prev <-> next
[2009-08-10 12:51:48] - I think "unamerican" applies. not because I think americans never shout each other down instead of having a reasonable argument (oh god we do), but because if we believe there's a set of values and principles that we're supposed to strive towards as americans then "don't interfere with the public discourse for the sake of interference" should be one of them. - pierce
[2009-08-10 12:49:38] - mig: but why, specifically? you brought up the bush administration, I thought I understood what you were saying with that but I guess I didn't. - pierce
[2009-08-10 12:47:35] - or maybe, to be more complete, "they're drowning out opposing views instead of arguing their points rationally", that's a very simple argument. but yeah, using the word "unamerican"... it's so overloaded. they may as well just use the synonym "bad" - aaron
[2009-08-10 12:43:48] - xpovos: i like adrian's better. "they're drowning out opposing views" says a lot in just 5 words - aaron
[2009-08-10 12:38:23] - Boom, done. Now the opposition has to bring forth valid criticism of more than the kind I'd normally proffer (not the government's role) because that debate is settled here. If the grandstanding continues, they just have to let it happen. People will see it for empty protests and move on. Instead they're giving them attention and feuling the fire. Bad business. -- Xpo
[2009-08-10 12:37:38] - pierce: I found in this instance, Peolosi's use of unamerican to be inappropriate. - mig
[2009-08-10 12:37:00] - their arguments and we will attempt to craft legislation that meets the needs of the current crisis while acknowledging the concerns of these people who are clearly upset, frightened, but also likely cofnused by our efforts." -- Xpovos
[2009-08-10 12:36:03] - pierce: I think a better argument would have been made without resorting to any kind of even marginally ad hominem effort. "We're disappointed that a debate on this topic isn't being allowed to occur in a civil fashion. After all, it was our history of unilateral decisions that got us to where we are today. We encourage all those with opposition to bring us [...]
[2009-08-10 12:33:42] - mig: or is it that you think the bush administration's misuse of the term "unamerican" negates the word entirely for all future purposes? - pierce
[2009-08-10 12:29:34] - mig: you don't think there's a difference between dissent in good faith, and just shouting down and intimidating the opposing viewpoint? - pierce
[2009-08-10 11:38:17] - a: I would think someone who had to deal with the Bush administration would have more sense than to throw around the "unamerican" tag at their critics. - mig
[2009-08-10 11:18:42] - plus, i think they said "drowning out opposing views" is un-american. ~a
[2009-08-10 11:16:19] - mig: some of the things they're doing at these town-hall meetings are very deceptive. i wouldn't call it un-american, because so very few things are un-american. but i would call them deceptive. ~a
[2009-08-10 11:12:16] - http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-naw-pelosi-hoyer-health11-2009aug11,0,4079175.story people who protest the health care reform are "unamerican", according to Nancy Pelosi. - mig
[2009-08-07 15:28:41] - or maybe just happy
[2009-08-07 14:09:45] - dave: My put to short option trade was a disaster. It never really improved, and then the underlying stock shot up. I'm not sure if that's a method failure or a speculation failure. Either way I'm out beaucoup fantasy money. Next up I'm trying a straddle. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-07 14:08:00] - blah, i am dumb. that is all. ~a
[2009-08-07 12:51:59] - a: I guarantee you can't pay the IRS any 'additional tax owed' on 4/16 with stamps. Heck, try doing it with greenbacks and see how far that goes. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-07 12:45:04] - a: Collectors typically collect cancelled stamps. I'm sure they don't care about selling cancelled stamps. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-07 11:55:48] - a: Actually, I'm fairly certain that it would be illegal, due to legal tender laws, but I don't have the time to look it up right now. -Paul
[2009-08-07 11:53:25] - a: Not sure if it's illegal to trade stamps for goods or services, but I'm sure the government would come after you anyway. They went after the makers of the Liberty Dollar, I believe. -Paul
[2009-08-07 11:37:12] - wait wait . . . reselling stamps is illegal? how are all those stamp collectors staying out of jail? ~a
[2009-08-07 11:34:16] - aaron: i wonder if it's legal to trade stamps for goods or services or "for all debts public and private". ~a
[2009-08-07 11:32:59] - paul: if reselling them was legal, you could make 4.75% interest over a period of 1 second, which certainly beats any investment i know of
just have to wait until may 10 - aaron[2009-08-07 11:22:27] - a: Although that brings up an interesting thought... in a way, forever stamps might be better to use as money than federal reserve notes since it won't inflate as fast. -Paul
[2009-08-07 11:21:20] - a: I think you would be better off investing your money in something else anyway. I don't think forever stamps are going to increase in value faster than inflation. -Paul
[2009-08-07 11:17:34] - a: according to the page, it's illegal to resell - aaron
