prev <-> next
[2009-03-20 15:43:58] - http://notalwaysright.com/you-say-to-mah-to-i-say-pot-tah-to/1705 not-always-right call to a garden store - aaron
[2009-03-20 15:29:03] - a/aaron: Win! -- Xpovos
[2009-03-20 15:23:40] - xpovos: i once ate a heaping bowl of men religious. ~a
[2009-03-20 15:14:39] - xpovos: you had me at "four-hour sexual abuse". but you lost me at "prevention"
- aaron[2009-03-20 15:08:05] - title: I try. You need a little humor to lighten the atmosphere from time to time. But it's hardly stand-up. -- Xpovos
[2009-03-20 14:45:44] - xpovos: Will it involve any dark comedy? -title
[2009-03-20 14:17:00] - title: I'm giving a four-hour sexual abuse prevention seminar to a group of men religious. Does that count as fun? -- Xpovos
[2009-03-20 14:16:17] - mig: Unless you're like Paul and backstab people right in front of them. -- Xpovos
[2009-03-20 14:12:28] - At that point it's probably in your best interests to just treat it like gunboat diplomacy. - mig
[2009-03-20 14:11:27] - i'm not sure what the point of wilsonian diplomacy is. Making your intentions public kind of just ruins the spirit of the game. - mig
[2009-03-20 13:57:28] - Aaron: I don't know if the Wilsonian version necessarily makes it better (except for possibly taking less time), but it makes it different. Coordinated backstabbing is all but impossible and forming joint plans is very difficult. -Paul
[2009-03-20 13:37:15] - a: Write in. Write ins get discarded most of the time, unless the vote is close enough to matter somehow. And even then it's usually just 'write in'. So the fact that I voted is completely obscured. -- Xpovos
[2009-03-20 13:32:37] - I can't rationalize the wilsonian variation, or why it makes sense for 4 or 5 players. I'd have to try it and then maybe I'd appreciate why it makes sense. - aaron
[2009-03-20 13:30:57] - paul: well, i thought the gunboat thing made sense for a 3 (or maybe 4) person game, because 3/4 player games are likely to devolve into primitive "let's get rid of our least favorite player" kinds of diplomacy - aaron
[2009-03-20 13:11:31] - xpovos: why wasn't your vote going to count? ~a
[2009-03-20 13:03:50] - Mig: I didn't think it was possible, but Obama is actually making Bush look like an economic conservative by comparison. -Paul
[2009-03-20 12:59:05] - Paul: No, but no reason to invite the devil to the party. -- Xpovos
[2009-03-20 12:58:16] - i'm not a big fan either of having strict rules regarding diplomacy, with the exception of time limits between rounds. - mig
[2009-03-20 12:57:35] - Xpovos: I'm not sure why that would prevent them from taking the money. It's not like not taking the money is going to prevent the government from making stricter regulations. -Paul
[2009-03-20 12:56:52] - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090320/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget;_ylt=Al5H_ulRTxh3webNrFIa7lKyFz4D so much for cutting the deficit in half over the next 4 years. - mig
[2009-03-20 12:42:51] - Aaron: You mean the variant about starting with no units and then placing units in order? That could be intriguing. I don't know how I feel about the gunboat diplomacy, but the Wilsonian version also sounds interesting. -Paul
[2009-03-20 12:32:04] - This makes sense particularly how the deals keep changing post facto for the banks. Other businesses looking for easy federal money are on watch for their strings. -- Xpovos
[2009-03-20 12:30:20] - So, next time we have to play with 6 or fewer player, maybe we can try that instead of just getting rid of italy. I also thought it was cool how they talk about limiting communication with fewer players, it made some sense to me - aaron
[2009-03-20 12:29:23] - paul: Oh ok, that sucks. The wikipedia page lists alternate variations for less than seven people - aaron
[2009-03-20 10:43:13] - mig: At least I knew my vote wasn't going to count. -- Xpovos
[2009-03-20 10:36:37] - http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7001 i can say with absolute 100% certainty that this is simply an isolated incident. /snicker. - mig
[2009-03-20 10:06:01] - Xpovos: I can see totally see that. For various reasons recently (unrelated to Obama being elected, but definitely related to government actions by both Bush and Obama) I've been giving serious thought to taking gun classes. -Paul
[2009-03-20 10:02:58] - Aaron: So I just called it off for this weekend. Sorry. -Paul
[2009-03-20 10:02:52] - http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2009/03/19/in-american-crisis-anger-and-guns/ Gun sales up significantly, and not just because of fear over Obama's gun-restriction law desires anymore. -- Xpovos
[2009-03-20 10:02:30] - Aaron: Not good, I actually just sent an email out. Around six people said they could do it, but most had pretty specific times/days they could and the most we overlapped was tonight and that was only four people with a slight possibility of a 5th. -Paul
[2009-03-20 09:30:44] - paul: how is diplomacy looking? - aaron
[2009-03-20 09:16:02] - http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10200276-1.html?tag=mncol;posts Seduction tips for 'Star Trek' nerds -Paul
[2009-03-19 14:41:05] - vinnie: Sure, I should be able to make it today. I'll call you if I can't make it for some reason - aaron
[2009-03-19 13:33:57] - ddr_people: pump you up? - vinnie
[2009-03-19 13:08:45] - http://www.cnbc.com/id/29755862/ Fat family of four ask British government for more money because they can't work. -Paul
[2009-03-19 13:07:06] - Heh, good to see a sense of humor in this all: http://www.welcomebigwigs.com/ -- Xpovos
[2009-03-19 09:10:37] - Chess-boxing sounds interesting... I wonder how much the blows to the head affect decision making in-game. -- Xpovos
