prev <-> next
[2009-08-17 13:52:29] - dave/xpovos: the patent/ip thing I suppose is a valid point (I guess I just don't consider it since I do not believe in the concept of IP), but it would certainly not justify banning all drug imports. I would imagine that there would be drugs that certainly could be imported here without running into the various IP issues that you describe, but unless I'm ...
[2009-08-17 13:28:29] - xpovos: and likewise, you can't take a japanese patent and sue someone for patent infringement in the US -dave
[2009-08-17 13:27:26] - xpovos: yeah, but from what I know it doesn't exactly work straight-up. Like if you apply for a patent in the States, they don't do a search of all patents in Japan etc - you can get one just for the states - so obviously that patent can't necessarily be upheld in Japan -dave
[2009-08-17 13:27:08] - vi_people: is there a less obnoxious way to go to the beginning of a file than "colon zero enter"? - aaron
[2009-08-17 13:25:06] - So, basically anything patentable is going to require a level of technology to produce, these days, and essentially all countries, and all industrialized countries are on board with the process. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-17 13:22:53] - As part of the U.N.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Organization -- Xpovos
[2009-08-17 13:21:52] - dave: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty and http://www.wipo.int/classifications/ipc/ A patent in a subscribing state including the U.S. is upheld in other subscribing states, and the format is codified so as to reduce duplications across country lines, etc. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-17 13:18:19] - xpovos: so what is the "settled law" then? that you can't import/export things like that? or that you can? -dave
[2009-08-17 13:18:03] - Obviously, piracy still exists. China is a hotbed for it, but it happens everywhere. It's just the laws are clear now, even if they're not enforced all the time. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-17 13:17:20] - dave: Same thing with copyright, for the most part this is settled law, believe it or not, The Lord of the Rings was the book that finally forced the hand between the U.S. and England, and after that most everyone fell into line pretty rapidly. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-17 13:16:18] - altho i don't really know what all the international agreements for patents etc are - but i know you have to try to file things in other countries as well -dave
[2009-08-17 13:16:05] - mig: I doubt we'd ever hear it, how many Candian newspapers or blogs do any of us read? Even then, the Canadian government has seen us pull this stunt so many times that they'll probably not start up the attack machine until we're well under-way. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-17 13:15:17] - like say for example that a company creates and patents something in the US and sells it for a high price because of the patent - that patent isn't valid outside the US, so if some other country doesn't have the same patent laws, companies there might be able to make knock-offs more quickly than in the states. Should we import those knock-offs? Probably not, -dave
[2009-08-17 13:09:41] - becomes a huge mess -dave
[2009-08-17 13:09:27] - xpovos: in other words, there are so many licensing and other contracts in place that are specific to region or country, that allowing import / export of certain things because a huge mess -dave
[2009-08-17 13:08:04] - xpovos: my guess is it's probably not even just that. Like take China - most movie studios or software companies sell their stuff for really cheap over there - not because China subsidizes it, but because if stuff is too expensive over there, the Chinese will just rip it off -dave
[2009-08-17 13:06:07] - The restrictions seemto be there because we impose it on ourselves (a cynic would say to bend over for the drug industry's benefit), not because the government in canada demands that we do. - mig
[2009-08-17 13:03:30] - xpovos: that is a good point, but I never hear the Candian government opposing proposals when they are brought up. - mig
[2009-08-17 13:00:07] - Of course the drugs are cheaper in other countries not just because of collective bargaining, but also because those governments subsidize the costs to the citizens. The idea that they'll just let us import their subsidized drugs is laughable. We do not want a trade war with Canada. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-17 12:51:04] - In fact, some of John Mackey's points in his op ed which would sound appeal to both sides (cost transparency, removing restrictions across state lines on insurance, equalizing tax laws on personal and employee health isurance) never made it into the discussion either. - mig
[2009-08-17 12:48:04] - vinnie: what I personally find dissapointing is that there a number of things Obama could have proposed that would probably have some bipartisan support (like drug re-importation) that could have done something to reduce the financial burden as a whole to everybody across the board, and they are not even discussed. - mig
[2009-08-17 12:41:08] - mig: that article linked back to politifact! i had forgotten which site hosted that obama truth-o-meter... - aaron
[2009-08-17 12:22:29] - "Importing Prescription Drugs In spite of its overwhelming focus on overhauling the health care system, the administration has been silent on one of Obama's signature health care promises: allowing consumers to import drugs made in FDA-approved facilities in countries where they are often sold for less."
