« first day (1562 days earlier)      last day (3479 days later) » 

7:01 PM
I have 4 #0s that are worth $40-$45 each
 
@Unionhawk you butt
 
>:3
 
@Unionhawk I was hoping this was a new terrible song
But nope, you're boring as usual
 
Yeah
I try
 
7:06 PM
Okay, I'm really starting to get good with Shulk, I think.
 
It's all about knowing how to use Monado Arts. Shield at the beginning, switch to Buster when you have enough of an advantage in health, go to Smash when you feel they're low enough (~50% in my experience).
 
Not the same kind of terrible
 
> May 19, 2011
 
7:10 PM
@Unionhawk new to this chat
 
fair enough
 
@murgatroid99 GIGA PUDDI
 
oh god dammit what
no
why
 
GJ Advertising bot
 
@LessPop_MoreFizz I know someone in particular who would be getting a lot of attention for posting something like this
 
7:12 PM
@Chippies Is his name LessPop_MoreFizz?
 
@Chippies And that would be misplaced attention, because it's a pretty common and unavoidable banner ad, and the context is clear and meaningful, etc.
But I suspect someone will come along and flag that and get it auto deleted by people who don't look sooner or later, and that's a shame.
 
@Unionhawk not that I know of
 
This is worth $50 apparently
I have no idea why.
It was so bad
 
lol
I wonder if my one friend is off his "DEADPOOL IS THE COOLEST THING EVER" phase. I haven't checked what the new coolest thing ever is lately
 
w/e my gain
@Unionhawk I love Deadpool and I love Venom, but this was soooooooooooooooooo bad
 
7:16 PM
@Unionhawk I am so not clicking that
 
Have I ever mentioned how much I hate CSS?
 
Brian Posehn is writing the current Deadpool ongoing and it's pretty good.
 
Some CSS in my code is causing all lists to not have tabulation.
Which means these nice nested lists are all left-aligned.
 
@Powerlord I think you've mentioned the existence of hate but not as much the quantity
 
Power outages are the worst
 
7:19 PM
@Powerlord Tabulation as is looking like tables?
 
And the worst part is... ol, ul, and li elements have no styling of their own, so it must be something they're inheriting, but resetting float and display have no effect.
 
@Powerlord I'd consider myself a CSS expert. Want a second set of eyes?
 
Also, I like that the Create Potion button has an id of "potionButt"
 
As in it looks like this:
1. Something
2. Something
a. Some inner thing
b. Some inner thing
3. Something
 
Goddamnit, another fucking school shooting.
At least 7 shot. Seattle.
 
7:20 PM
@Powerlord Indentation is the word you were looking for, probably.
Have you tried just ul ul { padding-left: 1em }?
Or, ol ol since those are ordered.
 
In heroville one of my heroes failed to use a portal when they clearly should have. They had <100 HP out of 1000 at the end of an encounter, and they just went into a new one. I think they're just broken
 
@LessPop_MoreFizz Reasons to not pay attention to the news
 
@Batophobia The news is depressing.
 
@Batophobia Reasons to pay attention to the news, and work to change the world that the news happens in, IMO.
 
@LessPop_MoreFizz Was the person holding the gun its rightful owner?
 
7:23 PM
...it's because some IDIOT (read: our UI designer) stuck a * { padding: 0} at the top of the CS:S
 
@LessPop_MoreFizz What do you expect us to do about school shootings?
 
@LessPop_MoreFizz I don't think we need current news to know that school shooting are an issue.
We haven't done anything to fix it.
 
@LessPop_MoreFizz News focuses on negative events, better to look for good things in the world and watch those
 
@murgatroid99 Voting for officials who will change our gun laws might help.
Just, y'know, as a start.
 
@LessPop_MoreFizz Not everyone thinks gun laws will fix it
 
7:24 PM
@murgatroid99 Stricter laws about proper gun storage, handling, training and eligibility to begin with?
 
@LessPop_MoreFizz This leads back to badp's question, because gun laws only matter if the gun was owned legally
 
Great job, cause all elements to use padding 0... and of course, with CS:S, you can't just toss in an "except these elements"
 
So it's more convincing everyone to agree with you first
 
@LessPop_MoreFizz School swordsmen would be an issue next
 
@murgatroid99 Changing gun laws doesn't have to mean banning anything.
 
