prev <-> next
[2009-12-18 15:57:31] - vinnie: by the way, the Wonder Girls have a song called "Tell Me" in PIU NX2 (not to be confused with Tell Me Tell Me Tell Me in DDR 3rd Mix) - aaron
[2009-12-18 15:35:45] - yay! Bryan Singer is coming back to the X-Men franchise! http://www.avclub.com/articles/ratner-be-gone-bryan-singer-reups-with-professor-x%2C36509/ - pierce
[2009-12-18 14:45:20] - a: Well, I made my comment some time ago, but it decided to show up in a relevant, but inappropriate spot.
Insert it after your comment to pierce and it works a little better. -- Xpovos[2009-12-18 14:38:59] - federal laws? if the price of the dollar suddenly becomes worthless, don't you think the public is going to have bigger things to worry about? ~a
[2009-12-18 14:36:18] - a: Defacement of currency is a federal crime. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-18 14:32:46] - pierce: you're missing the point, less than 1% of the population needs to start doing it for it to have a real effect on further inflation. plus with the price of zinc on the rise, and the hypothetical-worthlessness of the penny, you can make money doing it pretty easily. ~a
[2009-12-18 14:17:57] - mig: even if we melted down every penny in the country, it would only be about four pounds of copper/zinc per person, offset even further by the cost of turning penny material into a useful metal. - pierce
[2009-12-18 14:15:10] - mig: while it may or may not be technically possible for the average household to melt pennies, it doesn't seem even close to realistic that that would be a practical source of income if the dollar plummeted. the effort involved in accumulating pennies for that purpose would dwarf the value gained from melting them down. - pierce
[2009-12-18 14:05:12] - if say, the dollar suddenly became worthless. - mig
[2009-12-18 14:05:00] - if the economy did take a very huge nosedive, that's certainly a very real possibility. - mig
[2009-12-18 13:59:15] - a: Could the average household melt pennies? I mean, I'm not sure what the melting point of copper-plated zinc is, but I'm not sure I want to find out. - Stephen
[2009-12-18 13:54:21] - a: yes, which is a good point. I guess the argument holds a little water. - pierce
[2009-12-18 13:34:12] - pierce: assuming people don't start melting them down. ~a
[2009-12-18 13:30:35] - mig: my name is pokey the penguin and i love chess. it is like ballet only with more explosions. ~a
[2009-12-18 13:14:59] - as an aside, i still find pokey the penguin incredibly hilarious. - mig
[2009-12-18 12:29:28] - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126040517376983621.html Housing market news, I haven't posted that in a while. Strategic defaults create 'stealth stimulus'. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-18 12:24:33] - I still think it should be discontinued, but the "it costs more to make than it's worth" argument doesn't hold water, though it is funny. - pierce
[2009-12-18 12:23:48] - yeah, the deceptive thing about the penny is that even though it costs more than $0.01 to make, it's not a losing proposition because the value of a penny is measured in its circulation over time rather than its one-time face value. - pierce
[2009-12-18 11:26:17] - Paul: Also according to the Treasury, they're still making money on the penny. No idea how out of date the FAQ is, but they claim $24M in profit on penny production. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-18 11:23:40] - Paul: The Treasury specifically says they're not intended for circulation. They can't help if some are, but if you demanded only that, you can bet they'd find that illegal. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-18 11:23:25] - a: On one level, I agree that keeping the penny in circulation (especially since it now costs more than a penny to make one) is foolish, but a part of me also likes it sticking around just so we all have a constant reminder of just how much the currency has inflated. -Paul
[2009-12-18 11:22:17] - Xpovos: Actually, that does bring about a good point, what if I said I only accepted American Eagle coins as payment? -Paul
[2009-12-18 11:18:59] - aaron: that would be sweet but it won't happen. there would be a public backlash. only a minority of the population (me being part of the minority) would see it as a good thing. ~a
[2009-12-18 11:15:28] - xpovos: oh! that's interesting, i always wondered about that. so pennies - i mean if enough business just banded together and said - we're not accepting pennies anymore, that would be legal? interesting - aaron
[2009-12-18 11:04:24] - Xpovos: Interesting. So everybody has to accept federal reserve notes, but it's their choice as to what form they accept them in (check, small bills, etc)? I suppose that makes sense. -Paul
[2009-12-18 10:54:10] - Paul: Nope, they are legal tender, but can be refused by anyone for pretty much any reason. http://www.treasury.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml#q1 -- Xpovos
[2009-12-18 10:44:34] - Xpovos: Well, that's somewhat irrelevant, isn't it? Since they're not paying the IRS in circulating currency, but paying their employees. Besides, isn't that blatantly illegal? I thought legal tender laws stipulated that federal reserve notes had to be accepted by anybody. -Paul
[2009-12-18 10:41:59] - Ah, hell. They shot half my theory to bits. The IRS is now accepting cash. WTF. When did that happen? -- Xpovos
[2009-12-18 10:39:13] - Paul: I anticipated that. The answer is a undergradate thesis sized response. Not suitable for the message board. Short version, no, because face value is irrelevant to the IRS because they don't accept circulating currency. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-18 10:33:38] - Xpovos: But in this case, couldn't you claim that you were paying them in cash and not in property which has a higher value? -Paul