[2009-03-18 17:00:36] - a: i'd be willing to try. but we might be in different weight and brain classes - aaron
[2009-03-18 15:45:57] - a: I imagine I would lose miserably at both... so I will pass... Poker Bowling however I would play, although I have a feeling my friends just made it up! ~gurkie
[2009-03-18 14:59:14] - does anybody want to learn to play chess boxing? this sounds like fun. ~a
[2009-03-18 14:56:29] - gurkie: nope. i went hunting for a new bike. then i went home and did nothing. going out alone is usually lame. ~a
[2009-03-18 14:47:01] - a: did u go out? ~gurkie
[2009-03-18 12:02:44] - nothing fun happens until after 9
~a[2009-03-18 11:46:58] - a: yea I didnt even think about doing something for St. Pattys til like 9 last night at which point I decided it was too late... ~gurkie
[2009-03-17 20:35:04] - I'm playing on my laptop... ~Dee
[2009-03-17 18:46:36] - so nobody is doing anything fun tonight? ~a
[2009-03-17 17:25:47] - that's not to say absolve the irreponsible fucks of their idiocy, but simply shaking fists at them in furious anger instead of actually holding their enablers accountable does not do a whole lot of good. - mig
[2009-03-17 17:21:48] - but at the same time the anger is misplaced. at some point you have to stop getting angry at the irresponsible child and go after the irresponsible parent who is enabling that kind of behavior. - mig
[2009-03-17 17:14:26] - It's basically a giant middle finger to anybody out there who tries playing by the rules. Live a conservative life and save money and don't spend beyond your means? Sucker! You should've taken all sorts of unreasonable risks and then whined to the government to bail you out. -Paul
[2009-03-17 17:13:14] - I think people are tired of seeing the greedy and irresponsible people who benefitted from the bubble (wall street, real estate flippers, etc) now benefitting even more thanks to government bailouts while people who were responsible just get a crappy economy and future pain from inflation out of it. -Paul
[2009-03-17 17:10:39] - Vinnie: I can understand the outrage. I'm by no means a class-warfare kind of guy, but I'm mad as hell that they're getting these bonuses out of my pocket. I'm all for giving out generous bonuses when your company does well, but when it goes bankrupt? That's when you should be looking for a new job, not laughing to the bank with bailout money. -Paul
[2009-03-17 17:00:07] - probably also some vindictiveness going on too, with the economy in the state it's in - vinnie
[2009-03-17 16:56:03] - ... instrumental in AIG's losses. (that last one should be "I've read") whereas something like the bridge to nowhere, an often-cited example of government wasting money didn't and doesn't inspire nearly as much outrage from people. I think it's because it's harder to understand what happened there - vinnie
[2009-03-17 16:54:05] - miguel: putting aside your point of whether the government is wasting of all that money (can of worms)... I agree there's definitely something strange that there are so many complaints about these bonuses. I think it's because the money is being wasted so tangibly. I've there's something like 70 people who each received $1 million, and some of them were quite...
[2009-03-17 16:52:28] - mig: One could argue that they wasted $150 billion dollars on a company like AIG.
-Paul[2009-03-17 16:49:30] - but regardless, my main point is that it is definitely hypocritical in my view to decry some company wasting some hundred million dollars when the people complaining are guilty of wasting trillions of dollars on a yearly basis. - mig
[2009-03-17 16:48:10] - IIRC Obama did support the AIG bailouts during the debates, as did McCain. - mig
[2009-03-17 16:45:15] - Vinnie: Yeah, that's why I'm looking to buy gold. We have some serious inflation on tap for when the economy picks up again.
-Paul[2009-03-17 16:40:19] - Vinnie: I'm fine putting this one on Paulson. Either way, he was the architect of the AIG bailout. -Paul
[2009-03-17 16:38:21] - god, that number is staggering when I thought about it. all for one company - vinnie
[2009-03-17 16:37:39] - http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52624P20090308 yeah, this one mentions the $150 billion was all done last year. I think Obama/Geithner wanted to give them another $30 billion, but that's when this news of the bonuses came out. I don't believe they've been given the additional $30 billion - vinnie
[2009-03-17 16:30:51] - but I think you may be right that there has been additional bailout money given by obama since - vinnie
[2009-03-17 16:30:00] - paul: I'd read in another article it was last year under paulson - vinnie
[2009-03-17 16:04:25] - Vinnie: Either way, I'm certainly not absolving the Bush administration or pinning the blame squarely on Obama. I have no problem placing blame on the federal government in general for this one.
-Paul[2009-03-17 16:03:03] - Paul: Yay for not selling at the bottom! -- Xpovos
[2009-03-17 16:02:39] - Vinnie: That article itself is a little iffy on the timeline (not sure when the bonuses were paid and whatnot), but it seems to be placing a bunch of the blame on the Obama administration (specifically Geithner). I'm pretty sure AIG got some additional bailout money from the Obama administration too. -Paul
[2009-03-17 14:45:55] - a lot of the same Congresspeople, I'll give you that - vinnie
[2009-03-17 14:45:23] - haha we're talking two different governments though, different presidents, different secretaries of treasury. you may as well say "how can we criticize the actions of the US when we are part of the US?" - vinnie
[2009-03-17 14:07:15] - http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1237320000000&chddm=8878&q=NASDAQ:SIRI&ntsp=0 Should've bought Sirius stock when it was at a nickel.
