prev <-> next
[2007-07-02 20:36:48] - Scooter Libby's sentence commuted. I'd snark, but you all probably already know the things I'd say. - pierce
[2007-07-02 16:26:27] - mapquest lets you use hov lanes? does it give you a warning at least? ~a
[2007-07-02 16:23:44] - gurkie: you have to use mapquest
- vinnie[2007-07-02 16:21:34] - the 66 thing is really annoying i mean what if you want to take an HOV road or its not HOV hours. Thats ridiculous. ~gurkie
[2007-07-02 16:01:55] - a: yeah, definitely. it almost always underestimates, probably just goes by speed limits and distances - vinnie
[2007-07-02 15:34:31] - i have a striking feeling the google maps doesn't take lights into account when calculating time. ~a
[2007-07-02 15:32:40] - oh i didn't realize that you could also pick up and drop the starting and ending points. ~a
[2007-07-02 15:25:41] - vinnie: for example: i CAN force the line onto 395 SOUTH (which requries two crazy U-turns), but i CANNOT force the line onto 395HOV lanes. ~a
[2007-07-02 15:23:24] - i'm pretty sure they coded in something to always avoid hov roads. ~a
[2007-07-02 15:20:58] - vinnie: it's got to be the hov because the line is avoiding 66(inside the beltway) like the plague. ~a
[2007-07-02 15:10:53] - also = always
[2007-07-02 15:10:38] - pierce: I still can't tell google maps to let me take 66 into dc. it also makes me take 50
- vinnie[2007-07-01 12:21:08] - pierce: the google map animation loads faster if you enable svg. (the only way to enable svg that i've found is using firebug; a javascript/html/network debugging plugin for firefox) ~a
[2007-07-01 11:08:05] - pierce: i saw that google maps feature, it was very fun to play with - aaron
[2007-06-30 17:28:05] - pierce: i use google reader.
i was using netnewswire lite before (mac application) but when my laptop died, i realized how useful web aggregators are. - aba[2007-06-30 17:05:09] - and so other trailer-hounds don't make the same mistake I made, don't watch the new trailer for Sunshine. - pierce
[2007-06-30 15:47:37] - ugh... it really pisses me off when there are spoilers in trailers or in the video behind the root menu of a dvd. these are the things I'm looking at before I see your movie, don't show me major plot points! - pierce
[2007-06-30 05:48:42] - do any of you guys use aggregators? have any windows-compatible ones you'd recommend? I use google reader at the moment but I'm not fond of the interface. Also, do any readers support authenticated feeds (if they exist)? in other words, something that could aggregate protected entries on my LJ friends page? - pierce
[2007-06-29 18:58:22] - amy: >< that's what I meant. stupid discrete time. - pierce
[2007-06-29 18:38:02] - pierce: why thank you. i hope i have good luck tomorrow for my gig as well... ,) -amy
[2007-06-29 18:34:16] - I should be clear: it automatically recalculates while you're dragging. - pierce
[2007-06-29 18:31:52] - wow, have you seen google maps' new rerouting feature? drag and drop a point on the route and it automatically recalculates the directions to take you through that point. I am in awe of these people. - pierce
[2007-06-29 18:27:15] - amy: good luck tonight. - pierce
[2007-06-29 18:26:35] - a: well unless that was posted by the vandal himself, then they didn't "know" it was vandalism, they were just speculating. And if it was posted by the vandal then it could just as easily have been posted by someone related to the event (and therefore with information relevant to the investigation) who was trying to avoid being identified. - pierce
[2007-06-29 18:01:23] - wikipedia also knew that the edit was merely vandalism before investigators: "This guy didn't know about Chris Benoit's wife's death. He is just a vandal who got incredibly lucky. Stop wasting your time investigators." was posted a day before "It is unbelievable what a hindrance this has put on our investigation". ~a
[2007-06-29 16:22:24] - I mean, as long as you're going to vandalize Wiki, be funny! - vinnie
[2007-06-29 16:21:56] - pierce: yeah. did you read his other edits? what a douche - vinnie
[2007-06-29 15:27:21] - vinnie: I can't say I'm not a bit pleased that this shitwit got called on his vandalism, despite the circumstances. - pierce
[2007-06-29 11:40:40] - i'm playing at market street in leesburg again tomorrow at 8. -amy
[2007-06-29 10:44:04] - http://spring.newsvine.com/_news/2007/06/29/808872-the-college-student-who-knew-about-the-benoit-murder-suicide-before-police benoit wikipedia edit a coincidence (apparently) - vinnie
[2007-06-29 10:18:20] - pierce: that's pretty cool. ~a
[2007-06-29 10:08:34] - pierce: haha, 4 hrs, 21 min. who knew the two were so close? - vinnie
[2007-06-29 03:01:17] - paved with good intentions - pierce
