Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/2/12 07:51 PM, JMHX wrote: INTRO: Korriken sits at his desk, pipe in hand, adjusting his ascot.... etc

Hah! Well played, sir. Well played, indeed.

At 12/1/12 12:35 PM, JMHX wrote: Leanlifter is an offense to anyone who ever sought to improve themselves through education.

He's Shaggytheclown with religious bullshit swapped out for anarchist bullshit. And holy crap, does he spray it over every topic in here. I think I just saw he had the most recent post on over/nearly half of the topics on the front page.

Hey, why don't you all go make a thread in which you can complain about the Fed, fiat currency, and all the eeeeeeeevils of government, and let the rest of us discuss the actual matter posted originally in the OP. This is getting ridiculous.

At 11/30/12 12:18 PM, JMHX wrote: Either way, it's not difficult to play this issue to an already receptive public who will see the failure to pass a debt deal as Republican unwillingness to acknowledge their defeat in November. I'm making no comment on the wisdom of the policy proposals put forward by the White House, merely on their efficacy as political cudgels to alternately demoralize Republican regions while tossing broad, across-the-board treats to voters in key electoral regions.

Not only that, but this proposal fixes what has been Obama's main error in negotiating with the Reps. He has been opening with proposals that mirror what he (and Reps, for that matter... see: Simpson-Bowles) saw as the eventual end-point of negotiations, in order to sidestep around a lot of the bullshit that normally surrounds controversial content, and show the right that he is serious about compromising. However, the right saw this as a weakness, and mirrored Obama's overplay with more extreme positions, in order to force the negotiation further to the right.

Now that Obama has put up a plan that is very strongly left-of-center, the corresponding Republican offer is bound to be closer to the center than they have been used to doing of late. The eventual negotiation should land them in a place where neither side is happy, but both can trumpet success and victories.

Or, the Reps will continue to bury their heads up their ass, send us off the cliff, and then Dems will chortle, propose sweeping tax cuts (the no Republican would dare vote against) tied to new spending (that they'll be powerless to stop as the adding of public-sector and infrastructure jobs (new-new deal, ahoy!) will be necessary to avoid more recession) that will let them dance towards re-taking the house in 2014.

Half of my family will lose unemployment benefits if we cliff it, but I'm kind of fascinated to see what might happen in Washington if we do.

At 11/21/12 06:58 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 11/21/12 06:56 PM, Camarohusky wrote: For all we know this may be some nerds way overreacting to the discovery of a special space rock. (shaped like Jesus maybe?)

NASA already updated their Facebook to stop the rumor. It was just some dumb reporter sensationalizing a quote about how the mission is a historic milestone.

This. Everything Curiosity does right now is historic. It is a rolling nuclear-powered robotic laboratory on another planet. Nothing it is doing has been done before.

Also: it is not equipped to be able to find or recognize life or the fossils thereof. My guess is that a spectral analyses of the clays at the bottom of gale crater show silicates and other direct evidences of both flowing and standing water. It will take a macrophene fossil observable by the camera on Curiosity for it to find "life". In order to discover fossilized single- or small multi-cellular life will take a new rover or an extended manned mission. We may be able to get some spectral evidences of amino acids or life-indicating elements, but nothing definitive.

I'll say again: Curiosity (most likely) cannot find life. It doesn't have the right equipment.

At 11/10/12 10:56 PM, Ravariel wrote:

Also, if his email was compromised, that presents a very real national security risk, and an intelligence breach that is beyond the pale, and quite inexcusable, for the director of the CIA.

How's that his fault, really?

If someone hacks my hotmail account, why am I the one being fired? Go fire hotmail. Haha. UNless you can prove it's my own stupidity that caused it.

Well, if you invite that person into your bed, so that they can access your computer, and possibly see passwords which allow that person to access that account, then yes. Granted, we don't really know the whole story, so specultion can run wherever.

At 11/10/12 09:42 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/10/12 06:58 PM, Ravariel wrote:

"These are the questions of this thread Is Taxation theft ?"

Shush, kiddo, the adults are speaking now. If you're not bright enough to realize how the issues Smilez and I are discussing affect the eventual answer (if there is one) to your original question, maybe you should step aside.

Also, short answer: no. Long answer: working on it. I'll have a response to Smilez up tomorrow.

At 11/10/12 10:40 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 11/10/12 08:34 PM, poxpower wrote: Sure!
If I worked at McDonald's and had an affair, I'd step down from my job.

