freenode #wikipedia

2008-03-19 10:04 < mavhc> is this a usenet group or a google group?
2008-03-19 10:04 < ShakespeareFan00> Even when to a simpleton it's clear spam
2008-03-19 10:05 < ShakespeareFan00> mavhc: uk.railway is a USENET group 'archived' by Google Groups
2008-03-19 10:05 < ThePolecat> Google doesn't owe anyone anything
2008-03-19 10:05 < ShakespeareFan00> It does
2008-03-19 10:05 < Lycurgus> you evince the luser profile. Start your own venue where you have control if its so important to you.
2008-03-19 10:05 < ThePolecat> in this case no it doesn't
2008-03-19 10:05 < mavhc> so what's that got to do with google?
2008-03-19 10:05 < ThePolecat> because nobody pays to have a contract with them.
2008-03-19 10:05 < ShakespeareFan00> it owes the wider Intenet community a responiosbility to put it's own house in order
2008-03-19 10:05 < ThePolecat> no
2008-03-19 10:05 < ThePolecat> it is a corporation that offers the service it offers
2008-03-19 10:06 < ShakespeareFan00> ThePolecat; When I sign up to post, I agree not to spam via them
2008-03-19 10:06 < mavhc> surely it's the fault of usenet, not google
2008-03-19 10:06 < ThePolecat> if people find that lacking, they're very welcome to look for another
2008-03-19 10:06 < ShakespeareFan00> It's a shame that term is not enforced more vigoursly
2008-03-19 10:06 < Lycurgus> no it doesn't. it's a regular commercail enterprise.
2008-03-19 10:06 < ShakespeareFan00> Then it should be shut down
2008-03-19 10:06 < Lycurgus> some people seem to be clueless about that.
2008-03-19 10:06 < ThePolecat> Yea, but that's between you and them, and they can block you within their discretion
2008-03-19 10:06 < mavhc> you've yet to specify the problem properly
2008-03-19 10:06 < ThePolecat> That's bollocks to be quite honest.
2008-03-19 10:06 < ShakespeareFan00> for failing to livie up to the standards expected of reasonable commerece
2008-03-19 10:06 < ThePolecat> they run a forum and set the rules.
2008-03-19 10:07 < Lycurgus> summer of code and shit. Hard to believe but I guess there is a sucker born every minute.
2008-03-19 10:07 < ThePolecat> there's no commerce there.
2008-03-19 10:07 < ThePolecat> there's just a free forum
2008-03-19 10:07 < ThePolecat> and free fora unfortunately tend to attract spammers
2008-03-19 10:07 < ShakespeareFan00> If you aren't prepared to police your site for troublemakers what business do you have running it?
2008-03-19 10:07 < ThePolecat> That isn't a question they need to answer
2008-03-19 10:08 < ShakespeareFan00> They should
2008-03-19 10:08 < ThePolecat> They provide it, full stop
2008-03-19 10:08 < mavhc> what's the problem, exactly?
2008-03-19 10:08 < ThePolecat> But they don't have to, it's well within their right to do so without justification
2008-03-19 10:08 < ShakespeareFan00> Thats the answer that let IBM supply the Nazi's - They were merely a customer.
2008-03-19 10:08 < Lycurgus> you're not compelled to use their servers
2008-03-19 10:08 < mavhc> oh, spammers = nazis, ok
2008-03-19 10:08 < ShakespeareFan00> (and I call godwin ending the disscusion)
2008-03-19 10:08 < ThePolecat> You're not going to compare spammers to the SS, are you?
2008-03-19 10:08 < Lycurgus> there's loads of new servers and you could easily set up your own.
2008-03-19 10:09 < mavhc> specify. the. problem.
2008-03-19 10:09 < ThePolecat> the simile is impossible to use
2008-03-19 10:09 < ThePolecat> and hence impossible to argue against
2008-03-19 10:09 < ThePolecat> so whatever
2008-03-19 10:09 < ThePolecat> brbr
2008-03-19 10:09 < ShakespeareFan00> Lycurgus: Commerical entites have a responsiblity to enforce thier own terms, it shame Google doesn't enforce it's no spam policy a bit tighter
2008-03-19 10:10 < ThePolecat> no
2008-03-19 10:10 < ThePolecat> they don't even have to set one
2008-03-19 10:10 < mavhc> who's spamming what?
2008-03-19 10:10 < ThePolecat> if they don't, laws apply
2008-03-19 10:10 < ShakespeareFan00> Firms that set terms of service should be held accountable by those terms :)
2008-03-19 10:10 < mavhc> sigh
2008-03-19 10:10 < ThePolecat> but it doesn't give persons a subjective claim.
2008-03-19 10:11 < mavhc> you're as obtuse as your namesake
2008-03-19 10:11 < ThePolecat> they're just there so that there's authority to remove people
2008-03-19 10:11 < ThePolecat> Shakespeare wasn't obtuse
2008-03-19 10:12 < ShakespeareFan00> Sorry rant over...
2008-03-19 10:12 < ThePolecat> you have no rights on Google Groups
2008-03-19 10:12 < mavhc> pfft, facts
2008-03-19 10:12 < ThePolecat> that's the simple conclusion.
2008-03-19 10:12 < ShakespeareFan00> You are probably correct rhouygh
2008-03-19 10:12 < ShakespeareFan00> *though
2008-03-19 10:12 < ThePolecat> or on Wikipedia
2008-03-19 10:12 < ShakespeareFan00> And I am just p***d at Google
2008-03-19 10:12 < ThePolecat> rules are only followed so people aren't scared away, as you were.
2008-03-19 10:13 < ThePolecat> that's the only drawback that those entities have from not following their own rules.
2008-03-19 10:13 < ShakespeareFan00> At least the rules on Wikipedia work - sort of
2008-03-19 10:13 < ThePolecat> hehe
2008-03-19 10:13 < ThePolecat> yea
2008-03-19 10:13 < ShakespeareFan00> I am seriosuly considering setting up an 'auto-canceller' for spam
2008-03-19 10:13 < mavhc> no wonder they ignore you, you can't say what the problem is
2008-03-19 10:13 < ThePolecat> as they said on uncyc about David Cameron "our big dysfunctional family"
2008-03-19 10:14 < ShakespeareFan00> The problem is that Google Groups seemingly does not remove obvious spam that originates from gmail addresses
2008-03-19 10:14 < mavhc> spam to usenet?
2008-03-19 10:14 < ThePolecat> that's because no-one has reported the particular instances, I guess.
2008-03-19 10:14 < ShakespeareFan00> Whereas it's terms of service explictly state that you cant use Google Groups of Gmail for spamming
2008-03-19 10:14 < ShakespeareFan00> mavhc: yeah
2008-03-19 10:15 < mexicanbanana> Wait a minute... Are there people out there who get their Web pages actually MODIFIED before reaching their computer? Like... some words are changed, etc.?
