Just remember what your knees are for, guys.
Is this a blowjob joke or a Muay Thai joke?
It's a country lyric about not forgetting your roots when you make it big, that cracks me up because it sounds like a blowjob joke.
That was confusing because there was a thread titled "Various" relatively recently and I wondered why it had become active again.
Patronizing assholes bug me for some reason. This guy is basically the same guy who says "Pshaw, those people are poor? Look! They have an XBox!"
I don't understand how civil forfeiture has stood up to the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment over the years. Is it really entirely because of the fiction that the action is against the property?
Can someone explain the arrow from the lower left to the lower right in the bra question in Dear Dylan? It goes from 3/1 to 1/3; why aren't they equivalent?
The only possible explanation is that if we're in the lower left, the mother (by hypothesis) doesn't care, so actually to her the lower left and lower right are equivalent. But that kind of dynamic change in preferences isn't what we're modelling, right?
Civil forfeiture persists because there is enormous police and presecutorial discretion involved in who (what, according to the fiction, I guess) gets hit by it. The authorities are too smart to go after anyone who really matters in the big picture. No senators, judges, major political campaign contributors, CEOs of large corporations, or their kids will ever be subject to it. Only the little people will get the treatment. It's also complex enough an issue that making it into a soundbite is hard, so civil liberties groups have a hard time getting traction even in cases with relatively sympathetic victims.
Also a lot of people are assholes who assume that anyone getting clobbered by the law somehow has it coming.
In more more various news, Lightning struck at the Creation Museum today but it isn't totally hilarious because someone was injured, although at least he's not seriously injured and so maybe I could ask Dear Dylan how funny it is.
It's also complex enough an issue that making it into a soundbite is hard, so civil liberties groups have a hard time getting traction even in cases with relatively sympathetic victims.
It's not that hard. The police can steal your shit if they don't like you.
If I were homeless, I'd rather be patronized by the offer of $100 or a cheap laptop, than not patronized.
No senators, judges, major political campaign contributors, CEOs of large corporations, or their kids will ever be subject to it. Only the little people will get the treatment.
The New Yorker piece mentions this clusterfuck, in which the DEA and the LA County Sheriff's Department raided a dude's 200-acre ranch (shooting and killing him in the process), which the Ventura County DA concluded was done for asset forfeiture reasons. Presumably non-raids against dudes who don't own million-dollar ranches were eventually decided to be a safer bet.
Sneer globally, patronize locally.
I don't understand how civil forfeiture has stood up to the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment over the years. Is it really entirely because of the fiction that the action is against the property?
I don't think so. As I understand it, it's mainly that the "due" in due process is a slippery thing, and as long as you get an opportunity to contest the forfeiture (never mind whether you have the resources to do so, much less a chance in hell of succeeding), the prevailing interpretation of those amendments is satisfied. Process doesn't have to be especially meaningful in practice to qualify as due process.
I for one am shocked (shocked!) that the south dominated the states and stories illustrating shady forfeitures. Like VT and ND, forfeitures here go into a state education fund and the types of stunts those TX boys were pulling wouldn't fly at all.
15: That squares with a Supreme Court decision I found where they required notice be given to the property owner (rather than just posting a public notice).
But, crapaud de Nazareth, probable cause? That's basically "it might be" level of proof.
I thought "Dear Dylan" was really well done, and was also looking for an opportunity to link to it from here.
It does strike me, however, that he shouldn't do that too often -- the schtick could get old quickly. But as a once-every-few-months idea, it's fantastic.
No one wants to answer my question, huh.
Can someone explain the arrow from the lower left to the lower right in the bra question in Dear Dylan? It goes from 3/1 to 1/3; why aren't they equivalent?
Do you mean, "from lower right to lower left"?
I think that they indicate that Dahlia improves her outcome by removing her bra, so lower right doesn't represent a stable equilibrium -- if you arrive there, Dahlia will stop wearing a bra moving things to the lower left on the diagram.
8: I don't see an arrow that matches that description.
I see two arrows pointing down (top right to bottom right, top left to bottom left), and two arrows pointing left (top right to top left, bottom right to bottom left). Because, presumably, Dahlia controls the horizontal position, and Judgey Mom controls the vertical.