[2009-12-18 10:28:56] - The lawyers involved are trying to get Kahre off of additional criminal charges for fraud, and succeeded because of an inability to prove intent. He's still liable for all the taxable moneys, and probably penalties. And he may still go to jail. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-18 10:27:31] - http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html#_Toc224375584 "All compensation for personal services, no matter what the form of payment, must be included in gross income. This includes salary or wages paid in cash, as well as the value of property and other economic benefits received because of services performed." emph. added. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-18 10:10:05] - Paul: That's why I really want to go find my other sources. I guess it's back to Google and the blog. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-18 10:04:00] - Xpovos: Honestly, I think he legally is in pretty good standing. Sure, he was clearly trying to evade taxes, but I would think legal tender laws would be pretty solidly behind him, as long as the treasury continues to insist on assigning ridiculous values to their gold coins. -Paul
[2009-12-18 10:02:31] - Xpovos: I thought he had actually gotten acquited because it was decided that the US Treasury rules were too confusing or whatever. -Paul
[2009-12-18 09:43:57] - ... but all the articles I can find now are the "Liberty Mavens" harping about how he's a folk hero. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-18 09:39:01] - Unfortunately, looking back now, I can't find the articles I used back then at all. He got nailed for this. Which I was mildly disappointed in, because he makes a good point, but he was also clearly evading taxes, so it's not surprising. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-18 09:17:22] - Paul: That's definitely the same guy. I'll e-mail you some files that I saved when I was doing research on this back in 2007. It's not as comprehensive as I remember (I didn't save everything), but it was fun. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-18 09:14:56] - Xpovos: Wait, who got acquited? The guys you were thinking about or the guys from that article? -Paul
[2009-12-17 21:12:40] - Paul: Interesting, I think those are the same guys, but they didn't get acquited. I'll have to go digging, because I found the case interesting, I saved some of the data... but it's at work. So, I'll post tomorrow. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-17 17:20:53] - Xpovos: Well, that article refers to an old case, so it might not have been litigated at the time.
-Paul[2009-12-17 17:15:23] - mostly because i want to see ava-something with pierce and company - aaron
[2009-12-17 17:15:03] - i'll share paul's optimism and say four inches - aaron
[2009-12-17 16:46:40] - i just hope i'm able to drive out of town on sunday morning. or, hell, i hope i'm able to drive to/from your house on saturday night. ~a
[2009-12-17 16:44:10] - two inches is not much different from 8 cm - vinnie
[2009-12-17 16:42:10] - Paul: That one's already been litigated, someone's lawyers aren't paying attention. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-17 16:41:45] - $1! - vinnie
[2009-12-17 16:39:30] - a: Nah, whoever is closest "wins", even if they go over. It seems silly for someone to lose if they say 11" and there's only 10", but the winner said 8 cm. - Stephen
[2009-12-17 16:32:35] - are we doing highest-without-going-over rules? i.e. the price is right. ~a
[2009-12-17 16:16:22] - Stephen: Call me skeptical, but I don't think it'll be much. I say two inches. -Paul
[2009-12-17 16:02:10] - http://www.lvrj.com/news/46074037.html Employer offers to pay employees in $50 gold coins (that are worth much more in terms of their precious metals) in order to avoid taxes. -Paul
[2009-12-17 16:01:33] - stephen: 8cm this weekend (saturday + sunday). ~a
[2009-12-17 16:01:21] - Aaron: Yeah, they're starting to predict quite the winter storm. - Stephen
[2009-12-17 15:46:32] - stephen: on saturday? - aaron
[2009-12-17 15:02:38] - Anyone want to make predictions on the amount of snow we get? - Stephen
[2009-12-17 13:57:28] - The intertubes are full of such flotsam. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAu74d4fGt0 -- Xpovos
[2009-12-17 10:14:57] - xpovos: we use jquery on some projects, although i've never used it myself - aaron
[2009-12-17 10:10:12] - Anyone used jQuery? It came to my attention recently, but I'm having some difficulty making heads/tails of it. It's simpler AJAX? I like that. But I can't read it. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-16 15:28:24] - far-sighted is an anagram of fart-sighed
[2009-12-16 15:27:40] - but yeah those categorizations are hilariously improper. still, #17!! take that, religion - aaron
[2009-12-16 15:27:29] - ...far-sighted so that gave me a major headache. -amy
[2009-12-16 15:27:20] - i actually don't have much of an opinion of Titanic. I didn't really like it but I could say that about probably 80% of movies I watch. Also it was hard to enjoy bc the theatre was packed (even though we watched it several months after it came out -- it was so popular ppl were going back to watch it 2nd, 3rd, 4th times) that we had to sit in the front and i'm... -amy
[2009-12-16 15:26:59] - xpovos: aw cmon there's lots of geography, there's like, four worlds named after "Earth" - aaron
[2009-12-16 15:17:20] - mig: Weird. Nope, I can't explain that one. At all. Nor can I really see it being called Educational, and certainly not Historical. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-16 15:03:07] - http://www.amazon.com/Rio-Grande-Games-13072-Galaxy/dp/B000Y9P74G/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=toys-and-games&qid=1260993686&sr=8-3