2008-03-19 10:15 < mavhc> and the second problem is google ignores people telling them accounts are spamming
2008-03-19 10:15 < ShakespeareFan00> Yep
2008-03-19 10:15 < ShakespeareFan00> mexicanbanana: It happens
2008-03-19 10:15 < mexicanbanana> ...
2008-03-19 10:15 < ThePolecat> maybe they just like to read spam!
2008-03-19 10:16 < ThePolecat> "don't make a fuss dear, I'll have your spam."
2008-03-19 10:16 < ShakespeareFan00> mavhc: I can see why Google would ignore compalints about 'misogynistic sexist barstards' because of 1st ammendement issues
2008-03-19 10:17 < ShakespeareFan00> but ignoring complaints about a mass spam of 20 or so obvious adverts for fake Rolex is pushing it
2008-03-19 10:17 < ThePolecat> rare enough I'm afraid
2008-03-19 10:17 < ThePolecat> they don't even ignore reports about Chinese dissidents.
2008-03-19 10:17 < ThePolecat> (which they oughta)
2008-03-19 10:17 < ShakespeareFan00> What I really don't understand is why they don't remove the 'advertisments' for obscene material
2008-03-19 10:17 < ShakespeareFan00> and drugs
2008-03-19 10:18 < ThePolecat> because they don't have to, they have to give out information about the posters maybe
2008-03-19 10:18 < ThePolecat> to the police
2008-03-19 10:18 < ThePolecat> but unless there's a mandate, they have no obligation to remove the mere mention
2008-03-19 10:18 < ShakespeareFan00> Presumably an 'advertisment' for some russian prono is not of itself illegal, even if the advertised site is ?
2008-03-19 10:19 < ThePolecat> It arguably is illegal, even in the US
2008-03-19 10:19 < ThePolecat> but again
2008-03-19 10:19 < ShakespeareFan00> Thankfully , the way things are moving in the UK, Google will soon have to legally remove 'advertisment' of obsence sites on it's UK site...
2008-03-19 10:19 < ThePolecat> not removing only gets themselves in peril, nobody else
2008-03-19 10:19 < ThePolecat> I think people are also reluctant to report such things since it means they've done that kind of research
2008-03-19 10:20 < ThePolecat> I think that's horrible.
2008-03-19 10:20 < ShakespeareFan00> UK ISP's now have cleanfeed for Web content...
2008-03-19 10:20 < ThePolecat> (unless it's exploitative of protect-worthy people)
2008-03-19 10:20 < ShakespeareFan00> It won't be long before it's applied to USENET
2008-03-19 10:20 < ShakespeareFan00> which is NOT nessacrily the right thing
2008-03-19 10:20 < ThePolecat> that's terrible.
2008-03-19 10:21 < ThePolecat> you mean you get no porn at all even as an adult?
2008-03-19 10:21 < ShakespeareFan00> ThePolecat: Note I said obscene here...
2008-03-19 10:21 < mavhc> we get no "secret list of websites"
2008-03-19 10:21 < ShakespeareFan00> There is a BIG difference between Obscene and normal healthy erotic content
2008-03-19 10:21 < mavhc> unless we use tor, ssh, vpn....
2008-03-19 10:21 < ThePolecat> It's not horrible because I like porn, but because you shouldn't have to explain or apologize for using your rights.
2008-03-19 10:21 < mavhc> basically anything someone who wanted to get child porn would use
2008-03-19 10:22 < ideogram> hahahaha national governments trying to control USENET
2008-03-19 10:22 < ShakespeareFan00> ideogram: Well the problem is that the Internet was designed to cicurmvents ubversion by hostile powers ;)
2008-03-19 10:22 < mavhc> it's easy to control the internet, just run the only isp in the country, and make satellites illegal
2008-03-19 10:22 < ideogram> make a great firewall
2008-03-19 10:23 < ShakespeareFan00> Like happens in UAE and Saudi?
2008-03-19 10:23 < ThePolecat> there's a lot of censorship of German Google in this respect, most of it good, some of it rash, especially as it relates to Nazis
2008-03-19 10:23 < Kabraxis-> or here, Turkey.
2008-03-19 10:23 < ShakespeareFan00> Turkey only has one ISP?
2008-03-19 10:23 < Kabraxis-> lately, Youtube is banned.
2008-03-19 10:23 < mavhc> nazis? never heard of them, ve vere all on vacation!
2008-03-19 10:23 < ThePolecat> I vas in ze underground!
2008-03-19 10:23 < ThePolecat> "Resistance?" "No, subvay!"
2008-03-19 10:23 < Kabraxis-> Um, no, but evey ISP uses one substructure
2008-03-19 10:24 < Kabraxis-> all ISP's.
2008-03-19 10:24 < ThePolecat> I vas so deep down, I hadn't a klue vat vas going on
2008-03-19 10:24 < ThePolecat> German connection data and mail traffic is being stored for a year now
2008-03-19 10:25 < ShakespeareFan00> :O
2008-03-19 10:25 < ThePolecat> for "terrorism"
2008-03-19 10:25 < ShakespeareFan00> LOL
2008-03-19 10:25 < ShakespeareFan00> ROFL
2008-03-19 10:25 < ShakespeareFan00> It means they will MISS stuff if they store evreything
2008-03-19 10:25 < mavhc> it means we can DoS the government by just visiting loads of websites
2008-03-19 10:25 < ShakespeareFan00> SIGINT is fine, if you don't have to read evreything
2008-03-19 10:25 < ThePolecat> but oddly enough some of the crimes you can use the data against don't involve terrorism at all
2008-03-19 10:25 < ShakespeareFan00> What like P2P use?
2008-03-19 10:25 < ThePolecat> it doesn't even store the websites, if I remember correctly, I don't remember
2008-03-19 10:26 < ShakespeareFan00> and connection fraud?
2008-03-19 10:26 < ThePolecat> but it seems to be unconstitutional in this broadness
2008-03-19 10:26 < mavhc> connect to external VPN provider, problem solved
2008-03-19 10:26 < ShakespeareFan00> (ie phreaking)
2008-03-19 10:26 < mavhc> how much can a geek make advising criminals?
2008-03-19 10:26 < ThePolecat> Five years without parole?
2008-03-19 10:26 < ThePolecat> :-D
2008-03-19 10:27 < ShakespeareFan00> mavhc: Depends on the nature of the advice..
