Page 1211 of 2256

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:14 pm UTC
by Magnanimous
Assuming you have a friend that listens to his/her iPod while driving:

1) Discretely get access to their music library. Pick a song that they're likely to listen to.
2) Using Audacity(or whatever), splice a fifteen-second clip of sirens into the song. Edit the sirens to increase and decrease in volume and include the Doppler Effect.
3) Save over the original song with the edited version.
4) Wait for them to tell you about their run-in with the invisible police. :P

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:15 pm UTC
by You, sir, name?
The hat in your avatar is well deserved.


Fin Archangel wrote:
You, sir, name? wrote:1. Download the music from Jaws onto your MP3 player.
2. Take the bus, make sure to sit in the front-most seat so you have a good look out of the front view.
3. Put (1) on repeat
4. Pretend the bus is chasing the car in front of you.


What happens when the bus stops?


You pause the Jaws music. The bus is like a cheetah. It can only sprint short distances before it needs to rest.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:17 pm UTC
by Fat Zombie
I can't draw any more. I can't think of original ideas or draw anything existing. I don't know what's happened. I've become too lazy, or something. It's like, trying to draw things is just making me angry. Lots of things are making me angry.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:26 pm UTC
by Whelan
Stupid ipod and iTunes being twatish. I hate you both.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:10 am UTC
by RetSpline
Magnanimous wrote:Assuming you have a friend that listens to his/her iPod while driving:

1) Discretely get access to their music library. Pick a song that they're likely to listen to.
2) Using Audacity(or whatever), splice a fifteen-second clip of sirens into the song. Edit the sirens to increase and decrease in volume and include the Doppler Effect.
3) Save over the original song with the edited version.
4) Wait for them to tell you about their run-in with the invisible police. :P
My friends did this, except with Bohemian Rhapsody and the audio from some porn movie. And suggested it for music during the field trip. "Teh Lulz" were had by many.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:24 am UTC
by Fin Archangel
...I need a picture of myself for this thing I'm applying to. I can't find one.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:50 am UTC
by Gus-TT-Showbiz
Magnanimous wrote:Assuming you have a friend that listens to his/her iPod while driving:

1) Discretely get access to their music library. Pick a song that they're likely to listen to.
2) Using Audacity(or whatever), splice a fifteen-second clip of sirens into the song. Edit the sirens to increase and decrease in volume and include the Doppler Effect.
3) Save over the original song with the edited version.
4) Wait for them to tell you about their run-in with the invisible police. :P


I am in awe. You sir get many e-cookies.

My fleeting thought: is she using me, and I don't know it? Or do I know it, but I want to be close to her, so I let myself be used?

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:03 am UTC
by Shivahn

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:19 am UTC
by modularblues

Wow I didn't know this. And here I am trying not to become a jaded grad student.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:44 pm UTC
by The Cat
FRT-
The difference between cold war Soviet worker and American worker was liberty and hope. I'm not talking about some bull shit $2,000 dollar small business tax cut, I'm talking about competent refs. on the field, Agency accountability, and a sense of fair play. Passing laws increasing corporations ability to donate to political campaigns does little to the "swiss cheese" laws already in place. By that I mean, corporations have always been able to donate as much money as they want to parties and candidates. The only thing this finding accomplishes is damaging the perception of the entrepreneurial spirit. How many times do you think the small business entrepreneur got shafted by corrupt legislation? Golly Beave, but we got you this $2,000 dollar tax credit. Thanks Wally, but that will only cover 10% of my increase in cost to do business for the same year. New legislation is requiring A,B,C that only the large corporations can afford because they have an in house staff to cover it. Oh, so what your saying is the Tea Baggers stuck their balls in your mouth, but they gave you a glass of mouthwash to rinse. Exactly Wally, exactly.

The entrepreneur doesn't want a hand out, they want an environment where they can thrive.

Fiduciary responsibility.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:55 am UTC
by NecklaceOfShadow
*sigh*

Always on stagecrew, never on stage.

At least I auditioned, I suppose.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:00 am UTC
by You, sir, name?
I really need to work on reducing my sleep deficit. The dark circles around my eyes have dark circles around their eyes.

The day before yesterday was absolutely ridiculous. I was like a zombie all day, barely managing to keep awake. Got 8 hours last night, and I'm still seriously tired (even if it's better).

