prev <-> next
[2009-08-25 09:23:53] - paul: you put a space in "inaction" - vinnie
[2009-08-24 20:09:30] - a: That sucks. I would definitely go with you if I wasn't already busy. I want to see this astro-turf in action. -Paul
[2009-08-24 17:10:19] - paul: i probably won't go unless i can find someone to go with. i have a thing that conflicts and i'll only go to the town hall if i feel like it's worthy of skipping my thing. ~a
[2009-08-24 17:03:27] - a: Sounds interesting, although I wonder why Howard Dean seems to be the guest of honor. Sadly, I have a football draft starting at 8pm tomorrow so I probably can't make it. Let me know how it goes. -Paul
[2009-08-24 16:57:59] - paul: y. ~a
[2009-08-24 16:52:39] - Pierce: It's online as far as I know, unless everybody is meeting somewhere and bringing their laptops along... -Paul
[2009-08-24 16:50:31] - a: http://www.correntewire.com/action_alert_health_care_town_hall_meeting_reston_virginia Is this what you're talking about? -Paul
[2009-08-24 16:39:05] - "coming to"? I thought it was online... are we supposed to be meeting somewhere to do this? - pierce
[2009-08-24 16:38:54] - ah, so i assume that means that most people won't be able to go to the town hall? ~a
[2009-08-24 16:30:12] - a: he has a fantasy football draft not a date... unless of course the girl is coming to the football draft which would be intersting. ~gurkie
[2009-08-24 16:13:21] - a: Yeah, bye week. Either word makes about as much sense, though.
-Paul[2009-08-24 16:10:23] - pierce: ok fine. enjoy your date, or whatever. ~a
[2009-08-24 15:56:54] - hah it's bye? i always thought it was buy.
~a[2009-08-24 15:32:01] - Pierce: Oh, and we have 6 bench spots, so you can draft backups in case one of your starters gets injured or has a bye week. -Paul
[2009-08-24 15:30:14] - Pierce: Finally, your team should also start a kicker and a defense. We don't draft defensive players, just defenses as a unit. So you'll draft the Redskins defense and not Albert Haynesworth, for instance. -Paul
[2009-08-24 15:29:12] - Pierce: In addition, there is a wide receiver/running back flex spot and a wide receiver/tight end flex spot. You can start either a wide receiver or a running back (or tight end) in the appropriate flex spots. -paul
[2009-08-24 15:28:24] - Pierce: Each week, your team can (and definitely should always) start 2 quarterbacks, 3 wide receivers, 2 running backs, 1 tight end. -Paul
[2009-08-24 15:27:02] - Pierce: Actually, that's a good point, you need to make sure you draft the positions properly. Our league is set up a bit differently. -Paul
[2009-08-24 15:26:09] - Pierce: Depends on how much you want to put into it. Yahoo will already have a list of players ranked in the order that they think the players are worth. You can't go too wrong just drafting the highest ranked remaining player while also filling your positions. -Paul
[2009-08-24 15:04:03] - so what do I need to know for this fantasy football draft, assuming I have a passable knowledge of football and almost no knowledge of any current players and no prior experience with fantasy leagues? - pierce
[2009-08-24 14:02:47] - a: can't go tomorrow, sorry. - pierce
[2009-08-24 13:42:39] - Aaron: And let's see you hold onto Brest for more than one turn before you go trumpeting your success. -Paul
[2009-08-24 13:41:57] - paul: also word ace looks ok - but anagramming 5, 6, and 7-letter words is something scrabble players do in their sleep, so probably not a lot of depth there - aaron
[2009-08-24 13:41:16] - Aaron: Waiting game is going quite well, seeing as you all will be unable to make any progress after this turn. Italy can still take three French supply centers without any resistance at all. -Paul
[2009-08-24 13:39:00] - paul: also the quest for brest is looking pretty promising! Mao -> Bre is practically guaranteed - aaron
[2009-08-24 13:37:58] - paul: how's that waiting game going for you? looks like italy is going to turn on france any moment now! - aaron
[2009-08-24 13:15:39] - paul:
~a[2009-08-24 13:11:34] - Diplomacy Peeps: I'm waiting for all of your lazy asses to post your orders.
-Paul[2009-08-24 13:08:19] - pierce: well it's tomorrow. i'm kind of on the fence because i have another thing tomorrow and i'm not sure which thing i want to do. ~a
[2009-08-24 13:07:13] - anon: your face is funny. ~a
[2009-08-24 13:02:55] - Pierce and A: You guys are too funny.
[2009-08-24 11:55:02] - aaron: http://www.precentral.net/review-word-ace Have you heard of this kind of game before? Sounds like something you might like. -paul
[2009-08-24 09:48:23] - title: Should've tried to find an alternative not-quite-right spelling for horny. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-24 00:50:11] - a: when? - pierce
[2009-08-23 22:26:04] - anybody want to go with me to a town hall in reston? i'm hoping there will be lots of hot singles. ha. ~a
[2009-08-23 16:15:57] - http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iP1GlMCOzYSi8kbAUY1lLDdqc4vAD9A70MDO0 mexico de-crimilinizes small-scale possession of drugs. - mig
[2009-08-22 14:42:26] - Pierce: You and Bryan really need to become friends since it seems like you two want to see the same movies.