What, that doesn't make any sense?

Oh right. No one gives a shit who you have consensual sex with, get back to work you bum.

People in higher positions of power operate on a different set of rules than regular folks.

Also, if his email was compromised, that presents a very real national security risk, and an intelligence breach that is beyond the pale, and quite inexcusable, for the director of the CIA.

At 11/10/12 07:12 PM, Feoric wrote:

There are some murmurs that it might be Patreus' way of falling on his sword about Benghazi.

It's not.

Well, it's merely a hypothesis, and it hinges not at all on the actuality of any affair. Easy excuse, straw that broke, etc. Maybe he feels that the affair distracted him in a way that endangered people, and the attack and the Ambassador's subsequent death brought that home to him. But it's all speculation. It could be completely legit... the timing, however... It just pings the coincidence meter a bit much, y'know?

At 11/9/12 11:03 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Is it "wrong" for me to pour acid on your face?

Depends on the context.

Is it "wrong" for you to pour acid on my face?

Depends on the context.

Is it "wrong" for Barrack Obama to kill Pakistani children?

Aaaand... well, you know. Context.

You see the problem is that my atheism runs so deep [thanks a lot Drakim] that I disregard these questions as having actual answers.

See, this is why, even when I disagree with you, I do enjoy reading your posts. You do understand, unlike most, that there is a wealth of context, nuance, and complexity underneath these hot-button issues we tend to argue about in strict black-and-white terms.

But beyond what you've already stated as issues that complicate this argument (especially about staism as a whole) there is something I think you've not yet learned to take into consideration: psychology. Specifically social psychology, and evolutionary influences.

This dichotomy you mentioned:

1. Acknowledge it as wrong but regard it as a lesser evil compared to the evil of the consequences associated with a failure to take other people's money by any means necessary.
2. Acknowledge the double standard but regard it as acceptable.

Is something that is a well-known psychological effect. People will often hold contradictory views of moral stances.

"Murder is wrong..."

"...except in self-defense."

"Stealing is wrong..."

"...but I cheer for Robin Hood."

"God is good..."

"...Dude, wtf." ~Abraham

Put that together with the evolutionary social structure literally bred into us over millenia, that looks to create society, create hierarchy, delegate responsibility, and use individual resources for the common good (the hunter who threw the killing spear was not the only one who got to eat that night, even if he may have been offered the choicest cuts)... and you have a species for whom governance, States, taxation, and all the bullshit attached, is inevitable.

The act of governance is a feature that will never be bred out of humanity. Would shit be better if things actually worked how anti-statists believe it should? Probably. Sports would be better without PEDs, cheating, point-shaving, boosters, etc, too... but people won't do it. Just like they can't hold internally-consistent moral beliefs.

There are always things that people are willing to compromise on in order to gain a similar result in an easier way. A purely economical mode of society and governance would be HARD. States, and Democracy is WAY easier (Dictatorships, even more so than that). So we compromise. We hold conflicting views. We have exceptions.

Even in the Stateless societies that I have heard you (and to a lesser extent Sadistic and his retarded brother leanlifter) posit would, in effect, replace elected governance/states with purchased ones. I think we may have done this dance before so we probably don't have to do it again, but I have trouble determining the difference between the two aside from some mechanical minutia. Regardless, that is likely a discussion for another time.

At 11/10/12 07:01 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 11/10/12 06:45 AM, Korriken wrote: hmm, they now claim the "fbi uncovered it" which makes no wonder: "exactly how does the FBI stumble on an extramarital affair?"

actually, thinking about it, it was probably one of his underlings, perhaps #2 that wanted his job ratted him out.

There are some murmurs that it might be Patreus' way of falling on his sword about Benghazi. Not saying it's true, but the timing is, like you said, prone to bullshit sensor-tripping.

At 11/7/12 03:13 PM, JMHX wrote: I guess you could say this initiative puff puff passed?

Obligatory? Sure.

Still funny, though.

At 10/28/12 07:50 PM, Light wrote:

Actually, it would. See the Bradley Effect is a real thing that is accepted as having happened by a majority of political scientists. It is a mainstream theory and taught in collegiate classes dealing with American Government and Electoral Behavior.

But does such an effect still exist?