[2009-08-17 12:21:41] - http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20090817/pl_cq_politics/politics3191976;_ylt=AqfUTiilPREg6Rni75hOvrOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJ0NzJ2aGp2BGFzc2V0A2NxLzIwMDkwODE3L3BvbGl0aWNzMz kind of a tangent, but i found a rather interesting bit on the current discussion. - mig
[2009-08-17 12:01:24] - vinnie: Pretty much everyone I think is concerned about the uninsured #s, but not everyone believes that the public option is either the right thing to do, or that it will even solve the underlying problem of the system (the fact that it's so expensive in the first place). - mig
[2009-08-17 11:59:04] - vinnie: as it is, I still think there should be changes, but it's more out of a theoretical "i don't think this is sustainable so it should be fixed" attitude, rather than a "this happened to me, it sucks" attitude -dave
[2009-08-17 11:58:19] - vinnie: perhaps the problem is that it isn't a huge problem for middle and upper class people. I mean, from one perspective, I'm completely happy with my health care and what I pay for it. Now, if I had an actual problem with it, i would probably be much more motivated to call for changes -dave
[2009-08-17 11:45:14] - I guess maybe the support just wasn't there for it, which is disappointing to me. I wonder how high the percentage of uninsured americans would need to be before the support is there - vinnie
[2009-08-17 11:41:39] - dave: I think it's a definition problem. I honestly don't have a clue what Obama or the adminstration mean by public option anymore. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-17 11:40:58] - dave: it was very surprising to me to see the public option removed, I thought that was the point of the bill. I've read that the bill is now somehow supposed to allow for non-profit orgs to compete with the insurance companies, but I'm not really sure it'll have the same effect. non-profits won't have the same leverage unless they build that into the bill - vinnie
[2009-08-17 11:38:58] - ... unless of course he backpedals to the point where maybe he considers real free market alternatives to what we have now, then it might be a success, but I suppose that is wishful thinking on my part. - mig
[2009-08-17 11:38:13] - dave: well I'm strongly against the idea of a "public option" (shocking I know), but I agree with Paul that it seems like it would be a major defat for Obama to backpedal on this. - mig
[2009-08-17 11:33:17] - Paul: and health care certainly needs to be fixed -dave
[2009-08-17 11:33:05] - Paul: yeah, I would agree. I actually want him to succeed too, regardless of party affiliation. We certainly don't need a lame duck for the next 3 yrs. -dave
[2009-08-17 11:27:43] - Dave: Especially considering democrats control congress fairly convincingly. -Paul
[2009-08-17 11:27:03] - Dave: I'll be the first to admit that I haven't been following the health care debate all that much, but I'm not sure what kind of health care reform they can have without the public option. I kinda thought that was the whole point of this. It seems like not having a public option would have to be considered a major defeat for Obama. -Paul
[2009-08-17 11:02:14] - I'm honestly not sure how they solve it without a public option, but at the same time I think the govt getting a public option to actually work is rather difficult as well -dave
[2009-08-17 11:01:00] - it's been interesting to see Obama backpedal on the "public option" of the healthcare bill. Apparently they are now making noises indicating that they might take that part out. So the question is, do people think the "public option" should be in, or out? -dave
[2009-08-17 08:21:49] - pierce: That's pretty good. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-16 00:03:07] - inglourious plummers (watch the original trailer first if you haven't seen it already) - pierce
[2009-08-15 13:56:24] - http://www.nbcdfw.com/blogs/blue-star/Jessica-Simpson-Moves-Down-NFC-East-Depth-Chart-53233227.html the headline is rather hilarious. - mig
[2009-08-15 13:54:06] - mig: if that was you quoting, nothing about that quote says it's immoral for him to have beliefs different from his customers. just that he shouldn't speak them if he does. "because it's stupid to do so" is the implication, not "because it's immoral". - pierce
[2009-08-15 13:45:50] - oh oops! that was last night. ~a
[2009-08-15 13:45:10] - pierce: i would but i'm in iowa tonight. ~a
[2009-08-15 13:11:58] - "I think a CEO should take care that if he speaks about politics, that his beliefs reflect at least the majority of his clients."
[2009-08-15 13:05:21] - mig: I don't think that's it at all. Some people are saying he acted immorally because they believe his opinions to be immoral, not because he has an obligation to his liberal customer base. Most people are saying that it was stupid of him to share his opinions, knowing he has a liberal customer base. That's not the same thing at all. - pierce
[2009-08-15 12:59:51] - pierce: I don't really have much issue per se with people getting upset at him for his statement, but some of the things said by these people are downright silly. They seem to imply because mostly liberal people go to his store, that he has some sort of moral obligation to only speak out when he has those type of views. - mig
[2009-08-14 17:34:38] - Argh stupid phone... That's - pierce
[2009-08-14 17:34:10] - Anyone want to get dinner beforehand?
[2009-08-14 16:25:30] - pierce: if its a tourney (which I assume other people would have to be asked about in case they dont want to play that) then the buy in is 20 otherwise its usually 20 but you could probably buy in for less/more if you wanted ~gurkie
[2009-08-14 16:24:39] - Pierce: $20 Typically. -Paul
[2009-08-14 16:23:21] - - pierce
[2009-08-14 16:23:09] - How much is the buy-in?
[2009-08-14 16:07:10] - mostly I think it's a dumb and tone-deaf move to have done that, but now that it's done I agree with people who are holding the company responsible by proxy. - pierce
[2009-08-14 16:05:51] - in other words, the ceo of a company appealing to that company's policies to make a political point essentially makes that the official position of Whole Foods unless they explicitly say otherwise. I read their press release and they were very wishy-washy about it but embraced his statements more than they distanced themselves from them. - pierce
[2009-08-14 16:04:06] - as for mackey, I think it's more than the socialism thing, although it was a bit glaring for him to make it the fourth word in his editorial. more specifically, I think the objection is that he's leveraging the success of whole foods to make his argument about heatlh care. if you think his views are harmful, it's entirely reasonable to not want to subsidize them. - pierce
[2009-08-14 16:01:25] - Pierce: 8p, although people are often late. Miguel was talking about possibly doing a tournament tonight if we get enough people, though (which would help you with people getting kicked out) so you might want to show up on time. -paul
[2009-08-14 16:00:01] - okay, I'll come to poker, but I'm not going to poach anyone for other activities. if people go broke and don't want to buy back in maybe we'll do stuff like that. what time does poker start, paul? - pierce
[2009-08-14 15:48:15] - mig: Yeah, that struck me as a little bit of jumping to conclusions to me.