I'm not terribly interested in the movie, but I think Gurkie and I are free this evening if you wanted to do something. -Paul[2009-08-21 20:00:22] - Anything going on tomorrow? Anyone want to see inglourious basterds or something? - pierce
[2009-08-21 16:47:30] - Xpovos: I think you were in Livonia because of your assault on Warsaw and I supported you into StP. -Paul
[2009-08-21 16:32:29] - How did Germany even get to StP in the first place? That's simply absurd. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-21 16:04:34] - Aaron: Also, I thought you were supposed to cede Warsaw to my control, per OUR agreement... -Paul
[2009-08-21 16:04:04] - Aaron: A ridiculous move, who would do something as stupid as letting Germany stay alive in StP?
-Paul[2009-08-21 15:32:05] - paul: well, in spring 1909 i'm either going to cede warsaw to russian control (per our agreement,) or i'm going to take sevastopol/rumania. it doesn't really make sense to go half-way. that would be like taking over all of germany's home territories... but letting him keep stp - aaron
[2009-08-21 15:05:49] - Aaron: What's so magic about Spring of 1909? -Paul
[2009-08-21 14:50:03] - vinnie: well if it's gonna happen, it'll happen in spring 1909 so you won't have to wait long
- aaron[2009-08-21 14:01:29] - maybe Aaron will do that! we'll see soon! - vinnie
[2009-08-21 14:00:38] - I take that back, Aaron could probably backstab me now and not have Paul win the game no matter what I do, but he would lose ground to Paul, assuming I'm on his side now. I think this is only possible given the game state right now, this wouldn't have been possible a few turns ago - vinnie
[2009-08-21 13:57:15] - I think a backstabbing is very risky right now. I actually thought about backstabbing Aaron much much earlier in this war against Paul, but he could have easily thrown Paul the game by removing his northern units. right now you would have to be confident that the player you're backstabbing would still "do the right thing" - vinnie
[2009-08-21 13:55:12] - a: no I think it has to be done jointly. Amy and I registered a copyright for our songs jointly, so I feel like I should know this definitively but I don't
- vinnie[2009-08-21 13:45:27] - what happens when two people own the copyright to something? (under us laws) can one of those two people distribute it however they want? can they license it however they want? ~a
[2009-08-21 13:03:25] - Aaron: I think France building fleets in Brest is extremely unlikely. I'm not sure what kind of mistakes I would have to make to allow that to happen. -Paul
[2009-08-21 12:55:47] - paul: also the MAO/STP stalemate line is only a true stalemate line if germany and france are eliminated. currently, france has the capability of building fleets in BRE to disrupt your line (farfetched i know, but we have some pretty grandiose schemes for 1909) - aaron
[2009-08-21 12:53:27] - paul: i'm not telling. - aaron
[2009-08-21 12:52:26] - aaron: I am? Where? I assume you're talking about Portugal, which is the more commonly cited stalemate position, but I think I've got a stalemate line anyway with the 4 fleets in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean area. -Paul
[2009-08-21 12:47:22] - paul: you're one unit short of the generally acknowledged stalemate line and don't you forget it! - aaron
[2009-08-21 12:40:32] - paul: you are right that my units could dissappear right now at this moment and likely no one would care, but my units are there and people have to take them into account so I don't agree that I'm really irrelevant right now. - mig
[2009-08-21 11:32:26] - mig: I would probably agree that you're pretty safe, I'm just saying you're also pretty irrelevant, and your best chance of becoming relevant is probably right now. -Paul
[2009-08-21 11:31:48] - Xpovos: True, although I'm pretty sure right now I possess one of the generally acknowledged stalemate lines, so unless I screw something up, I can live forever. -Paul
[2009-08-21 11:30:19] - Paul: Don't worry, I have faith in Aaron, he'll figure something out. The one advantage they have is that since you're still 3 away from solo victory, they actually outnumber you in units, which means if they can work together and position well they can actually push you back. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-21 11:29:49] - Paul: France can't move against me without giving up ground to you. If Austria moves against me then I'll just throw the game to you by taking it out on France, which I know he doesn't want. So I think I'm pretty safe in my position right now. - mig
[2009-08-21 11:28:08] - Xpovos: That's why I was gambling on keeping you alive, because I felt like it was better for you to stay alive and be included in a draw than to just die and be one of the few people excluded from the draw. -Paul
[2009-08-21 11:27:15] - mig: I'm pretty sure all of your units could disappear from the board right now and it wouldn't make it any easier for me to take any supply centers.
-Paul[2009-08-21 11:26:38] - I'm not sure if my efforts (and death) having the effect that instead of Paul probably eventually winning, everyone (including Paul) but Adrian and I wins is actually all that happy-making. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-21 11:26:17] - mig: *Shrug* You probably will never be in a better position to turn yourself into a contender than now, and as of right now you're probably the weakest and most expendable member of the alliance. -Paul
[2009-08-21 11:24:34] - mig: It's possible that backstabbing will give me the game, although I don't agree since I've already pointed out how hard it would be for me to get 3 supply centers that quickly. I figure at some point somebody is going to want to be on a winning team instead of just not being one of the two losers.
