Dantius

Originally Posted By: The Kingdom of West Brom Look like your gonna get Obama for another year, you lucky lucky people, keep out Romney the Thatcher lover UK Labour party member Another four years. On the minus side, it doesn't look like the Dems will get the house or a supermajority, so it's a minimum of two more years of obstruction and filibuster. Sigh.

Originally Posted By: Harehunter P.S. I don't put much stock in polls. Ever since that college course, I have always been a curmudgeon with respect to statistics unless I see the basis upon which they are formed; sample size, how sample was chosen, % of non-respondents, weighting factors, standard deviations. Ah, then you'd be a fan of RAND's American Life Panel. They ask the same stratified sample of voters the same questions week after week, then ask them to rate the likelihood of their voting, which is then used to weight the responses. The large sample size means that it's possible to get a consistent estimation of the true lead that one candidate has and whether or not that's due to statistical noise, a bad sample, or a true lead. It's very transparent and probably one of my favorite indicators of the state of the race, behind RCP's aggregation and Nate Silver's models.

I feel compelled to point out that, for around the past fifty or so years, it's been quite apparent that, although stock prices occasionally decide to utilize information from the company that they represent, the prices 95% of the time are basically stochastic (i.e. a random walk) in nature. It's pretty much impossible for small investors to compete with any big players (hedge funds, I-banks, etc), simply because the latter has so much more information and tools to analyze the data and discern patterns. Renaissance Technologies, for instance, has been returning ungodly amounts of money on a regular basis for decades thanks to supercomputers and hundreds of PhD's, things that your basic mom and pop investors can't hope to posses. Pretty much the only way for personal investors to win is to try and play the long game with sufficiently frequent re-balancing to prevent any large losses, and to only dabble in futures shorts or such when you're absolutely sure what you're doing. Originally Posted By: Goldenking Why get involved in such an uncertain market in the first place, then? Well, every now and then you might get a check in the mail from a firm you've invested in. Alternatively, the firm can take those profits and reinvest them in their own business operations, which is also good because it means that the equilibrium price of the stock will rise. Thus, one would be able to resell the stock, if one desired, for a profit. The best reason to get involved with the stock market is because, over the medium-to-long term, a well-made portfolio, even if it's just blue chips, will make you massive returns, if you're willing to take the paper losses that come every once in a while and not freak out and dump everything. Plus, a few solid dividend stocks are a nice way to earn a little extra cash, and some- like ATT- are very nonvolatile, so there's not much risk of losing massive money. like you might on, say, Apple (which I maintain is hugely overvalued and will take a serious hit sooner or later) Originally Posted By: Lilith The causation is usually the other way around: most of the time if a company's stock suddenly takes a dive, that's because something has gone badly wrong for it or is expected to. Investors buy stock in a company because they expect it to rise in value, which will generally happen if the company itself rises in value. Having said that, a reduction in stock prices can also be harmful to a company in itself for a couple of reasons: it'll make it harder for the company to raise extra capital by issuing stock (because the stock isn't worth as much as it used to be), and it's a sign that investors are pessimistic about the company's future earning potential (making it harder to get loans on good terms). Still, stock prices are mostly important in that they reflect the underlying value of the company -- if stock prices drop for no good reason (for example, if a trader mistakenly sells a large amount of stock for a very low price), the company will normally recover nearly all of its stock value pretty fast. This is largely true, but keep in mind that the market doesn't give a price that reflects the true value of a company/commodity/whatever, but rather the price that everyone agrees on. Keynes has a famous quote on this that I'm not willing to look up in its entirety, but the gist is that, in picking stocks, you don't want what you think is good, but rather the ones that you think everyone thinks are good, and sometimes they're all wrong. Obviously, this is what happened with the subprime market- everyone thought the bundled loans were solid enough that they wouldn't default, and they were all wrong, except for the few people willing to take a loss for years betting that they would. Another example is gold- the price of gold is almost entirely dictated by speculation, and not the industrial uses or quantity being mined or other factors of gold. To paraphrase the Economist, gold is more likely to rise if people think that Obama is the Antichrist or Bernanke is in the pocket of the Illuminati than if there's an upswing in demand for those tacky golden USB cables.