-Paul[2009-08-14 15:24:11] - "'While Mackey is worried about health care and stimulus spending, he doesn't seem too worried about expensive wars and tax breaks for the wealthy and big businesses such as his own that contribute to the deficit,' said Lent." Is there even any record of Mackey being for the war? If not this strikes me as a silly statement. - mig
[2009-08-14 15:19:36] - paul: it seems that people are just mad that the views of the CEO of the place they shop at don't conform to their own. - mig
[2009-08-14 15:14:46] - Xpovos: I haven't read the op-ed, but was it just that single line about socialism which is pissing people off? -Paul
[2009-08-14 15:08:41] - http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8322658&page=1 -- Xpovos
[2009-08-14 14:52:12] - aaron: ow. PIU is complicated enough. That fifth platform throws me badly. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-14 14:50:26] - xpovos: yes brain shower, they had one mode where they showed you an equation like 3 ? 2 + 7 = 13 and a series of steps came up with arithmetic operators and you had to step on the right one - aaron
[2009-08-14 14:19:15] - aaron: Brain shower? -- Xpovos
[2009-08-14 14:10:21] - pierce: if your offer of pool and/or movie is good for tomorrow I may take you up on that. - mig
[2009-08-14 14:09:44] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html horray for change? - mig
[2009-08-14 13:48:03] - ddr_people: they've got a new Pump It Up NX Absolute machine up at dave and busters in white flint if you guys want to make a trip some time. it's got usb support and a new "brain shower" mode, new songs and a numeric ranking system - aaron
[2009-08-14 13:46:27] - aaron: vinnie and amy dont get back from CA until later tonight ~gurkie
[2009-08-14 13:41:19] - like if you want to play board games or lbp or speed uno or something. i think vinnie and amy have shown support for raiding poker night in the past - aaron
[2009-08-14 13:40:15] - pierce: if you want to organize a not-poker thing at paul's place, i'll change teams - aaron
[2009-08-14 13:08:22] - Pierce: I'm having poker at my place at 8pm, and you're invited to come, but I don't think I can make it to a movie or pool. Sorry. -Paul
[2009-08-14 12:49:16] - Anything going on tonight? Anyone want to go see a movie or shoot pool? - pierce
[2009-08-14 12:07:54] - paul: i like it too - aaron
[2009-08-14 11:29:05] - hmm i see dewey's changed his opinion regarding assisted suicide - aaron
[2009-08-14 11:06:26] - http://www.noisebot.com/push_button_receive_bacon_t-shirt.htm Not sure why, but this shirt cracks me up. -Paul
[2009-08-14 11:00:11] - Paul: I looked for the chalky cliffs, but I could find no whiteness in them. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-14 10:48:18] - Xpovos: And now the English rocks are going to come falling down on you.
-Paul[2009-08-14 10:43:18] - mig: Look back and tell me where I had an opportunity? The only reason I teamed up with him again at all was because Vinnie was going to smash me against the English rocks if I didn't. Survival is the first priority. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-14 10:34:31] - xpovos: what took you so damn long to finally decide to resist the english tyranny? - mig
[2009-08-14 10:24:13] - Paul: $50 investment is probably pretty reasonable there, but I thought for sure they were going under for a bit. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-14 10:16:31] - Xpovos: Really kicking myself over not buying a thousand shares or so when it was at a nickle... -Paul
[2009-08-14 09:56:14] - Hmm, my SIRI stock has been on a tear. I'm almost feeling good about it again. Just gotta ignore the $5/share loss, recently it's been awesome! -- Xpovos
[2009-08-14 09:11:17] - aaron: You're going to make me sing. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-14 08:04:21] - vick to the eagles! -dave
[2009-08-14 07:48:05] - a: the potential value of sperm is negligible due to the concept of diminshing marginal utility - aaron
[2009-08-14 01:21:18] - a: what is it with you and sperm, dude? change the subject once in a while. - pierce
[2009-08-13 23:45:38] - oh and i was referring to sperm. ~a
[2009-08-13 21:18:17] - you said a combination of their current value and their potential value. i guess their current value is zero (or less than zero), but their potential value is very great. ~a
[2009-08-13 16:50:36] - a: and yes, everything is subjective. and sperm is easily replaced - hence they are not valuable. fetuses are somewhat easily replaced... depending on the age of the fetus - aaron
[2009-08-13 16:46:49] - xpovos: although obviously they're both bad - aaron
[2009-08-13 16:46:40] - xpovos: and yeah maybe sympathy is the wrong word - but just the sense that if something really bad happened to him, then it turns my stomach? sure, the great scientist definitely hits me harder - aaron
[2009-08-13 16:45:51] - a: hmm. well, if they were neighbors, it's hard to compare, because realistically they both have similar potential. but if one lived in, say, japan, and the other one lived in somalia or something - then yes. i would have more sympathy for the baby in japan - aaron
[2009-08-13 16:27:57] - also i have another one similar to xpovos's. two similar babies, one lives in a rich home and one in an impoverished home. does one generate more sympathy than the other? ~a
[2009-08-13 16:25:19] - aaron: you're measure is very subjective. not really very easy to be weighed by a judge or jury. plus your measure seems to fail me when you take a fetus or a sperm into account. ~a