[2009-08-07 11:11:11] - the forever stamp woah. i have some of those and was adding $.02 stamps to stuff (i only really ever mail birthday cards) because i thought they were outdated seeing as i bought them like two years ago. i wonder if i should buy $1000s in forever stamps and resell them later. ~a
[2009-08-07 11:08:33] - a: It's total bullshit because it's not actually updated in real time and is instead updated every few months when updated totals are available? -Paul
[2009-08-07 11:00:08] - paul: i think that site is kind of interesting. but it is also total bullshit and you know it. some of those balances sit at one place for months, then jump by millions. the main number (national debt) is probably only updated once a month. on the other hand, the accounts that have interest payments could be updated. ~a
[2009-08-07 10:47:15] - http://www.usdebtclock.org/ -Paul
[2009-08-07 10:11:33] - a: thanks, I approve... ~gurkie
[2009-08-07 09:31:55] - Hmm. Two 'different' Sublime subtitles in rapid fire. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-07 08:30:40] - a: now it's too readable! - aaron
[2009-08-06 23:39:17] - definitely looks a lot better now. - mig
[2009-08-06 22:26:07] - we're a picky bunch. looks good to me now - vinnie
[2009-08-06 17:36:46] - aaron said to decrease the vertical whitespace between posts. ~a
[2009-08-06 17:35:01] - pierce: i was removing the "br"s and adding in margin-bottom. ~a
[2009-08-06 17:34:15] - pierce: ummm. it's back, right? ~a
[2009-08-06 17:33:59] - heh, you did it while I was typing that message. - pierce
[2009-08-06 17:33:11] - oh god bring back the double-spacing, or at least 1.5em. - pierce
[2009-08-06 17:24:19] - i guess i could remove the "small" from the css. ~a
[2009-08-06 17:23:58] - vinnie/aaron: you think it's not readable in a small size . . . isn't the size of the font defined by your web browser? is the default size in some browsers too small or what? ~a
[2009-08-06 16:50:18] - (generally-available serif screen font) - pierce
[2009-08-06 16:49:58] - it's not so much the serif versus sans-serif, it's that TNR is not a good font for screen reading. Verdana was specifically designed with pixel displays in mind. Georgia is the only generally-available serif font I know of, but I hate the way it represents numbers. - pierce
[2009-08-06 16:34:12] - a: I find it a little harder to read too, but if it was a bigger size, it'd probably be ok. I still prefer sans serif, but serif would be ok for some variety - vinnie
[2009-08-06 16:03:49] - a: personally I think sans serif font is cleaner and easier to read... ~gurkie
[2009-08-06 15:57:29] - a: serifs are hard to read at small point sizes. also, i think it would look better with less vertical whitespace between posts - aaron
[2009-08-06 15:34:41] - mig: you don't like? ~a
[2009-08-06 15:31:21] - what's with the font change? - mig
[2009-08-06 14:50:11] - a:
- aaron[2009-08-06 14:30:03] - "without the critical points that the privacy concern"? "What does Iron makes different?"
~a[2009-08-06 12:19:35] - a: right - well it's open source, there is at least one fork of it called "srware iron" to address certain privacy concerns http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php - aaron
[2009-08-06 11:31:35] - regarding adblock, i wonder how hard it would be for them to expose the firefox add-on api and then be able to run the thousands of firefox add-ons. probably pretty hard. at least they need some sort of add-on capability so adblock would be easy to add. actually, i don't use adblock in firefox, but yeah there are a lot of add-ons i would want. ~a
[2009-08-06 11:20:53] - most importantly, though, it also means that it gets upgraded with all of your other softwares. ~a
[2009-08-06 11:19:04] - aaron: it's not "out" for ubuntu. you have to install the ppa: a "personal package archive" is an ubuntu thing for when someone out on the internet wants to make it crazy easy for a user to install/uninstall something. it's usually for stuff that's too beta to be added to the standard package system (like a daily build or an experiment of some kind). ~a
[2009-08-06 10:59:57] - a: lol serious? that's funny you actually witnessed the bug first hand... i didn't think chrome was out for ubuntu, that's cool. still no adblock though
- aaron[2009-08-06 10:44:29] - StarCraft II delayed. Probably means an intrinsic delay on Diablo III as well. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-06 09:24:47] - *there ~a
[2009-08-06 09:14:41] - aaron: i installed chromium for the first time yesterday. and i installed the daily-build because it's easier in ubuntu to just add the ppa than installing from an installer. and i was like, why is their a guy's head? weird. ~a
[2009-08-06 08:46:47] - I know a lot of you guys watch the Daily Show, but over in no-cable land, I only see it on the internet, so I just saw this yesterday/today. It's good, if you haven't seen it already. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-29-2009/home-crisis-investigation -- Xpovos
[2009-08-06 08:23:47] - http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=18385 chromium bug - head in place of close button - aaron
[2009-08-05 18:31:57] - now you've gone too far. you up and scared him away. ~a
[2009-08-05 17:20:38] - paul: i've had just about enough of your shameless obama promoting here. we get it, you love him and want to have his babies - vinnie
[2009-08-05 17:01:47] - Vinnie: Come on, you can do better than that. Pierce has done worse while trying to compliment me.