[2009-12-16 15:03:01] - I was poking around amazon and found that race for the galaxy is categorized as a top selling "religious" game on amazon. - mig
[2009-12-16 14:58:13] - you know what part of Titanic was totally unnecessary (imo)? all the parts where they are in the modern day fishing for the necklace. they could have cut like 20 minutes off that movie easily - vinnie
[2009-12-16 14:54:21] - actually my timeline is a little off, whoops. looks like clooney turned around after Batman and Robin (not inclusive) - vinnie
[2009-12-16 14:51:56] - a: ack, I think I misunderstood what Miguel meant, I wrote it before his clarifications. I thought he meant he started liking Leo in Titanic and thereafter. I thought Clooney really turned around with Ocean's Eleven. he has had a great career since that movie, inclusive of that movie - vinnie
[2009-12-16 14:45:28] - a: ocean's 11 certainly didn't but the movies afterwords might have. - mig
[2009-12-16 14:39:13] - vinnie: by "same" did you mean that ocean's eleven ruined clooney's reputation? or did you mean something else? ~a
[2009-12-16 14:36:24] - vinnie: i agree, although i didn't really notice the length back in the day - i might if i watched it again - aaron
[2009-12-16 14:36:10] - and i stand by my opinion that Titanic was a boring piece of garbage. - mig
[2009-12-16 14:36:01] - same with George Clooney since Ocean's Eleven. he had a string of crappy movies, not to mention his heartthrob stint on ER. but he's had a number of great, interesting movies since - vinnie
[2009-12-16 14:31:51] - It was hard to take him seriously as an actor after both Titanic and Romeo+Juliet. - mig
[2009-12-16 14:31:34] - I stand by moving but long. good story, well-acted, good action, but way longer than it needed to be - vinnie
[2009-12-16 14:31:11] - xpovos: yeah I will admit my opinion on him has drastically changed (for the better) with his work since Titanic. - mig
[2009-12-16 14:26:44] - Another point against Titanic, it ruined Leo's reputation among a segment of the population, but he's done some amazing work since then, movies that are much more deserving of being seen, and maybe weren't because of a residual anti-Leo vibe. E.g. The Aviator, Catch Me If You Can, etc. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-16 14:25:19] - a: There was definitely a stronger class distinction at that point, but most of the time it wasn't warefare. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-16 14:23:03] - paul: wowzers I checked the numbers cause I thought that Dark Knight had pushed it out but it still solidly has the lead. ~gurkie
[2009-12-16 14:21:44] - a: I liked it.. Leo was cute
and I think it catches much more crap than it deserves... ~gurkie[2009-12-16 14:15:12] - a: While I do think the movie is a bit over-rated (no way it should be the #1 grossing film), I also didn't think it was that bad. At least twice as good as District 9, in my opinion. -Paul
[2009-12-16 14:06:04] - wasn't there (more of) a class warfare problem in the united states during that point in history? ~a
[2009-12-16 14:04:04] - a: What bugged me was the class warfare overtones, in particular the efforts to make it allegory. I don't like preachy. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-16 13:55:05] - i'm actually surprised there is such a poor reception for titanic here. i gotta say the movie was pretty good. it had a great story, the chick was hot, the action was believable, and everything except the schmaltz was solid (imo). ~a
[2009-12-16 13:47:55] - Xpovos: I gave up on Titanic after ten minutes and I don't regret it. - Stephen
[2009-12-16 12:27:21] - xpovos: heh, Titanic. never saw the former. we were playing "loaded questions" once and the question was "your 3 word review of titanic." that was my answer, trying to imitate what vinnie would say. -amy
[2009-12-16 12:24:27] - amy: District 9, or Titanic? -- Xpovos
[2009-12-16 12:18:06] - thumbs fucking down -amy
[2009-12-16 11:59:41] - moving but long - vinnie
[2009-12-16 11:52:53] - aaron: Yeah, I've never seen all of it. And I'm loathe to watch that first hour and a half again just to get to the ending, which I'm sure is decent. I mean I walked out because my father was, but I wasn't broken up about it. That was a painful first hour and a half of movie. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-16 11:42:42] - xpovos: awww titanic
- aaron[2009-12-16 11:38:28] - a: I only have once, and because my father did, and he was my ride. I wanted to for one, though, and didn't because I was in the middle of a row and didn't want to climb out over people. Titanic and John Carpenter's Vampires, respectively. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-16 10:13:50] - you walked out? i don't think i've ever walked out of a movie. ~a
[2009-12-16 09:38:00] - paul: I agree with you... bad movie, after all I walked out... ~gurkie
[2009-12-15 16:34:26] - Xpovos: Sure, although I imagine I will probable be poking holes in your answers. -Paul
[2009-12-15 15:43:57] - Paul: Do you want me to actually give you answers? I can to most of those, except the first. And even that I can guess at. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-15 15:38:07] - Xpovos: Well, I think it goes hand-in-hand with the non-sensical part. Why did the aliens come to earth? If they had all this weaponry, why not fight back? Why did they seem so generally stupid? Why did the "hero" (and I use that term loosely) do half the things he did? -Paul
[2009-12-15 15:23:05] - Paul: I can see boring and non-sensical, but how were you confused? It's about as subtle as a baseball bat to the face. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-15 15:21:26] - Xpovos: I'll give you well acted and possibly inventive, but I thought it was confusing, boring and non-sensical. I would definitely rather watch a movie like Van Helsing, but I tend to like movies like that for some reason. -Paul