[2009-08-13 16:09:01] - aaron: Two similarly enfeebled/elderly persons, one was a great scientist, the other a generic nobody (but not a bad person). Does one generate more sympathy than the other? I.E. is it past utility as well as potential, or just potential? -- Xpovos
[2009-08-13 16:00:45] - i have more sympathy for a table than i do for a caterpillar. and more sympathy for children than i do for the enfeebled/elderly. there might be more to it but i'm pretty sure that's how it works for me - aaron
[2009-08-13 15:59:56] - i think for objects animals and people alike, my sympathy is based on a combination of their current value and their potential value. i have a lot of sympathy for babies because they have a lot of potential value. i have very little sympathy for cows, because their current value is pretty much their ability to become food - aaron
[2009-08-13 14:37:34] - paul: i disagree with the article. i thought uncivil actions were dumb before and they're dumb now. shouting down the opposition is rather dumb when the opposition is sitting down to have a conversation with you. ~a
[2009-08-13 13:53:28] - a: I'm not sure your point with regards to the article. Are you saying the town hall protesters are being violent or uncivil? I think the uncivil part was addressed in the article and I don't recall hearing claims of violence at these meetings. -Paul
[2009-08-13 13:52:04] - I think civility is harder to obtain because it's a moveable target. People have differing views on civility whereas violent or non-violent is pretty cut and dry. The only grey zone would be self-defense. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-13 13:51:17] - a: I can dig it. I can also agree that some forms of protest have to be violent, but certainly non-violent is sufficient to convey the reality of the situation in almost all cases. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-13 13:50:24] - Paul: It's going to come down to sentience, sapience, and brain size in some fashion for animals, I think. non-animals it gets trickier because those go away entirely. Is a virus on the same category as a plant? -- Xpovos
[2009-08-13 13:48:29] - *its ~a
[2009-08-13 13:48:24] - Xpovos: I'm certainly pretty impressionable here. On one hand, I find it hard to consider an ant and a dog to be similar in terms of rights, but on the other, I can't think of a good reason why not. -Paul
[2009-08-13 13:47:33] - paul: protest is patriotic. dissent is the highest form of patriotism. but not in all it's forms. if my protest must take the form of a school shooting, yeah. i like nonviolence, and when that is achieved i like civility. ~a
[2009-08-13 13:46:45] - a: re: All non-human animals the same... I'm not sure. This might be one where ideas can be shaped some. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-13 13:45:23] - a: Human beings are a virus. You are a disease, Neo. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-13 13:45:14] - http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sunday_Reflections/Remember-when-protest-was-patriotic-52767517.html I know this is late, but it seems relevant to the point of a few days ago regarding the town hall protesters. -Paul
[2009-08-13 13:44:50] - in reality i think forcing animals to combat each-other is pretty lame regardless of the species. but as for law, it's very dumb for the law to have anything to say about ant-fighting or siamese fighting fish. ~a
[2009-08-13 13:42:14] - a: non-human animals? that's a fair point actually. in a sense I was treating dogs like just siamese fighting fish. It's interesting to ponder whether that is fair or not -dave
[2009-08-13 13:40:24] - dave: i'm surely not. i just wanted to make sure you weren't treating all non-human animals the same. ~a
[2009-08-13 13:40:11] - a: or maybe i don't. i thought you were implying that dogs should have the same rights as humans because we are both animals in your eyes -dave
[2009-08-13 13:39:13] - a: i understand your point. and if you feel like a mouse should get the same rights as a human, then there is nothing to be said -dave
[2009-08-13 13:38:42] - and by they i mean we oops. ~a
[2009-08-13 13:36:57] - dave: do i need to? they aren't plants and they aren't fungus. ~a
[2009-08-13 13:36:55] - paul: or crickets! fighting crickets! -dave
[2009-08-13 13:36:40] - paul: I mean, it's just silly. If he had run a gambling ring fighting siamese fighting fish, no one would have cared -dave
[2009-08-13 13:35:56] - Paul: well, it's a losing battle in any case, if he signs with someone and gets a fair shot, it will go a long ways to making me feel ok about the whole situation -dave
[2009-08-13 13:33:38] - Dave: Possibly, although I wonder if Vick got convicted of other crimes as well. For instance, I'm sure the betting on it got him some extra time, not that I'm saying I agree with anti-gambling laws. -Paul
[2009-08-13 13:33:12] - paul: hence why it's so much more difficult since i can't access it when i'm at home -dave
[2009-08-13 13:33:11] - a: True, but he started it because of his cultural background and history, which is a different kind of mitigating circumstance. But in Vick's case the intent was clear. He intentionally fought dogs for fun and profit. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-13 13:32:52] - paul: i keep on meaning to, but i'm always tired when i get home so i haven't gotten around to it yet -dave
[2009-08-13 13:32:31] - a: species? you're implying that humans are animals, yes? -dave
[2009-08-13 13:32:10] - Dave: By the way, are you joining the football league or not?