[2007-06-29 01:40:56] - paul: I dunno, I suspect most public figures have someone call it to their attention eventually. Whether or not he'd have been familiar enough with it to contribute is a different question, but not knowing anything about him besides this news I can't really speculate. - pierce
[2007-06-28 21:20:31] - a: Eerie. I wonder if he made the edit himself. I wouldn't think he would know about wikipedia, but you never know. -Paul
[2007-06-28 17:49:11] - paul: here's the wikipedia edit in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Benoit&diff=140442953&oldid=140425583 ~a
[2007-06-28 17:31:08] - paul: (i didn't read your entire article) apparently the editor that added the info to wikipedia was working at or near WWE HQ. ~a
[2007-06-28 17:07:46] - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19468182/?GT1=10056 Wikipedia knew of Benoit's wife's death before the cops found her body. -Paul
[2007-06-28 16:57:44] - a: spelled or spelt but not spellt. - aba
[2007-06-28 15:35:01] - That's inefficient. "anyway" uses the same number of letters as "neways". - Kaleb
[2007-06-28 15:20:55] - you spellt n.e.ways incorrectly. ~a
[2007-06-28 15:17:10] - a: bummer. well i'll check out nvcc neways - aaron
[2007-06-28 15:02:33] - aaron: i can't come today.
~a[2007-06-28 15:01:46] - ddr_people: i'm gonna check out nvcc, i'll give u a call. - aaron
[2007-06-28 14:54:51] - dave: this after the blockbuster thing? i think we can call it. ~a
[2007-06-28 12:35:59] - http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070628-blu-rays-newst-attack-on-hd-dvd-5-movie-freebies.html 5 free blu-ray movies when you buy a blu-ray player, including the ps3 -dave
[2007-06-28 12:35:44] - a: that didn't sound like to be the issue though -dave
[2007-06-28 12:35:28] - although i suppose if he donates more than he makes his % would be quite low, if not zero -dave
[2007-06-28 12:34:37] - errr, donates -dave
[2007-06-28 12:34:30] - a: it doesn't matter how much he denotes though. As long as it leave him with an income of greater than 300k, he would still be in the highest bracket. -dave
[2007-06-28 09:26:47] - dave: you're ingoring the donation thing. especially recently, he donates a buttload of money. ~a
[2007-06-28 07:55:02] - a: but still, the long term capital gains is still 15% and he's only at 17.7? -dave
[2007-06-28 07:54:14] - Zabian Dowdell and David Teague (VA Tech basketball players) worked out for the Spurs -dave
[2007-06-28 02:16:56] - a: I know you've explained this to me before but I've forgotten and my brain is simply insufficiently powerful to parse the script manually. what do the 3:9 and 5:9 columns stand for on the stats page? - pierce
[2007-06-27 16:23:00] - Gurkie: My fault, I wasn't clear on it. -Paul
[2007-06-27 16:17:30] - paul: that was what i meant... didnt realize you were talking about not airing it as a repeat i missed that although now i see... ~gurkie
[2007-06-27 15:22:49] - Gurkie: Aired what? They did air the tribute show (Raw is normally recorded live) on Monday but I think they pulled it afterwards from being shown on repeats. -Paul
[2007-06-27 14:32:30] - paul: Wiki sounded like they aired it... ~gurkie
[2007-06-27 14:20:47] - dave: i'm guessing that he has a ton of donations and a ton of long term stock sales income. ~a
[2007-06-27 14:08:10] - a: the reason I don't think it should be higher than 35% federal is that you get states like MD where i pay 7.75%. So you could be paying 42.75% tax if you're in the upper bracket. That's a massive % -dave
[2007-06-27 14:06:29] - a: but still 35% is still twice what Buffett said he was paying -dave
[2007-06-27 14:06:07] - a: and actually, i don't really think that anyone should pay more than roughly 35% income tax. That's just dang high no matter what you make IMO -dave
[2007-06-27 14:05:19] - a: i dont' think it's crazy, but i think they should be at the upper tax bracket of 35%. I don't understand how the super rich are paying less looking at the 1040. -dave
[2007-06-27 13:46:05] - Then, when they found out that it looked like he killed his wife and child, they decided to not air the tribute anymore. -Paul
[2007-06-27 13:45:18] - Gurkie: Yeah, that's not right. The explosion happened before. What was a little creepy is that the Monday show was supposed to be a memorial show to Vince McMahon and instead it turned into a tribute to Benoit (because they didn't know what happened). -Paul
[2007-06-27 13:44:22] - Vinnie: Yeah, they pretty much dropped the storyline right after learning about this. -Paul
[2007-06-27 13:25:45] - dave: it used to be that the super-rich payed about 90% income tax. the fact that they're down around 20-30 is crazy. ~a