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:02 am UTC
by Xeio
You, sir, name? wrote:I really need to work on reducing my sleep deficit. The dark circles around my eyes have dark circles around their eyes.
Yes, if your dark circles are growing eyes, you definitely should get more sleep.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:10 am UTC
by Magnanimous
Last night, I accidentally slept for sixteen hours. I ended up missing a class, but I've pretty much caught up on sleep. :)

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:14 am UTC
by You, sir, name?
Magnanimous wrote:Last night, I accidentally slept for sixteen hours. I ended up missing a class, but I've pretty much caught up on sleep. :)


I should really do something like that. Unfortunately, I'm quite out of phase with the local time zone as it is.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:17 am UTC
by bigglesworth
You could re-phase yourself then, end up going to sleep early but waking up on time.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:26 am UTC
by You, sir, name?
bigglesworth wrote:You could re-phase yourself then, end up going to sleep early but waking up on time.


That's my intention, but my internal clock has different ideas.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:27 am UTC
by RetSpline
You, sir, name? wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:You could re-phase yourself then, end up going to sleep early but waking up on time.


That's my intention, but my internal clock has different ideas.
That guy's such an asshole sometimes.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 2:41 am UTC
by Fin Archangel
RetSpline wrote:
You, sir, name? wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:You could re-phase yourself then, end up going to sleep early but waking up on time.


That's my intention, but my internal clock has different ideas.
That guy's such an asshole sometimes.


Seriously. Screw that guy. I'm always exhausted at like 11AM during school and when I try to sleep at night I want to get up and run in circles.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:01 am UTC
by Vohu Manah
I once had an internal clock. After a less than polite colloquy with it, our irreconcilable differences forced me to teach it a lesson with a katana and a hake. Unfortunately, it won.

Also, I'm convinced that every instance involving overuse of the word 'whom' causes a large migration of flying pigs on some distant planet.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:33 am UTC
by Briareos
Vohu Manah wrote:Also, I'm convinced that every instance involving overuse of the word 'whom' causes a large migration of flying pigs on some distant planet.
Like, earth pigs? Or some distant-planet analogue that we can most easily understand by labeling it "pig"?

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:27 am UTC
by Vohu Manah
Briareos wrote:Like, earth pigs? Or some distant-planet analogue that we can most easily understand by labeling it "pig"?

I was thinking they would be a strange combination of both, with a large label hovering above them denoting their name. Add in a picture of bacon above their heads too. You don't want to confuse any strange lifeforms on the surface.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:34 am UTC
by Amie
Stephen Hawking says we mustn't try and contact aliens if they do exist at all. I tend to agree.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:06 am UTC
by Magnanimous
By Saturday, I have to write a 1500-word paper arguing for or against limiting the number of children that couples can raise. (Similar to China's One-child policy, but it'd be more like two or three.) After about an hour of research, this is what I've come up with.

Arguments For: Reduces strain on education, cuts healthcare costs, less damage to the environment, decreases unemployment rates, decreases poverty, reduces number of orphans
Arguments Against: GOD WANTS PEOPLE TO MAKE BABIES D:<

I think I'll be arguing for it.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:17 am UTC
by Zohar
There's also involvement of the government in child-raising policies (we don't need a license to be parents, we aren't told how to raise our children, why should they tell us not to have more?) - the whole freedom issue. I'm sure there are some developmental advantages to growing up in a big family. Just as having less children reduces the number of orphans so does it increase the risk of parents remaining childless. Less unemployment but also less help around the farm. One could argue that five environmentally-conscious children pollute less than one or two who don't care about the environment, plus it raises the percent of people in support of green whatever. There's the psychological strain on the children - "You're all we have, you must be really excellent and we expect so much from you". Suppose a family has a quadruplet or quintuplet (by accident or because they need help in getting pregnant) - do you force them to abort some of their unborn (cue ABORTION IS MURDER calls or simply going against the family's beliefs)? If you don't force them to abort and the entire country is completely targeted at having only two children per couple, how would society see a family that suddenly has five children? What about single parents - are they allowed only a single child? They could potentially marry someone with children and form a *gasp* four-children family!

I'm not saying it's a good or bad idea, I'm just saying there are plenty of reasons against such a decision.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:39 am UTC
by Magnanimous
*turns off sarcasm mode*

There are a lot of reasons against it, but most of them seem to be religiously charged... That's what I meant. One of the biggest problems is that a pregnancy doesn't always result in one child, so that puts a damper on child limits unless you're in favor of abortion. And considering how many pro-life people there are, it's hugely unlikely that anyone would go for something like this. (Another option is to put the "extra" child up for adoption, but I have the feeling that just as many people would object to that.)