[2009-12-15 15:19:47] - Xpovos: I know this is missing the point, but wouldn't an electrified barbed wire fence potentially hurt less, since your body gets shocked away from the wire before it can get badly cut? -Paul
[2009-12-15 15:16:54] - xpovos: It does! I've tried both. - Stephen
[2009-12-15 15:16:43] - Paul: I enjoyed it a lot, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't saying anything particularly deep. And from what I'm reading, Avatar will be remembered long after District 9. - stephen
[2009-12-15 15:16:01] - Paul: I'd say 3 stars. It was well acted and inventive. I tend to reserve two stars for the tedious pablum that failed to offend (Tomb Raider, Van Helsing come to mind). But it certainly wasn't a masterpiece, or even substantially better than average. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-15 15:13:55] - Stephen: Sure. But that's like saying electrified barbed wire fences hurt more than just plain barbed wire fences. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-15 15:07:25] - I'm amazed by how much critical acclaim that movie has gotten and keeps getting. That list named it the best movie of 2009. I thought it was a two star movie (out of 5) at best. -Paul
[2009-12-15 15:06:00] - From a "best of" list for movies that I was reading: "You wouldn't be wrong in saying that District 9 is perhaps the greatest piece of science fiction entertainment of the last 10 years". Am I the only one who completely and utterly disagrees with that? -Paul
[2009-12-15 14:50:32] - title: dork! (you made me laugh) ~gurkie
[2009-12-15 13:45:35] - Xpovos: Nah, I tend to think Protestants hate gays and lesbians more than Catholics do. Or at least they're likelier to foam at the mouth about same-sex marriage. - Stephen
[2009-12-15 13:40:22] - http://www.theonion.com/content/news/third_amendment_rights_group Third Amendment Rights Group Celebrates Another Successful Year. -Paul
[2009-12-15 12:20:18] - Though I tend not to get upset about the last, personally, because it's just not worth the effort to get upset about something so commonplace an idea, no matter how erroneous. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-15 12:19:15] - You're a Democrat? You must want higher taxes. You're a Republican? You must want starving kids. You're a Catholic? You must hate homosexuals. None of these are true, but are based off of correct beliefs in the general, expanded, and then re-applied to an individual, erroneously, and certainly going to upset the person. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-15 12:16:35] - aaron: Right, I think you stated it well. Generalizations are inherently flawed. Taking one and applying it to a person is therefore almost certainly going to be incorrect and easily potentially offensive. Unfortunately, that's also the way our minds are set up to work... -- Xpovos
[2009-12-15 12:11:53] - and by "the latter comment" i'm talking about the keynes comment - aaron
[2009-12-15 12:11:17] - xpovos: but i find the latter comment more offensive... on the basis that it's less likely to be true, and for different reasons that are harder to put into words. but being put in a category, like "oh, you're blank, so of course you blank" feels hurtful 75% of the time. probably has something to do with a subconscious desire for individuality - aaron
[2009-12-15 12:09:52] - aaron: I think we'd need a third data point, which doesn't exist to the best of my knowledge, where the prof said something along the lines of spending now/not saving is a risky behavior. That connects things well, it can easily be infered, as you noted, though. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-15 12:03:48] - xpovos: yeah, i was connecting the dots a little, the article mentioned that the prof said "homosexuals lead higher risk lifestyles", and "keynes was a homosexual, which people thought influenced his economic philosophies". so i assumed that was the link - aaron
[2009-12-15 12:00:17] - ahhahaha, i remember that quote but where is it from - aaron
[2009-12-15 12:00:02] - vinnie: my door in college. also, isbn 0472108727 has a 5+ page literary analysis of that goofy postcard
! (starts on p49) ~a[2009-12-15 11:42:29] - hahaha where did that title come from? - vinnie
[2009-12-15 11:38:08] - Xpovos: Heh, yeah. I actually already knew about Margaret Sanger. I think it was an old Vox Day blog where he mentioned that the founder of Planned Parenthood was a big supporter of Eugenics. -Paul
[2009-12-15 11:32:14] - Now, since the prof was anti-Keynsian, he may have alluded to the sexuality of Keynes to undermine his positions in the class among those who harbor biases. That definitely would be offensive, not just because it belies his bias, but because it presupposes one in me. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-15 11:30:43] - Paul: I wasn't aware of his sexuality at all until this article the first time around, I think. There's a motive question in there too, therefore, but I'll come back to that. But as for Eugenics, it was a huge movement at the time. Pretty much every 'elite thinker' was in favor. Check out Margaret Sanger. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-15 11:19:52] - Xpovos: Good point, I believe the only mention of risk in the article was a reference to his comments about homosexual lifestyles. -Paul
[2009-12-15 11:17:45] - Aaron: Slightly unrelated, but I was browsing through the wikipedia article on Keynes and it looks like there is some interesting stuff in there. I'm obviously intrigued by the consistent references to Austrian economics, but I also didn't know that he was supposedly openly bisexual and also in favor of eugenics. -Paul