[2007-06-27 13:02:33] - vinnie: what i heard on the radio had the timings off... I thought they aired the explosion AFTER they found Chris Benoit's body which would have been in really super bad taste... ~gurkie
[2007-06-27 12:05:42] - paul: yeah, I read about that "Vince is dead" thing too. unfortunate time for them to pull a storyline like that
- vinnie[2007-06-27 12:01:48] - dave: perl -le 'print int(rand(2))?"up":"down"' ~a
[2007-06-27 11:59:51] - entries = inputs. ~a
[2007-06-27 11:59:34] - paul: firefox has spell-checker installed by default (if you want to enable spell-checker on single line entries, then go to about:config and change layout.spellcheckDefault to "2") ~a
[2007-06-27 11:46:45] - Vinnie: The second thing I thought was that the wife must've killed him because from everything I've heard, Chris Benoit was like the last wrestler anybody would've assumed would've done something like this. -Paul
[2007-06-27 11:46:02] - Vinnie: Yeah, I heard about it on Monday. At first I thought it was a storyline because they were doing a "Vince McMahon is dead" storyline but then I found out it was real. -Paul
[2007-06-27 11:34:56] - paul: did you hear about chris benoit? http://www.wwe.com/inside/news/benoitdead - vinnie
[2007-06-27 10:47:31] - dave: does it have to be accurate? not all predictions are true... ~gurkie
[2007-06-27 10:34:57] - a: I would also like a feature that predicts the direction of the stock market the next day -dave
[2007-06-27 09:10:56] - a: I just thought of a new feature you could implement if you are still looking for one. How about something that checks the spelling of each word you type as you type it (like yahoo mail or livejournal)? -Paul
[2007-06-27 09:10:16] - Dave: Are people allowed to make donations to the IRS or the federal government? If so, he could probably institute a higher tax on himself.
-Paul[2007-06-27 08:31:58] - http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/26/news/newsmakers/clinton_buffett/index.htm?cnn=yes wow, that's crazy, warren buffett pays 17.7% fed income tax? What's even more interesting is that he says he thinks people like him should pay higher taxes -dave
[2007-06-26 20:25:35] - aaron: throw new IllegalTurnsignalException();
[2007-06-26 17:58:05] - mig: finally!! randy and zack always bust my chops for using a turn signal in our spiral parking lot. but who'll be laughing when they get smacked with a $1050 ticket for failing to signal - aaron
[2007-06-26 17:25:20] - throw new IllegalStateException(msg)?
[2007-06-26 16:42:23] - mig: the guy should have used throw null; which creates a new NPE automatically. save 10 characters that way - aaron
[2007-06-26 16:15:31] - http://worsethanfailure.com/Articles/Its-Like-Calling-Assert.aspx a bit old but this might be my favorite wtf code snippet of all time. - mig
[2007-06-26 16:12:36] - kaleb: laws can get repealed?
~a[2007-06-26 16:09:35] - wow i think the article got /.'d - mig
[2007-06-26 15:57:46] - well, at the very least, they've given up on the pretense that traffic laws have anything to do with safety now. - mig
[2007-06-26 15:35:29] - a: wow that totally sucks. For once being a MD resident is good -dave
[2007-06-26 15:23:57] - mig: That law is ridiculous. I wonder how long it will take before it gets repealed (hopefully). - Kaleb
[2007-06-26 15:02:56] - "The purpose of the civil remedial fees imposed in this section is to generate revenue"
[2007-06-26 14:47:41] - mig: i think the conflict of interest issue is an interesting one. ~a
[2007-06-26 14:30:17] - http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1818.asp va traffic violations could cost people thousands of dollars in fines and "taxes". - mig
[2007-06-26 13:59:16] - Church and state discussion
[2007-06-26 13:58:55] - dave: sorry I came so late to the party, I'll try to clarify my positions. - pierce
[2007-06-26 13:17:08] - gurkie: yeah, i dunno. in any case, I think we're pretty close in our opinions -dave
[2007-06-26 12:11:53] - aaron: i liked the movie... one tear
but not at the very end instead in the office not long before the end. despite KNOWING that. ~gurkie[2007-06-26 11:14:58] - dave: which to me says that that group is actually giving out the federal grants, although in the top part of the wiki i thought it sounded like they might be just giving advice... ~gurkie
[2007-06-26 11:09:10] - dave: im having trouble deciphering what the agency does it looks like they actually give the contracts... Jim Towney the former director of WHOFBCI (whatever the abbrev should be) "admitted in 2004 that "no direct federal grants from his program had gone to a non-Christian religious group." " from Wiki ~gurkie
[2007-06-26 10:46:59] - gurkie: so basically like an agency to help FBOs understand how they can now do things under the new laws -dave