We're allowed to specify some terms in the paper, so right now I'm planning on a limit of three children with the option to apply for more. "Farm" families do tend to need more help around the house, so they would be allowed to have more, but families living in big cities can do fine with 1-3. I've read a lot about China's policies, and it turns out that putting the limit at one has a lot of bad side effects... There's more pressure on the child, like you said, and the male-oriented society means that in the case of twins/triplets, families are choosing to keep a male baby. Right now, the teenage population in China is something like 65% male.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:50 am UTC
by Zohar
I wasn't trying to convince you against it. Does your paper have to argue specifically one side? Can't it just say "here are the arguments for and against, this is why we should, this is why we shouldn't?"

Also, I don't think restricting at three children does anything much, especially considering the average number of children per household in the US is around 1.8 (0.9 if you take average of all households, not only those with children).

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:59 am UTC
by broken_escalator
Who knows, it could motivate some people to have more than 3 kids just because it is restricted. That'll show the man!

I kid, I kid.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:45 am UTC
by SlyReaper
Zohar wrote:Also, I don't think restricting at three children does anything much, especially considering the average number of children per household in the US is around 1.8 (0.9 if you take average of all households, not only those with children).


I also thought 3 was an odd number to pick. If your aim is population stability (and I'm struggling to think of any other reasons you'd want to regulate childbirth), then the magic number is 2. One to replace mummy, one to replace daddy.

I don't know how it works in other countries but in the UK, parents get more child benefit payments for every child they have. Instead of outright banning having more than n children, perhaps a better way would be to only give state support to the first n children, and any children you have after that are your sole responsibility to provide for. Or possibly levy a tax against surplus children if your country doesn't provide child benefits. That deals with the problem of multiple-child pregnancies: you don't have to get rid of any of them, you'll just be worse off financially. And I imagine multiple-child pregnancies would be eligible for an exception anyway.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:31 am UTC
by smw543
Magnanimous wrote:There are a lot of reasons against it, but most of them seem to be religiously charged... That's what I meant. One of the biggest problems is that a pregnancy doesn't always result in one child, so that puts a damper on child limits unless you're in favor of abortion. And considering how many pro-life people there are, it's hugely unlikely that anyone would go for something like this. (Another option is to put the "extra" child up for adoption, but I have the feeling that just as many people would object to that.)

The only legitimate argument I can think of concerning multiple-birth pregnancies is the issue of stigma that Zohar mentioned (which can already be seen in stereotypes about Catholics and Orthodox Jews, who are more likely on average to violate cultural norms on the number of children a couple should have). Putting up the extra kids for adoption is just vindictive—the population is still increased, but now those kids have all the difficulties that come with being an orphan (also, it's pretty fucked up to make the parents choose). Aborting some of the fetuses isn't really necessary considering how incredibly rare quadruplets are (and it only gets rarer as the number increases. And again, making the parents choose is problematic).

Anyways, assuming you accept that having X (insert your threshold here) children is bad1, then X+1 is worse, and X+2 even more so, while the value of your right to make babies remains constant, and will eventually be outweighed by the public's right to not have all their resources consumed by little Magnanimice.

People rant about how evil China's restrictions are, but (according to China) they prevented more than a quarter of a billion births in the first 21 years (1979-2000). When we2 idiotically triggered skyrocketing grain prices with our corn-car experiment, China took a serious hit; if their population had been ~20% higher, they would have been seriously pissed. Like, "This is your fault, Americans. Give us reasonable prices or no more cheap plastic toys." Extrapolating for an equivalent event 50 years from now, it would be more like "Give us your crop surplus, or we invade our food producing neighbors."

ninja'd:
SlyReaper wrote:Or possibly levy a tax against surplus children if your country doesn't provide child benefits. That deals with the problem of multiple-child pregnancies: you don't have to get rid of any of them, you'll just be worse off financially. And I imagine multiple-child pregnancies would be eligible for an exception anyway.
Was about to type something like this. Anyway, you will probably get people arguing that such a tax violates people's reproductive rights—and when you consider that it particularly effects the poor, who are disproportionately composed of certain ethnic minorities, you can add concerns about racism. But if you make an exemption for people who can't afford the tax, the racists will get pissed because said minorities will be unaffected, while the predominately white middle class (who can afford the tax, but are still poor enough to see it as a real disincentive) will stick to having one or two kids. (Of course, they'll dress it up with accusations of socialism, etc., but regardless, they will oppose it for the same reason they oppose Hispanic immigration—they're afraid of losing their majority status.)2

1Which follows naturally from thinking that massive overpopulation is bad; the only question is whether it is bad enough to outweigh the arguments against reproductive regulation.

2Go go gadget Americentrism!