2008-03-19 10:27 < mavhc> if your advice is crap and they get caught, maybe
2008-03-19 10:27 < ideogram> tell 1 I'm sure it's competitive with the aboveground labor market, plus a risk premium
2008-03-19 10:27 < ShakespeareFan00> Good lawyers can make quite a lot and still not break the law :)
2008-03-19 10:27 < ideogram> i believe in efficient markets
2008-03-19 10:27 < ShakespeareFan00> Accountants can make simmilar ammounts in terms of tax avoidance schemes :)
2008-03-19 10:27 < mavhc> "I thought they were privacy activists, wasn't my fault"
2008-03-19 10:27 < ThePolecat> I believe in making markets efficient
2008-03-19 10:28 * ThePolecat is a privacy activist
2008-03-19 10:28 < ThePolecat> well
2008-03-19 10:28 < ideogram> the great thing about markets is it doesn't take a lot of work to make them efficient
2008-03-19 10:28 < mavhc> ThePolecat: having to arrive really early and get all your goods out of a van can't be that efficient
2008-03-19 10:28 < ThePolecat> in the sense that I hope that the constitution court cases are largely successful
2008-03-19 10:28 < ThePolecat> Depends on where your stall is.
2008-03-19 10:29 < ShakespeareFan00> And the nature of the goods... ;)
2008-03-19 10:29 < ThePolecat> we're just now seeing how badly laissez-faire works.
2008-03-19 10:29 < ShakespeareFan00> markets are effcient if you have perfect information
2008-03-19 10:29 < ideogram> capitalism is a game and needs rules, certainly
2008-03-19 10:29 < mavhc> and 0 lag
2008-03-19 10:29 < ShakespeareFan00> Most markets don't
2008-03-19 10:29 < mavhc> and equal sides
2008-03-19 10:30 < ThePolecat> Laissez-faire requires the point-shaped human in a vacuum.
2008-03-19 10:30 < ideogram> however there is a fundamental notion that direct control is bad
2008-03-19 10:30 < ThePolecat> I disagree.
2008-03-19 10:30 < ideogram> uh oh
2008-03-19 10:30 < ThePolecat> it's like saying just because you have an autopilot, having a pilot in the cabin is bad.
2008-03-19 10:31 < ideogram> capitalism is not an autopilot
2008-03-19 10:31 < ShakespeareFan00> I have a joke about economists ;)
2008-03-19 10:31 < ideogram> it is not possible for a human being to pilot a modern economy
2008-03-19 10:31 < ThePolecat> well, that would be an even more fundamental critique
2008-03-19 10:31 < mavhc> economists are a joke
2008-03-19 10:31 < ThePolecat> it's possible to set the right incentives.
2008-03-19 10:32 < ShakespeareFan00> "Three economists go to an archery range... The first fires too high..., the second too low... The third then cheers saying he hit the centre of the target ;) "
2008-03-19 10:32 < ideogram> capitalism is a way to allocate resources without requiring any one human being to understand all the variables involved
2008-03-19 10:32 < ThePolecat> I'm not an extreme Keynsian, but I'm seeing how terribly laissez-faire has been working lately.
2008-03-19 10:32 < ideogram> laissez-faire is an extreme
2008-03-19 10:32 < ideogram> there is no such thing as true lassez-faire
2008-03-19 10:32 < ShakespeareFan00> Well world markets are not totally unregualted
2008-03-19 10:33 < ideogram> obviously there are defects in lassez-faire, for instance externalizing costs by polluting needs to be regulated
2008-03-19 10:33 < ShakespeareFan00> In fact , maybe the ecnomies of some states would be better with less red-tape :)
2008-03-19 10:33 < ThePolecat> the market is not a good thing to let loose
2008-03-19 10:33 < ideogram> sigh
2008-03-19 10:33 < ThePolecat> for instance, yes
2008-03-19 10:33 < ThePolecat> "red tape" means "safeguarding interests"
2008-03-19 10:33 < ThePolecat> so it's not a negative in my book
2008-03-19 10:33 < ideogram> the market works well when price signals reflect actual costs to society and others
2008-03-19 10:33 < ShakespeareFan00> I mean the US claims to be for 'free' trade
2008-03-19 10:34 < ThePolecat> oh it's not just price stability.
2008-03-19 10:34 < ShakespeareFan00> but prevents acess by develope countries agirculture by subsidy and trariffs
2008-03-19 10:34 < ideogram> that has nothing to do with stability
2008-03-19 10:34 < ideogram> maybe to you it does
2008-03-19 10:34 < ideogram> price fluctations are how the market adjusts to reflect changes in actual costs
2008-03-19 10:35 < ShakespeareFan00> The US claims to be for free trade, but then locks up ideas with patent absurdities
2008-03-19 10:35 < ShakespeareFan00> There was the fuss about coca leaf recently...
2008-03-19 10:35 < ideogram> fundamental to this is the realization that there is no "true" cost of, for instance, food
2008-03-19 10:35 < ThePolecat> not sure if the "natural price" is the desirable one
2008-03-19 10:35 < ThePolecat> it'll usually be too low
2008-03-19 10:35 < ThePolecat> but I'm a jurist, not an economist
2008-03-19 10:35 < ShakespeareFan00> Because it's on the banned list, it must be eleminated , It's being elminated thus it must be on the banned list... circular logic
2008-03-19 10:35 < ideogram> if you believe that you know what the proper price of something is, you cannot be a market economist
2008-03-19 10:36 < ThePolecat> I'm not sure if markets give optimal results that way.
2008-03-19 10:36 < ideogram> market economists believe that no human being can calculate the proper price of a good because there are too many variables involved
2008-03-19 10:36 < mavhc> a good?
2008-03-19 10:36 < ideogram> a product or service
2008-03-19 10:36 < Lycurgus> http://tiny.cc/Isq1m
2008-03-19 10:36 < ideogram> markets are not perfect, but they are a lot better than direct intervention, or the logical extreme, a command economy
2008-03-19 10:37 < ideogram> this is widely accepted now
2008-03-19 10:37 < ideogram> generally governments interfere with market economies to satisfy political goals, such as protecting special interests
2008-03-19 10:37 < mavhc> worked well for russia
2008-03-19 10:37 < Lycurgus> i.e. a commodity.
2008-03-19 10:37 < ThePolecat> depending on your definition of direct intervention...
2008-03-19 10:37 < ThePolecat> for instance what the Zimbabweans did was patently nonsense
2008-03-19 10:38 < ideogram> tariffs, protectionism, tax credits for preferred industries (e.g. solar panels in germany), minimum wages, rent control, and on and on and on
2008-03-19 10:38 < Lycurgus> the fettish whereof together with other vulgar opinion apparently getting their full airing here today.