[2009-12-15 11:17:26] - claimed that homosexuals lived a higher risk lifestyle, which I think is only marginally true, if at all. That's where the source of offense could easily be, IMO. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-15 11:16:42] - aaron: Are we adding the word 'riskier' here? Or was that something he said? I think the theory is that Keynes' economic philosophy being influenced by his personal life to deal with a recession in a spend-now manner, rather than saving. We'd previously been equating spend now with no planning for the future, not 'risk' per se. IIRC, risk was only mentioned in that he
[2009-12-15 11:16:17] - paul: mhm, again i'm giving him benefit of the doubt since he's a professor, and professors tend to know how to present things even-handedly. but in the wrong context i could definitely see it warranting a complaint from the student - aaron
[2009-12-15 11:11:49] - Aaron: Oh, weird, I totally remember reading that now but it slipped my mind for whatever reason. I think I would have to hear the reference in context to determine if I felt like it was random and unnecessary or if it might've actually had a point. -Paul
[2009-12-15 10:56:05] - if i were a physics teacher, i wouldn't say "some physicists believe the laws of physics are a hoax perpetrated by a great deceiver which cannot be detected".you can preface anything with "some blanks believe" to make it true. that doesn't mean it belongs in a classroom - aaron
[2009-12-15 10:53:41] - mig: heh, well the lecturer said, "some economists believe dot dot dot". i mean obviously that's true, it's still not worth bringing up in a lecture - aaron
[2009-12-15 10:43:18] - aaron: well to be fair it does say other economists seem to hold that opinion as well. It still is kind of a silly conclusion to draw, so not sure why keynes was brought up. - mig
[2009-12-15 10:35:22] - paul: according to the original article he brought up a theory that John Maynard Keynes had riskier economic philosophies because he was gay - aaron
[2009-12-15 10:29:46] - Aaron: Interesting, I didn't hear that he started talking about specific people rather than general groups. Was that in the article or some follow-up? -Paul
[2009-12-15 10:23:22] - haha. ROAR. ~a
[2009-12-15 10:22:53] - who else thinks this will be used as an excuse to increase farm subsidies for corn? ~a
.svg){kind=link}
[2009-12-15 10:21:49] - a: ROAR - aaron
[2009-12-15 10:21:22] - paul: however, if he tried to apply that generalization to say "will smith is more likely to go to jail than clive owen" - like he apparently did during his lecture - then yeah that's pretty ignorant - aaron
[2009-12-15 10:19:51] - paul: well that could be offensive, but not ignorant - aaron
[2009-12-15 09:38:49] - also if you are on google wave then check out the wave Nina sent... (and reply) if you arent on wave and want on let me know... ~gurkie
[2009-12-15 09:36:20] - aaron: why do you have a drawing covering stuff!!! ~gurkie
[2009-12-15 09:26:48] - aaron: Would it be "ignorant" if he was talking about a minority, and saying something negative about them that happened to be true? For instance, that black teens are more likely to be imprisoned than white teens (assuming that's factually correct). -Paul
[2009-12-15 09:25:24] - aaron: ah the focus being on that aspect sounds more offensive then saying that homosexuals may focus less on planning for the future ~gurkie
[2009-12-14 23:40:31] - best movie!!! same rule as last year (feel free to break): only one nomination per person. ~a
[2009-12-14 19:12:26] - drawing generalizations isn't necessarily offensive, but applying those generalizations to specific people is. - aaron
[2009-12-14 19:04:12] - gurkie: heh, theorizing that a high-profile economist held some riskier economic values because of his homosexuality comes off as a little bigoted to me. i don't think i would have made a huge deal out of it, but depending on how it was phrased or presented i might have taken offense to it - aaron
[2009-12-14 18:33:50] - a: did you read the article, because it didnt sound like he was really singling anyone out... Obviously this is revised but he said that was one of many examples he gave with others being interesting examples. From my perspective the homosexual couples was directly linked to couples not planning on kids but thats how my mind works... ~gurkie
[2009-12-14 18:05:10] - paul: but as far as why it's "ignorant" i think, gut feeling, is just because it's a minority and you're saying something negative about them. - aaron
[2009-12-14 17:58:31] - and if i heard those in a classroom, i'd be really upset. - aaron
[2009-12-14 17:58:12] - paul: well, depending on the context, it could be very misleading, i'm going to give him benefit of the doubt because he's a professor but obviously he could make true, but misleading statements like, "gay people have 75% more unprotected sex," or "black people have 75% more unprotected sex" - aaron
[2009-12-14 17:06:05] - a: Do you think it's ignorant because he singled out anybody (young people, couples with no children) or because he specifically singled out homosexuals? -Paul
[2009-12-14 16:58:20] - you didn't read my post. i'm not saying anyone should be offended. i'm saying it's an ignorant thing to say. singling out homosexual couples is useless if it is done arbitrarily. ~a
[2009-12-14 16:50:15] - a: should "young people", "couples with no children" been offended by Hoppe's lecture? - mig
[2009-12-14 16:49:38] - being offended is one thing: thinking it's a dumb statement is something else entirely. i'm just saying it's disingenuous. yes, maybe, homosexual couples are less likely than average to plan for the future, but so are lots of other social groupings. ~a
[2009-12-14 16:44:58] - a: i wouldn't see a reason for me to be offended, if that's what you're asking. - mig