It is... difficult to measure. Any shift in the numbers between polls and votes that is within the margin of error is, statistically speaking, nonexistent. Anything beyond that and we can begin to measure reasons, motivations, outside factors, and if there is a significant difference between exit polling and actual votes, then we may be seeing a Bradley Effect.

My theory is that the first debate, and the monumental shift in the polls due to it, were the Bradley Effect given voice. My theory is that that gave those who might be under the Effect the excuse they needed to quiet the cognitive dissonance that caused their dishonesty and allowed them to respond appropriately, and truthfully. Especially after two further debates where Obama (arguably) took Mitt Romney apart. I think our current polls that show Obama ahead by 3-4 points are more accurate than our ones from a month or so ago that showed him up by 7-8. I don't think the first debate hurt him as much as it did allow everyone to settle into the track they were already going to go down.

But that's just my theory. Hell, more speculation than anything.

At 10/9/12 04:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote: First fucking time I have a full night's sleep in like 3 weeks, I sleep past both of my alarms, wake up at 10:30 and damn near miss my doctor appointment. On top of that, I was supposed to be collecting dialysys samples and I slept through that... Now I have to go back on Friday. I sure hope my donor past her medical tests today, because I am tired of this treatment.

Oog, that's rough. Best o' luck w/your donor.

On a completely different note, I was wondering if, with the sudden influx of... shall we say... the more aggressive of political neophytes (which I totally just typo'd as peeophytes), if a political thread in the style of Heathenry might be appreciated. Or if it would sink off the front page like a stone because noone "got" it? I remember having some assistance from Iferion and others when I started the original and it was some of the most intelligent conversation we ever had on this board. Kind of brushing up against the "NPITL" rule here, I know, but it was the only way I could think to get a response except to have a ridiculously obscure topic make a few people raise an eyebrow as it broke world records reaching dead status.

At 10/7/12 01:29 AM, TheMason wrote: b) The Obama campaign determined that it does help Obama...but people are open to Romney explaining himself. Thus, had Obama brought it up, it would've given Romney a chance to explain himself and make the issue go away instead of simmer in the back of independent's minds. If this scenario is the case, then it means the 47% is an issue...but only slightly so since the campaign opted for the simmer approach instead of the zinger approach.

I agree with this one. I think the Obama team knows that the video has done it's damage. It's appearance is about as bad as it can be for team Romney, and they know that the only way the needle can shift on that issue is to the positive for Romney. A vast majority of the populace knows about the video already, and has their opinions about it. It already dropped Romney 2-5 points in the polls depending on which one you look at and from where. Any chance for Romney to respond to the video can only be a positive for him.

Edit...

At 9/21/12 08:53 PM, Ravariel wrote: I'm sorry, but since when does 51% of the population shifting by multiple percent in one direction, REGARDLESS of their "tack".

... constitute an event that "does not determine elections"?

It's always good to finish one thought before beginning another.... derp.

At 9/20/12 09:23 PM, TheMason wrote: I don't think so. The swing vote is most likely people of the same socio-economic status in that room: small business owners, middle and upper-middle class. According to the early Gallup data, not only is this not affecting the vote of 53% of independents, as you move up the socio-economic ladder the more these comments get him votes.

There is a big difference between "small business owners" and business(wo)men who can afford to attend a $50,000.00/plate fundraiser. Your average swing vote isn't in the top few percent, they're in the middle both in politics and in incomes. They're the ones who make $40-100,000/yr, who don't live high enough in the brackets to enjoy those 14% tax rates, who tend towards social and fiscal libertarianism, for whom tax breaks are welcome but not necessary for survival, but who are well-educated enough to realize that there's a difference between "paying no federal income tax" and "paying no taxes" as Romney was implying. They don't believe that their harried waitress who works another job at a daycare is somehow "not taking personal responsibility or care with her life." They're not high up the ladder enough to have such a disconnect with the working poor, the disabled and the elderly.

Add to that the solidifying of the female demographic against him,

1) The female demographic is not going to win or loose this race, because it does not win or loose presidential races. They tack Democratic.

Whoa. Just..... whoa. "The female demographic... does not win or lose presidential races"? Just because they "tack" democratic? I'm sorry, but since when does 51% of the population shifting by multiple percent in one direction, REGARDLESS of their "tack". If 60% of them were blue (on average) before, 65% of them being blue now is not insignificant. That also treads close to the normal Rep stance of "women don't matter".

