Lunch Links

Friday, July 16th, 2010

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

59 Responses to “Lunch Links”

  1. #1 |  Toastrider | 

    “Drug addicts are no different than alcoholics. Why do you feel we need the government to protect us from some dangerous drugs, but not other ones? Opposing legalization is to embrace big government.”

    And discretion is the better part of valor. Or if you need a more down to earth version: measure twice, cut once.

    Actually, my idea to fix this was rather draconian in itself. Legalization, but if you commit a crime while intoxicated/inebriated/in an altered state of mind, it’s treated as premeditated. Why, yes, that would make killing someone while drunk or stoned a capital murder charge; but hey, they meant to get shitfaced…

  2. #2 |  BSK | 

    “Drug addicts are no different than alcoholics. Why do you feel we need the government to protect us from some dangerous drugs, but not other ones? Opposing legalization is to embrace big government.”

    Are we sure about this? Different drugs have different effects. That is a reality. I think one of the failings of the push towards legalizing all drugs is wrongly equivocating them. Clearly, heroin and crack have great impacts, both desired and not, on someone than weed does. That’s not to say it should be illegal. But saying a crack addict and an alcoholic are “no different’ is to insult common sense and where a lot of people who might otherwise agree with you get turned off.

    Again, I agree with legalization. But I also recognize not all drugs are created equal.

  3. #3 |  Mattocracy | 

    The financial crisis of Oct ’08…who was in office then? Who was running the show the previous 8 years? Who had the majority in congress during the 15 before hand? Who spent all their time trying to hassle homosexuals and starting wars we shouldn’t be in instead of actually dealing with things that actually matter…like stopping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from destroying the housing and lending market? Oh that’s right. It was Republicans, that party that didn’t do any of that limited gov’t or financially responsible stuff they said they were going to.

    I was a die hard Republican. I loved the bitch. Kissed her ass and sucked her toes. And when she moved into the white house, she ran up my debt, got my ass into fights I didn’t need to be in, and made a total ass out herself. But I defended her hoping she would stop, hoping she would get the message. But the more I did it, the more me and everyone else who supported her looked like assholes too. Now some whore from Chicago moved in and it’s all the GOP’s fault. Obama is a Republican creation.

    Now, two years later that cunt is gonna come back and say, “Ah, but baby, it’s gonna be different this time around, I promise.” I have too much self respect to be fooled again.

    The Tea Party hasn’t distanced it’s self from the old guard that caused this mess and ran the party into the ground. Not enough new blood and not enough people holding Bush & Co. accountable for screwing up. It’s the same bitch who screwed me last time.

  4. #4 |  EH | 

    The different groups (local chapters, etc.) within TEA party movement find themselves tarnished by these incidents largely because, even though they are not a monolithic group

    Yeah, the last couple of weeks have really birthed a “we’re not a political party!” cries from the Tea Partiers. However, if they’re not a party, why do they need to demote people who cause controversy?

    “At the start of the week, Williams was listed as a “vice chairman” on the website for the Our Country Deserves Better PAC. Now, the site shows Williams listed as a “spokesperson” for the PAC”

  5. #5 |  RWW | 

    Just because it is a 1 in 1000 chance doesn’t make it implausible.

    Wow, how unlikely does something have to be before you’ll call it implausible?

  6. #6 |  Xenocles | 

    “Wow, how unlikely does something have to be before you’ll call it implausible?”

    Probability fail. You’re missing the crucial difference between “likely to happen” and “likely to happen to me.” If a lottery has a 1 in a billion chance associated with it, it’s very unlikely that you will win. On the other hand, if three billion people play it each time, it’s nearly certain that someone will win (only “nearly” because we can’t assume complete coverage of number picks).

    I agree that it’s lousy strategy to aim for perfection. Even if I knew the exact retail price of all the items I would have rounded it down to the nearest thousand or so just to avoid an overage.

    Now that I think about it, the fact that he did hit it exactly works better as evidence that he didn’t cheat. An effective cheater’s main concern should be balancing maximizing return against minimizing the chance of getting caught. If he knew the answer illegitimately he should have manipulated his “guess” so that he was off but still got both prizes.

  7. #7 |  RWW | 

    You’re reading far more into my comment than intended. I was just being pedantic — trying to point out that “implausible” is synonymous with “unlikely,” and most people would consider an event with a probability of 0.001 to be unlikely.

  8. #8 |  RWW | 

    And even in your deeper digging, your analysis is painfully simpleminded. According to the commenter db above, the relatively high 0.001 probability comes from the fact that the contestant had supposedly done enough intensive study that he had to guess only the last three digits of the price.

  9. #9 |  supercat | 

    EH: “At the start of the week, Williams was listed as a “vice chairman” on the website for the Our Country Deserves Better PAC. Now, the site shows Williams listed as a “spokesperson” for the PAC”

    For whom does the “Our Contry Deserves Better PAC” speak? What fraction of the people who would call themselves “Tea Party” supporters have taken any action whatsoever that would indicate that particular PAC speaks for them?

    There are so many people who claim to speak for the “Tea Party” that merely keeping track of all of them would be a full-time job. It would be impossible for a typical person to denounce everyone who claimed to be speaking for the “Tea Party” who said something he found disagreeable.