2008-03-19 10:38 < ThePolecat> but if you're the only one following a protective course in a sea of free markets, it does have some pros
2008-03-19 10:38 < Lycurgus> *vulgar economic opinions
2008-03-19 10:38 < ShakespeareFan00> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/19/nterror519.xml LOL
2008-03-19 10:39 < ideogram> no protectionism shifts the benefits to the sector of your economy being protected at the expense of other sectors of your socieity
2008-03-19 10:39 < ideogram> you are in effect making the majority subsidize the minority
2008-03-19 10:39 < mavhc> the government is just another company
2008-03-19 10:39 < ThePolecat> well, provided you can't afford to ignore that sector, it might still work
2008-03-19 10:39 < ShakespeareFan00> How about actually giving the police and authorites the budget to actually do THIER jobs properly ?
2008-03-19 10:39 < ThePolecat> *can
2008-03-19 10:39 < ideogram> in purely theoretical terms this will reduce the efficiency of your economy and reduce your competitiveness in the world
2008-03-19 10:39 < ideogram> reality is often more complex, of courss
2008-03-19 10:40 < ideogram> from a theoretical perspective no sector cannot be ignored or given up
2008-03-19 10:40 < ideogram> the decision to pretect a sector is a political one, not an economic one, for instance french protection of farmers because they believe they are part of french culture
2008-03-19 10:40 < ThePolecat> I think only in liberal democracies will that usually matter
2008-03-19 10:40 < ThePolecat> "liberal" not in the American sense
2008-03-19 10:41 < ThePolecat> Whoa, cold
2008-03-19 10:41 < ThePolecat> brb
2008-03-19 10:41 < Lycurgus> translation: "moderate conservative"
2008-03-19 10:41 < Lycurgus> (i.e. the american sense)
2008-03-19 10:41 < ThePolecat> the American sense of "left-of-center" is quite odd
2008-03-19 10:41 < ideogram> i don't think it translates well to common american political vocabulary
2008-03-19 10:41 < ThePolecat> in Germany "liberal" means "pro-business"
2008-03-19 10:42 < ideogram> liberal democracies do usually support market economies
2008-03-19 10:42 < Lycurgus> right, ie. neo
2008-03-19 10:42 < ThePolecat> and in the constitutional sense, freedom-oriented
2008-03-19 10:42 < ideogram> yes, and individual rights
2008-03-19 10:42 < ThePolecat> yep
2008-03-19 10:42 < ideogram> due to the history of the development of liberal political philosophy in europe
2008-03-19 10:42 < mavhc> it's good to help people through bad times though
2008-03-19 10:43 < ideogram> most americans don't understand it though
2008-03-19 10:43 < ThePolecat> yea, our liberal party shifts from market liberalism to social liberalism and back
2008-03-19 10:43 < ideogram> certainly we can't have a market ecomy in which people starve to death
2008-03-19 10:43 < ThePolecat> right now it's pretty far to the side of a)
2008-03-19 10:43 < mavhc> no point killing all the farmers, leaving the land to go to ruin, then 5 years later being in trouble
2008-03-19 10:43 < ideogram> this is a case in which social issues clearly are more important than market efficiency
2008-03-19 10:44 < ThePolecat> wow, 2 1/4 per cent
2008-03-19 10:44 < mavhc> I'd argue that letting people starve is bad, economic-wise
2008-03-19 10:45 < ThePolecat> Fed fund rate
2008-03-19 10:45 < arcimboldo_> hm .. our liberal party seems to have moved to the right of the conservative party in many of its policies
2008-03-19 10:45 < ideogram> no, in a purely economic sense people are just another variable
2008-03-19 10:45 < ThePolecat> thats almost half as low as in the Eurozone
2008-03-19 10:45 < mavhc> having someone lose their house/job because they can't afford to live for 1 month is bad for the economy
2008-03-19 10:45 < Pilotguy> Hello Fabexplosive hello Juliancolton and VRAG-
2008-03-19 10:45 < Juliancolton> Hello
2008-03-19 10:46 < ideogram> no, in a purely theoretical sense they are not pulling their weight and are a drag on the economy
2008-03-19 10:46 < ideogram> although you could make an argument that some may chooses to invest in them in the hopes of future returns
2008-03-19 10:46 < VRAG-> hello Pilotguy
2008-03-19 10:46 < Lycurgus> last $0.02: "market economy" is another misconception; the objective mechanism is enevitably associated with ownership of said economy by an entrenched elite that tryies to won and monopolize all production ...
2008-03-19 10:46 < Fabexplosive> hello
2008-03-19 10:46 < ThePolecat> the market is more patient than people can be, I guess
2008-03-19 10:46 < Fabexplosive> hey Pilotguy
2008-03-19 10:46 < ideogram> some people are better at playing the game called capitalism than others
2008-03-19 10:46 < ThePolecat> Lycurgus: That's what tends to happen in laissez-faire
2008-03-19 10:47 < ThePolecat> because companies are always challenge-averse
2008-03-19 10:47 < ideogram> the fundamental assumption is that letting them play that way is the best way to allocate resources
2008-03-19 10:47 < ideogram> because they themselves win by learning how to allocate resources efficiently
2008-03-19 10:47 < Lycurgus> normally thru the finance capital system, current going thru the crisis it inflicts on itsef when it sufficiently divorces the money it prints from it's sources of value in production.
2008-03-19 10:47 < ideogram> therefore behavior that benefits market efficiency is rewarded
2008-03-19 10:47 < ThePolecat> in reality what happens is that they make agreements to avoid competition as much as possible and prices remain high
2008-03-19 10:47 < ideogram> collusion and price fixing is illegal of course
2008-03-19 10:48 < ThePolecat> because they have segmental monopolies
2008-03-19 10:48 < ideogram> that is required for a market economy to function
2008-03-19 10:48 < ideogram> monopolies are watched quite closely to ensure they do not threaten the system
2008-03-19 10:48 < mavhc> ideogram: you've been investing in them for 20 years, you should help out for 1 month to save your investment
2008-03-19 10:48 < ThePolecat> heh, making collusion illegal is one step toward communism for lots of people.
2008-03-19 10:48 < ideogram> I personally do not have an investment in total strangers
2008-03-19 10:48 < ideogram> usually those with the most investment in a person are that person's parents
2008-03-19 10:48 < mavhc> the company that paid for their education does
2008-03-19 10:49 < ideogram> if there was a company that paid for for their education
2008-03-19 10:49 < ideogram> if they were educated at public expense then I am faced with the possbility of not earning sufficient return for my tax dollars
2008-03-19 10:49 < ThePolecat> in Germany when they liberalized the electricity market, companies split up the territory among each other, didn't leave any competition and closed the shop
2008-03-19 10:50 < Lycurgus> *tries to own
2008-03-19 10:50 < ideogram> that would not be a well run market then
2008-03-19 10:50 < libertad> I'm trying to make a Wikipedia Spanish DVD
2008-03-19 10:50 < libertad> Someone could help me with Wikifilter?
2008-03-19 10:50 < Lycurgus> owns the chumps
2008-03-19 10:50 < ThePolecat> tell me about it.