-paul[2009-03-17 14:06:34] - mig: I was thinking a similar thing. Everybody in the government is so outraged about these bonuses, but it was the government who basically gave money to an incredibly bankrupt company with no string attached. The government made this abuse possible. -Paul
[2009-03-17 14:04:47] - especially after most of the those same fucknuts used the economic "stimilus" bill as their own personal pork dish. - mig
[2009-03-17 14:04:00] - and while we are on the subject of hypocracy i find it very disgusting that people who regularly abuse trillions of dollars every single year go high and mighty when someone else abuses a few hundred million. - mig
[2009-03-17 14:00:08] - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090317/ap_on_go_co/aig_outrage;_ylt=Aha7qBkzHMm5ysyNta4MbPGyFz4D this is why AIG should have just been left to die. - mig
[2009-03-17 11:10:01] -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7945569.stm god i hope it isn't true. ~a[2009-03-17 10:02:17] - Xpovos: I can't say one way or the other, although I have heard the same rumors and have seen shows where he refers to his "friends" (although it's surprisingly hard to tell when he is joking). I have also seem an episode (I think) where he talked about how you should never listen to "insider information". -Paul
[2009-03-17 09:57:56] - Thereby alluding that his information had an inside edge, though 'legally' he was not allowed to reveal names because that might be insider trading. -- Xpovos
[2009-03-17 09:57:25] - Paul: Cramer also (reputedly, I don't have links or further evidence for this at this time) advocated on his show for insider trading and other securities manipulation techniques as a legitimate method of trading to make money. He aslo (and I stand by this statement more, because I heard him do it) frequently referred to his friends when making picks. -- Xpovos
[2009-03-17 09:42:34] - So as far as I can tell, either Stewart is upset that Cramer has the audacity to try to make investing entertaining, or he is upset that Cramer was wrong about some stocks. Either way, I think the criticism was unfair, unwarranted, and also possibly hypocritical.
-Paul[2009-03-17 09:36:15] - And just in case people don't know how the stock market works (you may lose money, past performance does not indicate future results, etc), cnbc always runs a disclaimer before his show. -Paul
[2009-03-17 09:34:56] - Very few people saw the collapse of financial institutions happening like it did. Cramer makes dozens of predictions each show. It seems supremely unfair to me to point out a few instances where he (and most everybody else) was wrong and then tell him that investing is not a game. -Paul
[2009-03-17 09:32:25] - aba: Ok, even if we assume that Cramer's show is all stock picks and no entertainment, I'm still struggling to see his crime (in terms of his show, not what he did as a hedge fund manager). Was it because he got some picks wrong? Because if that's his crime, then nobody should ever invest in the stock market. -Paul
[2009-03-17 09:30:17] - Pierce: And I don't get your point about investing not being a game. Did Cramer ever say it was a game? The only reason I can see that Jon Stewart would be mad at Cramer is because he tries to entertain during his show, something that I think Jon Stewart is familiar with. -Paul
[2009-03-17 09:27:58] - Pierce: Whether Jon Stewart wants to admit it or not, people watch his show for news, sometimes exclusively so. He has interviews with important people which are not funny at all. I don't think he gets off the hook just because he doesn't consider himself a journalist. -Paul
[2009-03-17 09:25:09] - Pierce: I guess we just have different definitions of hypocritical. I think a college athlete saying, "Professional atheletes shouldn't use steroids because it's wrong" is still hypocritical on some level because the distinction between college and pro seems irrelevant to me. -Paul
[2009-03-17 08:59:08] - So, this is apropos to the discussion at hand. -- Xpovos
[2009-03-17 06:17:09] - a: I think he was one of the people working for Rolling Stone. - pierce
[2009-03-17 02:53:53] - the actor who plays dwight on the office (rainn wilson) was in almost famous. does anybody remember him? it must have been a bit part. ~a
[2009-03-16 20:09:03] - aba: i was referring to paul's response: "a: I'm not sure what point you're trying to refute with your statement.
-Paul" ~a[2009-03-16 19:55:29] - because on some level, it sounds like Jon is saying "your show is horrible, (and The Daily Show isn't)" but... really he only said the first thing. well, like i said, i still think it's unfair. but i don't know if it's hypocritical, it just sounds that way when Jon says it. - aaron
[2009-03-16 19:51:03] - paul: i agree that it's unfair for jon to criticize journalists, but i don't think it's hypocritical. i mean, a lot of times when i hear criticism from someone who's remotely in the same field as the person they're criticising, it's implied that the critic could do a better job. i think that's why it seems unfair for jon to be criticising other tv shows - aaron
[2009-03-16 19:34:23] - a: no, sorry.... i just skimmed all the previous comments and didn't read them in detail. my bad. - aba
[2009-03-16 18:11:39] - paul: aba's making a slightly different version of the point that i was trying to make. though apparently my version was incomprehensible. ~a
[2009-03-16 17:48:34] - paul: jon stewart has repeatedly said (on the daily show and in other venues) that he is not a real news journalist and doesn't aim to be one. - aba
[2009-03-16 17:47:56] - paul: i think the major difference is that jon steward acknowledges that his program is entertainment first and news second while cramer's show was supposed to be stock picks and news first and entertainment second. cramer didn't say that his show was all jokes and that his picks shouldn't be taken seriously. - aba
[2009-03-16 16:48:41] - paul: also, since this is a new addition, I'm pretty sure stewart never said anything resembling "you can't turn investing into entertainment". he did say "it's not a fucking game", which was correct... it's not. learning about investing can be entertaining, but it's not monopoly money that people are playing with. - pierce
[2009-03-16 16:42:14] - paul: and to be clear, I of course mean someone who is billed first as an entertainer, not someone like cramer who is first and foremost billed as an expert and for whom the entertainment is a secondary concern. - pierce
[2009-03-16 16:41:21] - paul: similarly, stewart is making a statement that applies to self-styled journalists and experts. he is not a self-styled journalist or expert, so the statement doesn't apply to him. again, point me to any example of him criticizing an entertainer for being a bad journalist and this argument will be over. - pierce