-Paul[2009-08-05 16:57:43] - paul: your views are ridiculous. and you're racist, sexist, and classist. leave this message board and never return - vinnie
[2009-08-05 16:53:56] - I'm here to be lynched. -Paul
[2009-08-05 16:51:10] - a: I sent him the addy you gave... for a couple days aporter.org/msg was working for him but then it failed... ~gurkie
[2009-08-05 16:40:31] - a: Heaven forbid you use your test server for test purposes! -- Xpovos
[2009-08-05 16:03:03] - paul: use paul.w.aporter.org so this won't happen again. ~a
[2009-08-05 15:58:31] - paul can't access the msg board? oh shit, i keep forgetting that he tries to use test.w.aporter.org and i keep trying to use that url for something else. ~a
[2009-08-05 15:36:31] - xpovos: if paul could access the msg board I am sure he would be here to be lynched... ~gurkie
[2009-08-05 15:15:44] - dave: It's fun when we get to start the lynch mob. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-05 15:10:30] - vinnie: ahhh i suppose we agree then, what fun is that? -dave
[2009-08-05 15:08:14] - mig: I think heads of public companies have pretty much the same deal going as policitians. a lot of the people involved in the financial sector got huge bonuses for getting laid off after taking huge risks. they were just as irresponsible with money - vinnie
[2009-08-05 14:59:40] - dave: I wasn't saying politicians were responsible, in fact that's what's gotten us into such a deficit. I was saying it's bad enough that politicians aren't always responsible with our money (because of how removed they are, or anyone is, from it). but at least they can consult with experts about policy decisions, whereas joe six-pack can't/won't - vinnie
[2009-08-05 14:53:21] - ... and then be more reasonable on the procedure reimbursement. That sounds like a winning way to improve health care and lower costs to me. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-05 14:52:45] - a: I'm not sure. It depends on the doctors. What I've heard and read is that doctors are upset that so many procedures are covered by (Medicare, e.g.) but so few tests are. So they're compensated more for taking random guesses and possibly injuring their patient rather than diagnosing. So they'd probably vote for all kinds of test reimbursement ...
[2009-08-05 14:41:36] - why? isn't their bias even worse? they'll want everything covered. ~a
[2009-08-05 14:36:55] - We could make the doctors vote. That would be interesting. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-05 14:24:00] - mig: well, if you're saying that politicans are much worse than the common public would be, then I disagree. The public is extremely stupid when it comes to fiscal responsibility. The main reason that politicans are fiscally irresponsible is because they can't trust the public to understand that they had to cut things because they cost money -dave
[2009-08-05 14:22:05] - vinnie: yes i agree, when i said "voters" i really meant "elected officials put in place by the american people." i didn't mean joe sixpack should decide whether or not class 2 endemic epindectomies should be paid for by the US government or anything - aaron
[2009-08-05 14:18:22] - dave: i guess i misread what you said then. - mig
[2009-08-05 14:17:50] - If I ran a company into the ground, mostly likely I'd be personally knee deep in debt. Geroge Bush pretty much ran the country into the ground financially, and he gets to retire comfortably in his ranch in Texas. - mig
[2009-08-05 14:17:16] - mig: well, that's kinda my point, i thought vinnie was saying that he thought politicians were somewhat responsible and I was disagreeing -dave
[2009-08-05 14:15:39] - dave: politicians perhaps are slightly better than the common public on being fiscally responsible. I would argue they are several orders of magnitude worse. How much is the deficit again? And while they could potentially endanger their own re-election, they typically never have to suffer any personal consequences for their irresponsibilties. - mig
[2009-08-05 14:08:45] - d'oh, overuse of "I mean". >< - pierce
[2009-08-05 14:02:49] - I mean, if government health care is really effective than we may see a slight uptick in abortions, but we'll see a major overall uptick in health and longevity. - pierce
[2009-08-05 13:57:01] - I mean, I wouldn't be thrilled at the idea of my taxes going to pay for "therapy" at an ex-gay clinic or something, but if it's approved by The Process then I'll accept it and won't consider it an argument against government health care. - pierce
[2009-08-05 13:55:26] - how about we just say to people, "listen, I know this system covers stuff that rubs you the wrong way, but sometimes them's the breaks. you can still argue that they shouldn't be legal, just as you always have." - pierce
[2009-08-05 13:48:32] - vinnie: politicians are removed enough from how things get paid for? I think politicians perhaps are slightly better than the common public on being fiscally responsible, but not by much. They're impacted by wanting to get re-elected, and no one wants to say they cut a program that helps their constituency -dave
[2009-08-05 13:46:20] - http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/08/george-sodinis-diary-page.html - this guy kept an online journal of his plan to go to the gym and kill people and himself, and then executed his plan today. ~gurkie
[2009-08-05 13:30:30] - well I don't think citizens should be the ones voting on what gets covered, in this proposed system. like xpovos said, left up to the american people, people will say yes to most things being covered since they have little understanding of how it gets paid for. politicians are already removed enough from how things get paid for - vinnie
[2009-08-05 13:27:16] - xpovos: maybe if they subsidize men's viagra that evens it out -dave
[2009-08-05 13:26:30] - xpovos: actually you can use birth control as an example. I was somewhat surprised to learn that I'm paying a massive amount to subsidize women's birth control. Like they pay $50 instead of like $600 - and like all women can get it. -dave
[2009-08-05 13:20:55] - Now we're back to the abortion issue, and the pro-choice people are understandably pissed that their government mandated insurance doesn't cover the procedure because they couldn't get 60%+ to agree on it. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-05 13:20:08] - aaron: The problem (for me, at least) is that it ends up then being the same problem of all pure democracies. Vote yourself all the benefits and none of the assosciated problems. Rhinoplasty for all, payments by everyone! But requiring a super-majority isn't going to work either. Get 2/3 (or even 60%) of the population to agree on a procedure? -- Xpovos