2008-03-19 10:50 < libertad> I have the files: eswiki-20080317-pages-articles.xml and eswiki-20080317-pages-articles_index.art
2008-03-19 10:50 < ThePolecat> :-D
2008-03-19 10:50 < Lycurgus> pan economicus
2008-03-19 10:50 < ThePolecat> Brb
2008-03-19 10:50 < libertad> But I can't undestand how to run the http://localhost/wiki
2008-03-19 10:50 < ideogram> in the US managing the market involves promoting competition
2008-03-19 10:51 < ThePolecat> in the EU as well, theoretically
2008-03-19 10:51 < ThePolecat> but the companies dodge it wherever possible
2008-03-19 10:51 < ideogram> well, that is what is required for a well functioning market
2008-03-19 10:51 < bumm13> libertad: try #mediawiki if nobody here can help with your question
2008-03-19 10:51 < ideogram> certainly it is better for individual companies to avoid competition
2008-03-19 10:51 < ideogram> it is the job of government to ensure they do not get too far
2008-03-19 10:51 < ThePolecat> and there are always people who shriek when anti-cartel action is taken
2008-03-19 10:51 < libertad> bumm13: I'm already there
2008-03-19 10:51 < bumm13> ah ok ;)
2008-03-19 10:52 < ThePolecat> some people even in this channel would call that one step toward communism
2008-03-19 10:52 < ThePolecat> so ya
2008-03-19 10:52 < Fabexplosive> hiya bumm13
2008-03-19 10:52 < ThePolecat> I agree with most of whats been said, knowing little myself
2008-03-19 10:52 < ideogram> I don't even know what communism means anymore
2008-03-19 10:52 < ThePolecat> Neither do they.
2008-03-19 10:53 < Lycurgus> communism is a theoretical future state of society which is stateless and classless
2008-03-19 10:53 < Lucifer_Cat> hola!
2008-03-19 10:53 < Lycurgus> appropriated by Stalinists Maoists and others in the 20th century
2008-03-19 10:53 < ThePolecat> As well as the main political goal of Hillary Clinton, if freerepublic.com is to be believed.
2008-03-19 10:53 < Lycurgus> hi LC
2008-03-19 10:54 < ideogram> communism is a political ideology, an economic system, a theory of history, a philosophy, a propaganda term, a popular demon, and on and on and on
2008-03-19 10:54 < Apple> any ops on?
2008-03-19 10:54 < Lucifer_Cat> first time someones called me that
2008-03-19 10:54 < ideogram> what do you need?
2008-03-19 10:54 < Lucifer_Cat> Apple!! is it true?
2008-03-19 10:54 < Lycurgus> and it isn't the bugaboo it once was in the US. I sense a disturbance in the funditard force.
2008-03-19 10:54 < Apple> should say AppleBoy instead of Apple`
2008-03-19 10:54 < Apple> and yes :) a baby colt :P
2008-03-19 10:54 < mavhc> can you have competition with closed networks? surely one company will eventually run all the networks for the entire area
2008-03-19 10:54 < Apple> weighed in at ~80 pounds
2008-03-19 10:54 < Lucifer_Cat> what are you calling it?
2008-03-19 10:55 < ideogram> closed networks?
2008-03-19 10:55 < Apple> no idea yet
2008-03-19 10:55 < Lucifer_Cat> Mack?
2008-03-19 10:55 < ideogram> what is a closed network?
2008-03-19 10:55 < Apple> don't ask me why, but it has to start with an I
2008-03-19 10:55 < Lucifer_Cat> haha
2008-03-19 10:55 < ideogram> iMac
2008-03-19 10:55 < Lycurgus> one you have to authentic to enter
2008-03-19 10:55 < Lucifer_Cat> I, Mack
2008-03-19 10:55 < Lucifer_Cat> *authenticate
2008-03-19 10:55 < Lycurgus> *authenticate
2008-03-19 10:55 < Lucifer_Cat> beat ya
2008-03-19 10:55 < bumm13> Apple: a baby horse, eh?
2008-03-19 10:55 < Apple> yep
2008-03-19 10:55 < Lucifer_Cat> atleast thats what it appears at this end
2008-03-19 10:55 < mavhc> say a railway network that noone else is allowed to join, or a cable tv/internet network
2008-03-19 10:55 < Lycurgus> not here you didn't
2008-03-19 10:55 < Lucifer_Cat> iColt
2008-03-19 10:56 < Lucifer_Cat> iCaddy
2008-03-19 10:56 < ideogram> I am not sure what you are asking, but network effects do tend to promote monopoly
2008-03-19 10:56 < bumm13> whose horse is it?
2008-03-19 10:56 < Lucifer_Cat> i, Must(ang)
2008-03-19 10:56 < Apple> hrmm, let me see if I can find the digital camera and upload some pictures
2008-03-19 10:56 < ShakespeareFan00> mavhc: You franchise portions of the service?
2008-03-19 10:56 < ShakespeareFan00> ;)
2008-03-19 10:56 < Apple> bumm13: my horse's baby?
2008-03-19 10:56 < ideogram> yes, certainly the larger such a network gets the more advantages it has over smaller networks
2008-03-19 10:56 < bumm13> my dad actually encountered wild mustangs once while in northern Nevada
2008-03-19 10:56 < bumm13> Apple: you own a horse, then?
2008-03-19 10:56 < Cyrius> [[List of mythological thingees whose names start with I]]
2008-03-19 10:56 < bumm13> Icarus ;)
2008-03-19 10:57 < Apple> well, technically it's my sister's horse, but I've been involved with the whole thing quite a bit
2008-03-19 10:57 < bumm13> ah ok
2008-03-19 10:57 < ThePolecat> the government forces you to run the whole network yourself or to sell parts of it.
2008-03-19 10:57 < ThePolecat> :-D
2008-03-19 10:57 < Lucifer_Cat> oh damn. i thought YOU had a kid.
2008-03-19 10:57 < bumm13> (regarding mustangs) I guess they would come up to you if you had carrots but were always a bit wary of any humans
2008-03-19 10:57 < ThePolecat> brb.
2008-03-19 10:57 < mavhc> so in that case is the government forcing you to open your network a good thing?