[2009-03-16 16:39:06] - paul: if the college baseball player is saying "you shouldn't use steroids at the professional level because getting paid to take steroids is wrong", then absolutely. It's not hypocritical because he's not making a statement that's applicable to himself. you may disagree with the statement itself, but it is not hypocritical. - pierce
[2009-03-16 16:34:49] - Pierce: I think that Jon Stewart is holding others to a standard that he has no intention of holding himself to. He's allowed to give lousy interviews, but others aren't. He can make jokes about serious issues (politics) but Cramer can't turn investing into entertainment. -Paul
[2009-03-16 16:31:45] - Pierce: Quite frankly, I don't care if he limited his criticisms to "self-styled journalists and experts". I think that's a cop out. So a college baseball player can say that professional baseball players that use steroids are idiots because he isn't a professional? -Paul
[2009-03-16 16:00:52] - to be clear, I think the metaphor was very apt, but it broke down once you made it conditional upon a "blanket statement" that had no analogy in the stewart situation. - pierce
[2009-03-16 15:56:39] - paul: but your metaphor fails. jon stewart hasn't said "everyone who performs a serious interview with a world leader, and doesn't ask the hard questions, fails". he has limited those (and similar) criticisms to self-styled journalists and experts. call me when he starts giving letterman a hard time, until then there's no hypocrisy. - pierce
[2009-03-16 15:43:57] - Pierce: I don't recall saying context doesn't matter. I said I don't care what his job title is. If I made the blanket statement that anybody who uses steroids at all is an idiot, even if it's for leukemia, then sure, I would be a hypocrite for using them for my leukemia. -Paul
[2009-03-16 15:40:52] - Pierce: Again, I think that's a week excuse. "I interview people all the time and throw them softball questions, but it's ok, because my job title is not journalist. You guys, though, are scum of the earth for having weak interviews." -Paul
[2009-03-16 15:23:17] - paul: that's an interesting point. so the context doesn't matter at all to you? what's good for the goose is good for the gander, as it were? so how about if you were using steroids because it was medically prescribed to treat your leukemia? are you not allowed to criticize athletes who use it for non-medical purposes? - pierce
[2009-03-16 15:19:28] - paul: stewart explicitly says that he is not an expert, that he is not a journalist. he is not paid to be those things. no one expects him to be those things. when he does those things badly, it is therefore okay. - pierce
[2009-03-16 15:18:35] - Pierce: I don't think you need to share a profession to be considered hypocritical. I'm by no means a professional athelete, but if I slam them for using steroids, then I think it would be hypocritical of me if I started using them. -Paul
[2009-03-16 15:13:31] - is criticizing other people for not asking tough questions during their interviews. I don't care what his job title is or what the name of his show is, that seems hypocritical to me. -Paul
[2009-03-16 15:12:55] - Pierce: I'm not sure where "journalistic standards" entered the conversation. All I'm saying is that Jon Stewart, a man who has interviewed very distinguished guests on his show for non-comedic purposes, and has by no means asked tough questions...
[2009-03-16 15:10:57] - paul: in other words, you seem to be thinking of journalism as a generic concept, one that applies to people if they do anything journalisticky. but we have a perfectly good non-generic definition already: people who define themselves as professional journalists and therefore implicitly agree to meet the mostly-agreed-upon standards of journalistic integrity. - pierce
[2009-03-16 15:05:33] - by your logic, it doesn't seem like anyone is allowed to be "on the outside looking in" if they've ever conducted an interview where they weren't constantly cracking jokes. and I don't get that. if you style yourself a journalist then you are subjecting yourself to journalistic standards. it's not something involuntarily forced upon you. - pierce
[2009-03-16 15:02:13] - bleh, banged the enter key by accident. continuing... - pierce
[2009-03-16 15:01:47] - paul: so it's not just about whether he is a professional journalist, it's really about whether "professional journalist" is a meaningful distinction, right?
[2009-03-16 14:58:10] - a: I'm not sure what point you're trying to refute with your statement.
-Paul[2009-03-16 14:55:54] - Pierce: Whether or not he is a professional journalist is semantics. He's a guy who hosts a show that talks about news and that has serious (and important) guests on who he often interviews in non-joking ways. I feel like it's hypocritical of somebody like that to be seriously criticizing other people for having weak interviews. -Paul
[2009-03-16 14:36:04] - paul: (take this in the context that i half agree with you) it doesn't matter if he's trying to joke around or not. stand-up comedians make serious points: that doesn't make them journalists. jon stewart is a comedian and on a comedy channel. jim cramer is ex-hedge fund manager on a dead serious news/finance channel. ~a
[2009-03-16 14:32:49] - s/though/thought/ ~a
[2009-03-16 14:32:30] - gurkie: i knocked and nobody heard me. i didn't ring the doorbell because i though somebody might be sleeping (though in hindsight, it was pretty early for that). dave was leaving at the exact same time and paul/dave were surprised to see me standing out on the stoop. ~a
[2009-03-16 14:24:44] - paul: making non-joking statements doesn't stop him from being a professional comedian. it also doesn't make him a professional journalist (and neither does having serious moments on a comedy show). I don't understand why you think either of those things, or if you don't think them, I don't understand what you're saying on a much more basic level. - pierce
[2009-03-16 14:23:13] - Pierce: When Jon Stewart gets on his high horse about the media, I don't think he's trying to joke around. -Paul
[2009-03-16 14:20:48] - a: my money? saaad
... wait, when did you pick it up.... I dont remember you being at pauls last night... ~gurkie[2009-03-16 14:14:36] - Pierce: I think there is a big difference between joking about how useless the media is (or how zombies are always slow and dimwitted) and seriously, sharply criticizing the media for being a bunch of failures. Jon Stewart was not joking around when he made his appearance on Crossfire (a point the hosts made). -Paul
[2009-03-16 13:52:31] - there we go. weird. i should fix that. ~a
[2009-03-16 13:52:21] - oooooh,
? ~a[2009-03-16 13:52:01] - gurkie: yeah i came by and picked it up. thanks for not taking back your money from my wallet.