[2009-08-05 13:11:28] - xpovos: i don't know a whole lot about the cosmetic surgery thing but what's wrong with leaving it to popular opinion like we're (essentially) doing now? i don't think there's any real concrete rule that's going to distinguish seemingly frivolous surgery (like rhinoplasty) from essential surgery (like cleft lip procedures) so it's up to voters/doctors to decide - aaron
[2009-08-05 13:00:03] - So, given that government intervention in health care is a sure-thing. What can we do to make it black/white? -- Xpovos
[2009-08-05 12:33:36] - xpovos: indeed. - mig
[2009-08-05 12:19:52] - mig: I think the problem is that there is an inherent grey area in medicine which is far more sensitive than almost anything else politics touches. Politics tries to stick to what is black and white, or make what is mildly grey into a black or white issue. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-05 12:17:35] - xpovos: what you're touching on is why I am so much against any sort of nationalized health care. Leaving the decisions of what's "valid" or sanctioned medical care to politicians is a rather disturbing prospect. - mig
[2009-08-05 12:09:22] - Or, let's look at something slightly less serious than a life issue. How about plastic surgery? Sure most of it won't be covered, but what about reconstructive surgery after an accident? Or cosmetic surgery to repair a birth defect (cleft lip)? -- Xpovos
[2009-08-05 12:08:14] - Since abortion is too much of a hot-topic kind of issue, let's compare it to something else. Let's start with something similar, but clearly different. What about euthenasia or 'right to die' procedures. Should those be funded by a public insurance plan if the patient wants them? Or how about if the patient's next of kin wants them (Schiavo)? -- Xpovos
[2009-08-05 11:20:29] - a: Depends on what you think it means. It certainly doesn't mean what it says. Bad sentence structure. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-05 11:14:00] - yeah i know. ~a
[2009-08-05 11:10:15] - a: see that's different, the dmca is a law, not a eula -dave
[2009-08-05 11:09:51] - dave: sorry, no. he could go to jail for 10 years for violating the dmca ~a
[2009-08-05 11:09:16] - "mandating abortion"? does that mean what i think it means? ~a
[2009-08-05 11:08:53] - a: did I miss it? he's going to jail for 10 yrs for violating a eula? -dave
[2009-08-05 11:08:04] - a: reading that article seems to imply it covers any standard abortion and that opponents are trying to get it changed. -dave
[2009-08-05 11:07:12] - dave: well a contract is a contract. an eula could suggest large implications for failure to comply to the terms. for instance, the dude who's going to jail for 10 years. ~a
[2009-08-05 11:05:39] - oh no, i spoke too soon. "are now" vs. "will be" my bad. ~a
[2009-08-05 11:04:52] - a: i don't think eula's etc are as big a deal as standard contracts because they have a somewhat limited scope. Like usually all that can happen is they revoke your license to use their product, that's about it. If you go back on a standard contract etc, that could have any number of other implications -dave
[2009-08-05 11:04:50] - "Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the health of the mother." well i think that says it all. ~a
[2009-08-05 11:03:27] - I know health care is so -last week's- debate, but I think this is an issue that won't get nearly enough debate until far too late in the process. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-05 11:02:39] - present the judge with surveys -dave
[2009-08-05 11:02:31] - well that would suck! i love that in linux i don't have to constantly click "i agree" (ad nauseam) when installing thousands of applications at once. if you suggest that i would have to type in my name 1000 times, i think i'd stop using linux. ~a
[2009-08-05 11:02:20] - Yeah, electronic signatures are more tight than a EULA, there's significantly more legal ground for an electronic signature to cover. Beacuase they're so cumbersome, they're usually only used for issues of large finance. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-05 11:01:58] - a: what do you mean judges shouldn't decide what's "reasonable?" It's in a legal context so of course judges/jury have to decide it. You could present the judge what surveys, or stats, or have expert witnesses, but I dont' think you can get away from the judge/jury deciding -dave
[2009-08-05 11:00:43] - a: i don't know all the answers, but yes, I do believe it's just as illegal to impersonate someone else on an online contract as any other contract. Like if you file your taxes online, you type in your name there as well, instead of signing a paper copy of your return -dave
[2009-08-05 10:55:21] - a: if software publishers want their EULAs treated as legally binding contracts, then yes. - mig
[2009-08-05 10:53:30] - mig: so you think i should type in a signature every time i want to install an application? every time i want to install a piece of gpl software? ~a
[2009-08-05 10:47:00] - a: I'm fine with electronic signatures, I just don't think a simple mouse click, in most cases should trigger something that is legally binding. - mig
[2009-08-05 10:43:34] - dave: has that been tested in the courts? is it illegal to type in someone else's name? is it as illegal as forging a signature? i.e. will i get arrested for fraud? am i breaking the contract if someone else typed in my name? why don't i have to "type in my name" into a tos/eula? or the gpl? heh sorry for all the questions. ~a
[2009-08-05 10:40:39] - no, judges shouldn't decide what's "reasonable". i.e. is disallowing console hacking "reasonable"? ~a
[2009-08-05 10:40:10] - a: have you ever signed an online contract? I did several for my brokerage account, and basically you just type in your name. There's a ton of red and bold print explaining that by typing in your name in that blank that you are doing the same as signing a contract -dave
[2009-08-05 10:39:17] - mig: well i don't think you can get away from judges and laws deciding what's legal or illegal -dave