2008-03-19 10:58 < ideogram> not necessarily
2008-03-19 10:58 * ThePolecat is being gnawed on by a small but vigorous dog
2008-03-19 10:58 < ideogram> networks are in fact more efficeint the larger they get
2008-03-19 10:58 < bumm13> ()o.o()
2008-03-19 10:58 < ideogram> therefore monopolies are not in themselves illegal
2008-03-19 10:58 < ideogram> but monopolies have to be watched closely because they stifle competition
2008-03-19 10:58 < ideogram> for example, utilities are tightly regulated
2008-03-19 10:59 < Lycurgus> in the us monopolies are illegal
2008-03-19 10:59 < ThePolecat> some monopolies exist *because* they can be watched more closely
2008-03-19 10:59 < ideogram> no they are not
2008-03-19 10:59 < ThePolecat> such as of dangerous industries
2008-03-19 10:59 < ideogram> Microsoft is widely accepted to have two monopolies which are not illegal
2008-03-19 10:59 < ideogram> however leveraging such monopilies to monopolize new industries is frowned on
2008-03-19 10:59 < Lycurgus> microsoft is not a monopoly, the old bell system was
2008-03-19 11:00 < ideogram> as when Microsoft tried to take over the browser market
2008-03-19 11:00 < ideogram> by any reasonable definition Microsoft has a market monopoly
2008-03-19 11:00 < ThePolecat> frowns aren't good tools of regulation
2008-03-19 11:00 < mavhc> but a large network with options for people in choosing who lays the cables, and who provides the data, an open system, would still have the network effect, but not be a monopoly
2008-03-19 11:00 < ideogram> 80-90% market share
2008-03-19 11:00 < Lycurgus> which is why the one was the object of succesful anti-trust action and the other wasn't
2008-03-19 11:00 < ThePolecat> neither are responsibility and patriotism
2008-03-19 11:01 < ideogram> using multiple providers for, e.g. laying cables, is inefficient
2008-03-19 11:01 < ideogram> there are efficiencies of scale
2008-03-19 11:02 < Lycurgus> yes the aforementioned overbuild and bust in the telecomm industry is a perfect example of the inefficiency of markets alone
2008-03-19 11:03 < ideogram> boom and bust is an aspect of human psychology and bounded rationalism which is not well accounted for in our current understanding of economics
2008-03-19 11:03 < Lycurgus> all right having gotten to the "human nature" argument, that does it for me.
2008-03-19 11:03 < ThePolecat> economic theories should never be carried out on the backs of people
2008-03-19 11:03 < ThePolecat> Marxism failed doing that
2008-03-19 11:04 < ideogram> one of the fundamental weaknesses of modern economics is the assumption that all participants are fully rational
2008-03-19 11:04 < ThePolecat> precisely
2008-03-19 11:04 < ideogram> people get nobel prizes for working out the ways that assumption is not true
2008-03-19 11:04 < ThePolecat> as well as near-omniscient
2008-03-19 11:04 < ideogram> indeed, fully rational in the economic sense implies perfect information
2008-03-19 11:05 < ThePolecat> well yea, or optimal in the sense of making up for incomplete information
2008-03-19 11:05 < ideogram> yes
2008-03-19 11:05 < ThePolecat> ie in risk management
2008-03-19 11:05 < ideogram> yes
2008-03-19 11:05 < mavhc> ThePolecat: would be better to actually do the experiments once, instead of bullshitting about who's idea is best
2008-03-19 11:06 < arcimboldo_> it also frequently assumes that people are always going for their maximum monetary advantage in their choices
2008-03-19 11:06 < ideogram> and, of course, the experiment has been done
2008-03-19 11:06 < libertad> I'm trying first run wikipedia locally because I'm trying to make a Wikipedia Spanish DVD,i have locally a server Apache and I have followed all the steps --->> http://wikifilter.sourceforge.net/. I have the files: eswiki-20080317-pages-articles.xml and eswiki-20080317-pages-articles_index.art. But I can't undestand how to run the http://localhost/wiki
2008-03-19 11:06 < mavhc> ideogram: if everything is efficiencies of scale everything would be a monopoly
2008-03-19 11:06 < arcimboldo_> social interaction factors do not exist in their world.
2008-03-19 11:06 < ThePolecat> I'm just wary of the claim of "correcness"
2008-03-19 11:06 < yao_ziyuan> meow
2008-03-19 11:06 < ThePolecat> *t
2008-03-19 11:07 < ideogram> and, of course, not everything is efficiencies of scale
2008-03-19 11:07 < ideogram> the primary character of markets is competition, both between producers and consumers
2008-03-19 11:07 < mavhc> my economic theory works if everyone is a sphere in a vacuum
2008-03-19 11:07 < mavhc> ideogram: who did what experiments?
2008-03-19 11:07 < ThePolecat> heh I said that up there
2008-03-19 11:07 < ThePolecat> "for the point-shaped human in a vacuum"
2008-03-19 11:08 < ideogram> history has performed the experiment of market based economies vs command economies
2008-03-19 11:08 < ideogram> market economies are generally held to have won
2008-03-19 11:08 < mavhc> generally?
2008-03-19 11:09 < ideogram> except in cuba and north korea
2008-03-19 11:09 < ideogram> China has surrendered, for instance
2008-03-19 11:09 < ideogram> as has Russia
2008-03-19 11:09 < mavhc> so we need more experiments
2008-03-19 11:09 < Ceiling_Cat> MOAR KATZ!
2008-03-19 11:09 < mavhc> we've decided 50% of the ideas are right, get it down to 1%
2008-03-19 11:09 < ideogram> it is difficult to arrange for such experimenbts to be performed
2008-03-19 11:09 < ideogram> but in fact there are differences between the modern market based economies
2008-03-19 11:09 < ideogram> so there is still experimenting going on
2008-03-19 11:10 < mavhc> but noone will agree on the results
2008-03-19 11:10 < arcimboldo_> hm ... France has so much state intervention and national interest play that it's hard to define as a full market economy
2008-03-19 11:10 < arcimboldo_> And Russia ... well.
2008-03-19 11:10 < ideogram> at this point it depends on what socieites want
2008-03-19 11:10 < ideogram> indeed European market economies tend to lean more towards accomodating social issues
2008-03-19 11:11 < ideogram> while the US has the least regulated markets in the world
2008-03-19 11:11 < ThePolecat> markets have won, but now comes the backlash from people who claim that all interference in the free run of markets is arrogance
2008-03-19 11:11 < ThePolecat> because "people are the market"
2008-03-19 11:11 < ideogram> those people are thinking simplistically
2008-03-19 11:11 < ThePolecat> but it seems compelling enough.
2008-03-19 11:11 < ideogram> I would hope such people do not get to make policy, although I am not naive enough to believe that is always the case
2008-03-19 11:11 < arcimboldo_> the purest market economist in politics I'm aware of is the president of the Czech republic
2008-03-19 11:12 < ThePolecat> Ron Paul hasn't won the Republican primary, so...
2008-03-19 11:12 < ThePolecat> Yea, Vaclav Klaus
2008-03-19 11:12 < Lucifer_Cat> ideogram: in not to recent past, some very doubtful people have had a chance to get to make policy.
2008-03-19 11:12 < Lucifer_Cat> it scares me.