2) Obama won Ma by 25.8 last time and Kerry by 25.1 in '04. So if Romney is only running 14% behind...then he's not doing so bad. If you're talking about Michigan then Obama won by 16..4% in '08. And Mi is a Dem stronghold...so it doesn't matter what he's doing there or not.

MI, regardless of it's actual electoral allocations, is a very purple state. We've got a republican governor, a HEAVILY republican legislature (64R-46D in the House, 26R-12D in the senate) and most areas outside of Detroit, Traverse City, and Marquette are redder than Texas. A reasonable republican could easily take this state. Romney is from here, he should be rocking this state, but hell he only took the primary by 3% against Santorum. This should be a stronghold for him, even with his difficulty with rust-belt working class.

At 9/20/12 07:50 PM, Elfer wrote: It's kind of like the difference between peeing in the pool and peeing into the pool. It's the same in theory, but presentation makes a big difference.

Hah! If I sigged quotes, that would get sigged.

I think you nail the difference in the comparison to Obama's "cling" quote, as well. At the end of the day, Obama was at least trying to get people he thought would never vote for him to see that he was working in good faith... he just did it in an insulting fashion. Romney's quote is basically giving an unapologetic finger to a large portion of the electorate. Those independent voters who may or may not reside in that 47% will see only that finger, not the misguided sympathy that they saw with Obama, so that's a huge blow to Romney in the swing vote.

Secondly, and likely more important, but less measurable, is the effect on the 47% themselves. Of those, 47%, more than half DO pay taxes, if not federal income taxes, and they often do not depend on federal assistance (I would fall into that category, as would most of my friends) to live, and find the implication that paying no federal income tax is the same as paying no tax at all, and that they are getting some big-ticket free ride on the gravy train. Another large portion of that 47% are seniors and veterans living on untaxed pensions, disability and retirement. WHo do you think is going to be the demographic that decides how Florida (arguably the most important State electorally right now)? Another large portion are students and young workers/professionals/families.... what one might paint under the broad demographic of the "unlikely voter". A study was done recently on the preferences of Unlikely Voters. Obama led in that category 43% to less than 20%. A broad-swath painted-as-moocher tin-ear comment like this will only help the Dems mobilize larger portions of this unlikely demographic, which can only help him in the election.

Add to that the solidifying of the female demographic against him, (in hishome state, no less... and I'll be dipped the last time I saw a presidential candidate lead by 14 points in this very purple state) Romney better do something stu-goddamn-pendous during the debates to turn his Titanic around.

Religion, in general, has been the single most important force for good in the world. It is the reason we have the society we have today, and is the catalyst for peaceful coexistence and international relations. Religion is an OVERWHELMINGLY positive thing. We are outgrowing much of it, and the more extreme versions of it have almost always been bad, but for the most part those have been on the fringes.

We hear about all of the horrors that religion has caused: The Inquisition (more about political power than religion), the Crusades (about land, notsomuch religion), etc because those are singularly remarkable events in our history. The reverse is a much more ubiquitous story. That of churches protecting people from corrupt governments, feeding the hungry, raising millions from poverty and servitude into free societies with agency and honor. Religion gave order to the anarchy of tribal/nomadic society, brought people together in large groups that built our first cities and countries and important cultures.

Religion was the inspiration for most of the art and music we now consider the most beautiful ever created. It taught the illiterate and the uneducated how to live well. Religion is the only reason we are not still a bunch of nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes.

People who know me may be shocked to hear me give religion such praise, but history is clear: religion is the foundation for our very concept of what culture and society are.

I'm smelling the beginning of a No-True-Scotsman type argument...

At 8/5/12 11:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Went to see the Airshow this past weekend. Suffered through a massive case of heat stroke, but it was worth it. (My current treatment has pretty much destroyed any semblance of heat tolerance I ever had...)

The Blue Angels do a show here in the Ann Arbor area every couple/few years. Always want to go see them, never seem to make it.

Also, it's been a pretty impressive couple of days for those tuned in to current events. A man with no legs competed in, and got to the semifinals in the 400m dash at the Olympics (how shitty must those whom he beat in the qualifying heat feel... losing a footrace to a man with no foots). And in a stupefying feat of engineering Nasa hit an area the size of a football field by throwing a dart 560 million miles. Then they used an orbiter that is about 5 years past it's expiration date to snap a picture of it's descent. The level of pure human awesome on display over the last several days just takes my breath away. Go us!