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:54 am UTC
by e^iπ+1=0
Holy crap, when did it suddenly get so late? I'm only going to get 4-5 hours now. Not that this is too different from usual, but I had actually planned to get a bit more sleep tonight because of a big test tomorrow.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:21 am UTC
by Moo
If you can specify terms I don't understand all this talk of forced abortions, just define it as x number of successful pregnancies (but if someone has more than x in their first pregnancy maybe they don't get to try again). Natural* n-tuplets get treated as one pregnancy, problem solved.

* in-vitro pregnancies would have to be regulated so they don't implant so many eggs, which currently very often result in n-tuplets.


Question to ponder: what about people who have a religious (or other) objection to birth control, how would such a law affect their freedom of beliefs?

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:04 am UTC
by Hit3k
I'm trying to rewrite some code my lecturer gave us... It is not going well. LEARN TO COMMENT YOUR CODE. Please.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:18 am UTC
by smw543
Moo wrote:* in-vitro pregnancies would have to be regulated so they don't implant so many eggs, which currently very often result in n-tuplets.

Wikipedia says there are already some regulations—Canada, UK, NZ, and Australia have a limit of two; three if the woman is over 40. The odds of a given embryo surviving aren't great, so 2-3 seems reasonable to avoid cases where none are viable, though this still results in many having to try several times (if they can afford it; the advantage to transferring many embryos is that you're mainly paying for the procedure, so there's little difference in cost between 2 and 8).

There's probably a thread for this, or at least there should be.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 9:30 am UTC
by Moo
I didn't know about the regulations, thanks. As for the rest - I am well aware, I was supposing purely from the point of view that such a law would be seriously considered, as per the terms of the assignment that got me thinking about it all.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:11 pm UTC
by SlyReaper
smw543 wrote:ninja'd:
SlyReaper wrote:Or possibly levy a tax against surplus children if your country doesn't provide child benefits. That deals with the problem of multiple-child pregnancies: you don't have to get rid of any of them, you'll just be worse off financially. And I imagine multiple-child pregnancies would be eligible for an exception anyway.
Was about to type something like this. Anyway, you will probably get people arguing that such a tax violates people's reproductive rights—and when you consider that it particularly effects the poor, who are disproportionately composed of certain ethnic minorities, you can add concerns about racism. But if you make an exemption for people who can't afford the tax, the racists will get pissed because said minorities will be unaffected, while the predominately white middle class (who can afford the tax, but are still poor enough to see it as a real disincentive) will stick to having one or two kids. (Of course, they'll dress it up with accusations of socialism, etc., but regardless, they will oppose it for the same reason they oppose Hispanic immigration—they're afraid of losing their majority status.)2


Don't exempt the poor from the tax then. The idea is to make people only have as many children as they can afford to adequately provide for. Alternatively, make the tax means-tested. So the fee for going one child over the limit would be x% of the household's annual income.

I know. It's very very harsh to consider taking money from people when they have just had a new baby and need all the money they can get. But the long-term effects of uncontrolled population growth would be far far worse. This little rock is already pretty crowded. To put numbers on it, wikipedia says world population growth is about 1.14% p.a, which is a doubling time of 61 years. We have 6.8 billion people now. In 61 years, we will have 13.6 billion people. In 122 years, we will have 27.2 billion people. Less than 2 lifetimes. There isn't enough space or food or water to fit that many people on Earth, so something will eventually force our population growth to decline. That something will likely be something very unpleasant like war, famine, disease, or drought. I'd say it's better for us to choose for ourselves exactly how we limit our population so that we might avoid such things.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:17 pm UTC
by You, sir, name?
Waaaaait a minute! This is serious discussion, complete with walls of text and a mature topic! What are you doing in FT?! Shoo, I say! Make way for exclamations like "FT: My eye is hurting."


FT: My eye is hurting.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:20 pm UTC
by Moo
FT: I found pretty and cheap boots for winter work outfits this weekend, hooray! Now just to get the unborked ankle that will allow me to wear them (they has heels).

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:30 pm UTC
by You, sir, name?
Moo wrote:FT: I found pretty and cheap boots for winter work outfits this weekend, hooray! Now just to get the unborked ankle that will allow me to wear them (they has heels).


I first read this as "I found pretty and cheap [ro]bots for winter work". Then I was disappointed.

Re: Fleeting/Random/Thoughts (Random like the plague)

Posted: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:58 pm UTC
by Sir_Elderberry
Last I checked, the dramatic drop in birth rates in developed countries was predicted to cause a peak in global population in 2060 or so. The real solution to population growth isn't regulating developed countries, since in many of them (especially Europe) the birth rate is already crazy low (1.0 in parts of Germany). You need to work on the economic problems in the Third World, especially female empowerment and infant mortality.