-Paul[2009-08-21 11:24:06] - paul: that's a great idea for me. Put you in position to be one supply center away from winning. - mig
[2009-08-21 11:18:39] - Paul: there's also the revenge factor. Anyone who gets stabbed will almost certainly throw the game to you, which will assure you of getting to 18. So there's really no motiviation right now for anybody to stab anyone else. - mig
[2009-08-21 11:17:17] - mig: Same thing with you and Dewey, you could take three of his supply centers THIS TURN, and even if Dewey immediately abandoned his front with me and went after you, the most I could gain would be Spain and Portugal. -Paul
[2009-08-21 11:15:58] - mig: Hell, Aaron could almost guarantee himself both Sevestapol and Rumania before Vinnie even knew what hit him. I would be lucky to be able to get Moscow or Warsaw before Vinnie died. -Paul
[2009-08-21 11:14:40] - mig: All I can very easily gain from Dewey is Spain and Portugal, and there's very little chance I could get even take Moscow and Warsaw, let alone Sevestapol or Rumania before Aaron would be in possession of them. -Paul
[2009-08-21 11:13:27] - mig: I would disagree. Again, you or Aaron could pretty easily back-stab each other without me gaining much at all. I even think Aaron could back stab Vinnie (or you could back stab Dewey) with me only gaining one or two supply centers at most. -Paul
[2009-08-21 11:11:03] - a: Paul is 3 supply centers away from getting a solo victory. The game ends once he gets there. In order for the backstabber to get a share of the draw they'd have to stab in such a way that engineers a stalemate the prevents Paul from getting 18 centers. There's no hope for a shared victory by anyone siding with Paul. - mig
[2009-08-21 11:10:59] - mig: Ah, public only. Not that it matters. My only options were attempting to help Paul enough where he could win (he wins, I lose) he could force some sort of draw situation that included me (insanely unlikely) or to turn against Paul. So... -- Xpovos
[2009-08-21 11:08:03] - a: there's a DIPS rating system on the site that will award you points based on a number of things. Mostly it's the number of turns you survive and whether you win or get included in a draw, with an additional modifier based on what country you play (you get more points if you play a "weaker" country like Italy or Austria). - mig
[2009-08-21 11:05:41] - mig: except that anybody that teams up with paul is assured a win. ~a
[2009-08-21 11:05:29] - mig: Maybe, I think Dewey and Vinnie might have a hard time backstabbing anybody without exposing territories for me to take over but you and Aaron could do it pretty easily. -Paul
[2009-08-21 11:04:23] - xpovos: i could be wrong but I believe the site will only give you points if you play in public games. - mig
[2009-08-21 11:02:57] - paul: I don't think anyone is going to betray anyone else at this point. Anyone who stabs now is essentially just giving the game to you, which I think at this point is clear no one wants to do that. - mig
[2009-08-21 11:02:56] - there are points? ~a
[2009-08-21 10:57:59] - Paul: Which is exactly what I wanted, except to be alive and a part of that extening my years alive points. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-21 10:50:27] - Yeah, it worked out well for Aaron, not so well for Andrew. It didn't hurt me too badly in that I ended up with the same number of supply centers, but the combination of losing territory and losing Andrew's support caused me to lose the initiative and I'm pretty much going to be on the defensive all game until somebody betrays somebody else. -Paul
[2009-08-21 10:48:47] - xpovos: well, it actually worked out pretty well. paul's going to have a hard time getting warsaw back. stp was pretty much already his - aaron
[2009-08-21 10:35:48] - a: Yeah, I attempted to work against Paul during the year, a last ditch effort to buy myself some time. I miscalculated and Paul took a territory I expected Vinnie to hold. As a result Paul killed me, while losing Warsaw to Aaron. So it was a mess. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-21 10:35:18] - a: Yeah, he led a misguided uprising against me. Needless to say he died the next turn. -Paul
[2009-08-21 10:34:53] - Paul: No, I saw it. It was kind of amusing. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-21 10:33:07] - xpovos died? ~a
[2009-08-21 10:30:28] - Xpovos: You may have missed it, but somebody submitted a draw proposal with everybody who was left right after you died.
-Paul[2009-08-21 10:27:55] - Paul: Never give up. Never accept a draw proposal! -- Xpovos
[2009-08-21 09:59:36] - Aaron: Maybe the same person who proposed the previous draw proposal and is giving it another shot since their first one was turned down? -Paul
[2009-08-21 09:52:12] - also, who cut me out of the draw proposal!!
