New Testingstan

i have a cult of personality

it is official board policy that all must praise me

now i've been lax on enforcing this

but don't think for a second i'm not your king

or you'll see just how iron my fist really is

hey zinegata you have an unpleasant personality which is why, no matter how "hot" you are (ps its pretty much guaranteed that the ugly tree fell over on you and took root when you were a baby), nobody really wants to touch you let alone fuck you

also, man, svpd and kamakazie sith are annoying, so i decided to get mean

btw fucking shit

it is an hour past bedtime

and i barely did a shred of work today


i'm pretty much committed to buying a house now, we have a tentative closing date of june 5

i'll be thereabouts 116k in the hole with only about 3k left in the bank

and i spend my days bullshitting on the internet instead of w0rking

not even pretending to work

christ i'm gonna go bankrupt

adr wrote:i have a cult of personality

it is official board policy that all must praise me

now i've been lax on enforcing this

but don't think for a second i'm not your king

or you'll see just how iron my fist really is

Dude, your heads already a large spherical mass of iron.

Adr, I do have to admire you.

After work, the gym (trying to turn from a fattynerd into a skinnynerd), playing with birds, studying, i barely have the energy to be outraged with myself for not doing my laundry yesterday, much less be outraged with - what are to me - relatively abstract issues. I do get more worked up on weekends though, but way too much effort during the week.

Seriously, there's evenings where I wonder if making myself a turkey sandwich is too much effort because that means I have to get up. (not depressed, just exhausted).

How do you do it?

EDIT: It should be noted that this was written before I realized this page existed.

btw on the house, you all might find this interesting

solar electric may be more affordable than i thought


i always assumed it would cost several thousand dollars

but mark tells me you can actually get the equipment for like $300 + $1 / watt of panel for a basic installation

maybe even less if oyu get used solar panels


and he's going to be trained on how to do the installation soon so that will save me on labor costs. it doesn't look hard if you're just doing a simple system (no sun tracking, meant to supplement grid power rather than replace it entirely. point it south and you get what you get.)



so at these prices even a small savings on the electric bill will be able to pay for the system over several years

not sure when i'll do it but i'll let you know how it goes



solar thermal is something that interests me too, as about 1/2 my current energy usage by dollars is winter heat (even keeping it set low!), and if i can get sunlight to do it instead of burning shit, hell yes

but mark doesn't know anything about this so idk how i'd actually make it happen. it seems to me though that it can't be too hard; greenhouses are pretty simple


but idk i'll report on that too when i know more

Solar's actually pretty sweet. Out here there's places that will install it for free for the rights to any surplus 'leccy you generate for like the first 10 years.

WTF, bakky??

Am I too tired or are you saying that petty theft shouldn't be prosecuted?

(If this is about idiotic x-strike laws, consider my objection withdrawn.)

Questor wrote:WTF, bakky??

Am I too tired or are you saying that petty theft shouldn't be prosecuted?

(If this is about idiotic x-strike laws, consider my objection withdrawn.)

x-strike basically, but since people have decided to interpret "this is a travesty" as "no gods no masters" and insisted that the only alternative to this was x-strike laws, i decided to run with it and present an alternative to the current justice system which probably wouldn't operate all that differently for petty theft, just without x-strike laws

x-strike, mandatory minimums, and zero tolerance laws are among the stupidest things any society has ever come up with.

The problem with petty crimes is coming up with a system of punishments that makes any kind of proportional sense. I think fines are pointless, because many would not be able to pay, and even if they tried, it would cause undue hardship. Prison of any sort is obviously an overreaction, and I think most forms of community service are probably less efficient than simply paying someone to do the job, so I don't like those either. Treatment assumes that there's something to treat, and I'm not sure there is. My preference would actually be to address the underlying social issues, but I suspect that petty crime would still be an issue, and I still can't figure out a way I like to deal with it.

Of course, I'm one of those messed up americans who actually thinks a functioning social safety net and universal healthcare aren't incompatible with being an american. (Heck, I don't actually see how they are incompatible with being anything except a certain narrow type of republican either, but that's a different thread.)