-Paul[2009-08-13 13:31:54] - Paul: I would still submit that DUI manslaughter (manslaughter being unintenionally causing death) is not half as bad as killing dogs in a fighting ring -dave
[2009-08-13 13:30:23] - dave: so species of the animal shouldn't matter? ~a
[2009-08-13 13:30:00] - Dave: I agree, although I also admit that I'm definitely guilty of that. I think nothing of eating a hamburger knowing full well what kind of painful death that cow must've endured, yet I would be the first to get upset if I saw somebody do the same thing to a dog or cat or something. -Paul
[2009-08-13 13:28:50] - xpovos: intent isn't always difficult to prove. i.e. it's pretty obvious that vick didn't accidentally start a dog fighting ring. ~a
[2009-08-13 13:28:44] - a: Ah, ok. I think you misunderstood me (or I mispoke). I didn't mean to say that I think WHY somebody hit somebody matters, only that it matters if they did it intentionally or not. -Paul
[2009-08-13 13:28:33] - Paul: I agree that I probably feel worse for Stallworth than for Vick, or more compassion at least. I just get frustrated because I believe people value the life of animals way too highly and inconsistently than they should -dave
[2009-08-13 13:27:44] - Dave: Laws against cruelty to animals always struck me as weird because it seems like farmers are fairly cruel to animals on a daily basis when it comes to killing chickens and cows. -Paul
[2009-08-13 13:27:18] - if i hit somebody with my car deliberately does it make a huge difference why i hit them? if i hit them because it was a cheating spouse vs. if i hit them because i don't like interracial couples should that matter? i'm alluding to hate crime laws. ~a
[2009-08-13 13:27:15] - Intent is also damnedly difficult to prove. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-13 13:25:49] - Dave: Which is certainly fair enough, I'm not even sure I necessarily agree. I certainly feel far more sorry for Stallworth, but at the same time, I wonder if Vick should've been prosecuted at all. -Paul
[2009-08-13 13:25:11] - paul: so there's a difference there. But it's kinda silly, because it wouldn't have mattered except that his gambling ring involved killings dog. if it had been holding illicity texas hold-em games no one would have cared -dave
[2009-08-13 13:24:23] - paul: and i suppose it's not really the killing of dogs that he's guilty of, it's running a gambling ring -dave
[2009-08-13 13:23:00] - paul: but your stance is valid - intentional killing of a dog is worse to you than accidental killing of a human. I'm just not sure I agree -dave
[2009-08-13 13:22:18] - paul: intent does matter, that's the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder -dave
[2009-08-13 13:18:56] - a: I'm not sure I am discarding a major opinion or belief, maybe creating a new minor one? -Paul
[2009-08-13 13:18:34] - a: When it comes to crime and punishment? I definitely think it should matter. If I hit somebody with my car and kill him, I think it makes a huge difference if it was an accident (pedestrian running out into the road) or deliberate (I swore to kill my cheating spouse to collect life insurance). -Paul
[2009-08-13 13:16:48] - paul: intent should matter? are you discarding a major opinion or belief? ~a
[2009-08-13 13:08:48] - Dave: I've recently begun to think that intent should play a larger role in punishment than end result. Sure, Stallworth's end result was worse, but in the end he absolutely never meant to hurt anybody whereas Vick did what he did deliberately. -Paul
[2009-08-13 13:07:22] - Dave: I can never see myself doing what Michael Vick did whereas I can easily see a situation where I could end up in the situation Stallworth is in. -Paul
[2009-08-13 13:05:43] - Dave: Stallworth had a couple of drinks and drove home and he accidentally hit a pedestrian who was running across a road not at a crosswalk. -Paul
[2009-08-13 13:04:08] - Dave: Michael Vick knowingly and willingly had a major dog fighting operation going and then lied about it repeatedly until his friends ratted him out. -Paul
[2009-08-13 13:03:31] - Dave: In a way, I do think killing dogs is twice as bad. Not because of the end result, but because of how it happened. -Paul
[2009-08-13 13:02:46] - Dave: Maybe, but he was going 40-50mph and I believe he hit the guy in the left lane of the road, so maybe he thought the pedestrian would stop. -Paul
[2009-08-13 12:52:41] - Paul: and yes, there is a difference between an accident and willingly doing something - but Stallworth plead guilty to DUI manslaughter. Is intentionally killings dogs twice as worse as DUI manslaughter? -dave
[2009-08-13 12:50:53] - Paul: Yeah, i feel bad for Stallworth too actually, except he was drunk, so that's kinda bad. He supposedly flashed his lights at the guy though, which makes me think that he should have been able to stop or avoid the guy. -dave
[2009-08-13 12:29:53] - a: Source for some (questionable) legal advice re: pedestrian strikes. Definitely indicates that the pedestrian can be at fault. http://www.lawcore.com/pedestrian-accident/ -- Xpovos
[2009-08-13 12:27:14] - a: IAANAL, but in general if you're doing something illegal and get injured, or die because of it, you're the responsible party. Everyone's heard of the burgler who fell through the skylight and broke a leg and successfully sued the homeowner, but that's a bizarre case (hence why everyone knows about it) and possibly even apocryphal. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-13 12:25:08] - a: IANAL, so I can't say with regards to legality, but I certainly think that it's possible for pedestrians to be at fault in some accidents involving cars. -Paul