[2009-08-05 10:33:53] - in fact, yeah, how does the gpl work? i think using the product (or more often redistributing it) constitutes agreement (your "proxy" or whatever). ~a
[2009-08-05 10:29:13] - mig: ok, then how do you suggest contracts should work in a paperless society? (btw, i don't have to sign the gpl to be legally bound by it) ~a
[2009-08-05 10:25:13] - and i guess going back to what adrian said, who decides what's "reasonable" and what's not? I certainly wouldn't want "reasonable" to be decided by judges or laws. - mig
[2009-08-05 10:19:43] - s/at/aren't
[2009-08-05 10:19:28] - dave: this situations you described at particularly relevent. It's one thing if you can't do something because of the limitations of the product. It's quite another when you're threatened with legal action when you attempt it. - mig
[2009-08-05 10:16:42] - I also have a problem with using the product as a "proxy" for agreeing to a contract. Saying a mouse click or simply using a product is implicit consent to a contract is absurd to me. - mig
[2009-08-05 10:08:45] - dave: the definition of reasonable and absurd is the point of contention. if microsoft says i cannot legally hack my xbox, but they tell me that after i buy it, then that's a problem. unless it's not a contract and they're just telling me that i'll void my warranty. i obviously don't give a fuck about the warranty if i'm going to be hacking the box. ~a
[2009-08-05 10:03:39] - dave: except that you didn't sign it and they can't prove it was you that agreed to the contract in the first place? or that anyone even really agreed to it? doesn't sound like a very valid contract to me. on the other hand, i concede that the use of the product should constitute agreement. ~a
[2009-08-05 09:36:45] - mig: in other words, there are plenty of other consumer items that need to be researched in order to make sure that they will allow what you think they should allow before you buy them -dave
[2009-08-05 09:35:54] - mig: or buying an iPhone thinking that you can tether your laptop to it, and then discovering that ATT doesn't support it yet -dave
[2009-08-05 09:34:25] - mig: although if you think about it, there are other items that you can buy, not knowing if they will do exactly what you want. Like say buying a tv that requires you to have a tuner, like a cable box, and then trying to use it with an antenna -dave
[2009-08-05 09:33:04] - that are generally ok -dave
[2009-08-05 09:32:11] - mig: it's true that not being able to see a EULA or TOS etc before you buy something is not so nice. It might be one of those things where as long as they put in "reasonable" terms that they generally are ok, but that if they put in absurd things that an average person wouldn't expect, then there's legal basis to sue them -dave
[2009-08-05 09:30:10] - a: I believe that a EULA or TOS is indeed a contract. -dave
[2009-08-05 08:19:11] - pierce: yeah if the article is right about half its claims, he's clearly abusing the system. what I thought interesting (and sad) about it is that someone can bully people with lawsuits and apparently make a living out of it. it doesn't even matter if his lawsuits are in the right, they have the effect he wants - vinnie
[2009-08-05 00:53:52] - but what really got my irony gland pumping was the fact that the game they say papazian plagiarized, "Bobby Bearing" (published 1986), looks a hell of a lot like Marble Madness (published 1984). - pierce
[2009-08-05 00:51:28] - okay, I agree that the plagiarism claim is a bit much, since the games don't look very similar other than both being isometric grid games. the trademark infringement claim seems very spurious, since (as the article author says) "edge" is a very common word unlike "activision" or "nintendo". - pierce
[2009-08-04 23:52:17] - http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-edge-of-reason pretty interesting article about a video game trademark - vinnie
[2009-08-04 21:53:01] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXfS8uphJdI 22-second team blindfold solve. team blindfold cubing is funny - aaron
[2009-08-04 15:50:39] - wikipedia, on the other hand, already uses a generalized license. ~a
[2009-08-04 15:39:35] - aaron: i somewhat agree. but not ALL of them are trying to greatly restrict the rights of people who sign up. you'd think the ones that aren't trying to greatly restrict would create their own shared license (like you suggest a youtube/geocities/chrome/whatever license). ~a
[2009-08-04 15:23:41] - but, it seems like a lot of similar user-driven services, like youtube/wikipedia/geocities whatever could have identical licenses (or at least some sort of a basic license which they differ from in a small number of ways) - aaron
[2009-08-04 15:21:26] - a: well, the problem is that a lot of contracts are trying to greatly restrict the rights of people who sign up. if there was some kind of a highly restrictive license which became as widespread as the gpl, it would gain notoriety and people wouldn't agree to it - aaron
[2009-08-04 15:08:48] - though, i agree with you that the contract should happen before purchase. also i strongly wish for a culture in which contracts were mostly templates of a few choices (for example gpl/bsd/apache). that way i could understand the contract without having to read it every time i want to agree to one. also i need a way to boycott applications that refuse to conform. ~a
[2009-08-04 15:06:14] - mig: that wasn't my question. my question was "do", not "should". but anyways: should they? i think i disagree on that one too. otherwise, how the heck are we going to do contracts in a paperless society? ~a
[2009-08-04 15:00:42] - pierce: like mig said, not that i know of. ~a
[2009-08-04 14:41:00] - Think of buying a car or house like that. It would be crazy. - mig
[2009-08-04 14:40:28] - a: and I would say no it should not. I can't imagine any other business that would be able to survive if they engaged in a transaction for something and then stipulated the terms of that transaction after they were paid. - mig
[2009-08-04 14:35:21] - pierce: there don't appear to be any tag attributes for it to make it possible. - mig
[2009-08-04 14:16:14] - Is there a way to do a multi-line textbox that allows you to hit enter to submit (besides using js)? - pierce
[2009-08-04 14:10:05] - so i guess the question is: does an eula/tos constitute a contract? if no, then i guess legally it's meaningless unless i want my warranty. ~a
[2009-08-04 14:03:56] - a: oh haha, you were talking about the multi-line box.