[2009-12-14 16:31:39] - a: Except hispanics are more likely to have kids, duh! Complete opposite. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-14 16:31:01] - a: 'cause you're a dumbshit? I was surprised when Facebook did that too. "Let us look through your e-mail contacts to find your friends! We just need your password." Right. 1) I'm not giving you my password. 2) I don't maintain a contacts file. That's what my brain is for. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-14 16:29:54] - a:
[2009-12-14 16:29:39] - mig: so if he singled out hispanics along with couples with no children, young people, etc, that would be cool with you? ~a
[2009-12-14 16:28:04] - wait wait why would i give spokeo my account username and password? ~a
[2009-12-14 16:09:38] - I've played with Spokeo some more and I think I over-reacted. The problem is I've been using one spam account for so long that it's accumulated it's own history. Other e-mail addresses that I use for normal purposes won't turn anything up (as others don't that I've tested) because I don't use them for crap like that. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-14 15:43:40] - aaron: That 500 mile e-mail story is a gas. It's funny, and probably true, but I find myself disbelieving it. Although I love the scientific approach the statisticians took -before- lodging the work order complaint. That is definitely something I'd do. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-14 15:38:39] - ting the BCS is stupid, and doing so would earn them the ire of not just college football fans, presidents, boosters, etc., but also of their non-football watching constituents who are just peeved at the waste of time. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-14 15:37:36] - mig: Stephens' got it right. Legislating a BCS playoffs is stupid, but would be constitutional, and obeyed. Who's going to fight a war over a bowl game? But the ends result would tarnish college football forever and make it much less fun to watch. Also, it'll never actually pass. While I dislike most of Congress, most of Congress is smart enough to realize that legisla
[2009-12-14 15:36:04] - Gurkie: Dayem! Spokeo is scary. I used my spam-filter e-mail and it found tons of stuff. Mostly from Facebook. Note to past-self: don't sign up for Facebook. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-14 15:35:08] - Vinnie: You mentioned you guessed N/S types the best of the four. I mentioend that I find myself colorblind in that regard. There was some discussion of archetypes (long-term planning/spntenaity, etc), but nothing that made sense to me still (as makes sense given my N/S layout). So: how would you predict my N/S if you didn't know, and based off what traits? -- Xpovos
[2009-12-14 15:33:30] - Ok, I found my unique serach string, and I've read all the posts I missed during my vacation. Damn, but I missed some fun conversations! To recap: -- Xpovos
[2009-12-14 15:03:08] - a: i don't follow the whole part of "singling out". Homosexuals were one of the groups that he pointed out who don't make long term plans (along with couples with no children, young people, etc). How is that singling out?. - mig
[2009-12-14 14:56:23] - Worst case, the professor phrased it poorly and didn't articulate his meaning well enough. Oh, and he's a closet homophobe, and probably racist. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-14 14:54:54] - a: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=BF3B12AA9CC6FDD603B9094D620776C0?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkpdf&contentId=856175 -- Xpovos
[2009-12-14 14:54:37] - The 'holy grail' of the marketer is the young urban DINK, which homosexuals will fall into if they settle monogamously (or mostly). So it does make sense to target them with specific economics. I heard an NPR/Marketplace story earlier this year that was about certain cities doing just that. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-14 14:52:33] - The only reason it becomes slightly disingenous is that, you're right, he's singled out homosexuals. But many heterosexual couples are forgoing children voluntarily, or at the very least delaying the children until far later. This means their spending habits are more like those of homosexuals either throughout their lives, or for larger portions. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-14 14:50:54] - a: For some of the reasons the professor cited. Homosexual couples will not have children, sans adoption. I'll avoid the high-risk argument as that's going to go poorly, I can tell. But even just not having children will affect a decision. One reason to save is to leave an inheritance, a legacy. That's non-existant. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-14 13:43:10] - saying that homosexual couples are less likely to plan for the future is disingenuous at best. why single them out like that? do african american couples tend to plan for the future statistically more than homosexual couples? ~a
[2009-12-14 12:32:12] - I'm pretty sure he could source his comments well enough that, say, wikipedia would be content to let the statement (as re-stated by the professor) stand, perhaps edited some. So, the statement in a lecture, with the inherent possibility for error in a lecture, unless someone had a recording device... I think the prof is in the clear. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-14 12:30:50] - I did a little more looking into it, seeing if there was ever any real resolution. There wasn't, that I could see. The biggest argument that I saw from the university was instructing the professor to not lecture opinion as fact, which is a fair admonishment, but I'm not sure it was apropos. Obviously, generalites are impossible to verify, but [...] -- Xpovos
[2009-12-14 12:06:51] - now i can actually substitute it for firefox and compare oranges to oranges to see which one i like better - aaron
[2009-12-14 12:06:21] - adblock for chrome! yay! - aaron