7:24 PM
And, as Koviko said, that's not necessary the right approach
 
@Batophobia Are school swordsmen an issue anywhere in the world?
 
@LessPop_MoreFizz playing devil's advocate here, but guns aren't to blame. people are. even if guns are illegal (certain ones already are) people still obtain them. just like prohibition didnt stop alcohol.
 
@murgatroid99 a large number, arguably the vast majority of illegal guns were legal guns at one point, before leaving that marketplace, because there are insufficient laws to restrict their entry into the secondhand market.
 
@badp Once guns are all outlawed, I imagine that's the next step
 
Universal background checks would be a start.
 
7:25 PM
I'm not interested in banning guns.
 
@LessPop_MoreFizz and that situation only matters if the gun was not owned legally
 
sigh Access refuses to recognize embedded functions such as CInt or IIf.
 
@Rapitor Well, the logic behind gun control is to just reduce the amount of guns. It won't get rid of gun violence, but it will reduce it.
 
I'm interested in making it harder to buy them in large quantities and resell them on craigslist to people who are not able to legally buy them at a firearms dealer.
 
@LessPop_MoreFizz This
 
7:26 PM
@murgatroid99 but was its rightful owner storing the gun safely -- unloaded, under lock, etc.?
if they weren't, they probably share responsibility
 
A lot of the arguments against gun control is that if you don't have a gun, what do you do against someone who has a gun?
 
Mar 19 at 20:50, by Origami Robot
"There is no gun show loophole. If you buy a gun from a private seller, you don't have to have a background check because it's a private sale."
Mar 19 at 20:50, by Origami Robot
YOU JUST DESCRIBED WHAT A LOOPHOLE IS
 
I think, yeah, we're having the wrong conversation about what gun control should be defined as
As a country
 
@badp I doubt most gun owners do this. Their logic is that you can protect yourself in case of intruder, adding steps between you and your defense doesn't fit with that logic
 
@Koviko Raise your hands?
 
7:27 PM
How often are armed people taken down by other armed people in civilian areas in the US?
@badp I'm not saying I agree with it. lol
 
@Koviko basically never, especially if you don't count police as 'other armed people'.
 
@LessPop_MoreFizz That's what I'd think. But that example is thrown around a lot.
 
@Koviko You leave
 
@Koviko pretty often, but its not covered in media because they don't like being wrong that guns can be used for you know.. safety
 
"To stop a person with a gun, you need another person with a gun"
But, not a cop, I guess.
 
7:28 PM
@Koviko But having a gun can deter other people with guns, so that's not the only useful measure of the usefulness of privately owned guns
 
@Koviko that's because the 'good guy with a gun' messiah complex is deeply embedded in american gun culture, and that's a problem.
 
@Batophobia I can't run faster than a bullet, just sayin
 
@Batophobia I'm under the impression that in a general case, gun owners keep them unloaded because the time it takes you to be ready to intercept an intruder is fine and dandy time to ready the gun.
 
@Rapitor I've gotten the idea that "the media" is actually on both sides of the argument. So, someone would report on it, right?
 
@OrigamiRobot Farther you are, the harder you are to hit
 
7:28 PM
@Koviko i've never seen any news source that was for-gun
 
@murgatroid99 I've heard that too, that owning a gun means robbers will know to back off.
 
@Batophobia If someone has a gun pointed at you, they can kill you before you take a full step away
 
@GraceNote Good point, I suppose I just have a bleak outlook on such things
 
But realistically, it just means the robber know you need ot be shot
 
Having it ready and loaded would be fine if you needed to quick-draw, but the amount of opportunities wherein you're in that small "Quick draw" window and not "Time to get ready and in a safe position" and "Too late" is pretty small I imagine.
 
7:29 PM
@murgatroid99 If you are that close, you disarm them
 
@Koviko I meant more that pointing a gun at someone is likely to get them to back off
 
If you are unarmed, you are less likely to be shot in a robbery
@murgatroid99 Unless they are armed
Then it's a showdown.
 