I'm shocked. The first debate was days ago, and you people are still talking about voter fraud? That's so last week. I was very surprised at how well Romney did. Despite the frantic race to lower expectations on both sides, he performed shockingly above even the rather high expectations that everybody shilling for him had. Of course, the fact that Obama decided to go along with him and allow him to basically frame the debate the way he wanted (i.e. deficit reduction == unequivocally good thing, for instance), and Lehrer just went along with whatever anybody said probably helped. Personally, I think that Romney managed a good enough performance that he's stopped his campaign from hemorrhaging away any chances he had like it's been doing for the past weeks, but he's going to have to do much better than he is if he's going to turn things around. The map does not look good for him, and it's going to need some serious work to put him into a position to get 270 (or rather 269, since the Republicans have the house). (Also, I would have posted this on the night of the debate, but I started drinking heavily at "We are a nation that believes that we are all children of the same God." and was pretty out of it by the end.)

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity His contemporaries all seemed to believe that he had uncovered the full laws of nature, once and for all. He knew better. Originally Posted By: Alexander Pope (not Pope Alexander) Nature and nature's laws lay hid in night; God said "Let Newton be" and all was light.

Originally Posted By: Triumph Originally Posted By: Sylae In case you missed it, today Tyra added the Exile Remake Remake opening music to his site. Originally Posted By: Nikki Look at me, I can't even be bothered to post my own link to Tyran's site! I am truly the more optimal spammer! Wait, are you saying that Tyran's site has the complete musical collection of all the Spiderweb games? I had no idea!

Didn't E1 have a midi of a Bach fugue looping in the background or something? I seem to recall that being discussed sometime a while ago... Personally, I like G5, A6, and Avadon's intro music. It seems to be improving as time goes by (unlike some things I could mention *cough* the games *cough*)

The only familiarity I have with the series is the .gif of the midget slapping that chick in the face. Frankly, I don't want to read it anymore, as it will no doubt fall short of the expectation of "five hundred pages of a midget slapping people".

Originally Posted By: Lilith creatures from other planets having biology even remotely compatible with humans. we shouldn't even be able to eat their food let alone reproduce with them. Captain Kirk* accepts your challenge!

Originally Posted By: Lilith Originally Posted By: meAzuma Aren't we(well, the backers) the investors? not really. investors expect to make a profit if the project does well Translation: People on Kickstarter are suckers with more money than sense.

And if, perchance, I have offended; Think but this, and all is mended: That you have but spamméd here Whilst my postings did appear.

Favorite quotes? Hmm, I have a bunch, and I don't really record them, so they usually rotate around with reference to "which ones have I re-inspected the source material of recently". Often one of my current favorites resides in my signature, which rotates about once a month or so. The Demons one from the last thread ranks pretty close to my all-time favorite, though. I'll just chip in Lucifer's monolog from Paradise Lost for now: Originally Posted By: John Milton The mind is its own place, and in itself Can make a hell of heaven, and a heaven of hell. What matter where, if I be still the same? And what I should be, all but less than he Whom thunder hath made greater? Here at least We shall be free; th' Almighty hath not built Here for his envy, will not drive us hence. Here we may reign secure, and in my choice To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity I think it should be something like the Burning Man festival. Great! Now I have a use for the bottle of free patchouli oil that I got for re-registering as a Democrat! I'll stop showering right away.

Unfortunate. I must now accelerate Operation: Beat Tyran's Postcount earlier than expected- I only have a few days left. Initiating Phase IV in 3... 2... 1...