Probably it would have to depend on the perp too (ps don't let KS or SVPD find out I said this- they may be jackasses, but I don't want them to die from their minds being blown) because a kid will probably stop shoplifting minor stuff after they're caught and have a stern warning, but a repeat offender might need something different- eg perhaps a period of something like community service or jail or whatever to convince them that hey, this is really not a good idea

but then again, if he was drunk, why are we punishing him like he was in his right mind?

EDIT: now let's try a different tack of fusing "puppetmaster" with "reasonable" and seeing what happens. probably more hilarity, since people really do think that x-strikes laws are reasonable.

The drunk thing is funny. The law can get downright schizophrenic on that.

I personally think that you should be held responsible for anything you do while under the influence, as long as you voluntarily put yourself under the influence. I can't make a consistent system otherwise. I.E. I can see no reason why being drunk excusing theft that should not also excuse drunk driving, So basically, in Questor-world - if you get me drunk by mixing vodka in my diet coke, then I may not be responsible for what I'm doing (I have to leave this in there, or there's a whole world of abuse that can happen if I don't - even if I think that a responsible person should realize when they are impaired.)

EDIT: Of course, there's room for abuse in this system as well, but at a certain point, I've gotta say: "You chose to down those shots, nobody held you down and poured them down your throat." This actually does apply in my mind in most intoxication situations, and I'm perfectly well aware that there are some that would accuse me of having a "blame the victim" mentality on this issue. I don't. I consider a situation where one party is sober and another not to be a huge power imbalance.

Questor wrote:The drunk thing is funny. The law can get downright schizophrenic on that.

I personally think that you should be held responsible for anything you do while under the influence, as long as you voluntarily put yourself under the influence. I can't make a consistent system otherwise. I.E. I can see no reason why being drunk excusing theft that should not also excuse drunk driving, So basically, in Questor-world - if you get me drunk by mixing vodka in my diet coke, then I may not be responsible for what I'm doing (I have to leave this in there, or there's a whole world of abuse that can happen if I don't - even if I think that a responsible person should realize when they are impaired.)

I think that there's a difference between choosing to drink when you know you have to drive home, and drinking and then ending up doing something stupid when you're drunk- one is very foreseeable where the other one is less so. But I find it difficult to reconcile the two as well. For that matter, someone over on SomethingAwful made a good point- most bars in the US are driven to, creating a difficult situation for anyone who wants to go out drinking. Maybe bars should be required to have a "detox" room where they sit you down and let the alcohol disappear from your system or something, and that might work better for discouraging drunk driving.

Jose Arcadio Bakendia wrote:

Questor wrote:The drunk thing is funny. The law can get downright schizophrenic on that.

I personally think that you should be held responsible for anything you do while under the influence, as long as you voluntarily put yourself under the influence. I can't make a consistent system otherwise. I.E. I can see no reason why being drunk excusing theft that should not also excuse drunk driving, So basically, in Questor-world - if you get me drunk by mixing vodka in my diet coke, then I may not be responsible for what I'm doing (I have to leave this in there, or there's a whole world of abuse that can happen if I don't - even if I think that a responsible person should realize when they are impaired.)

I think that there's a difference between choosing to drink when you know you have to drive home, and drinking and then ending up doing something stupid when you're drunk- one is very foreseeable where the other one is less so. But I find it difficult to reconcile the two as well. For that matter, someone over on SomethingAwful made a good point- most bars in the US are driven to, creating a difficult situation for anyone who wants to go out drinking. Maybe bars should be required to have a "detox" room where they sit you down and let the alcohol disappear from your system or something, and that might work better for discouraging drunk driving.

It's technically an hour for a standard drink to disappear, and that varies hugely on age, weight, gender, fatigue etc. A standard drink is two-fifths of fuck all, if you're over the limit then realistically you're not going to be able to sit down for two hours and be good to go.

Simple answer - the taxi.

Or he pube licks transport

Anathema to America but hey the answer is the answer

Jose Arcadio Bakendia wrote:For that matter, someone over on SomethingAwful made a good point- most bars in the US are driven to, creating a difficult situation for anyone who wants to go out drinking.

This is only a problem if you want to drink alone. I've made it quite clear to my friends that I'm willing to pick them up, or even drink my diet coke quietly in the corner and read a book if they need it. I would hope that most people have someone else willing to make that offer.