~a[2009-03-16 13:17:40] - paul: the situation you describe about the shaun of the dead director, I disagree fundamentally. he could make those statements, and still make the movie, and not be a hypocrite. he's just explaining the joke, not negating it. - pierce
[2009-03-16 12:53:30] - a: wallet? ~gurkie
[2009-03-16 12:46:27] - a: Exactly my point. I'm all for laughing about suicide bombers and terrorism and government sponsored torture, but I don't see how somebody who jokes around about that can take offense with somebody trying to make investing more entertaining. -Paul
[2009-03-16 12:43:43] - mig: I'm all for poking fun, I am talking about when Stewart goes on other people's shows and basically says, "Shame on you. You suck." without the slightest hint of joking. -Paul
[2009-03-16 12:11:15] - paul: much of what stewart was focusing on was cramer's unethical (and not-technically-criminal) hedge fund statements. cramer did some evil stuff before he went on mad money. on the other hand, stewart certainly did border on hypocrisy: finance is not a game. politics is a game? ~a
[2009-03-16 12:02:26] - paul: isn't that the point of pardoy though? to actually poke fun at what you are criticizing? - mig
[2009-03-16 11:27:44] - a:
i like the subtitle too - aaron[2009-03-16 09:46:05] - And I still don't exactly see what his horrible crime was. Was he 100% wrong about Bear Stearns? Sure, but so were so many other people. I think it's a little unreasonable to expect financial advisors to be right all the time. -Paul
[2009-03-16 09:41:56] - Pierce: Again, I think that just because you make funny faces on your show, it doesn't mean you get to wash your hands of everything and say you have zero accountability when you are so critical of others who you feel don't have accountability. -Paul
[2009-03-16 09:40:30] - Pierce: If the director of Shaun of the Dead came out on television and railed against how zombie movies always featured slow, dimwitted zombies and then went and made a movie featuring slow, dimwitted zombies (even if it's a comedy), then I would certainly criticize him. -Paul
[2009-03-16 00:20:01] - sub-title:
it's amazing how few google hits there are for "real nice dishes there, necky" ~a[2009-03-15 02:29:19] - paul: "one month" ~a
[2009-03-13 17:09:48] - paul: it seems like it's already been fixed. thanks for the heads up, though. ~a
[2009-03-13 17:09:08] - gurkie: i'll probably come. ~a
[2009-03-13 16:04:09] - Reasonable because I saw a problem, and many other people saw a problem, but analysts and those in the pockets of the corrupted didn't see it, or saw it and failed to sound alarms, and instead cashed in on it themselves while they could, and are now unapologetic. Give 'em what for. -- Xpovos
[2009-03-13 16:02:54] - In terms of relevancy, it's reasonable for Stewart et. al. to hold the analysts feet to the fire, since that is news, and can be done with humor. Doing real journalism to get good material makes it more newsworthy, and potentially funnier. So, what I'm saying is that I agree more with pierce than I think either of you think. -- Xpovos
[2009-03-13 15:47:44] - Paul: I didn't -exactly- predice Bear Stearns was going to collapse. But I did in general predict some market calamity. (It's been worse than I figured at the time, but not as bad as I think now that it will get). I didn't make a lot of money on that knowledge. I did -save- it from wealth destruction. I don't think that counts, though. -- Xpovos
[2009-03-13 15:46:43] - Mad Money, on the other hand, is first a financial show and second an entertainment show... or at least, that's how they market it (as Stewart points out about the "In Cramer We Trust" promos). so, we should hold it to financial show standards, by which measure it has been (pardon the pun) bankrupt. - pierce
[2009-03-13 15:43:48] - paul: the daily show is a news show the way shaun of the dead is a zombie flick. would you criticize shaun of the dead for plagiarizing ideas from Romero? no, because it's first a parody and second a zombie flick, so you hold it to parody standards instead of zombie genre standards. - pierce
[2009-03-13 15:37:06] - And now I'm off for the weekend. Enjoy tearing me a new one!