[2009-08-13 12:24:10] - Xpovos: Although I also thought I remembered him not being legally drunk at the time either, which turned out to be false, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
-Paul[2009-08-13 12:20:20] - Xpovos: From what I've heard, that was exactly what happened. The pedestrian popped out from between two cars (running, too, not walking). -Paul
[2009-08-13 12:19:58] - xpovos: jaywalking makes it the pedestrian's fault? i'm not sure that's the law. ~a
[2009-08-13 12:11:56] - a: Certainly legally, in the VT case he was jaywalking. Also from a common sense standpoint. If the driver can't see you, probably not a good idea to assume he'll stop. I don't know anything about the Stallworth case, though. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-13 12:01:24] - i'm not sure how you guys are deciding that it's the pedestrian's fault in either case. are you talking about legally or otherwise? ~a
[2009-08-13 11:57:36] - Paul: I hadn't looked deeply into the Stallworth situation. A pedestrian-car accident is sometimes the pedestrian's fault, but the driver is usually blamed, even in those. I remember one at VT where a guy popped out across the road in front of Cassel from between two cars. Clearly pedestrian's fault. Was this something like that? -- Xpovos
[2009-08-13 11:00:37] - Dave: While I see your point that Vick killed dogs while Stallworth killed a person, I think it's also important to note that everything that Vick did was done purposefully while Stallworth's situation seems to have been just a tragic accident. -Paul
[2009-08-13 10:59:10] - Dave: I actually feel pretty sorry for Stallworth. Yes, he was driving drunk, but from everything I've read, it was entirely the pedestrian's fault and even a sober person would probably have hit and killed him. -Paul
[2009-08-13 10:48:07] - what's interesting is the top 15 players in the world automatically get to go. What happens if like 10 of them are from the same country?? Not bound to happen, but still interesting nonetheless -dave
[2009-08-13 10:47:37] - http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/news/story?id=4396021 golf and rugby have been nominated for 2016 olympics. -dave
[2009-08-13 10:39:19] - so we have stallworth who killed a man while drunk driving, getting a year of suspension. And two years wasn't enough for Vick -dave
[2009-08-13 10:38:54] - http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4396130 stallworth suspended for 2009 season -dave
[2009-08-13 10:12:30] - paul: tis true -dave
[2009-08-13 10:11:15] - Dave: That's another good point as to why I think we hardly ever see governments get smaller. It's so much easier to spend more when you have a surplus and just borrow money when you have a deficit, than it is to actually save the extra money when you have a surplus so you don't have to borrow money when you have a deficit. -Paul
[2009-08-13 09:24:19] - http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10308235-54.html Some more information about the mpg rating of the Volt. -Paul
[2009-08-13 09:20:52] - a: and i think that the sentiment of "we have a surplus therefore we can spend more" is absolutely silly considering how much of a national debt we have. Perhaps if we had cash reserves like the Chinese, then i could be more amenable to spending more when we had a surplus and cutting back when we didn't -dave
[2009-08-13 09:19:30] - a: and i agree that bush was not at all interested in reducing the size of govt -dave
[2009-08-13 09:19:04] - a: probably because most spending bills etc are flat dollar amounts, they're not pegged to gdp -dave
[2009-08-13 09:18:44] - a: i think comparing the size of the government to gdp is a good metric, but i think flat dollars spent is a better way to see whether an administration tried to increase or decrease the size of govt -dave
[2009-08-13 07:23:07] - pierce: yay i thought it was clever too - aaron
[2009-08-12 23:13:29] - pierce: *woosh*
~a[2009-08-12 23:02:12] - aaron: well *I* thought it was clever. - pierce
[2009-08-12 23:01:46] - a: barium == barry... - pierce
[2009-08-12 22:52:21] - aaron: barium? seriously though, it was like his campaign slogan or something. link ~a
[2009-08-12 20:29:29] - xpovos: Ba AuH20
- aaron[2009-08-12 17:19:59] - I can't think of much to add to that. Only to reinforce that the unfunded liability is <i>ours</>. Private insurance might've given a few of us an escape, for good or ill. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-12 16:56:43] - xpovos: not that I'm saying you are or are not arguing any of these particular points, just saying it in general. - pierce
[2009-08-12 16:52:43] - xpovos: I agree that we need better long-term planning. I just disagree that the thing we have to plan for is specific to government, or caused by it being a government program, or that the private market would have a better long-term approach that offered comparable care to current medicare beneficiaries. - pierce
[2009-08-12 16:50:35] - paul: well no one stopped me when I accused the living of slippery slope arguments, so this was the obvious natural progression. - pierce
[2009-08-12 16:37:44] - annualized in. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-12 16:37:34] - Anyway, this got brought up because the fact that those liabilities exist is conveniently ignored by both parties because they're a future burden, not on the books right now, so they can happily spend every dime and more this year and worry about the rising costs later. Hence even Clinton's surplus was actually a massive deficit when his share of that liability was [...]