yes I would like it better - vinnie[2009-08-04 14:00:18] - a: worse for us the consumers, definitely. but if the dmca didn't exist and piracy was getting too bad, I can't imagine there would be a major console developer that wouldn't have a contract like that, to protect their property - vinnie
[2009-08-04 13:58:23] - a: they do usually have terms of service. I don't think I've ever seen one that said you had to pay a fine or go to jail for breaking it, but almost always your warranty is void. I suspect we'd see more contracts about paying fines if things like the dmca didn't exist - vinnie
[2009-08-04 13:58:16] - gurkie: and I would argue for those terms to have any legal meaning, they should have to be explicitly agreed to with an actual contract if that's the way IP makers want their agreements regarded, not some sort of sneaky bullshit implied agreement. - mig
[2009-08-04 13:56:35] - mig: yeah that pisses me off! it's even better when you can't get your money back after rejecting the eula. (for example microsoft windows) ~a
[2009-08-04 13:55:23] - vinnie: i have thought about it. what do you think? would it be better or worse? ~a
[2009-08-04 13:53:32] - My big qualm is the issue of things like EULAs being touted as legal contracts, when you aren't even allowed in most cases to see that contract until AFTER you've handed your money for an Xbox or a game or whatever. - mig
[2009-08-04 13:53:31] - vinnie: yuck. consoles usually have terms of service on them, don't they? well that's slightly more legally annoying. you can't put whatever you want onto one of those purchase agreements, but you probably can disallow hacking. a toaster doesn't (shouldn't) come with a terms of service, why should a console be any different? ~a
[2009-08-04 13:53:23] - do you guys know that it isnt in the terms of service agreement? I know lots of video games have them, and I would expect xbox and other consoles to have similar tos agreements which are implicitly agreed to through the use/purchase of he console. ~gurkie
[2009-08-04 13:51:37] - a: have you ever thought about changing the text box on mboard to multi-line? I end up having a lot of typos because I find it difficult to read my posts back - vinnie
[2009-08-04 13:51:35] - vinnie: if sellers demanded that sort of contract like that in order to purchase an Xbox, from a legal standpoint I don't see much issues with that. Of course, I wouldn't be getting an Xbox then because I would find the terms unreasonable. - mig
[2009-08-04 13:50:15] - your only qualm is THAT*
[2009-08-04 13:49:38] - and if you think that it should be legal to set such a condition (I think it should be legal, personally), do you still feel like you should be able to hack the xbox? basically I'm just curious whether your only qualm is not it isn't explicitly stated in the purchase agreement that you can't hack the xbox - vinnie
[2009-08-04 13:48:15] - mig: well then, what do you think about the other question? what if it were in the purchase agreement for an xbox that you aren't allowed to hack it, or you had to pay a fine or do jail time? and that by purchasing the console you are agreeing to that contract? do you think it should be legal for such a condition to be set? - vinnie
[2009-08-04 13:45:49] - the problem with the DMCA is that it catches both legitimate and illegitimate uses in the same net, but (since I *do* accept the moral and legal basis for intellectual property) I can sympathize with attempts to curb illegitimate uses. - pierce
[2009-08-04 13:45:14] - vinnie: if it was renting a dvr that is a little different, as the terms of the renting something are usually spelled out pretty explicitly (or at least they should be) by both parties before the rental is made. - mig
[2009-08-04 13:43:04] - ...so it's reasonable to conclude that most of his customers were doing it for the much more obvious reason: piracy. - pierce
[2009-08-04 13:42:25] - similarly, the typical legitimate use of hacked consoles is so you can do cool technical things with it, like your own game development or using it as a beowulf cluster. the type of people who would be able to do that are largely the same people who could hack their own console and wouldn't have to pay someone to do it for you... - pierce
[2009-08-04 13:39:24] - I think it's fair to see an element of bad faith in some of these services, although I don't know to what extent you want to apply that in a legal setting. The service offered by The Pirate Bay is not that different from the indexing offered by Google, but it's very obviously aimed at enabling a specific immoral behavior (if you accept the moral argument for IP) - pierce
[2009-08-04 13:34:56] - my own thoughts is that it seems like the idea of property is getting further and further away from the consumer, becoming more services. that article that ~a posted on drm certainly jibes with that - vinnie
[2009-08-04 13:32:01] - a: devil's advocate here - how do you feel hacking something like a dvr that you're renting? you probably agree that it should be illegal to hack. then how do you feel about someone selling you something only on the condition that you don't hack it? should a condition like that be allowed to be set legally? - vinnie
[2009-08-04 13:31:03] - stupid enter key, let's try that again - vinnie
[2009-08-04 13:30:48] - a: devilhow do you feel hacking something like a dvr that you're renting? you probably agree that it should be illegal to hack