-Paul[2009-03-13 15:33:15] - I'm fairly certain that 99.9% of the people out there probably didn't predict that Bear Stearns was going to collapse and that 0.1% is probably extremely rich right now. -Paul
[2009-03-13 15:32:09] - Er... Jon Stewart. Stupid mispelling his name... -Paul
[2009-03-13 15:31:15] - Besides, I'm not sure what the huge controversey is all about here. Financial analysts were wrong? OMG! I thought everybody knew the Dow was going to lose half it's value, but John Stewart has shown me the light! -Paul
[2009-03-13 15:29:30] - aba: I think anybody who watches Mad Money (Cramer's show) would say it's very similar to TDS. Entertainment and financial education thrown together. The ratios may be a little bit off but I don't think it's a huge difference. -Paul
[2009-03-13 15:28:02] - Pierce: I feel like it's a cop out for him to cover the news, interview world leaders, and then throw his hands up and say he has no accountability because they throw a bunch of jokes around (while simultaneously demanding more accountability from more serious news shows). -Paul
[2009-03-13 15:26:25] - Pierce: It is true that TDS is a comedy show, but it's also a news show, even if Jon Stewart doesn't want to admit it. The vast majority of the time on the show is spent covering the news and they get important people to come on for interviews (which are often fairly serious with few jokes thrown in). -Paul
[2009-03-13 14:57:31] - paul: as long as his show is on comedy central, he'll be able to use the "comedy show" reasoning. cramer's job was to give people sound financial advice (and now it's apparent that he was totally making everything up) while jon stewart's job is to make jokes. the fact that cramer was trying to be funny and stewart happens to talk about politics are secondary. - aba
[2009-03-13 14:30:34] - I do think he's funny (not always, but no one bats a thousand in the comedy world), and I don't think he's hypocritical. so I guess what I'm saying is, I disagree with paul and xpovos. I'll give you all a few moments to collect yourselves, I'm sure you must be reeling from the shock. - pierce
[2009-03-13 14:25:41] - I don't know if Stewart would actually be happier if CNBC and CNN and Fox News were doing their jobs and TDS had to go back to interviewing Elvis impersonators, but I think he's right that we'd collectively be better off. - pierce
[2009-03-13 14:25:34] - it's the job that should be done by the proper news media, which has been Stewart's point for years now: we have failed at basic journalism in this country to the point that a comedy show is considered a journalistic peer to the major news networks. - pierce
[2009-03-13 14:25:25] - when it comes down to it, it's sure nice that the daily show is willing to go through the video archives and point out inconsistency and hypocrisy, but it's not their job. - pierce
[2009-03-13 14:25:18] - the "we're a comedy show" excuse has been around for ages, sure. he used it in the famous crossfire interview, too, and probably before. but it's still true, so I can't fault him for it. - pierce
[2009-03-13 13:26:15] - Xpovos: I remember one segment (which went on entirely too long) where Stewart did an absolutely terrible impersonation of Dick Cheney saying things like: "I am evil. I eat babies." -Paul
[2009-03-13 13:25:07] - Xpovos: I remember enjoying the Daily Show in college (which, I think, is before he started getting all "holier-than-thou") but I kinda agree that he is not funny anymore. So many "jokes" seem to be showing a video clip followed by Stewart making a funny face. -Paul
[2009-03-13 13:16:07] - Paul: I don't find Stewart to be particularly pompous, though he's definitely hypocritical. My biggest problem with him, though, is that he's not funny. 90% of his humor is simple juxtiposition. -- Xpovos
[2009-03-13 13:08:05] - gurkie: sorry, not tonight - aaron
[2009-03-13 12:04:24] - (who hasnt already rsvp'ed to paul) ~gurkie
[2009-03-13 12:04:09] - anyone coming to poker tonight? ~gurkie
[2009-03-13 11:55:22] - Maybe his show isn't supposed to "grill" anybody, but he gets some big names on the Daily Show and I don't think he should be throwing rocks until he puts himself in other people's shoes. "It's a comedy show" is not a get out of jail free card. -Paul
[2009-03-13 11:51:18] - Vinnie: And quite frankly, I'm getting tired of Stewart yelling and screaming at everybody else for not "seriously" interviewing people when his own interviews are a joke. He can claim all he wants that his show is supposed to be for comedy but I feel like that excuse is wearing thin. -Paul
[2009-03-13 11:49:50] - Vinnie: "I understand you want to make finance entertaining, but it's not a [expletive] game," "When I watch that, I can't tell you how angry that makes me." That comment just infuriates me. How can a man whose show tries to make a much more serious topic (politics) entertaining dare to criticize somebody who is trying to make another topic entertaining. -Paul
[2009-03-13 11:45:49] - a: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcasting Vandalism in the history section.
-Paul[2009-03-13 11:34:44] - paul: I think sometimes he gets out of his league when he starts taking positions. I haven't watched the Daily Show much in recent times or the video in your link but I've never thought him hypocritical or pompous though - vinnie
[2009-03-13 10:24:02] - http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/03/13/cramer.stewart/index.html I'm probably the only person here who thinks Jon Stewart is often a hypocritical, pompous ass. -Paul
[2009-03-12 15:01:26] - vinnie: okay i'll be there, i wanna dancing you - aaron
[2009-03-12 13:36:59] - I am NOT working late today, so I'm up for piu if anyone else is - vinnie
[2009-03-12 12:44:55] - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/technology/personaltech/12pogue.html?_r=1&8dpc has anybody heard anything about Google Voice? - aaron
[2009-03-11 15:56:28] - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29629104/?GT1=43001 Colonel Sanders pulled from river after 24 years. -Paul
[2009-03-11 14:53:35] - also its a short sale, which essentially means that the mortgage holder cant afford to make the payments... ~gurkie
[2009-03-11 14:51:55] - vinnie: I hear there is this really annoying house in the neighborhood that houses a billion guys all coming and going all the time... or so the neighbors have told me... ~gurkie
[2009-03-11 14:32:48] - paul: I'd want to look into the reasons why the house dropped first. could be bad neighbors - vinnie
[2009-03-11 14:08:43] - Aaron: Seems like a safe assumption to make. -Paul
[2009-03-11 13:56:05] - paul: cool, i just need to sell my house to cover the $$! well, assuming my house has appreciated in value over the past year - aaron
[2009-03-11 13:42:32] - http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/12527-N-Lake-Ct-Fairfax-VA-22033/51794005_zpid/ Looks like there was a price drop in the house near me, if anybody is looking to buy...
-Paul[2009-03-11 10:12:03] - Kim Jong Il counts as his own constituency. And clearly he voted for himself. Q.E.D. 100%. Also, that's the only constituency where the vote gets counted. -- Xpovos
[2009-03-11 10:10:49] - a: Could be, I didn't fully understand the article myself. Not sure why he would stop at just one constituency, though.