Yeah, but I live in a semi-rural area where the nearest taxis are the airport ones five miles away, and I'm still (barely) part of a large metropolitan area. Not an insurmountable or particularly large distance, but America sprawls and that makes any method of transit somewhat more difficult. Maybe having an on-call chauffeur for bars that are well away from taxi services? Probably there's not quite enough CDL licensed people to make this practical, though, and it's really just "here's a personal taxi." I guess there aren't easy solutions, apart from fixing American transportation in general.

Questor wrote:

Jose Arcadio Bakendia wrote:For that matter, someone over on SomethingAwful made a good point- most bars in the US are driven to, creating a difficult situation for anyone who wants to go out drinking.

This is only a problem if you want to drink alone. I've made it quite clear to my friends that I'm willing to pick them up, or even drink my diet coke quietly in the corner and read a book if they need it. I would hope that most people have someone else willing to make that offer.

Or if you drive separately, which is probably fairly common in Midwestern suburbia.

Unlike say a roofie, it's kinda hard for someone to mix enough alcohol in your drink to get you drunk without noticing. There's that whole "DAMN! This tastes like alcohol!" thing. So if you're drunk, you're responsible for your stupid actions whether you're driving or outside a McDonald's after bogarting a Coke.

When I lived in Washington DC I took the subway home or limited my alcohol when I drove my motorcycle. Same for San Diego. Here in Tampa? I have friends over or just don't get drunk and then drive. There's cabs all over here, and buses, and either one is cheaper than getting arrested. Sheesh.

Edit: oh yeah all hail Adam please work more so we can enjoy this non-crucible

I love how we can have a civilized conversation on this, but on the smartest board on the internet, Philosopher feels the need to make the same point I did with a stupidly aggressive sarcastic comment.

It's almost like they want to have fights.

Count Chocula wrote:Unlike say a roofie, it's kinda hard for someone to mix enough alcohol in your drink to get you drunk without noticing. There's that whole "DAMN! This tastes like alcohol!" thing. So if you're drunk, you're responsible for your stupid actions whether you're driving or outside a McDonald's after bogarting a Coke.

Yeah, but I specifically used the word intoxicated because I think the same principal should apply whether the intoxicant is LSD or Bud Light. The alcohol example specifically included the statement that I think you should notice when you get impaired.

And the "voluntarily" portion is specifically there for roofies and the like.

Questor wrote:I love how we can have a civilized conversation on this, but on the smartest board on the internet, Philosopher feels the need to make the same point I did with a stupidly aggressive sarcastic comment.

It's almost like they want to have fights.

Almost?

Jose Arcadio Bakendia wrote:It's really awesome that you don't understand my point and yet try to address it. But actually, I'd probably beat you to death for the crime of smarminess and using a nickname I don't approve of, following a summary judgment by the court of myself. I am legally my own country, as far as you know, so therefore it's cool because it's the law, right? This has exactly as much to do with what you're saying as what you're saying has to do with what I'm saying. A hint, since you seem to be a little slow on the uptake and belligerent (probably you should be charged with trespassing and theft and convicted and sent to jail for the rest of your life for that horrible, horrible crime): I have never endorsed the idea that theft should be acceptable, so that is one area on which your analogy fails. Try and find the other ones!

Can I nominate you for an award or something?

Jose Arcadio Bakendia wrote:

Questor wrote:I love how we can have a civilized conversation on this, but on the smartest board on the internet, Philosopher feels the need to make the same point I did with a stupidly aggressive sarcastic comment.

It's almost like they want to have fights.

Almost?

I was going for, hit the nail with the postholer, but do it subtly.

A: he's a Philosopher
B: a Philosopher is of course superior to troglodytes
C: troglodytes deserve to be belittled and talked down to, of course.

So A=C, perfectly logical in philosophy-world. Which I've heard is right next door to magic mushroom world.

Wups just saw Questor's post. Yeah if you sneak me something that makes me intoxicated in a non-alcohol way, then you, the dirty sneak, are at fault. And if I get my hands on the person that did it, I'll kill them! No I WON'T I'm not threatening anyone and nobody's slipped me a mickey ever that I recall.

BANNINATE HIM!!!!!!

DO IT WITH FIRE!