Neb lives in some kind of hypercube where the four panels actually wrap around each other and right to left could also be read as left to right.
17.2: I think probable cause is what they need to seize the property in the first place (I guess to satisfy the Fourth Amendment, though not sure how the warrant requirement plays into it); but IIRC to hold the property against a challenge, they in theory need to prove by a higher standard--preponderance of the evidence--that it was obtained illicitly or used for illicit ends (or something along those lines).
Er, I meant the bottom right to bottom left.
Because, presumably, Dahlia controls the horizontal position, and Judgey Mom controls the vertical.
Ah, ok. I was understanding the arrows as indicating that one position was preferred to another.
And to make them respond to claims against that higher standard the owner first has to cough up a grand.
I think it would be awesome in a Kafkaesque sort of way if someone came in with the $1k fee to file an appeal and they immediately seized it because obviously if your previous property was used for drugs so is this new money you found, junkie.
24: The wording is a bit unclear, but basically the article assumes away any possibility of credible threats affecting the other party's behavior when drawing the chart, and then says "Look! This chart shows that you can't affect the other party's behavior!"
It also assumes that getting over something is under one's volitional control.
And if you make that assumption, it's true that Judgey Mom capitulating and Dahlia going wild and free is the dominant strategy.
It also assumes that Dahlia already has perfect information and can't be convinced or bargained with in some mutually beneficial way, which is not at all obvious to me.
10: Mostly I'm amused that the Creation Museum has a zip line.
||
I sort of feel like I'm going to cry as I plan this upcoming semester. There are so many nonstop blocks that I don't know how I'm going to pump freaking breastmilk. I'm trying to plug in office hours into my schedule and it just makes these massive blocks of nonstop meetings, classes, office hours, etc.
|>
I have non-functional breasts and barely three hours of scheduled interactions with humans a week.
I have non-functional breasts and barely three hours of scheduled interactions with humans a week.
So the question is, do you pump during meetings or office hours? I vote meetings.
(Can you create, or bribe an admin to create, 'Pump' to have meetings with?)
But I bought a shitty tablet that doesn't work well for this.
So, it turns out, 'You don't know you are fucking born'*
is not a tactful response to someone struggling with the workload for the Open University course.
* couched in much more sympathetic language.
Unless that's supposed to be "borné", I'm pretty sure I don't understand the idiom.
As ignorant as a newborn baby, isn't that what it means? I wouldn't say it myself, it's British, but I think I've seen it.
I've seen it before but I'm not really sure what it means. Googling the phrase comes up with an even more inexplicable facebook page.
I've taken it to mean `you don't know how good you have it'.
Not broadly as ignorant as a newborn, but specifically "you don't know how good you have it, you infant," has always been my understanding of its sense, but the precise underlying metaphor is a little unclear to me.
41 is closest, it's along the lines of not knowing how lucky/easy you have it. Maybe because you haven't taken on the cares of the real world yet?
"Man is born to trouble, as the sparks fly upwards"
^^^too cosily set up to have cause even to be aware of this
||
Has anyone pointed out that there is no more masturbating to marian mcpartland?
|>
I thought Dear Dylan was funny until I realized it was just the neoliberal crowd policing the discourse and preventing any true progressives from jumping into the advice arena.
23: Ah, I see it is a preponderance federally at least. (More Bashi-Bazouk proceduralism.)
29 -- Isn't it?
On another note, I'm out of town, but we've received a bunch of notices today from the cable company that just bought the cable company from which we get internet to the effect that our computers have been used for illegal downloads, and that the new cable company will 'settle' them for $20 each. Do we consider this spam?
Wait, no, the cable company is just forwarding the notice from the rights holder that the rh wants the $20.
I thought Dear Dylan was funny until I realized it was just the neoliberal crowd policing the discourse and preventing any true progressives from jumping into the advice arena.
Now that's funny.
You know what, if Patronizing Asshole wants to teach basic literacy skills and other job to the homeless, there are plenty of organizations that would love to have him as a volunteer.
I bet he'd find that the job takes a lot of work and doesn't help him feel that he is right about everything at all.