Originally Posted By: Harehunter IMHO, it is not that he doesn't care about the very poor. It is just this; in his estimation about 47% of the population will vote for Obama regardless of what he says. Period. On the other hand, there is about 47% of the people who will vote for Romney, period. The 6% that lies in the middle are the true independents that he needs to reach out to in order to be elected. Meanwhile, back in reality, the numbers are close to 50-45 than 47-47. There is a good reason that Obama is given 9:1 odds to win the election by the scarily accurate Nate Silver in his NowCast. Also keep in mind that elections aren't decided by people, but by states, and Obama has leads ranging from somewhat tenuous to downright commanding in, ah, ten out of the ten major swing states. Plus, with all the bad news coming out of Romney's campaign recently, he's not exactly running the lean, mean, election-winning machine that would be able to surmount this hole. Originally Posted By: Harehunter Why is it he says that the very poor are in the 47% for Obama? People who are dependent on governmental entitlements would gain only if the party that supports larger funding for those entitlement programs are elected. Typically those people are Democrats. On the other of side of the coin (literally) are the people who pay taxes to fund those entitlement programs. They prosper when unemployment is low, more people are paying into the tax system, and fewer people are taking out of the system. I happen to fund "entitlement programs" with my income tax dollars to a non-insignificant degree, and I see nothing wrong with this, nor am I somehow getting all in a tizzy about how "OMG the money I built myself by being John Galt is going to lazy poor people!". I fail to see how I would somehow be better off if, say, the government stopped funding Pell grants and instead used my cash to pay down the deficit, or if they decided to cut the EITC in order to force poor people to "pay into the tax system". In fact, I would probably be worse off if they did that. Educating our population, in addition to being somehow philosophically desirable, also carries tangible economic benefits. Ditto for the EITC- even if I don't use it personally the economic benefits trickle up (ha!) to me. Plus, y'know, I'm a safely employed unmarried engineer with no dependents in my early 40's without mortgage or major debt. I honestly don't even need most of the money I make at this point. I'd hardly even notice if the Feds took 30 or even 40% instead of the twentyish I pay now, and I'd be super-OK with them doing it if they money went towards things like jobs programs and stimulus to get us out of this anemic recovery, effective single-payer healthcare, enhanced education funding, efficient national defense, and quality infrastructure.

Originally Posted By: Randomizer One of the many articles that quotes Mitt Romney as defining middle class as $200 to 250 thousand a year income. Now I know that with inflation the limits of the different classes has increased, but until now I never knew that I was lower class. What, you don't know that the correct upper bound of "middle class" is "whatever I make, plus ten grand?"

Originally Posted By: Actaeon Do these things really have an effect? Romney's policies carry the same message as his words. What's the difference? There's a reason that Romney has refused to put out specific policy proposals, and that is because if he did a point-by-point listing of what he would do and how he would do it, he'd alienate three quarters of the electorate. He has tried to refrain from doing so by simply offering quantum policies, wherein his opinion on any issue depends on the observer, but people are starting to wise up on this and demand he collapse his political wave-function. Also, the more important thing about this gaffe is that Romney believed it in the first place, not that he said it. It's not "OMG, Romney said he isn't concerned about the very poor", it's "Romney literally does not understand how things like 'taxes' work".

Originally Posted By: Miramor Nuke jokes are about as funny as rape jokes, i.e. not funny at all. The OP may have been tasteless, but your post was off the charts. Have you even seen Dr. Strangelove? Well-done nuke jokes are hilarious.

Originally Posted By: Triploons So instead you said just enough to let us know that you basically don't care? It's your prerogative to be uninterested, but please don't clutter threads with it. They are discussions for the people who do want to talk about something. —Alorael, who is also left confused by the ambiguity. You can easily not have heard of the indie RPGs he mentioned in his last post, but not having heard of some of the biggest names in CRPGs from the late 90's to mid 2000's means you've been living under a gaming rock. (Most people do, but most people also don't spend time on niche indie RPG forums.) Perhaps he wished to express his disinterest in a way that added to his postcount?

Originally Posted By: Lilith okay let's put it another way murdering countless thousands of people is definitely a good way to make the world a safer place. wait no it isn't, what is the matter with you I'm sure if you selected your thousands very carefully it would be. I think the word you were looking for was "defenseless civilians not engaged in hostilities with us". Originally Posted By: Microsoft lacky How about the US consulate murdered in Libiya? I say Nuke them, but then again I'm not a US citizen (nor resident) More importantly, Mr. Coulter, indiscriminate nuclear warfare against the Middle East is not exactly good for America's image abroad. It doesn't say much about us when crazy tinpot dictatorships can successfully control their nuclear impulses and we can't.