At 6/23/12 12:59 AM, LordJaric wrote: Just finished five weeks of an archaeological field school. It was quite intresting finding all sorts of artifacts. In the final days we found a late woodlen era post moles. First ever recorded in the state.

That sounds ridiculously interesting. I wanna be an archaeologist... and an anthropologist... and aphysicist, and an astronomer.. andandand. Sigh, I'm too fickle in my interests. I never want to do one thing enough to sacrifice my ability to do all the other things I like. I'm the donkey starving to death between two piles of hay. Or the dog who keeps getting distr.. SQUIRREL!

At 6/25/12 05:04 PM, Feoric wrote: you're not going to be fined or jailed if you don't have health insurance. why would you not want health insurance, anyway? do you know how incredibly expensive health care is?

Actually, under the ACA, you would face a fine if you chose not to participate in Health Insurance. That fine is one of the main foci of the challenger's arguments against the law, as an unfair "tax" for inaction. Jail time, however, has never been a part of the ACA.

At 6/9/12 01:50 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote:

At 6/9/12 01:40 AM, LordJaric wrote: Damn I missed it. I was on a field school so I had no internet.

NASA still has video up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9rM8ChTjY

There ya go.

I'm watching the Venus transit of the sun. Live online. With Astronomer commentary.

I fucking love the internet.

At 5/31/12 04:35 PM, theburningliberal wrote: I think it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court handles this case. I definitely think this one will eventually make it there, given the issues involved. If they do side with the 1st District's opinion, what effect will that have on Congress' ability to make and pass laws? Will there be a precedent to strike down laws that lack strongly compelling and significant amounts of evidentiary findings? I'm still not sure how such a decision would affect any other laws currently on the books, either.

We can be ever so optimistic that it will force Congress to do their goddamn due diligence when writing legislation instead of knee-jerk reactionary bull like DOMA, but that may be a bridge or two too far.

At 5/27/12 07:48 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: maybe but it will help and you cant put imagination in 0s and 1s (yet anyways) as I was saying if something that isn't in its parameters is there it will read error. were better off with humans anyways sure it cost more but its better in the long run.

The problem is, that at the point at which the OP is concerned about, computers will have the complexity of the human mind, likely with all of the subtle pattern-recognition that allows us to have that imagination. Then again, there is the alternate possibility that the super-intelligent computer will be an augmented human. I mean, why have an external computer when you can simply boost your own intelligence/RAM/Hard Disk space? My blog (see sig) actually deals with the issues of the Singularity, and my next post, due sometime in the next couple weeks, will be dealing with the legal and sociological barriers to a smooth transition. Obviously one of the problems will be the further stratification of our social classes, as the haves get the cool new augmentations, and thus get an even bigger leg up on the have-nots. But there is also the issue of labor; what do we leave to humans, and what do we give to automated systems, and what do we do with all of those people who can't, by virtue of their lack of augmentation, be productive members of our new society?

Around the same time that this happens, it is likely that medical science will effectively stop the aging process. Gene therapy on mammals has already produced lifespans 25% longer than normal (and therapy done on simpler organisms has effectively made them immune to aging). What then, when people don't die from natural causes, and we get the super-stratification from augmentation? How do we cull the herd?

At 5/27/12 10:58 PM, TheMason wrote: I believe it has to happen on federal property or cross state/international borders to be a federal offense. All others are state/local offenses.

Bah, well it should be. Throw the heaviest book you can at those fuckers.

As for weeding out potential abusers all public or private/charter schools can do to weed out potential abusers is go get a background check done.

Which, if it's not done already, certainly should be. Shit, I get a background check done for every other damn job it seems.

Finally, when you consider just how many spies turn out to be government employees...why would any rational person think that the government is better than the private sector at vetting potential employees?

Hah! True that. Then again, spies generally go for government gigs, because it's the government they're spying on :P

I believe sexual abuse of a child is a federal offense regardless, and there are no specific oversights that Public schools have that weed out potential abusers, so I doubt there is any credence in that fella's claims. A statistic or two would be nice, because every teacher accused/found guilty of abuse that I remember has been in public schools, but that may be me misremembering.

At 5/20/12 11:22 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Finally graduated...

Took long enough.

Now time for a $2500 month long course to earn the right to even work in the profession.

Woo, Congrats! Took me 13 years to just get a damn Bachelors so consider yourself ahead of the curve. :P