationship to god, and he was king of the jews on earth because of his inherited title from david. - pierce
[2005-09-19 15:40:13] - pierce: i half think it may have been a sarcastic thing too, but i don't remember -dave
[2005-09-19 15:39:44] - pierce: the only time I remember "king of the jews" coming up was when they posted it above his head on the cross, where they usually posted what the crime of the person was. They didn't know what to post for Jesus since he didn't really do anything, so they posted that -dave
[2005-09-19 15:38:32] - pierce: hehe, I take that back again, looks like there were a lot of kings in his line. But still I don't think there was supposed to be any title passed to him. -dave
[2005-09-19 15:37:01] - pierce: as far as I know, there wasn't any title like that which was supposed to be passed down to him. Most in the geneological line weren't kings, and women certainly couldn't be kings, so Mary couldnt' pass it to Jesus -dave
[2005-09-19 15:31:40] - dave: but the whole impact of it, as I understood it, was that there was some sort of heritable "king of the jews" title that was passed through the generations. it would kinda be negated if any adopted child could be assumed to have the same trait. - pierce
[2005-09-19 15:29:41] - pierce: well, family / family name and stuff is passed down through the guy methinks. so Jesus was from the 'house of david' probably. -dave
[2005-09-19 15:28:31] - pierce: <shrug> "and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ" -dave
[2005-09-19 15:27:51] - assuming, again, that you believe that the original word was "virgin" rather than "young woman" in the stories of jesus' conception. - pierce
[2005-09-19 15:26:57] - dave: joseph's not the father. he's the stepfather. jesus is not a descendent of david, unless Mary also is. - pierce
[2005-09-19 15:25:21] - pierce: well, fathers are really important in the Bible. So I guess since Joseph was the father, he gets the credit? <shrug> -dave
[2005-09-19 15:24:08] - dave: waitwaitwait... it's a geneology to joseph, husband of mary? what the hell is the point of that if you think that jesus was a virgin birth? - pierce
[2005-09-19 15:23:30] - pierce: they do list Mary, but they say Joseph, who was the husband of Mary. the other three are tamar, ruth, and rahab -dave
[2005-09-19 15:22:40] - pierce: I'm wrong, I take it back, looks like there are 4 directly listed by name http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=matthew%201&version=31 -dave
[2005-09-19 15:20:24] - dave: yes, but since Joseph is not Jesus's biological father, they couldn't have a complete geneology without listing Mary. - pierce
[2005-09-19 15:20:17] - sam: I'm not positive, but I dont' think hair is supposed to be considered the headcovering -dave
[2005-09-19 15:19:47] - pierce: they only list the guys, except for those two exceptions -dave
[2005-09-19 15:19:25] - dave: but it says men should not cover their heads. does that mean men should shave their heads? -sam
[2005-09-19 15:18:49] - dave: about the headcovering for women, hair is considered as the headcovering. -sam
prev <-> next