[2009-12-14 11:47:33] - well i agree with everything but the over-reacting part. we don't know what the teacher said and it seems like we've only gotten his side of the story. the kid who lodged a formal complaint might have something different to say on the matter. ~a
[2009-12-14 11:21:39] - a: Personally, I think I would legally stand by the school to discipline their employees however they like. At the same time, I totally think they are over-reacting and would be rooting for the professor the entire time. -Paul
[2009-12-14 10:10:32] - i'm not sure who to side with in that case. it depends highly on exactly what was said. the professor has the right to say whatever he wants but the university has a right to reprimand him for whatever they want (assuming no laws are broken). ~a
[2009-12-14 10:03:57] - paul: lmgtfy ~a
[2009-12-14 10:01:55] - Xpovos: What was the situation? I missed my sub-message. -Paul
[2009-12-13 10:25:00] - I'm impressed that the article in Paul's sub-message is still available without the archive machine. Also, it's interesting to follow-up on that situation now 4 years later. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-13 10:18:07] - a: Comission, you mean? Maybe. They're the actual manufacturers, too. So that helps a lot. as they get all the benefits of being vertically integrated. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-12 23:43:19] - xpovos: at the renn fest, i'd assumed that they make a profit on the games that they sell. ~a
[2009-12-11 19:41:13] - I know it can't possibly make money, but I can't help but think the v&d-atorium would be fun too. There's a game place at the Maryland Renaissance festival, and one of the ways they work it is to charge a fee to play a game against one of their game masters. Fun job, but doesn't pay well. -- Xpovos
[2009-12-11 17:19:56] - Of course, then it might've looked like I was trying to subtract atorium from the sum of vodka and diplomacy. -Paul
[2009-12-11 17:05:37] - Vinnie: Oh, hehehe. I get it now. I think I might've used a hyphen there to make it clearer. Thanks. -Paul
[2009-12-11 16:50:04] - paul: a suffix - vinnie
[2009-12-11 16:08:38] - Aaron: Also, what the heck is an atorium? -Paul
[2009-12-11 16:08:05] - Aaron: That's been one of my goals if I ever got financially stable enough, to start a business. Ideally it would make enough money to cover itself somehow, though (I'm amazed the Game Parlor stays in business). -Paul
[2009-12-11 15:36:59] - or other business ideas, you know, like a european-style game store where people pay $5 and take a board game off the shelf and play it with their friends... and okay, a place like that would make maybe $40 a day and not begin to cover salaries and expenses... but it would be so cool if a place like that existed, you know? - aaron
[2009-12-11 15:35:51] - honestly i've thought it would be cool, when i get older and financially stable - to where i just have money to burn - to start a totally financially unrealistic business, you know, like arcades are already pretty much financially unviable, but it would be cool to start one - just so that people would have a place to go - aaron
[2009-12-11 15:34:43] - paul: if this is about your vodka + diplomacy atorium, i want in! i think it would be such a cool business - aaron
[2009-12-11 15:11:38] - Vinnie: That's not a bad idea, as long as the course would count towards any possible degree if I chose to go that way. Thanks. -Paul
[2009-12-11 14:51:12] - paul: it was part of a curriculum for a degree, but it was the entry level course. if I wanted to, I could have kept pursuing it, but I felt the one class was enough for me. entry level classes are a good place to start if you're not sure - vinnie
[2009-12-11 14:32:45] - Vinnie: Was it a normal college course or was it something more geared towards people looking for just a single class to take? I ask because I've been thinking of taking some classes but I don't know if I should consider going to grad school or start by taking individual classes and see where that goes. -Paul
[2009-12-11 14:31:10] - a: Thanks. -Paul
[2009-12-11 13:59:44] - paul: yeah, I enjoyed it. got to meet some other aspiring musicians in the area (though I don't keep in touch with any), got some hands-on experience in the studio, and I got to do a sound check at the 9:30 club. it was at nvcc, pretty reasonable price for the course - vinnie
[2009-12-11 13:33:24] - paul: my response has been saved. i.e. yes. ~a
[2009-12-11 13:11:34] - a: You coming to poker tonight? -Paul
[2009-12-11 12:08:29] - Vinnie: Cool, good experience? -Paul
[2009-12-11 12:06:03] - i took a class in the department of redundancy department. - mig
[2009-12-11 11:16:54] - paul: yes, I took one related to music production - vinnie
[2009-12-11 10:54:38] - paul: yes, vinnie took one related to music production - aaron
[2009-12-11 09:58:26] - Has anybody here taken any college courses since graduating that weren't part of a degree program? -Paul
[2009-12-11 08:25:04] - I am back. And have totally forgotten my unique search term. Brilliant! -- Xpovos
[2009-12-10 22:10:16] - Suck it up. Last year you made fun of DC for not dealing with the cold as well as Chicago. Maybe Hawaii would be more to your liking. - Stephen
[2009-12-10 18:37:30] - a:
- aaron[2009-12-10 18:13:55] - where my ihop. ~a
[2009-12-10 17:03:36] - follow me on twitter!
[2009-12-10 17:03:30] - oops, this isn't twitter
[2009-12-10 17:02:57] - thirty-four degrees in oslo... i hate winter
[2009-12-10 16:58:12] - a: no. - mig
[2009-12-10 16:57:15] - mig: are you going to accept it? ~a
[2009-12-10 16:37:02] - nominates miguel for a nobel awesomeness prize
[2009-12-10 16:36:04] - mig: aw lay off it, buddy, it's not like i nominated myself
[2009-12-10 16:03:12] - mig: quite ewe? - pierce
[2009-12-10 15:36:26] - a: quiet you. - mig
[2009-12-10 15:35:38] - it's starting to war on you?