[2009-08-12 16:36:05] - Pierce: Throwing out a slippery slope accusation against a dead guy. Nice. -Paul
[2009-08-12 16:34:49] - But health care costs, particularly for the elderly, are rising at a disproportionate rate to the services they're getting, their percentage of the population, and of course, to the GDP. That's either unsustainable, of if it is to be sustained publicly will require massive tax hikes, or massive inflation, or both. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-12 16:33:56] - pierce: It's not public Medicare vs. private Medicare so much as that Medicare exists at all. Private Medicare -might- be cheaper, but I'm not willing to bet on it any more than I'm willing to bet private retirement accounts are cheaper than Social Security for the reasons we've discussed before. (Namely people are irrational). -- Xpovos
[2009-08-12 16:32:25] - pierce: healthcare certainly doesn't work well as a capitalist enterprise now. I'm not sure that argument would have had the same weight when Goldwater made his speech. But at this point, that point is moot. I concede to the current impracticalities. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-12 16:31:13] - xpovos: the private market is an inefficient system with no checks on growth. I don't understand that argument, do you mind fleshing it out a bit more clearly? - pierce
[2009-08-12 16:29:02] - because, as has been my argument since the beginning, those markets work well as capitalist enterprises whereas health care does not. the slippery slope is not a relevant argument here. - pierce
[2009-08-12 16:28:14] - pierce: The argument is that medicare is one of the prime causes of increased health care costs because it's an inefficient system with no checks on growth. There's a graph on that page which shows the relative (estimated) effects of various variables, ageing population is the smallest sliver. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-12 16:27:02] - Paul: AuH20! -- Xpovos
[2009-08-12 16:26:22] - xpovos: the fundamental "challenges" in that list seem like things that we'd be struggling with just as much if we were supporting medicare beneficiaries in the private system. we'd still have cost growth (unless one argues that medicare is the cause of our increased health care costs) and the demographic shift of the baby boomers retiring. - pierce
[2009-08-12 16:25:03] - Pierce: I ran some quick calculations from the wikipedia link and it looks like you are correct that government spending during the Clinton years as a percentage of the GDP went down from around 21% to 18.5%. -Paul
[2009-08-12 16:23:24] - Xpovos: "Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink." The more I read about Barry Goldwater, the more I like him. -Paul
[2009-08-12 16:17:22] - and as much as I disagree with them, I don't think republicans want the status quo, by and large. they just want a solution that doesn't involve government taking over any of that industry (nor, to a lesser degree, do they want government intervention in the industry... although that's not a unanimous sentiment) - pierce
[2009-08-12 16:17:09] - a: You could be right about that, although I wonder if that had more to do with the generally good economic times than any kind of legislation that was passed. -Paul
[2009-08-12 16:14:50] - a: Very brief overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)#Costs_and_funding_challenges -- Xpovos
[2009-08-12 16:14:37] - I know I'm a bit late to this point, but democrats don't think it's "magical" that it becomes affordable, we have actual logic and everything and evidence in other countries that have switched to nationalized systems. you can disagree with the logic or think the evidence doesn't apply, but it's not based on blind faith. - pierce
[2009-08-12 16:12:20] - well the clinton administration oversaw a major economic boom, right? so it's possible the government shrank relative to GNP -- which is a valid way of looking at it (although it's also a very volatile way of looking at it). - pierce
[2009-08-12 16:05:34] - paul: metric: number of people on welfare. ~a
[2009-08-12 16:04:26] - xpovos: i don't really know much about medicare. what's the deal with medicare? ~a
[2009-08-12 16:03:22] - mig: i've been listening to him on and off since the 2008 election. so no. ~a
[2009-08-12 15:55:52] - a: if you are trying to make the point that Clinton was not nearly as big of a free-wheeling spender as some of the championed "fiscal conservatives" that graced the white house, that's something I'm in 100% agreement. It still doesn't translate to Clinton making government smaller, because that's simply just not true. - mig
[2009-08-12 15:51:46] - Aaron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms I don't think spending went down in absolute terms. You might be thinking of the deficit decreasing? -paul
[2009-08-12 15:49:32] - aaron: if we're going by the metric of simply the federal budget, it definitely did increase every single year under clinton, albiet by smaller amounts than either Bush. - mig
[2009-08-12 15:46:16] - paul: hmm, well it spent less money didn't it? just a guess - aaron
[2009-08-12 15:45:34] - mig: Spending that amount of a surplus (akin to a dollar in your wallet as you go through McDonald's, yeah, sure the $1 sundae sounds nice, I'll buy that) is easy. The accounting ignoring the mouting overhang of SS and Medicare liabilities was awesome, though. But we need to compare apples to apples, so Clinton did not spend as much as Regan, Bush or Bush. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-12 15:43:53] - a: By what metric did the government get smaller when Clinton was in power? I'm not disagreeing, just curious. -Paul
[2009-08-12 15:41:23] - xpovos: except we didn't even really have a surplus, because it somehow mysteriously dissappeared the moment Bush came into office. - mig
[2009-08-12 15:38:48] - a: Deficits decreased, and we had a surplus for a few years, but the absolute size of government didn't shrink. It just stopped growing faster than tax revenues for a short while. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-12 15:36:14] - a: I disagree somewhat, but will accept the point for argument's sake. We now save money through preventative care over not having it, which reduces overall health care costs, including those of Medicare. But we still have Medicare expenses which are beyond significant. (I'm not trying to shift focus on the debate, honest.) -- Xpovos