-Paul[2009-03-11 10:09:53] - didn't he get 100% of the vote in just one of the constituencies? or am i misunderstanding the text? ~a
[2009-03-11 09:35:02] - http://www.rttnews.com/ArticleView.aspx?Id=875738&SMap=1 Kim Jong Il re-elected with 100% of the vote. -Paul
[2009-03-10 23:16:31] - Does anybody here have any experience with universal remote controls or earbuds that go beyond those that come by default with MP3 players like the iPod. -Paul
[2009-03-10 14:49:54] - I love my bank. No minimums on savings account (or checking) except the $5 minimum to keep the account open. And my checking account pays interest. Granted, like 1/4 the interest of the savings account, but still some. -- Xpovos
[2009-03-10 14:44:49] - a: Im pretty sure u can close it without a penalty, and at that point move the money ~gurkie
[2009-03-10 14:23:29] - mig: you bring up a good point. i don't suggest that putting the money in a checking account is any better. the only issue i have with your statement is that most savings accounts (and few checking accounts) have minimums, as paul also suggested. if there is a minimum, they you CANNOT move the money out of the savings account without incurring a penalty. ~a
[2009-03-10 13:44:21] - a: it's worse only if you are doing something else with that money in the account. even if it's a losings account it still offsets some of the loss from inflation, unless of course you spend that money you would have saved immediately. - mig
[2009-03-10 13:24:27] - paul: i got rid of my savings account for the same reason. if the interest rate is less than inflation, then it seems worse than pointless. a losings account, as i often call it. ~a
[2009-03-10 08:58:15] - Vinnie: I haven't had a savings account since I did my taxes last year and discovered that I made like $1.09 in interest and paid a $20 fee for once dipping below my minimum threshold. Since then, it's just been a checking account and my scottrade account. -Paul
[2009-03-09 21:04:03] - vinnie: When they get to negative numbers, take your money out and stuff it in the mattress. You'll sleep better for two reasons.
-- Xpovos[2009-03-09 17:08:25] - yeah it's a savings account, sorry - vinnie
[2009-03-09 17:06:30] - yeah, i have to guess hsbc is a bank and they're talking about a savings account or money market account. ~a
[2009-03-09 17:05:42] - Vinnie: I guess you're referring to a savings account, and therefore that is a bad thing? Ever since getting a mortgage, I automatically assume lower interest rates are a good thing.
-Paul[2009-03-09 16:58:27] - this is a bad first sentence to read in a communcation e-mail I get from HSBC: "This continues to be an interesting and challenging year." my interest rates got cut again, unsurprisingly - vinnie
[2009-03-09 16:20:57] - You girls got a problem with penii? -- Xpovos
[2009-03-09 15:10:52] - dee: tooooooo funny ~gurkie
[2009-03-09 15:10:43] - a: yes ~gurkie
[2009-03-09 14:55:21] - I had a nightmare last night about a blue glowing penis... ~Dee
[2009-03-09 14:54:29] - gurkie: gasp! they hate us? ~a
[2009-03-09 14:41:23] - xpovos: vinnie and amy also saw it, although not with us ~gurkie
[2009-03-09 13:55:58] - this guy - pierce
[2009-03-09 13:47:03] - Xpovos: I saw it with Dewey, Dee, Gurkie, Adrian, Aaron and Miguel. -Paul
[2009-03-09 13:32:42] - Who Watched the Watchmen? -- Xpovos
[2009-03-07 13:21:16] - sub-title: thanks! But you're early.
-- Xpovos[2009-03-06 19:51:54] - aba: Also: agreed, sound in ads is unacceptable. I'll tolerate video/motion. And the ones that attempt to grab control of my cursor usually don't work, often because I'm opening pages without watching them load (multi-tasking) but it is an annoying tactic. I obviously soft-boycott institutions that utilize those techniques. -- Xpovos
[2009-03-06 19:47:50] - aba: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png -- Xpovos
[2009-03-06 12:11:58] - (sorry, i'm griping about "tetris DS". not "new tetris") first of all, they totally broke the t-spin rotating to accomplish it.... secondly the decision for what is a t-spin is far less intuitive than the "spin move" definition in new tetris. and thirdly, why are t-blocks the only blocks that it counts for? ugh tetris DS was such a joke - aaron
[2009-03-06 12:09:48] - a: t-spin triples made me cry when i learned about them. it's the dumbest thing they did to New Tetris, it's completely arbitrary and makes no sense - aaron
[2009-03-05 23:58:14] - aaron/aba/mig/paul/pierce/vinnie/xpovos: http://www.tetrisconcept.com/wiki/index.php?title=Twist ~a
[2009-03-05 17:39:08] - mig: not yet. the problem is that it isn't actually a GE employee that caused the accident. it's some independent contractor that's contracted by a company that isn't even GE. and this is all assuming we even have the right guy. right now he's just some guy who i suspect based on what the other victim told me. i won't give up, don't worry. ~a
[2009-03-05 17:24:58] - a: did you finally find out who was responsible? if you know what office the car came from it would think it would be in GE's best interests to finger the guy responsible. - mig
[2009-03-05 15:50:04] - aaron: yeah, I'm not going either cause of work stuff - vinnie
[2009-03-05 14:22:32] - aba: Ohhh, that's a good point. I absolutely hate ads that have sound. I dunno, I have the ad blocker installed at home but not at work and I just don't know if I ever notice the difference really. -Paul
[2009-03-05 14:13:08] - paul: i started blocking ads when they turned into things that played movies and sounds, hijacked your cursor and did various other annoying things. i prefer white space in those circumstances. - aba
[2009-03-05 12:53:08] - . . . i'm aware that it's ambiguous in this case and the search box really wouldn't have helped with your question. ~a
[2009-03-05 12:39:59] - aaron: no ddr for me. i need to go to the police station to get my report typed up. . . . and it's the random title (you can use the search box to see where the messages are from). ~a
[2009-03-05 12:33:28] - also, moo moo made the random title!!! that's so cool! or was it the random message? - aaron
[2009-03-05 12:33:09] - ddr_people: are you guys coming to piu today? - aaron
[2009-03-05 10:52:17] - paul: yeah like gurkie said, there's also: gutenbrowser. ~a
[2009-03-05 10:51:22] - Paul: You should check what http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page format they use, from my understanding they are the largest source of free legal ebooks ~gurkie
[2009-03-05 10:44:15] - a: I was more thinking that lots of linux applications totally flaunt DRM in terms of allowing users to play "protected" file formats whereas windows apps can't get away with it as easily. -Paul
[2009-03-05 10:42:42] - you can only use DRM content that you purchase in the way that the creator intended. fair use goes out the window. ~a
[2009-03-05 10:40:49] - paul: DRM legalities have a bigger effect on linux, not smaller. linux has to go through all kinds of hoops to get DRMed formats (even dvd playback require help from medibuntu). whereas in windows, companies with incomes can afford to pay licensing fees (imo extortion) for these formats. ~a
[2009-03-05 10:37:27] - okular is more of a document viewer, but it supports some of the ebook formats. ~a
[2009-03-05 10:34:46] - a: I guess the most common ones? I figured DRM legalities don't have as big of an effect on linux applications as they might for windows.