~a[2009-12-10 15:31:41] - ugh s/piece/peace. i think looking and trying to fix terrible code is starting to wear on me. - mig
[2009-12-10 15:27:59] - aaron: no I just wish his actions would back up his supposed desire for piece. And I was a tad irritated with the tired old "if we were non-intervenionist we'd all be speaking german now" mantra that always seems prevelant among war-mongers. - mig
[2009-12-10 15:20:07] - mig: i thought the exerpts of obama made him sound pretty good, although yeah the headline implies a contradiction - aaron
[2009-12-10 14:41:03] - Pierce: Agreed. Legislating on NCAA football makes Congress look stupid, but they're within their legal rights. - Stephen
[2009-12-10 14:25:08] - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091210/ap_on_re_eu/eu_obama_nobel the headlines is perhaps a little overly inflammatory, but still it made me chuckle. - mig
[2009-12-10 14:20:06] - again, not defending this particular law, but I absolutely think it's constitutionally justified if congress wants to do it. - pierce
[2009-12-10 14:13:38] - not to mention that the teams themselves are usually from different states. seems about as blatant an example of interstate commerce as I can think of, except that it's not the simplistic "Acme Widget Company" version of commerce. I definitely think entertainment for profit counts as commerce. - pierce
[2009-12-10 14:12:31] - assuming you accept that it allows any regulation of private entities (as opposed to miguel's interpretation in which it only regulates commerce initiated by the states themselves), why would college football not be an example? it's certainly commercial, they sell tickets and ad space and broadcast to multi-state or national markets. - pierce
[2009-12-10 14:09:05] - a: I was half kidding. I was guessing that they're using the interstate commerce claus as the rationale for why they are legislating college football (and I acknowledge that it's the accepted interpretation of it among the courts right now). At the same time, I'm with Miguel that it seems like a tremendous stretch to apply it to things like college football. -Paul
[2009-12-10 14:01:20] - i'm pretty sure paul was kidding but pierce seems serious. i'm of the opinion that football has nothing to do with inter-state commerce. ~a
[2009-12-10 13:57:52] - I also find the current interperation of the commerce clause to be incredibly problematic because quite frankly, where does the reach of governemnt end? We're talking now about the government deciding how a sports league should handle its posteason ... seriously? - mig
[2009-12-10 13:36:11] - aaron: i had one situation where a customer was wondering why our latency in a simulation was so high. we were seeing ping times of 30ms. this simulation was run on a wide area network that included alabama and arizona. we were able to get the latency of some stuff below 10ms by caching the static part of the simulation. ~a
[2009-12-10 13:31:36] - Pierce: Don't make me demonstrate how little people learn in law school! From a constitutional law, standpoint, I can say that the libertarian view of the commerce clause hasn't really been adopted in over a century, and I don't see that changing over the next decade or two. - Stephen
[2009-12-10 13:19:53] - (by the way, not that I'm saying strict constructionism is an ideal to aspire to, just that it seems to be an argument people fall back on quite often when it benefits them but goes to the wayside when it's inconvenient) - pierce
[2009-12-10 13:18:57] - mig: I don't think that's apparent at all. I can see why it may be a justifiable interpretation but I don't think it's anywhere near the obvious interpretation. - pierce
[2009-12-10 13:16:58] - and I've always been annoyed that the libertarian standpoint on that issue has always been such an interpretive one when usually libertarian thinking aligns with strict constructionism. the commerce clause doesn't say anything about preventing interstate trade wars, it just says congress can regulate commerce between the states. - pierce
[2009-12-10 13:15:09] - The full context of the clause in question: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;", in my opinion makes it apparent that they are not talking about regulating interactions between private entities but with other governmental or otherwise sovereign entities. - mig
[2009-12-10 13:14:30] - mig: you will concede, though, that the commerce clause does not explicitly enumerate all possible applications of its authority. just because the constitution doesn't explicitly mention college football doesn't mean it's not within congress's power to regulate it. - pierce
[2009-12-10 13:11:54] - it has been argued that the interstate commerce clause (from a libertarian standpoint) the point of the clause was not to regulate private entities but to prevent state governments from engaging in trade wars with each other. - mig
[2009-12-10 13:09:57] - pierce: i know about the loose interperations given from the interstate commerce clause, but I don't agree with those interperations. - mig
[2009-12-10 13:04:33] - that is, defensible as long as they make it a general set of rules for all collegiate football playoff systems. if it refers specifically to the BCS or NCAA then it's probably unconstitutional as a bill of attainder or some similar concept. stephen probably knows the proper legal jargon. - pierce
[2009-12-10 13:02:21] - mig: since college football is an interstate competition with commercial elements, I'd offer that the interstate commerce clause covers that. not that it isn't stupid for them to do it, but I think it's pretty constitutionally defensible. - pierce
[2009-12-10 12:36:33] - in that* case - pierce
[2009-12-10 12:32:07] - I like to say "I was being ironical" in case, although "facetious" is a close second. I like "ironical" because it's actually a word (and means what people assume it does) but it sounds like a dumb error, sort of like this xkcd. plus they said it once in Firefly. - pierce
[2009-12-10 12:31:33] - http://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail.html the case of the 500-mile e-mail - aaron
[2009-12-10 11:11:11] - mig: I believe it's implied for the interstate commerce clause.
-Paul[2009-12-10 11:10:26] - a: I did indeed. cheers - vinnie
[2009-12-10 11:06:14] - retarded? how pc of you, vinnie. i think you meant to say grapenuttic. ~a
[2009-12-10 10:56:03] - wow that is retarded - vinnie
prev <-> next