[2007-06-26 10:46:32] - gurkie: it's called that because it sounds like it isn't actually the agency that gives the contracts, it's the agency that helps FBOs to use the new laws (or executive orders or whatever) to apply for the contracts -dave
[2007-06-26 10:44:52] - gurkie: yeah, i agree. -dave
[2007-06-26 10:41:24] - dave: honestly i have trouble with faith based initiatives being part of a department in the govt. For CGI to be able to try and win govt contracts they had to make a wholly US owned subsidiary business with no ties to the Canadian parent company, I kinda think religious charities should do the same sort of thing, except non-religious rather than US owned. ~gurkie
[2007-06-26 10:35:43] - dave: funny how often that happens when you get the government invovled in these things... - mig
[2007-06-26 10:35:18] - dave: if they merely wanted to not penalize organizations why did they name it white house office of faith-based and community initiatives. couldnt they have just called it white house office of community intiatives? ~gurkie
[2007-06-26 10:32:42] - gurki: i guess to me, it seems like the ideal of the initiative was good (not penalizing the organizations for being religious) but that perhaps it has been abused -dave
[2007-06-26 10:31:12] - gurkie: altho i would imagine that none of the other people who got money were monitored at all either -dave
[2007-06-26 10:30:46] - gurkie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Community_Initiatives apparently the controversy is that there were safeguards put into place to make sure they weren't spending the money on church stuff instead of the intended contract, but that it isn't closely monitored -dave
[2007-06-26 10:29:11] - gurkie: well, after a very precursory reading of the wiki page on faith based initiative bleh bleh, it doesn't seem so bad. My take on it is that the govt offers contracts for certain social services. Beforehand, religious groups were not able to apply for the contracts to fulfill those services. Apparently the faith based initiative now allows them to. -dave
[2007-06-26 10:22:45] - gurkie: ahh, i see. well i can understand that -dave
[2007-06-26 10:18:23] - i also said it to pierce off the msgboard, but I would personally find the donations to religious charities less inappropriate if the money wasnt only going to christian religions, I feel like donating to only one religion is too much like establishing a national religion. ~gurkie
[2007-06-26 10:17:12] - dave: i think the problem pierce has (and i have) is not the deduction, but instead that the goverment is making donations to religious organizations with tax money. ~gurkie
[2007-06-26 10:12:30] - pierce: i mean, if you go too far, you run the risk of intentionally discriminating against religious people -dave
[2007-06-26 10:11:05] - pierce: the line just becomes rather fuzzy in my mind. I mean, what if all the church people decided to start a charitable organization that helped people. Would the fact that it was started by a bunch of church people make it so that they shouldn't get the deduction benefits? -dave
[2007-06-26 10:10:07] - pierce: or perhaps you don't have a problem with donations to charities that have religious ties, but only donations to churches directly? -dave
[2007-06-26 10:08:43] - pierce: i would think that would be somewhat difficult as organizations like the salvation army etc are quite clearlycharitable -dave
[2007-06-26 10:08:16] - pierce: after all, aren't there plenty of non-religious charities that you can donate to? Is it that you have a problem labelining churches or their endeavors as charitable? -dave
[2007-06-26 10:07:29] - pierce: i do think you bring up an interesting point though. Practically though, I don't personally feel like making charitable donations tax deductible is a problem -dave
[2007-06-26 10:05:07] - pierce: i guess all this to say that it seems somewhat odd that you're trying to argue that the constitution and amendments shouldn't allow it where the courts/judges have decided it should -dave
[2007-06-26 10:03:07] - Pierce: but i guess i felt like i should point out the obvious that for whatever legal reasons, be it interpretation of the constitution and amendments or not, they are legal -dave
[2007-06-26 10:02:03] - Pierce: I'm not sure whether you're trying to say that charitable donations being tax deductible is illegal based on current law, or based on solely the constitution and the first amendment -dave
[2007-06-26 09:29:22] - Gurkie: What's just me? -Paul
[2007-06-26 09:27:17] - paul: its just you. ~gurkie
[2007-06-26 09:15:35] - paul: i don't think you should agree to disagree. ~a
[2007-06-26 09:10:04] - Pierce: Well, I don't think we're going to change each other's minds, so let's just say we agree to disagree.