-Paul[2009-03-05 10:33:43] - paul: fbreader will read these file formats: fb2, html, chm, plucker, palmdoc, ztxt, tcr (psion text), rtf, oeb, openreader, non-DRM'ed mobipocket, plain text, epub. however it doesn't have any of the bells and whistles that other ebook readers have (it's kind of bland and not very user friendly). ~a
[2009-03-05 10:27:47] - paul: if you pick a DRM format, you might have a harder time (and it might not be legal) reading it in anything but licensed applications. ~a
[2009-03-05 10:26:14] - paul: which format? ~a
[2009-03-05 10:24:30] - Xpovos: Essentially that, something that is capable of displaying the various eBook formats. I'm hoping they aren't all just in txt format or something or else I'm going to seem like quite the fool.
-Paul[2009-03-05 10:20:15] - Paul: What do you mean by eReader? I tend to think of something like Amazon's Kindle. -- Xpovos
[2009-03-05 10:19:21] - Paul: Depending on the page and the quality of the ad, they can even enhance the experience. Advertising works because it shows us products we weren't aware of that we may be interested in. I think that's one of the reasons google's ads are so effective. -- Xpovos
[2009-03-05 09:28:27] - Does anybody know if Ubuntu comes packaged with any software which works as an eReader or if there is good linux eReader software? -Paul
[2009-03-05 07:38:25] - I find blocking ad banners to be a little overrated, because oftentimes you're just exchanging the ad for some blank white space. Honestly, I think I would rather see the ad because at least it doesn't look so strangely out of place. -Paul
[2009-03-04 18:14:37] - aba: nope. i do block flash and javascript which eliminates all but the most benign advertising. ~a
[2009-03-04 18:06:01] - a: you don't block banners with a firefox add on? - aba
[2009-03-04 14:17:39] - a: I don't thhink banner advertising is intelligent enough to pick up on that.
-Paul[2009-03-04 14:12:25] - paul: is it weird that on your link is an advertisement selling new mortgages that DON'T qualify for the mortgage bailout from the government? ~a
[2009-03-04 13:54:25] - http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/04/real_estate/Obama_foreclosure_plan/index.htm?postversion=2009030413 Here is a more descriptive article about who qualifies for mortgage help from the government. -Paul
[2009-03-04 12:46:59] - paul: way to destroy a's property. you should be ashamed of yourself! ~gurkie
[2009-03-04 12:36:58] - a: As a partial owner of GE (I own shares of their stock), please accept my apologies on their behalf and don't sue me.
-Paul[2009-03-04 12:13:06] - dee: alexandria. it sounds like the other victim found out which GE department it was and i'm hopeful that we'll get the person involved. ~a
[2009-03-04 11:59:43] - A: Have you been calling around or is the police officer who handled your report attempting to find out where the GE truck was out of? Was it filed in FFX county and if so what ofc?~Dee
[2009-03-04 11:06:41] - Because I probably owe more money on my house than it's worth and my mortgage payment is considerable more than 31% of my income and I would love to refinance into a lower cost loan, but I don't consider myself in economic hardship right now. -Paul
[2009-03-04 11:05:22] - Gurkie: That's what confuses me, I'm not sure if the second part of the article (the "The loan modification plan") is related to the first part. Is it all describing the same program? -Paul
[2009-03-04 10:54:38] - paul: i wonder if signing the statement of hardship will negatively affect you in the future though. ~gurkie
[2009-03-04 10:28:46] - "homeowners who haven't missed a payment can refinance into lower-cost loans even if they have little or no equity" -Paul
[2009-03-04 10:28:11] - http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/04/news/economy/guidelines/index.htm?postversion=2009030409 Not sure if I am understanding this fully, but it sounds like Obama's mortgage modification plan might affect a lot of people here. -Paul
[2009-03-03 14:57:05] - i assume that firefox doesn't have this problem? also, have you tried table {table-layout: fixed;}? table-layout: fixed makes life much easier when playing with tables layouts that are defined by you. ~a
[2009-03-03 13:23:07] - fun with IE and CSS: IE has a strange notion of what inheritence means. If you specify a height on a tbody element, it refuses to apply it since for whatever reason it doesn't support it. It will happily apply that height you specificed to be the table body height to each of the rows of that table, though. - mig
prev <-> next