- aaron[2009-08-21 09:48:59] - pierce: also apparently reception = perception - p. i was pretty sure you misspelled "electroperception" until you had the same misspelling twice - aaron
[2009-08-21 09:45:27] - pierce: monotremes (see also echidna for the other species) are the only mammals known to have a sense of electroreception. they locate their prey in part by detecting electric fields generated by muscular contractions. The platypus' electroreception is the most sensitive of any monotreme - aaron
[2009-08-21 09:30:28] - http://www.cnbc.com/id/32492654/ Anybody else hear about the "crasher squirrel"? -Paul
[2009-08-21 09:22:47] - Hmm, it also helps then that the algorithm doesn't scramble any 3-letter words, and barely scrambles 4-letter ones. Scrabble to the rescue. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-21 09:13:26] - although I'd bet it'd be more so if there was a restriction that consonants can only be swapped with other consonants and vowels for other vowels. I know that's part of how I "visualize" a word in my head, and I think it's why easy words like "daughter" and "presence" were so hard to get yesterday. - pierce
[2009-08-21 09:11:55] - xpovos: yeah, that's the algorithm... there was a study a while back that the first and last letters are the only ones for which placement really matters. the word remains fairly legible even if the middle letters are mixed up. it holds up pretty well in practice. - pierce
[2009-08-21 09:05:33] - Interestingly, I thought centre first, but changed it to center intentionally to mask my tendency towards British spellings. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-21 09:03:20] - aaron: I got presence pretty quickly for some reason. Why does cnrtee have to be centre not center? Is it the algorithm, first and last letters aren't scrambled? -- Xpovos
[2009-08-20 21:35:58] - a: I have no idea (re: the subtitle). -Paul
[2009-08-20 18:31:47] - "Mmenroetos (see aslo ehdcina for the ohter sepecis) are the only mlmamas kwnon to hvae a snsee of ecetroleprieotcn: they lotcae tiher pery in prat by decnteitg eceirltc flides gaeenrted by mclusuar ctaitnoonrcs. The pauptlys' errtepetlooiccen is the msot ssnievtie of any mtonemore." - pierce
[2009-08-20 17:16:09] - from the link: "The English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than another. Editors should recognize that the differences between the varieties are superficial. Cultural clashes over spelling and grammar are avoided by using the following four guidelines. ..." ~a
[2009-08-20 17:14:34] - pierce: WP:ENGVAR. ~a
[2009-08-20 17:11:34] - pierce: "centre". heh my spellchecker thinks that's misspelled. ~a
[2009-08-20 17:11:14] - it's hard when the mixed up word contains another word in it, like "goatgnk"... it's hard to look at the letters independently, your brain tries to keep "goat" intact. from context I think that's a proper noun and I don't have any idea what it might be. - pierce
[2009-08-20 17:09:12] - yeah, I didn't notice the center/centre thing. what's wikipedia's policy when it comes to words with regional spellings, like colour or centre? - pierce
[2009-08-20 17:06:48] - I did not cheat
- pierce[2009-08-20 17:06:25] - today, ?? is a center of tibetan buddhist culture and learning, with the presence of several monasteries, religious educational institutions, and centers for tibetology? - pierce
[2009-08-20 17:05:53] - aaron: ouch my brain! ~gurkie
[2009-08-20 17:05:28] - whereas cnreets can be "centers" or "centres"
- vinnie[2009-08-20 17:05:03] - it has to be "centre", not "center", which threw me off briefly - vinnie
[2009-08-20 16:43:06] - xpovos: me too, i read "pnsceree" as "epicenter" over and over, i couldn't see anything else - aaron
[2009-08-20 16:41:04] - aaron: The second one is fun because I'm getting new words out of the phonetics that are probably completely different from the scrambled words. "cnrtee" became "country" when it's probably center. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-20 16:37:24] - pierce cheated
[2009-08-20 16:36:22] - vinnie: i think you got it right. and i also don't think you know the second word (i didn't know the second word.) - aaron
[2009-08-20 16:30:02] - aaron: I got everything but the second word and I have a feeling I don't know what that word is. also, the last word is sort of funny if I got it right - vinnie
[2009-08-20 16:27:50] - pierce: and what the heck is an "organelle!" or "cytokinesis". damn you pierce! - aaron
[2009-08-20 16:26:28] - pierce: tadoy, goatgnk is a cnrtee of tebtain bidusdht cuurlte and leirnang, with the pnsceree of svreeal misotneares, roegiiuls einaductaol inoitnstutis, and cnreets for tibogtloey. - aaron
[2009-08-20 16:00:31] - pierce: I agree with 1 and 4. You're probably right about 2 and 3, but I didn't get those. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-20 15:54:48] - those are my geseuss - pierce
[2009-08-20 15:54:45] - a: huh it looks surprisingly uneventful other than that first long drop. but i guess based on the speeds you'd be travelling... it has to be pretty flat - aaron
[2009-08-20 15:53:59] - "cytokinesis", "organelles", "daughter" "containing" - pierce
[2009-08-20 15:52:50] - Not bad guess at 3x, 305 ft for Intimidator, 128 ft for Anaconda. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-20 15:47:54] - a: wow, gives you a sense of scale. Anaconda is a pretty tall coaster there at the highest point, and the giga appears to be 3x as tall. The view is going to be amazing. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-20 15:46:04] - a: I got basically the same. I have some solid guesses at some of the ? words, but would need to actually write them out to be sure. So I think there's something to it, some words are contextually easier. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-20 15:32:30] - mitosis is generally followed immediately by ?tosis, which divides the nuclei, cytoplasm, ??? and cell membrane into two ??? cells ?ing roughly equal shares of these cellular components. ~a
[2009-08-20 15:25:58] - like "gaelrenly" was pretty hard for me to understand, but i got "clotapsym" right away - aaron
[2009-08-20 15:25:01] - one of my coworkers was quoting that thing about only the first and last letters mattering in a word... so i wrote a scrambler program and tackled some wikipedia articles. it's fun to try and read them, it's funny that it's not even the long words that are difficult as much as it's words without context - aaron