-Paul[2007-06-26 07:22:11] - http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/enemy-adapts-the-state-of-spam-malware-and-phishing-scams.ars interesting article on the state of spam, malware, and the like -dave
[2007-06-26 03:13:20] - s/and/but/. "but sadly that method...". you using it hypothetically doesn't bug the living crap out of me. the scalia disciples using it seriously does. - pierce.
[2007-06-26 01:31:54] - paul: I know you're largely making a hypothetical argument, and sadly that method is one that many "strict constructionists" manipulate to assert their own beliefs as having some sort of historical authority. bugs the living crap out of me. - pierce
[2007-06-26 01:29:31] - paul: and then there's always the tradition of precedent, and our legal precedent interprets that clause to be more than "we can't have an official state religion." how much father do we need to go to have exhausted the possibility of a different reasonable claim? - pierce
[2007-06-26 01:27:55] - paul: well you have to land somewhere. I think I made a reasonable argument that the text itself clearly prohibits this. adrian gave a clear example of one of the hallmark founding fathers would agree. sure, other signees might have disagreed but since their opinions weren't codified in the actual legal document I'm not sure how it's relevant. - pierce
[2007-06-25 23:33:05] - a: I understand that Jefferson was likely a big fan of keeping religion as far away from government as possible, but that doesn't necessarily mean that was how all the founding fathers felt. -Paul
[2007-06-25 21:25:07] - paul: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." -tj ~a
[2007-06-25 21:15:22] - I'm not saying my interpretation is better or anything, just that it seems like a little bit of a stretch to me. -Paul
[2007-06-25 21:14:10] - apierce: Understood, I'm just wondering if the first ammendment was supposed to prohibit any kind of interaction between church and state or if it was meant to prohibit the establishment of a state religion. -Paul
[2007-06-25 19:05:23] - paul: but they put it into law. which the 1st amendment is pretty clear about. ~a
[2007-06-25 19:03:17] - paul: well in the most direct sense, a religious charity can be considered an establishment ("institution") of religion. in a broader sense, it can be seen as an instrument for the establishment ("creation/development") of religion. and acts of congress ("laws") which end up funding such { "establishment" | "an establishment" } would be "respecting" it. - pierce
[2007-06-25 18:44:46] - Pierce: I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing that the government does it, I just am not sure the first ammendment clearly forbids it. -Paul
[2007-06-25 18:44:18] - Pierce: Maybe it's just me, but it seems like a stretch to say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means that the government can't give money to religious charities. -Paul
[2007-06-25 17:59:03] - ...quite the contrary. - pierce
[2007-06-25 17:58:42] - paul: so, to adapt adrian's post to reflect constitutional wording: we don't have constitutional text prohibiting congress from passing a law respecting an establishment of a military. - pierce
[2007-06-25 17:57:10] - congress budgeting money to the office of faith based initiatives, which then gives that money to religious institutions, is unequivocally "respecting an establishment of religion." - pierce
[2007-06-25 17:55:19] - paul: separation of church and state is the logical consequence of government being prohibited from "respecting an establishment of religion". - pierce
[2007-06-25 17:55:16] - the term "separation of church and state" is a modification of what jefferson said about the first amendment. ~a
[2007-06-25 17:52:01] - Pierce: Don't worry, I'll be at work for a while, but I likely won't be able to argue with you very much. -Paul
[2007-06-25 17:51:36] - Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole "seperation of church and state" thing not in the constitution? -Paul
[2007-06-25 17:45:15] - noooo... all you loser east-coasters went home from work and I still want to argue! - pierce
[2007-06-25 17:35:10] - paul: adrian already said it but we have a seperation of church and state hence the govt should not chose what religions we support, although they shouldnt make us support any religions at all...~gurkie
[2007-06-25 17:34:34] - non-profits = "most non-profits" ~a
[2007-06-25 17:34:14] - pierce: i understand. though non-profits fit into the 501(c)(3). ~a
[2007-06-25 17:24:30] - a: I'm not saying all charitable donations are unconstitutional, I'm saying that the concept of the government "approving" or "disapproving" of your voluntary donations (and rewarding you thusly) leads to constitutional crises like the one I described: where both governmental actions can be seen as a violation of the establishment clause. - pierce
[2007-06-25 17:23:05] - paul: the military is a constitutionally-described service, and it's appropriate for the government to establish it and fund it. religious charities are not, and the government should not be managing the distribution of funds to them. - pierce