[2009-08-04 13:02:48] - but again, the act doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the console. It's already wrong (and illegal) to bash paul's head in, regardless of whether it's my fist or a console. And likewise it's already illegal to hack other people's websites regardless of the medium used. - mig
[2009-08-04 13:00:05] - a: well yes, I do agree on those things you just mentioned. - mig
[2009-08-04 12:56:53] - a: well I guess I admend my thoughts on it, I do believe what he was doing should be illegal though. ~gurkie
[2009-08-04 12:40:52] - you can't use the console to hack into someone's website. ~a
[2009-08-04 12:40:04] - mig: still you don't think i should be able to do anything with your property. with your console, you can't bash paul's head in. right? ~a
[2009-08-04 12:38:03] - a: well i go a little farther than you there, since I don't believe in the concept of intellectual property (from a legal standpoint anyways). - mig
[2009-08-04 12:36:59] - mig: careful of that argument: you should be able to do anything with your property assuming you aren't infringing on other peoples rights. in the case of copyright infringement, i weakly argue that you are infringing on other peoples rights. in the case of console hacking, you aren't inherently infringing copyrights. ~a
[2009-08-04 12:33:19] - gurkie: because if I own a console it's my property. I should be allowed to do whatever I want to do with it. - mig
[2009-08-04 12:32:52] - gurkie: infringing copyright is only one of the uses console hacking. as an analogy: writable cds were initially used primarily for pirating cds. because of this, should we make writable cds illegal?! a second analogy: bittorrent is used primarily for copying movies. should we make bittorrent illegal? third analogy: photocopier. ~a
[2009-08-04 12:22:29] - a: it isnt fixing hardware, its modifying hardware to run illegal/stolen copies of material. ~gurkie
[2009-08-04 12:21:44] - a\mig: why should it be legal to hack consoles? Especially for profit. ~gurkie
[2009-08-04 12:16:19] - who cares if it was a business. people shouldn't be allowed to make money fixing hardware? ~a
[2009-08-04 12:06:09] - a: well more importantly he was making a business out of modifying the consoles. I agree that it shouldn't be a crime, but he had to have known better. Still 10 years is ludicrously harsh, when you consider how much time Dante Stolleworth got for running someone over and killing them while drunk. - mig
[2009-08-04 11:24:14] - student arrested for console hacking. console hacking is technically illegal but it certainly shouldn't be. it's illegal because of the controversial 1998 dmca). ~a
[2009-08-04 09:42:44] - on the other hand i've only heard good things about tijuana. ~a
[2009-08-04 09:42:00] - gurkie: that's because on the american side all you can see is a sewage treatment plant. also, what you can't see in this photo on the american side is san diego. ~a
[2009-08-04 09:37:10] - if I am reading this right the side that looks cool/fun is Mexico? ~gurkie
[2009-08-03 17:09:05] - ah tijuana. ~a
[2009-08-03 17:08:37] - hah, wow. what city is that? ~a
[2009-08-03 16:52:02] - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Border_Mexico_USA.jpg (very large) photo of the USA/Mexico border - aaron
[2009-08-03 15:09:02] - an article about amazon remote deletion capability from july. not sure why i didn't post it then. ~a
[2009-08-03 10:45:14] - too cruel - http://www.kypost.com/content/wcposhared/story/Revenge-Gift-New-Bikini-Dissolves-Completely-In/81RNYIAO3U-6g1yXRH6EjQ.cspx ~gurkie
[2009-08-03 10:04:16] - I'd gotten the Armagedden references. Man, was that a shitty movie. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-03 10:04:00] - a: Ok, I had no idea this The Little Prince was so famous. I see the relation now. And I guess the humor is derived from the fact that we're 'heroes' for saving our planet from impending asteroid impact, when in fact the impact is uncertain/unlikely, and we're destroying the home of a noble spirit. So, not very heroic. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-03 09:16:54] - xpovos: deep impact, armageddon, the little prince. ~a
[2009-08-03 09:03:52] - Who gets today's xkcd and can explain to me? I don't even really see any terms I can Google for insight except "Little Prince" and that sound generic enough to be problematic. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-01 02:35:42] - update your iphones if you got 'em, there's a new fix for an SMS vulnerability that could let someone completely take over your phone. - pierce
[2009-07-31 15:40:53] - pierce: yeah it's caching, usually i don't have to do a manual refresh of the site ... odd. - mig
[2009-07-31 15:33:42] - mig: thedailywtf main site works for me, and its rss feed has been updating fine. caching problem maybe? - pierce
[2009-07-31 14:45:08] - paul: adrian's letting him rent an orchard in smyrna! - aaron
[2009-07-31 14:18:15] - Aaron: I'm not entirely sure what fruit Italy got out of it, other than losing 2/3rds of his home territories and having the same number of units that he started out with. -Paul
[2009-07-31 13:24:35] - paul: also, for the record turkey was killed, (or lost all of his home SCs anyway) and italy got some fruit out of it - aaron
[2009-07-31 13:16:19] - paul: well, we hadn't agreed on a dmz before, but perhaps we can arrange one now. how about, france, germany, and russia as a dmz? i won't enter france germany or russia; and you can pull your units back a safe distance as well - aaron
[2009-07-31 12:39:51] - Aaron: And you don't consider my occupation of Tyrolia to be an act of war? In that case, I just might stay there...