[2009-08-20 15:24:08] - miiotss is gaelrenly foolelwd iadtiemmely by cinskiteyos, wcihh ddievis the nlucei, clotapsym, oglerenlas and cell mmeabrne into two dethaugr cells catnonniig ruoglhy euaql sarehs of teshe cllaluer copmnenots - aaron
[2009-08-20 15:15:52] - some pictures of the gigacoaster (computer generated). they've even got the other kd rides (like anaconda/drop zone/rebel yell/eiffel tower) in the images. ~a
[2009-08-20 15:03:21] - paul: is the sub-message about concurrent source control? usually when i get conflicts (in cvs/svn/git) i don't need to sit down with the other programmer. almost always i can figure out how to fix the conflict. ~a
[2009-08-20 14:52:04] - dave: yeah, but eeprom is speeding up. technically, ssds are eeprom, right? ssds are pretty fast compared to hard-drives. ~a
[2009-08-20 14:32:45] - a: eeprom is drastically slower access time than RAM -dave
[2009-08-20 14:26:10] - d
[2009-08-20 14:20:10] - ah so yes that's ram. maybe eeprom was too expensive back then or something. ~a
[2009-08-20 14:17:54] - pierce: Yep, that's it. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-20 14:10:17] - if you're referring to the technology in old console cartridges, that was RAM (example) - pierce
[2009-08-20 14:08:02] - ummm. what is a battery powered rom? is there an example of what you're talking about? i.e. are you talking about some gaming thing? ~a
[2009-08-20 14:05:55] - a: So battery powered ROMs are actually just RAM? -- Xpovos
[2009-08-20 14:01:23] - hence non-volatile memory (*prom) vs volatile memory (ram). ~a
[2009-08-20 14:00:06] - aarron/xpovos: eeproms do not require batteries to store state (none of the proms require power to store state). ~a
[2009-08-20 13:54:30] - aaron: I've no idea. Out of my depth too. Based on limited reading, it doesn't look like it. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-20 13:46:55] - a: if the same ip address sends two messages, and the levenstein distance between the two messages is less than my favorite number (let's say 10) it should keep only the latest one!
- aaron[2009-08-20 13:45:53] - xpovos: huh i don't know a ton about electronics, do EEPROMs require batteries to store state? - aaron
[2009-08-20 13:45:39] - xpovos: huh i don't know a ton about electronics, do EEPROMs
[2009-08-20 13:43:32] - aaron: Both, actually, I think. There were memory card expansions in the controller, but rarely used or needed. Most cartredges could carry all the storage they needed. So they must have had batteries. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-20 13:41:11] - xpovos:
come to think of it, how did the n64 games keep track of your state? i don't think they used a battery system - but they also didn't have memory cards back then... to wikipedia! - aaron[2009-08-20 13:39:14] - I'm always a little skeptical when I hear ridiculously high failure rates for electronics. I think a lot of times the numbers are hugely exagerated. -paul
[2009-08-20 13:36:13] - aaron: I take your point. My NES is still working, after all. Though my N64 seems dead... -- Xpovos
[2009-08-20 13:35:56] - honestly i've been really impressed by how long my nes, gamecube, and my N64 have worked. somehow the battery in my Zelda 2 cartridge still works, and according to the nintendo power, they only built those batteries to last like 2-4 years - aaron
[2009-08-20 13:33:19] - xpovos: no, this kind of failure rate is pretty unprecedented. it would destroy the retro gaming scene if the median life expectancy of any console, ever, was only 3 years - aaron
[2009-08-20 13:30:20] - xpovos: i guess I was thinking a little more long-term than that. It seems this could be some good fodder for the competitors to use when we hit the next gen consoles. - mig
[2009-08-20 13:16:04] - mig: If their alternative was to be in the same boat as the PS3? I think MS would make the same decisions again in a heartbeat. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-20 13:14:55] - I guess I can understand now why they were able to sell it on launch with such a low price tag but I do have to wonder if it cost them more in the long run cleaning up after the resulting mess. - mig
[2009-08-20 13:11:25] - a: Not easily, or without voiding warranties, etc. Which is the point. All it takes is one piece to fail, which in 3+ years is not totally unexpected. Yes, the PS3 and Wii have better life expectancies, but their failure rate is non-zero, so it's not like they're perfect. Xbox360 is definitely the king, though. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-20 13:09:12] - i guess i'm used to the computer mentality, but i assume that any part that breaks can be replaced. ~a
[2009-08-20 13:03:51] - 3 years is not bad for console hardware? i beg to differ. 3 years seems pretty bad to me. ~a
[2009-08-20 13:00:50] - xpovos: that is ture, but also keep in mind the wii and the ps3 have been out for comparable lengths of time. - mig
[2009-08-20 13:00:09] - to rephrase, that first part, i meant to say the 54% failure rate was thought by some to be lower than what the actual figure might be. - mig
[2009-08-20 13:00:07] - mig: Yeah, no one is denying that the failure rate is atrocious, but it's also spread over a longer period of time now. Paul's didn't break down until more than 3 years, which is not all that bad for console hardware. But the big issue was rushed to manufacture with insufficient testing. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-20 12:57:10] - xpovos: i'm not sure, I guess what was kind of alarming was people thinking the 54% figure was probably not low enough for the actual. I realize that MS has made quite a few strides in getting these issues fixed (Paul's got fixed in relatively short order when it broke), but for hardware, that failure rate is downright alarming. - mig
[2009-08-20 12:53:48] - xpovos: 52 is lame. ~a
[2009-08-20 12:51:10] - mig: Is this after the latest update? I'd read that since it's a low level boot zone update (prevent some anti-DRM hacking) that a failure there is irrecoverable, and the process has about a 1/1000 failure rate. Ew. Luckily mine went through fine. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-20 12:50:05] - a: 52 > 26!