[2007-06-25 17:20:48] - aaron: i'm surprised that the phone companies aren't in any trouble for profiting off of and aiding tax evaders. ~a
[2007-06-25 17:19:43] - paul: because we don't have a separation of military and state. ~a
[2007-06-25 17:16:12] - paul: i was just reading up on that yesterday here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_resistance#Refusing_specific_taxes and apparently it's not too uncommon a practice - aaron
[2007-06-25 17:16:09] - on the other hand, OFBI is. ~a
[2007-06-25 17:15:24] - i.e. i think that charitable deductions are NOT constitutionally flawed. ~a
[2007-06-25 17:14:44] - pierce: "charitable deductions are a constitutionally flawed idea in the first place" you know that contributions to wikipedia (and all other non-profits) are also deductable, right? ~a
[2007-06-25 17:12:59] - Gurkie: Why stop at letting people choose what religious groups that their money goes to? What if somebody is morally against the military? Shouldn't they be allowed to not contribute to it? -Paul
[2007-06-25 17:10:46] - looking at what adrian posted, i bet if people were given a choice more than 0% would go to non christian religious organizations. ~gurkie
[2007-06-25 17:05:26] - pierce: i wasnt arguing that there shouldnt be tax exemptions for religious donations. i was asking because it makes sense that we should be able to chose where our charitable (involuntary) donations go instead of the goverment taking the individuals money and funding religious groups that the taxpayers may disagree with ~gurkie
[2007-06-25 17:02:35] - ...one that's more easily managed so that it doesn't fund religious institutions. - pierce
[2007-06-25 17:01:37] - I'd counter that counterpoint by arguing that charitable deductions are a constitutionally flawed idea in the first place, and that the government should eliminate them and (if they must) find another venue for encouraging philanthropy. - pierce
[2007-06-25 17:00:34] - gurkie: think of it this way... a rabid atheist government could raise taxes on religious donations as a way of preventing people from practicing their religion. - pierce
[2007-06-25 17:00:11] - a: im not saying that they *will* dismantle it im saying they should... it very clearly violates the concept of seperation of church and state. ~gurkie
[2007-06-25 16:58:54] - pierce: Not sure if I follow, the government taxing the donation? I would think that the government not taxing the income used for the donation would be the breach. ~gurkie
[2007-06-25 16:57:45] - *gurkie. ~a
[2007-06-25 16:57:39] - gukie: you're crazy. there's no way the government is going to dismantle the office of faith-based initiatives. at least not before 2008. ~a
[2007-06-25 16:56:28] - gurkie: I think the counterpoint to the church charity deduction is that the government taxing the money you give to a church would be an even clearer breach of the first amendment. - pierce
[2007-06-25 16:54:19] - gurkie: yes, although I'm not sure the further details. "For example, an individual with a taxable income of $50,000 donates $2,000 to his or her church. The tax savings from this generosity will be $540 – $2,000 times the taxpayer’s marginal tax rate of 27 percent." from this IRS page. - pierce
[2007-06-25 16:54:08] - its = faith based initiatives ~gurkie
[2007-06-25 16:53:49] - a: well its kinda like an involuntary donation to a religious organization... i think that if they want to force people to contribute part of their taxes to religious organizations we should be able to chose our org. ~gurkie
[2007-06-25 16:51:50] - gurkie: probably. what does that have to do with faith-based initiatives? ~a
[2007-06-25 16:49:44] - are donations to religious charities tax deductable? ~gurkie
[2007-06-25 16:49:10] - gurkie: in an episode of Sports Night, one of the characters was all upset because he confused "secular" and "non-secular" when talking to h. clinton. ~a
[2007-06-25 16:46:33] - http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/21/magazines/business2/internet_radio.biz2/index.htm?postversion=2007062205 info about the new online radio tax, i hadn't really heard the details before - aaron
[2007-06-25 16:45:30] - wait secular means non religious? I always thought it meant religious... ~gurkie
[2007-06-25 16:45:01] - a: or, in spanish, "¡la minúscula "i" es inequívoca!" - pierce
[2007-06-25 16:43:38] - gurkie: I don't think so, the money is supposed to be restricted to non-religious (secular) activities... - pierce
[2007-06-25 16:43:01] - a: otherwise people could read it as "H1TS" or "HLTS". lower case i is unambiguous! i use it a lot when i write in upper case - aaron
[2007-06-25 16:42:18] - wait, I may be wrong about that "no clear line" comment, according to the wiki page, although there appears to be nothing wrong with encouraging people to attend church while you feed them (since the church service would be at a different place and time) - pierce
[2007-06-25 16:40:16] - pierce: shouldnt that be non-secular activities? ~gurkie
[2007-06-25 16:39:49] - "Former director Jim Towey admitted in 2004 that 'no direct federal grants from his program had gone to a non-Christian religious group.'" groan. ~a