Originally Posted By: Captain Trenton.. The eleventh anniversary passed 3 days ago. Watched FLIGHT 93 as a treat, a movie about the people who fought back against the terrorists and made sure that the plane never reached it's destination. Possibly the white house. Possibly the Washington monument. never really understood why it happened. What reason did bin laden have to launch terrorist attacks on the US? From my understanding, his original beef with the US stemmed from our putting military bases in Saudi Arabia per their government's request during the First Gulf War back under H.W. Bush. These bases, being filled with things like women not covering their faces and people worshiping other religions and other such ideas offensive to fundamentalist Muslims in the holiest place of Islam irked more than a few people, and bin Laden happened to be the person with the resources (he was multimillionaire), the drive, and the fanaticism to extract revenge for the perceived slight in spectacular fashion.

Originally Posted By: Captain TrEnToN. I cAn'T bElIeVe I aLrEaDy HaVe 300,000 PoStS! If you continue to post ridiculous crap like this, I will go on the record as hoping that you are permanently banned as soon as humanly possible. There are and should be enforceable lines to at least keep communication on Spiderweb at the "readable" level at minimum, and I'm shocked that in a community like Spiderweb that prides itself on the level and quality of its discourse, people have displayed such reluctance to publicly call you out for not only not even trying to reform, but in fact actively trying to become worse as time passes. I was willing to extend you the benefit of the doubt for your first month or so, and common courtesy kept me from saying things when you were at least trying to get better, but this has gone too far for too long now. Shape up or get out.

Originally Posted By: Miramor Say, that sounds interesting. Having spent some time embroiled in WS stuff, I've become something of a believer, but I have to say I have my doubts; particularly concerning the consequentialist ethics, and also the idea that I am incapable of understanding certain things, and must therefore take some statements on faith. I wonder what Bawer makes of such things. I think one of his stronger arguments with WS in the vein of "being foce to take things on faith" is that the discipline has become so bogged down with intersectionalism that it finds itself int the position of being unable to criticize things that it very clearly should be criticizing. There's one anecdote where he's attending a talk at a woman's studies conference, and the speaker was talking about how criticism of violence against women committed in other cultures is inherently imperialist and racist, because it presumes that Western views like "you probably shouldn't kill people for having sex before marriage" are superior by definition to native opinions and that by trying to force our opinions on them we're actually oppressing both their men and women. I mean, I guess that's technically true in a certain sense, but it rather misses the larger point that, y'know, women are being murdered by a society that is orders of magnitude more patriarchal and repressive than ours and de-legitimizing any criticism of this based on the fact that I'm not a member of said culture seems like the last thing one would want to do to help fellow human beings.

I got several books finished over my vacation. They Eat Puppies, Don't They? by Christopher Buckley (of Thank You For Smoking fame) is a satirical novel about a cynical defense lobbyist who team up with a woman who totally isn't Ann Coulter to start a cold war with China in order to sell a Predator drone the size of a 747. Their plan was to spread a rumor that the Dalai Lama was fatally poisoned with an extract from a baby panda, because they think that that only murdering baby pandas would generate sufficient moral outrage to start tensions. It's a drier and darker sense of humor, but very funny in parts. The Victim's Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind by Bruce Bawer. Title says it all: a critique of the New Left from the left. It alternates between well-thought out, reasonable, and powerful arguments and a polemic screed. Really the only two chapters worth reading are the ones on women's studies and LGBT identity (he happens to be gay himself). The one on Chicano studies in also OK, I guess. Most of the other chapters almost border on concern trolling, but his overall point is still both correct and very important. Nonbeliever Nation by David Niose. His basic point is that, despite people who don't believe in God or follow any sort of organized religion making up close to a quarter of the population, they are still happen to be one of the most politically toxic and generally hated groups out there, and are both widely smeared and legally/politically attacked by the political right and marginalized and downplayed to the point of total disregard by the political left*. He attributes this to their inability to organize- even the largest secular groups are poorly funded and only have a small fraction of the members that one would reasonably expect that they should have given the size of the population they draw from. I'm now working on Joseph Stiglitz's The Price of Inequality and Paradise Lost (not by JS, of course). Also, I got a Nexus. It makes accessing my library on the go suuuuuper convenient, and also I can now indulge myself by reading Fifty Shades of Gray at the office and in public without anyone knowing!

I read that as 7.5 hour warning, and was confused as to why the session was in the middle of the night.