-- Xpovos[2009-08-20 12:49:36] - *posts -> points. Similar, but sufficiently different to warrant correction. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-20 12:49:33] - pierce: bah, that's what i get for looking at the message board in lowercase mode. ~a
[2009-08-20 12:49:30] - http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/176741.asp yeash, 54% failure rate on the Xbox 360. - mig
[2009-08-20 12:49:11] - pierce: I don't disagree with any of your posts, but clearly they think it's no longer in their business' best interests to partake of the program, so that says something, even if they're lying through their teeth about the reason. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-20 12:47:46] - pierce: there's upside i suppose assuming they get reimbursed. NY dealers don't appear to believe the upside is there for them, which is why they're pulling out of the program. - mig
[2009-08-20 12:39:44] - and if the burden of this temporary cost is really so crushing, I wouldn't be surprised if they could get a pretty low-interest loan against the vouchers. I haven't heard about an epidemic of rejected clunker applications so unless you assume the government's going to welch on the deal it's a pretty safe basis for a loan. - pierce
[2009-08-20 12:35:38] - mig: but that's always how they do business, counting on monthly payments down the line (that they might get stiffed on). fact is, they were going to have a lot more trouble with the day-to-day expenses before this program and it's only "detrimental" if you ignore the upside. - pierce
[2009-08-20 12:26:22] - a: order of magnitude? - pierce
[2009-08-20 12:01:55] - and monthly payments from their customers start being made (hope the guy doesn't stiff you!). Dealers still have day to day expenses, and taking 4-4.5k from each sale for such a longer period of time could be pretty detremental to their business. - mig
[2009-08-20 11:59:19] - pierce: he sold the cars, but he doesn't automagically get the full value of the sale right away. I would imagine that he's getting only the down payments which are most likely gets eaten by the voucher he has to front the money for. So cars leave his lot and the dealer essentially gets nothing until they get reimbursed (hope that app doesn't get rejected!) ...
[2009-08-20 11:56:46] - what's an oom? ~a
[2009-08-20 11:50:20] - (assuming you round to the nearest OOM) - pierce
[2009-08-20 11:45:51] - by the order of magnitude logic, it'd have been a reasonable mistake even if he'd said $1m even when he meant $325,000 which doesn't seem to follow from common sense. - pierce
[2009-08-20 11:41:26] - a: I didn't say he was off by an order of magnitude, although wikipedia says "the order of magnitude of a number can be defined in terms of the common logarithm, usually as the integer part of the logarithm, obtained by truncation" in which case $720,000 is an order of magnitude off from $1m. - pierce
[2009-08-20 11:31:54] - "The scrap value, however minimal, will be in addition to the rebate, and not in place of the rebate." (from wp). interesting, i wonder how much that accounts for, because it looks like the dealer gets to keep that amount too. ~a
[2009-08-20 11:26:35] - pierce: gah $1m is on the same order of magnitude (base 10 or base 2) as $.7m. ~a
[2009-08-20 11:09:53] - so forgive me if I don't shed great big tears for this guy's tragic lot in life. - pierce
[2009-08-20 11:08:51] - and let's keep in mind that it's not even a cost! it's a loan that's just taking a while to be repaid, but even if only half of the clunker trades were due to the C4C program that's a mfing amazing interest rate he's getting. - pierce
[2009-08-20 11:07:15] - assuming he gave out the maximum voucher value for the high end quoted number of clunkers, he's "sitting" with $720,000 out. and let's keep in mind that this cost doesn't exist in a vacuum... he sold 150 to 160 cars in large part as a result of this program. - pierce
[2009-08-20 11:02:33] - let's do some math: "'We're sitting with $1 million out,' said Jim Bee, general manager of the Toyota of Bowie dealership" / "people who scrap their gas guzzlers can get a voucher worth up to $4,500" != "He said he has taken in between 150 and 160 clunkers" - pierce
[2009-08-20 10:31:15] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/19/AR2009081903929.html?hpid=sec-business car dealers in new york quitting on cash for clunkers program. - mig
[2009-08-19 14:19:44] - and keep in mind that for it to be "closer to a vote" they not only want to have the votes already decided on the floor, but the committee has to have the votes to send it there. - pierce
[2009-08-19 14:05:40] - mig: it's not as clear-cut as you imply. even if almost all of the blue dogs are bluffing, it only takes one who's serious to break reform altogether. if any democrats join the filibuster then obama has to hope for a moderate republican to defect and that's where the republicans' crazy solidarity comes into the equation. - pierce
[2009-08-19 13:56:25] - pierce: i don't necessarily believe the blue dogs are bluffing. if the Obama administration believed that the reform bill would be going a lot closer to a vote. if they thought they had enough yes votes for it they wouldn't be backing off of the public option the way they are doing so now. - mig
[2009-08-19 13:51:59] - oh pierce sort of mentioned that already - vinnie
[2009-08-19 13:48:08] - xpovos: that's a good point about why progressives would be more divided, and I agree with Pierce's point that at least recently, the democrats have been way more divided than republicans. there's even been some democratic senators that have opposed the proposed health care bills because they don't do enough! - vinnie
[2009-08-19 13:45:06] - I don't think obama has given up on the public option like people are saying, but I think he realizes it's no sure thing and is hedging his bets so that he still gets something even if it fails. - pierce
[2009-08-19 13:42:05] - and the obama administration has been laying the groundwork for "reform is still a good thing even if it doesn't have the public option". I think the house progressives would have a lot to lose opposing any bill containing any semi-reasonable reform. - pierce