2008-03-19 11:12 < ideogram> all the east european former communist countries are experimenting
2008-03-19 11:12 < ThePolecat> Maggie Thatcher came fairly close.
2008-03-19 11:12 < arcimboldo_> he's also notorious for his views on global warming ...
2008-03-19 11:12 < ideogram> Lucifer_Cat: indeed
2008-03-19 11:13 < Lucifer_Cat> im like "it happened once... whats the guarantee that it wont happen again"
2008-03-19 11:13 < ideogram> there is no guarantee
2008-03-19 11:13 < Lucifer_Cat> and i swear to my many Gods, it scares me.
2008-03-19 11:13 < ideogram> economists are technicians, not politicians
2008-03-19 11:14 < ThePolecat> economists are science-fiction writers, not politicians.
2008-03-19 11:14 < ideogram> however, in the modern world economy, messing with your economic competitiveness gets punished
2008-03-19 11:14 < arcimboldo_> Vaclav Klaus is holding the belief that third world countries would close the gap to the first world if there were no development aid
2008-03-19 11:14 < Lucifer_Cat> problem is that the politicians often think they know better
2008-03-19 11:14 < ideogram> that's what politicians are for, to make decisions
2008-03-19 11:14 < Lucifer_Cat> hes the decider?
2008-03-19 11:14 < ideogram> economists think the sole goal of life is market efficiency, but that is a narrow view
2008-03-19 11:14 < libertad> I'm trying first run wikipedia locally because I'm trying to make a Wikipedia Spanish DVD,i have locally a server Apache and I have followed all the steps --->> http://wikifilter.sourceforge.net/. I have the files: eswiki-20080317-pages-articles.xml and eswiki-20080317-pages-articles_index.art. But I can't undestand how to run the http://localhost/wiki
2008-03-19 11:15 < libertad> I can`t undestand how apply the art index for the search
2008-03-19 11:15 < libertad> and the dump file into mediawiki
2008-03-19 11:15 < Lucifer_Cat> anyways, im going to ask a technical, non politics non WP related Q....
2008-03-19 11:16 < libertad> Nobody responds me
2008-03-19 11:16 < ideogram> probably no one knows the answer
2008-03-19 11:16 < bumm13> libertad: probably most of us can't help with those sorts of questions
2008-03-19 11:16 < bumm13> they're a bit technical
2008-03-19 11:16 < Lucifer_Cat> i want a "take / organize notes" kind of small program, where i can put in notes in a xml like syntax and it formats the notes for me in some way based on the tags. (yeah, much like html) and i can even edit notes in that view (again like wysiwyg editors) but also can edit tags right there....
2008-03-19 11:16 < mavhc> libertad: tried the #mediawiki channel?
2008-03-19 11:17 < bumm13> zomg flood!
2008-03-19 11:17 < Lucifer_Cat> is there something like that already or would i be better off writing it myself
2008-03-19 11:17 < ideogram> Lucifer_Cat: I don't think there is a lot of demand for such a program
2008-03-19 11:17 < Lucifer_Cat> thought so
2008-03-19 11:17 < ideogram> most people prefer WYSIWYG
2008-03-19 11:17 < libertad> I'm already there
2008-03-19 11:18 < ideogram> if you want to use HTML you can use Google Docs
2008-03-19 11:18 < Lucifer_Cat> like often when taking notes, we have a header with a point and a lot of subpoints... i like the structure of notes to reflect that
2008-03-19 11:18 < mavhc> sounds like an outliner
2008-03-19 11:18 < ideogram> it's not clear to me why you want to use an xml like syntax
2008-03-19 11:18 < Lucifer_Cat> mavhc: AHH thats what i have been thinking bout
2008-03-19 11:19 < Lucifer_Cat> cuz i dont want to select and highlight and format and choose font
2008-03-19 11:19 < ideogram> I'm sure you can find an outliner, but most people don't like to use tags
2008-03-19 11:19 < ideogram> there is LaTeX, but that is a huge system
2008-03-19 11:19 < ideogram> try Google Docs
2008-03-19 11:19 < Lucifer_Cat> i could just write <x> whatever </x> and it could format it for me with a preset font
2008-03-19 11:19 < ideogram> it runs in your browser
2008-03-19 11:20 < Lucifer_Cat> ahh i can try google docs
2008-03-19 11:20 < Lucifer_Cat> that reminds me... anyone from alabama?
2008-03-19 11:21 < Lucifer_Cat> i hope not. i just discovered that "GOOGLE" is not on any license tag on here... :D
2008-03-19 11:21 < Lucifer_Cat> and im taking it i swear
2008-03-19 11:21 < ideogram> should not have told us
2008-03-19 11:22 < ideogram> now someone will grab it before you
2008-03-19 11:22 < Lucifer_Cat> i dont think theres anyone from alabama here
2008-03-19 11:22 < ideogram> never know
2008-03-19 11:22 * ThePolecat registers GOOGLE in all states as well as Guam
2008-03-19 11:22 < Lucifer_Cat> ThePolecat: you &%$^@#
2008-03-19 11:23 < Kabraxis-> i'm moving to alabama, now!
2008-03-19 11:23 < Kabraxis-> :)
2008-03-19 11:24 < Lucifer_Cat> well if i DO get that plate... i will consider my moving to AL not in vain
2008-03-19 11:24 < ideogram> that's so sad
2008-03-19 11:24 < Lucifer_Cat> why?
2008-03-19 11:24 < ideogram> :-)
2008-03-19 11:25 < Lucifer_Cat> ??
2008-03-19 11:26 < ThePolecat> that a state needs attractive numberplates for people to want to move there?
2008-03-19 11:26 < Lucifer_Cat> well its alabama. 'nuff said.
2008-03-19 11:26 < libertad> I'm trying first run wikipedia locally because I'm trying to make a Wikipedia Spanish DVD,i have locally a server Apache and I have followed all the steps --->> http://wikifilter.sourceforge.net/. I have the files: eswiki-20080317-pages-articles.xml and eswiki-20080317-pages-articles_index.art. But I can't undestand how to run the http://localhost/wiki. But I can't undestand how to apply...
2008-03-19 11:26 < ideogram> that getting a license plate will give your life meaning in alabama
2008-03-19 11:26 < libertad> ...that into the mediawiki, I have eswiki-20080317-pages-articles.xml and eswiki-20080317-pages-articles_index.art (index parsered file with wikifilter). How to apply that into mediawiki ?
2008-03-19 11:26 < Lucifer_Cat> libertad: cool it.
2008-03-19 11:27 < Lucifer_Cat> ideogram: well till i get some real friends atleast.
2008-03-19 11:27 < ideogram> hurry.