[2009-08-12 15:34:12] - but, whatever, this is pointless anyways, who really cares if hannity supposadly agrees? I certainly don't. - mig
[2009-08-12 15:33:11] - a: you pay attention to the Bush big government worship by him over the last 8 years? - mig
[2009-08-12 15:33:09] - dave: the government got smaller when clinton was in power. ~a
[2009-08-12 15:27:50] - dave: healthcare (when tied to preventative care) has the potential to save the government money and enrich people's lives. i think vinnie mentioned the preventative care thing. ~a
[2009-08-12 15:27:01] - mig: hannity likes small government. goverment should get out of the business of X, Y, and Z is all i hear him talking about. ~a
[2009-08-12 15:22:41] - a: i would say if hannity agrees with that he has a funny way of showing it. - mig
[2009-08-12 15:22:12] - a: i'm not sure that smaller govt will ever happen, regardless of what party is in power -dave
[2009-08-12 15:21:42] - a: are you for larger govt? status-quo? -dave
[2009-08-12 15:18:04] - what a surprise. dave wants smaller government. i think sean hannity probably agrees. ~a
[2009-08-12 15:15:41] - xpovos: yeah, therein lies the problem - no one wants to be the person to cut things, because that makes people upset! Unfortunately, this means that we're the culprits as much as anyone since "we're" the ones who are getting upset -dave
[2009-08-12 15:14:10] - vinnie: i would agree with you and in fact would go one step further and say that I wish that government was smaller in general. Like I wish they would get rid of social security too while they're at it -dave
[2009-08-12 14:59:41] - mig: Political capitalism at work. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-12 14:54:50] - paul: start making those t-shirts. - mig
[2009-08-12 14:51:24] - xpovos: I'm well aware of that. - mig
[2009-08-12 14:47:03] - mig: That's because all the parties involved have special interest groups to ensure it's not their slice of the pie that's getting cut. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-12 14:45:50] - Neither is really focused on actually trying to reduce costs. Republicans really just want the status quo, and all democrats are really interested in subsidizing health care so it magically becomes "affordable". - mig
[2009-08-12 14:44:55] - vinnie: that goes a bit back to my points that i stated earlier that I feel tend to get glossed over by democrats and republicans whenever this subject is brought up. - mig
[2009-08-12 14:36:19] - vinnie: "I actually agree with Paul." I like how people say that as if it's something so out of the ordinary.
-Paul[2009-08-12 14:35:24] - vinnie: In terms of cost savings in health care, this is an insignificant thing. The real bulk of the money is Medicare. That's the iceberg. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-12 14:34:35] - this may be an unrealistic achievement, but the way I see it, right now we as a society pay for catastrophic health-care for people, and it seems like there could be more focus on preventative care that keeps people healthier and saves money. I guess that's the real goal I'm interested in. I think I'd only be for a gov't plan if it saved taxpayers money - vinnie
[2009-08-12 14:30:57] - it's funny that you all never talked about the practicalities of nationalized health care, more the idealistic part. I actually agree with Paul on the idealistic part. it's definitely not something this country needs. I'm actually most interested in health care as a cost-saving measure - vinnie
[2009-08-12 14:26:43] - paul: yeah, from Hopkins. Not sure what school she went to in Toronto -dave
[2009-08-12 14:09:30] - paul: you're right i did. aaron! i meant to address that to you. ~a
[2009-08-12 14:08:55] - Dave: That's a great point that I somehow missed in your first post. She is getting her masters in Public Health for the US, I assume? -Paul
[2009-08-12 14:00:15] - Paul: not only that, but they're in public health - not like some random canadian -dave
[2009-08-12 13:54:47] - Dave: Not very often. -Paul
[2009-08-12 13:50:35] - paul: yeah, but how often do you get a chance to talk to someone who has firsthand knowledge of that kinda thing? -dave
[2009-08-12 13:48:17] - Dave: Heh, that's certainly a fair point. I wouldn't put too much stock into what one person thinks, though, because you could probably pick some other random Canadian who has a completely different opinion. -Paul
[2009-08-12 13:42:47] - paul: i met this girl from toronto who is getting her Masters of Public Health at Hopkins last night. I soooo wanted her to explain what she thought were the pros/cons of Canadian healthcare vs US, but she cop'ed out and said she didn't know much about the US system -dave
[2009-08-12 13:18:48] - paul: I believe nissan and someone else are making entirely electric cars with a 100 mi limit before recharge -dave
[2009-08-12 13:16:36] - paul: yeah, tho i think it gets 60 mpg when using the engine -dave
[2009-08-12 13:08:52] - Damn enter key... anyway, the problem is that you have to get people to call the google number to leave voicemails, it'll forward to your other numbers fine, but it can't dig down and grab calls directed to the original numbers, so it's not working great for me yet. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-12 13:08:03] - aaron: I hate checking voicemail too, and I have my Google Voice invite (requested early just for that feature). It's not as awesome as I'd like.
[2009-08-12 13:07:24] - More of what we were talking about yesterday. http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/ -- Xpovos
[2009-08-12 13:00:13] - http://www.google.com/googlevoice/about.html hmm the official google voice site has a more comprehensive feature list - aaron
[2009-08-12 12:59:11] - a: I believe you meant to address that to Aaron.
-Paul[2009-08-12 12:56:23] - the coolest thing imho is that it can send you an e-mail or text message transcribing a voice mail. i hate checking voice mail! - aaron
prev <-> next