[2009-08-19 13:40:34] - I think both groups are bluffing pretty hard. the blue dogs might try to keep the bill from coming to the floor with a public option, but if it does then I have to assume they'd vote "yes" on it rather than join a republican filibuster (barring some extreme circumstance like a party switch) - pierce
[2009-08-19 13:37:38] - pierce: Yeah, and even the Congressional blue dogs are feeling the barking of their constituancy who are confused and scared by the idea. Those 2-year election cycles come fast. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-19 13:37:18] - going on their public platforms, it'd be impossible to satisfy both groups, so the obama administration is either doing some really elaborate inside baseball stuff or it's flailing around not knowing what to do (and it's pretty impossible to distinguish those two behaviors) - pierce
[2009-08-19 13:34:35] - anyway, the problem on health care is that you have one part of the coalition, the blue dogs, opposing it in the senate where the democratic majority is much more tenuous due to the filibuster, and another group (house progressives) taking a public hardline against the compromises that the blue dogs want. - pierce
[2009-08-19 13:32:06] - xpovos: interesting, I'd never put it in those terms but that makes sense to an extent. - pierce
[2009-08-19 13:28:01] - pierce: It's the nature of progressives. They want to progress, but each in their own direction. Conservatives just want to stay put, that's pretty unifying. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-19 13:25:17] - but the democrats have a lot more interests under their umbrella. gay rights, minority rights, women's rights, trade unions, gun control advocates, the poor, the disestablishmentarianists... for one reason or another, a lot of these groups frequently find themselves at odds with each other. - pierce
[2009-08-19 13:21:44] - (insofar as objecting to that spending is always framed as being "soft" on terror or crime or whatever) - pierce
[2009-08-19 13:20:48] - I think the democrats are more of a coalition than the republicans. the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives don't have a ton of contradictory viewpoints, mostly things like defense spending and police spending (drug war) which are often considered exceptions to principles of small government. - pierce
[2009-08-19 13:17:47] - dave: I would be perhaps be a little hopeful about Obama, but he's been engaging in way too much political doublespeak about whether he cares about the public option issue for me to really give him any sort of kudos. - mig
[2009-08-19 13:16:14] - mig: Most of that was referendum against Bush more than anything else, though. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-19 13:12:01] - paul: yeah I've been reading that too. Essentially if the Senate or House were presented with a bill that included a public option, there would simply not be enough votes in favor for it to pass is what seems to be the issue. - mig
[2009-08-19 13:07:55] - Dave: From what I've heard, the blue dog dems have been giving Obama a hard time because they don't want the public option because it's too fiscally irresponsible. That's why he has had to waver on his commitment to it. -Paul
[2009-08-19 13:03:38] - xpovos: i thought there was a fair amount of public ugliness during the end of the Bush and leading up to last year's election. - mig
[2009-08-19 12:52:30] - http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Womans-House-Mistakenly-Auctioned-by-Bank-53583357.html The headline covers it, but the article is good for a read. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-19 12:46:57] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urNyg1ftMIU Felcia Day -- Do You Want to Date my Avatar? -- Xpovos
[2009-08-19 12:29:26] - paul: and I would not have characterized blue dog dems as far left -dave
[2009-08-19 12:28:54] - Paul: were the blue dog dems giving him problems on this bill? I know they've made a stand on some things. The article seemed to imply that it was people on the far left that were insisting that the public option was the only way to go -dave
[2009-08-19 11:57:19] - Paul: Yeah, but somehow the Reuplican coalition seems to trundle along without quite as much public ugliness. Of course, neither side is really getting what they want, even when they're in power, so-- who knows? -- Xpovos
[2009-08-19 11:49:35] - Xpovos:The Republicans are kinda the same way. I keep waiting for the small government conservatives and the social conservatives to have their messy divorce. -Paul
[2009-08-19 11:47:51] - Dave: I've been pleasantly surprised by the so-called group of blue dog democrats, I think they're the ones who have been giving Obama so many problems. -Paul
[2009-08-19 11:45:16] - dave: That doesn't surprise me much. The Democratic congressional majority right now is honestly more like a European style coalition. They agreed on just enough to get themselves elected into power, and now are squabbling over the things that they hate about each other. Pelosi is supposed to be able to control that, but she's lost a lot of credibility. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-19 11:42:27] - and it seems rather bizarre that one of his problems if fighting with his own party in trying to push that idea -dave
[2009-08-19 11:41:45] - and I must say I've been impressed with what I've read about Obama, mainly that he doesn't care whether there's a public option or not, just as long as people get insured and costs are driven down -dave
[2009-08-19 11:40:55] - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/18/AR2009081803449.html interesting ideas other than creating govt health plan to improve health care costs -dave
[2009-08-19 11:33:42] - Gurkie: Yeah, I was going to say, the big reason I thought the article was so funny was because it seemed to draw so many conclusions from what seemed to be a relatively straightforward correlation. -Paul