2008-03-19 11:27 < The359> Go to #mediawiki, libertad
2008-03-19 11:27 < Lucifer_Cat> actually getting a google plate would give my life meaning ANYWHERE
2008-03-19 11:28 < ideogram> hmm, I am not such a big fan of Google
2008-03-19 11:28 < ThePolecat> libertad: wait till someone answers you in #mediawiki
2008-03-19 11:29 < Lucifer_Cat> well i am quite a fan, not very very avid, but oh the leetness of having that plate
2008-03-19 11:29 < libertad> I'm already there
2008-03-19 11:29 < libertad> I'm already there
2008-03-19 11:29 < Lucifer_Cat> since i dont have any real personal achievements, i go for such gimmicks to feel good bout myself
2008-03-19 11:29 < libertad> I'm already there
2008-03-19 11:29 < ThePolecat> then patience
2008-03-19 11:29 < ideogram> don't spam please
2008-03-19 11:29 < libertad> :(
2008-03-19 11:29 < The359> if you're already there, then stop asking here
2008-03-19 11:30 < ThePolecat> Lucifer_Cat: There's always patriotism.
2008-03-19 11:30 < Cyrius> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Importing_a_Wikipedia_database_dump_into_MediaWiki#importDump.php
2008-03-19 11:30 < ideogram> or you could find Jesus
2008-03-19 11:30 < ThePolecat> Precisely
2008-03-19 11:30 < Lucifer_Cat> im not a citizen
2008-03-19 11:30 < ideogram> Jesus loves you, and you could spread the Gospel
2008-03-19 11:30 < Cyrius> or possibly http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MWDumper
2008-03-19 11:31 < ThePolecat> "Jesus loves you, young man." "Well, while my girlfriend doesn't, that's a piece of good news right there."
2008-03-19 11:31 < Lucifer_Cat> or mayber H2G2 or HHGTG
2008-03-19 11:31 < Lucifer_Cat> or LOTR
2008-03-19 11:31 < ThePolecat> or WWJD
2008-03-19 11:31 < ThePolecat> there's an inflation of abbr.s on WP.
2008-03-19 11:32 < ideogram> too many policies
2008-03-19 11:32 < libertad> Cyrius: The xml is too big for the web import
2008-03-19 11:32 < ideogram> everybody wants to write a policy
2008-03-19 11:32 < Cyrius> that's the limits of the advice I can give
2008-03-19 11:32 < ideogram> people think putting something on a web page gives it authority
2008-03-19 11:32 < Cyrius> wait for #mediawiki to wake up
2008-03-19 11:32 < Cyrius> ideogram: I think it's more that they think that if they write a rule, that will magically make things better
2008-03-19 11:32 < libertad> Cyrius: wake up?
2008-03-19 11:32 < ideogram> their faith in the power of the word is touching
2008-03-19 11:33 < ideogram> libertad: wait for someone in #mediawiki to help you
2008-03-19 11:33 < ideogram> no one here can help you
2008-03-19 11:33 < libertad> :'( 4 hours
2008-03-19 11:33 < Cyrius> not our fault
2008-03-19 11:34 < Lucifer_Cat> LOTR and H2G2 aint available
2008-03-19 11:34 * ThePolecat picks OMGWTF
2008-03-19 11:34 < Lucifer_Cat> haahaha
2008-03-19 11:35 < Lucifer_Cat> neither are matrix and wwjd
2008-03-19 11:35 < ideogram> OMGWTFBBQ
2008-03-19 11:35 < Lucifer_Cat> only 6 letters
2008-03-19 11:35 < ideogram> oh, sorry, not paying attention to context
2008-03-19 11:35 < Lucifer_Cat> rofl... omgwtf isnt available
2008-03-19 11:35 < Lucifer_Cat> neither is rofl
2008-03-19 11:36 < Lucifer_Cat> or ufo
2008-03-19 11:36 < ideogram> ROFLMAO
2008-03-19 11:36 < ideogram> works in CA
2008-03-19 11:36 < Lucifer_Cat> neither is STFU
2008-03-19 11:37 < Lucifer_Cat> wait, 7 characters allowed.
2008-03-19 11:37 < Lucifer_Cat> and roflmao isnt available :S
2008-03-19 11:37 < ideogram> I hate self-descriptive plates
2008-03-19 11:37 < Lucifer_Cat> WHAT, neither is RTFM
2008-03-19 11:37 < Lucifer_Cat> like "PLATE"
2008-03-19 11:38 < ideogram> REDZ350 -- I can see that you dork
2008-03-19 11:38 < Lucifer_Cat> hahaha
2008-03-19 11:38 < ideogram> BLKMBZ
2008-03-19 11:38 < Lucifer_Cat> "RENTAL"
2008-03-19 11:38 < Lucifer_Cat> "USED"
2008-03-19 11:38 < ideogram> my favorite is the VW with FEATURE
2008-03-19 11:40 < Cyrius> FF0000 on a red car
2008-03-19 11:41 < Lucifer_Cat> heh
2008-03-19 11:44 < mexicanbanana> Wasn't $500 a huge amount of money in 1890? In this The Twilight Zone episode, ordinary townfolks each pay that amount to a conman and seemingly have it in their pockets. Really... I find it extremely hard to believe that ordinary folks in a Western town in 1890 had $500 even combining all their wealth, much less ON THEM in their POCKETS!
2008-03-19 11:45 * Cyrius checks
2008-03-19 11:45 < Lucifer_Cat> very few people would have 500 bucks on them in cash even these days
2008-03-19 11:45 < Cyrius> "What cost $500 in 1890 would cost $11401.13 in 2007."
2008-03-19 11:45 < Lucifer_Cat> even if you assume that theres no plastic, i dont think many people would carry 500 bucks ready to give out just with them
2008-03-19 11:46 < Lucifer_Cat> whoa
2008-03-19 11:46 < mexicanbanana> Yeah... so how can they put that ridicilous part in the story?
2008-03-19 11:46 < mexicanbanana> $5 would be more believable, no?
2008-03-19 11:46 < Cyrius> there were no credit cards in 1890
2008-03-19 11:46 < Lucifer_Cat> mexicanbanana: lack of research / commonsense
2008-03-19 11:46 < Cyrius> there were no ATMs
2008-03-19 11:46 < mexicanbanana> They had common sense... but these last episodes vary extremely much in quality.
2008-03-19 11:46 < Cyrius> if you wanted to have cash, you had to carry it
2008-03-19 11:47 < mexicanbanana> Assuming you are talking about the producers of the TV show and not the people in it.
2008-03-19 11:47 < Lucifer_Cat> Cyrius: thats what im saying... that even these days IF there werent any atms or CCs, people would not carry 500 just like that unless theyre out to get an ipod
2008-03-19 11:47 < Cyrius> they'd have several thousand dollars lying around
2008-03-19 11:47 < Cyrius> not necessarily on them, but easy to get to