[2007-06-25 16:38:04] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bh4j.jpg - pierce
[2007-06-25 16:38:00] - a: because they're pot-smoking hippies, I assume. - pierce
[2007-06-25 16:37:17] - "faith-based initiative" as a term refers to Bush's efforts to provide federal funding to religious charities, ostensibly restricted to their secular activities. however, there's very limited oversight of the use of that money and there's not a clear demarcation saying "you can use this money to host a soup line, but you can't have a priest at the end of it" - pierce
[2007-06-25 16:35:52] - pierce: why didn't they capitalize the i in "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS"? ~a
[2007-06-25 16:35:21] - urgh that should read "forget the whole should my money be going towards them, but the govt..." ~gurkie
[2007-06-25 16:35:12] - ew, underscores = eyescores. - pierce
[2007-06-25 16:34:49] - gurkie: White_House_Office_of_Faith-Based_and_Community_Initiatives - pierce
[2007-06-25 16:34:28] - In other words I kinda vehemently disagree with faith based iniatives having any place in govt, forget the whole i should be contributing, but the govt shouldnt be contributing. individuals who want to spend their money that way should be contributing ~gurkie
[2007-06-25 16:33:58] - gurkie: "harm" in this case (I think) means a material infringements of your rights (like being arrested), person (injured) or property (fined). it offending your religious beliefs is arguably "mental anguish" and therefore your person, but I don't think the court precedentially subscribes to that belief. - pierce
[2007-06-25 16:33:07] - faith based initiatives are all well and good, but they should not be funded by the govt. What faith based initiative was this related to anyway, it seems like any faith based initiatives funded by the govt should really be more of outreach things and could be done through a non religious org. ~gurkie
[2007-06-25 16:30:41] - the first case was Morse v. Fredrick, and the poster was just the text I mentioned. the claim was that it "promoted drug use" which isn't a crime in this sense when adults do it, but this basically overturned previous opinions protecting certain constitutional rights of students. - pierce
[2007-06-25 16:27:36] - pierce: direct harm to my religious belief? what about the church and state thing faith based initiatives should be outside the jurisdiction of the government ~gurkie
[2007-06-25 16:27:10] - however, if they don't think "spending tax dollars" constitutes a direct harm then I doubt they're very eager to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. - pierce
[2007-06-25 16:26:09] - gurkie: not precisely, but close. they didn't say that faith-based initiatives would hold up to first amendment scrutiny, just that you have to prove direct harm in order to get them to consider the issue. - pierce
[2007-06-25 16:25:20] - pierce: and... on 1 is that poster like a picture of jesus with a bong? (the church&state thing was me) ~gurkie
[2007-06-25 16:24:40] - doesnt that conflict with seperation of church and state?
[2007-06-25 16:24:27] - pierce: wait... on 2 that means if the govt wants to have religious (faith based) initiatives that conflict with my religion i have to pay for them? ~gurkie
[2007-06-25 16:19:57] - in other legal news, the supreme court ruled today that (1) a "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" poster didn't merit first amendment protections on school grounds, and (2) that taxpayers lack standing to legally challenge faith-based initiatives in the executive office (among other decisions). - pierce
[2007-06-25 15:36:12] - aaron: cnn is blocked here but I read the washington post article that guy is ridiculous. how can someone sue on behalf of people who wont see a dime of the settlement? the premise for that ridiculous settlement request was to eliminate the signs which dont live up to their word. ~gurkie
[2007-06-25 14:04:14] - there we go. that's what you use. ~a
[2007-06-25 14:04:08] - [[Don't Stand So Close to Me]] ~a
[2007-06-25 14:00:00] - aaron: hmm. &bracketleft; == [ ~a
[2007-06-25 13:57:41] - aaron: &bracketleft;&bracketleft;Don't Stand So Close to Me&bracketright;&bracketright; ~a
[2007-06-25 13:54:50] - http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/trouser.trial/index.html Judge tosses $54 million suit over missing pants - aaron
[2007-06-25 13:38:15] - a:
- aaron[2007-06-25 13:37:50] - "Sting... ...reused the melody from the chorus of "<a href="Don't Stand So Close to Me">Don't Stand So Close To Me</a>" in the counterpoint lyric 'I want my MTV'" hey that's cool i never noticed that - aaron
[2007-06-25 10:56:07] - a: good, i saw the chirp chirp chirp as a lets not bother answering that, although it could have been someone else who wrote it ~gurkie
[2007-06-25 10:47:58] - gurkie: lori told on the cheater. ~a
[2007-06-25 10:34:06] - lori: i agree with adrian... dont let anyone cheat off you. ~gurkie
[2007-06-23 12:07:26] - pierce: actually yes. would you like me to post some of them here? ~a
[2007-06-23 00:13:16] - a: but do they give quality attention to anal images? - pierce
[2007-06-22 16:34:45] - cruise control: clean and compile!