-Paul[2009-07-31 12:39:19] - Aaron: And I wasn't intending to ridicule him, instead, I was trying to encourage him to fight for his homeland instead of abandoning it in some fruitless attempt to kill Turkey. -Paul
[2009-07-31 12:38:10] - Aaron: Also, I never sent France anywhere. He just had nowhere else to go after making an alliance with Germany and I. -Paul
[2009-07-31 12:31:56] - Aaron: Your brownie hunting party supported a certain Russian into my territory a few turns ago. -Paul
[2009-07-31 12:27:23] - paul: as a matter of fact i think i have you to thank for a build - since left to my own devices i would have blocked myself in vienna - aaron
[2009-07-31 12:26:52] - paul: as a matter of fact you still haven't done anything against me, either - unless you count that hilariously ineffective offensive against vienna last season - aaron
[2009-07-31 12:25:33] - paul: and how have i harmed you! - aaron
[2009-07-31 12:23:26] - paul: well, after sending france after him, you ridiculed italy for getting defeated so easily... i think that counts for at least half - aaron
[2009-07-31 12:20:37] - aaron: awesome! ~gurkie
[2009-07-31 12:18:13] - Aaron: Don't forget Italy. I actually haven't done a single thing to him yet, despite the fact that his ally has harmed me. In fact, I helped save his skin by pulling back on France's leash before he finished eating all of the homeland. -Paul
[2009-07-31 12:17:23] - http://xkcd.com/616/ hey this was me a year ago! - aaron
[2009-07-31 12:17:16] - does anybody know what is going on with thedailywtf? it's been "temporarily" closed for maintenance for almost 2 weeks now. - mig
[2009-07-31 12:16:41] - Gurkie: I just found out this morning that the regular URL seems to be working. Thanks, though. -Paul
[2009-07-31 12:15:19] - also Paul thought the msgboard was down for the last 2 days I think he is having trouble connecting again... ~gurkie
[2009-07-31 12:14:59] - aaron: I think its like u order from macaroni grill/fridays you pull up to the curb they bring your food out to you... Its wrapped for you to go. ~gurkie
[2009-07-31 12:13:17] - paul: did you want me to order BUD S TYR -> TRI? I just realized you haven't pissed off Turkey yet... if you don't piss off all seven of us it doesn't count as a solo victory - aaron
[2009-07-31 12:12:15] - yeah, i've never ordered curbside, i'm assuming it's like a drive-thru where they give you your food and you leave? if we're talking something like "sonics" or "checkers", i would tip- aaron
[2009-07-31 11:42:33] - That being said my answers would probably be no to a, b, b2, with a possibility of yes to c. I have never ordered curbside but it feels a lot like ordering delivery to me... Possibly tip less but still... ~gurkie
[2009-07-31 11:41:49] - Ive heard from hosts (the person you would order from) that you are supposed to still tip. According to them a lot of where the tip goes when u order at a restaurant is for preparing the food, and to the kitchen staff who cooks the food. The majority of the processes that get tipped are still occurring when you order take out. ~gurkie
[2009-07-31 11:34:42] - this is starting to resemble diplomacy. b sup c -> a - vinnie
[2009-07-31 11:22:28] - except c -> a, b -> b2, and d -> d, of course. ~a
[2009-07-31 11:21:08] - vinnie: same answers as xpovos. ~a
[2009-07-31 10:11:17] - * c -> b2 and d -> c, of course. -- Xpovos
[2009-07-31 10:10:36] - vinnie: a) no, b) no [exceptions to both of these apply] c) yes, since in these cases my drink wouldn't be water, and frequently would be alcoholic. d) short tip (7.5%-12%) -- Xpovos
[2009-07-31 10:03:55] - I'll go ahead and share my answers though I'm asking the question because I don't know if there is any standard for these things. A) no, B) no, B2) no, C) yes, but less than 15%, maybe just a dollar or two - vinnie
[2009-07-31 09:59:01] - at dave + busters they don't let me bring in my own water, and the only way to get water is from the bartenders. so sometimes i'll tip the bartenders just for the water. usually if i go to a bar, drink heavily and then order lots of water - i'll tip like $1 per water just because i know i'm wasting the bartender's time. - aaron
[2009-07-31 09:57:41] - a) no, b) no, b2) maybe, c) no... sometimes i feel bad, because they'll have that "tip" line on the credit card form - but i tip for service, and for takeout, they're not giving me any service... except for maybe the water case - aaron
[2009-07-31 08:29:56] - also the lettering is screwed up. damn. let's call them A), B) B2), C) - vinnie
[2009-07-31 08:28:23] - and in the first three scenarios, you can assume you are ordering in person, not over the phone - vinnie
[2009-07-31 08:27:48] - do you all ever tip on a takeout order from a restaurant? I'll give you a few scenarios and you tell me whether you tip and how much. A) you order food and pay for it immediately B) you order food and pay for it when you get your food B) you order food, sit at the bar and get a glass of water, then pay when you get your food C) you get curbside takeout - vinnie
[2009-07-31 08:23:22] - pierce: can't return them? - vinnie
[2009-07-30 17:02:07] - I bought them thinking my machine supported DDR3 but it apparently doesn't. - pierce
[2009-07-30 17:01:49] - does anyone have a computer that supports DDR3 memory and want to buy three new, unopened 1Gb modules from me? amazon has them for $69 but I got them for $43 which is what I'd sell them for. - pierce
[2009-07-30 16:36:41] - link ~a
[2009-07-30 16:27:20] - Ezekiel 23:32 -- Two girls, one cup biblical style. -- Xpovos
prev <-> next