It also assumes that getting over something is under one's volitional control.
I would argue that the very possibility of happiness in life relies on this being a correct assumption.
It also assumes that getting over something is under one's volitional control.
I would argue that the very possibility of happiness in life relies on this being a correct assumption.
I meant that it assumes that it's under one's direct volitional control, i.e. that one can simply decide to be over something and thereby be over it.
I hope that the possibility of happiness in life doesn't really rely on that being a correct assumption, because it's pretty clearly incorrect.
I'm not always easily able to let go of things, but I suppose I could manage to accept a nineteen year old woman with large, barely concealed breasts. Probably because of the game theory class I took in grad school.
I wish I knew how to number classes plausibly.
At my undergrad that was linear algeBRA so not bad.
||
Has anyone here ever bought jewelry online? I am intrigued by a site called angara, but I think that I might just be a sucker.
|>
The schedule of classes at my undergrad always abbreviated "Analytic" or "Analytical" as "Anal", so the math department was always offering "Anal Geo".
60: One time I bought a(n artisinally hand-stretched) ring from a jeweler on Etsy, and the box arrived...with no ring! I thought I had been scammed, but the box had also come open in shipment, so I contacted the seller to confirm there was, at some point, a ring in the box. She promptly apologized and shipped a necklace that was to my liking (and was actually more expensive than the ring) at no charge. This is probably not a helpful story.
60: I've bought several pieces off Etsy. Always gone fine.
The pictures out of Syria today. Jesus H. Christ.
Bought our wedding rings online. Then a replacement when I lost my first version.
Hey Spike, see the "Lights" thread for approving discussion of your flying toy recommendations.
61: Ha! Our course catalog had Comparative Literature classes as "CLIT 201" and so on, which was funny every quarter.
to the OP:
1: one of my big worries when my brother was busted for growing so much weed in our mom's house was that the local cops would gank our house. because they totally could have! the other was obviously that my brother would go to jail for infinity--I'm sure I mentioned to you guys that he went of his own volition to talk to the detective involved, without a lawyer, because he seemed like a good guy. but nothing bad happened because WHITE PEOPLE INFINITE NO BACKSIES. some community service and a year of piss testing. did I also tell you how many guns they took out? I have I'm sure. so, too many. not much community service! but, the point is, they did not seize the house of a nice woman who worked at mci and lived in takoma park, maryland. they didn't even ever make threatening noises.
3: also, CT is cool and all, I guess, but their commenters are a bunch of sexist shitstains anymore, really, I don't EVEN.
50: violating the soobc a little here, but halford texted me and said me you should pay everything, and he's, like, totally a lawyer and stuff.
60: my sister and mom buy everything up to somewhat expensive-ish jewelry online all the time and it's always gone fine; just now my sis got my a ring with smoky quartz in a quasi-transparent polygon and the stone came out of the (really, rather well made!) vermeil setting and she sent it right back to get a new one, no probs. they paid shipping. maybe even included a shipping thing, like ye olden tyme netflix? my mom's gotten good scores on ebay, also. sometimes they have rings where someone took the original stone out and there's a garnet in there pointlessly surrounded in tiny pavé diamond chips, in theory one could rescue one of these, but I've never actually done it (they're like 200). no, but I only ever thought of this before the price of gold got so high, they must all be melted down, now.
67: Whatever might have led her to think that might not be a comfortable situation?
I just found 20 bucks on the sidewalk, maybe I can help.
also, CT is cool and all, I guess, but their commenters are a bunch of sexist shitstains anymore, really, I don't EVEN.
I think CT has some of the best commenters on the web. People like Bruce Wilder and JW Mason are brilliant.
71: I was thinking about a sapphire ring with round cut small diamonds. Not a cheap purchase. It's a bit hard for me to know the sizing and the quality of the stone. They offer options: good, better, best and heirloom. From the pictures"good" is inferior, but better looks closer to "heirloom" than "best." I was thinking of 2 carats, but the biggest they sell is 1.5.
71: gold has gotten a bit cheaper recently.
75: mmmm, I feel like I'd want to see it unless I had a no questions asked money back thing.