[2009-08-19 11:33:16] - Also not covered: a good definition of 'gamer' or at least what they used for the study. A person who plays video games at all? Or someone who plays at least 10 hours a week? Totally different categories of people. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-19 11:30:22] - siigh, i wrote my post then looked at the article again and noted the title says "playing leads to ‘lower extraversion’ in adult gamers" and I thought it didnt say anything like that... oops. ~gurkie
[2009-08-19 11:29:06] - Xpovos: also I agree with you on the correlation or causation, but I didnt think the article made any claims as to which the study showed. I thought it was saying that the trend was that adult gamers were ____ not trying to make the assertion that because they are gamers they are depressed, fat, and 35... ~gurkie
[2009-08-19 11:28:32] - i'm guessing that you already have a control group in a correlation study. or in other words, "control group" doesn't mean the same thing in an experiment as it does in the article. but again, i'm only guessing. ~a
[2009-08-19 11:25:39] - gurkie: Good call on the control group, but mig is probably in favor of CA instead because you have a much larger population, and therefore can get a better sample, both in size and other factors. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-19 11:15:30] - mig: why would california have made more sense? did you see the reasons they picked for using seattle? I may agree about spreading it out but I dont necessarily think that would have changed the results, assuming of course they actually did have a control group.~gurkie
[2009-08-19 11:14:05] - vinnie: it looked to me like they were saying they compared the results of gamers vs non gamers in seattle. ~gurkie
[2009-08-19 11:01:49] - I just thought the article was funny, and didn't really think much more of it than that. -Paul
[2009-08-19 10:55:54] - It's like me doing a study in New York and saying the average american is a rude loud-mouthed profanity spewing jerk. - mig
[2009-08-19 10:53:43] - call me cynical but it just seems to me the study was engineered to get the results that they wanted. Using California for the study would have made more sense to me. Or at least spreading the study to several different areas. - mig
[2009-08-19 10:49:43] - actually... it has a photograph of her and now i feel guilty about saying that - aaron
[2009-08-19 10:49:20] - i bet the average msnbc columnist is fat - aaron
[2009-08-19 10:47:50] - as far as the fat thing, you could probably say "average x is fat", where x is any hobby/occupation which burns little/no calories - aaron
[2009-08-19 10:47:21] - aaron: That's probably the mean, and they raised the mean significantly by cutting their threshold for gamers off at 19. Still, it probably is a little higher than I think most people would guess. -- Xpovos
[2009-08-19 10:46:25] - Paul: I love articles like that. It's a great time to discuss correlation and causation. Particularly for this one. Does the video game cause depression, or does the depression casue the sedentary life and video games? -- Xpovos
[2009-08-19 10:41:16] - paul: 35 seems really really high, based on my experience online with LittleBigPlanet and GTA4 - aaron
[2009-08-19 10:26:10] - Vinnie: Not sure. -Paul
[2009-08-19 10:23:24] - paul: I noticed the survey was done in Seattle, which has a higher incidence of depression compared to most of the country. I wonder if they are comparing gamers there to non-gamers there - vinnie
[2009-08-19 10:02:25] - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32463904/ns/technology_and_science-games/wid/11915829>1=40006 Average gamer is 35, fat and bummed. -Paul
[2009-08-19 09:20:47] - aaron: No kidding, the margins on audio/visual cables at Best Buy must be outrageous. -Paul
[2009-08-19 09:18:25] - also i think it's funny that amazon.com says "you'll save 100%", it's pretty rare to see a sale for 100% off - aaron
[2009-08-19 09:17:38] - i remember when i bought my ps3 and saw the ps3 hdmi cables for $65, i was like "man, what a ripoff" and i found an hdmi cable in the a/v department for $55 so i got that one... man how do they rationalize charging that much for a digital cable... it's not even an analog cable where quality matters, it's digital. it 100% works or it 100% doesn't - aaron
[2009-08-19 09:16:12] - also, if you need to get an hdmi cable for your PS3, get it here for %99.91 off what you'll pay in stores - aaron
[2009-08-19 00:10:29] - ps3's being reduced to $300, new 120gb slim model coming out in a few weeks. - pierce
[2009-08-18 12:36:44] - pierce: Southern tip of Florida? -- Xpovos
[2009-08-18 01:24:52] - where's my emmy, man?! - pierce
[2009-08-17 16:09:15] - dave: i would guess that protectionism is part of it (certainly it would be in US drug companies interest to push for such a ban), but I think it might have to do with this government's overzealous desire to regulate what people put in their bodies more than anything else. - mig
[2009-08-17 14:04:32] - mig: so perhaps it's a protectionist sort of thing? where we want to give local companies a better competitive edge? -dave
[2009-08-17 14:03:37] - mig: although general food like beef etc has to have the same sort of problems, and we certainly important food. So I'm not sure what the big difference is, if any -dave
[2009-08-17 14:03:03] - mig: ahh, i see what you mean. a complete ban on drugs does seem to be somewhat overkill. The argument has to be (and I don't know how much I believe in it) that we have a fairly rigorous regulation environment here, and drugs created outside that environment could potentially be dangerous -dave
[2009-08-17 13:56:58] - in fact, the opponents of drug important in this country have used the argument that imported drugs are somehow "unsafe" (nevermind people have been using those same drugs safely in other countries) as their main reason for keeping things the way they are, not IP related issues. -mig
[2009-08-17 13:53:14] - not understanding the current law correctly, the ban we currently have is on importing any drugs from other countries, period. - mig
prev <-> next