[2007-06-22 15:49:04] - chirp chirp chirp
[2007-06-22 14:46:23] - did you? ~a
[2007-06-22 14:09:06] - lori: i wouldn't let them. ~a
[2007-06-22 13:54:01] - it is not a good sign when someone decides to cheat off of you the first assignment of the first week in the first clas...- lori
[2007-06-22 13:08:43] - kaleb: i'm surprised nobody mentioned the white dot on the FPC. usually they have anal attention to image quality there. ~a
[2007-06-22 12:46:31] - a: Maybe it's just me, but it looks like that dot has a small trail coming from below it. I don't suppose it could be a rocket or shuttle of some sort. - Kaleb
[2007-06-22 10:53:07] - i guess it can't be a star since it's in the moon. ~a
[2007-06-22 10:19:01] - aaron: regarding the top-of-atmosphere. is the white dot a star or is it a dead-pixel in the camera? ~a
[2007-06-22 10:17:45] - Aaron: set this as your desktop background: Image:Sorting quicksort anim.gif. Tiled. ~a
[2007-06-22 08:56:24] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Top_of_Atmosphere.jpg i like this one - aaron
[2007-06-22 08:56:15] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures wikipedia has a lot of really cool pictures for wallpaper... - aaron
[2007-06-22 08:18:08] - a: heh, i didn't think it was all that funny but i didn't watch the whole 30 minutes - aaron
[2007-06-21 17:21:08] - a: You're right. I read Delaware County and just stopped there. That's why it's a good thing I'm not the one creating the article. - Kaleb
[2007-06-21 16:05:17] - aaron: this makes the banana is proof of intelligent design argument much funnier. ~a
[2007-06-21 15:58:25] - i just noted this on the talk page, springfield mall (Springfield, Virginia) is three times the size and much closer to populated areas. ~a
[2007-06-21 15:57:13] - kaleb: it's actually in pennsylvania, not delaware. ~a
[2007-06-21 15:55:18] - oops not a, i meant aaron... ~gurkie
[2007-06-21 15:55:05] - a:waaaaaaaaaaaah i cant see the image, i think its somehow blocked from here...~gurkie
[2007-06-21 15:52:32] - aaron: i responded to the talk page. ~a
[2007-06-21 15:38:20] - wow... I'd never read through the consequences of seedless fruit cultivation. I wonder how many of the bananas I've eaten in my life were actually genetically identical. - pierce
[2007-06-21 15:24:06] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Inside_a_wild-type_banana.jpg if anybody was wondering why bananas are so human-friendly... here's what they looked like before we started cultivating them - aaron
[2007-06-21 15:20:44] - Pierce: Same here, this past weekend I was out in the sun for no longer than two hours a day for two consecutive days and I made sure to put a ton of sunscreen on and yet I still got some mild sunburn. -Paul
[2007-06-21 15:13:22] - pierce: QQ - aba
[2007-06-21 14:57:51] - aaron: Also, you have to remember that the Delaware one is no less significant ,due to the shooting spree that happened there. It would be good to mention on the disambiguation page. - Kaleb
[2007-06-21 14:54:40] - aaron: Just create a Springfield Mall (Virginia) page, then move Springfield Mall to Springfield Mall (Delaware), and finally create a new page as Springfield Mall which will be the disambiguation page. - Kaleb
[2007-06-21 14:52:04] - I had no idea exactly how UV-averse I'd become... I couldn't have been in direct sunlight for more than 10-15 minutes yesterday, and my forearms are bright pink and damn painful. - pierce
[2007-06-21 14:44:22] - a: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Springfield_Mall ? ? - aaron
[2007-06-21 14:19:27] - *** a gives aaron an sfm.
[2007-06-21 14:18:28] - a: yes pls - aaron
[2007-06-21 13:09:11] - lori: doh. i dont know how many times i forget that its one course at a time... I keep t hinking you have a bunch of classes that will last longer... ~gurkie
[2007-06-21 12:22:12] - gurkie: well, so far it's just the paper since it's an online course...- lori
[2007-06-21 12:14:13] - aaron: sfm? ~a
[2007-06-21 11:47:39] - xpovos: yeah i prefer WPA for my home network if i have a choice - aaron
[2007-06-21 10:16:07] - apparently 802.11n has something called wpa2. ~a
[2007-06-21 10:12:51] - Xpovos: I think I have my router set up for MAC address filtering. -Paul
[2007-06-21 10:09:35] - xpovos: paul just said that the ds doesn't support wpa. tsk tsk. ~a
prev <-> next