@Batophobia If you're ten feet away from someone, what I said is still completely true
 
Why wouldn't an intruder be armed
 
@badp Well, with a gun
 
7:30 PM
@murgatroid99 You'd be surprised how bad a shot people can be in such situations
 
@Batophobia I am not trained to do that.
 
@GraceNote my family keeps no less 3 shots loaded at all times. warning shot, cripple shot, kill shot
 
@Koviko Yes, why wouldn't they bring one?
 
"Harder to hit from range" is only even a factor if you can move like 100 feet by the time they react
Which is not reasonable
 
@Batophobia And disarming someone is not as easy as it sounds. Someone can easily fire a weapon as you are reaching for it
 
7:30 PM
@badp Because they don't have one, I guess? I mean, it happens, right?
 
@OrigamiRobot Which is why anyone worried about it should get trained, just like CPR
 
In movies, people rob homes with just a knife.
But I dunno how accurate that is.
 
Alright, diverting from the conversation at hand that I don't want touch with a 39 1/2 foot pole: Who has Beyond Earth and what are peopls thoughts. All I've heard so far is "It's exactly like Civ V"
 
29 secs ago, by murgatroid99
@Batophobia And disarming someone is not as easy as it sounds. Someone can easily fire a weapon as you are reaching for it
 
@murgatroid99 Any good disarming technique will limit your attacker to 1 shot, if you can make sure that misses, then you are good
 
7:31 PM
@Ktash I have it, but I have not played it yet.
 
@Koviko If it happens you can, um, buy one?
 
@Ktash I saw a question on it.
 
Silly thing called work.
 
@Frank That is silly
 
@badp But if they are always armed, then owning a gun is just goin to be an issue of which of you is a better shot
 
7:31 PM
@GraceNote Yeah, I've seen a few :P Not as many as I expected though
 
I'm not even making the argument that if I had a gun when someone is pointing a gun at me I would be ok. They could still shoot me while I'm drawing. My point is that "just leave" and "just disarm them" are not solutions.
 
If you aren't armed, they'll hold you up, take your stuff, maybe rape you... But probably not kill you.
 
@Frank People have skipped work for less.
 
If you are armed, they don't have any of those options.
 
@Koviko Dude, people who break into people's homes probably do it with at least the most basic of plans
 
7:32 PM
@JasonBerkan I am not one of those that do that.
 
@OrigamiRobot Unless you are the one planning to save the day, those are perfect options
 
Gun, chloroform, etc.
 
The statistics do support that gun owners are more likely to be killed by gunshot than non-owners
And the home-robbery rhetoric is very common in this debate
 
@Koviko They're also more likely to be around guns than non-owners
 
@Frank What about pre-planned vacation day usage?
 
7:33 PM
@GraceNote If I felt strongly enough about the game, maybe.
 
@murgatroid99 Well, yeah. Is that commenting on their own, or the conditions under which one would want to own one?
 
It's a rare game that would do that, though.
 
@Koviko How many homes robberies are thwarted per person shot at school?
 
Granted I can't think of a game that I'd actually use a vacation day on for though.
 
@Frank I'm a little lucky that I probably won't see KH3 until after I retire in about 40 years, so I won't have to be one of those people either
 
7:34 PM
Yeah, I'm pretty much done with this discussion. It's clearly going nowhere but in circles.
 
@badp It's not always home-robbery but really any point where you may be attacked
 
@badp Not sure. But at home, it's under the control of a (hopefully responsible) adult. Once it leave the home and makes it into a school, it's under the control of a (decidedly stupid) kid.
 
Well, y'all enjoy Beyond Earth right now. I'll be sitting here, twiddling my thumbs, waiting for the Mac version. sigh
 
For example, what if a teacher at said school had a conceal and carry and stopped the situation sooner?
 
@Batophobia While true, unless you can carry concealed, you can pretty much only have it at home.
 
7:35 PM
@JasonBerkan Worry not! I'll join you in not playing it!
 
Dammit, Access! 'Iif is not a recognized built-in function name.'
How the hell not!? It's basic VBA crap!
 
@Koviko how is that even a counterpoint?!
 
@Batophobia But then a kid could get a gun from a teacher, not home.
 
@Koviko Counting on people to be responsible is going to fail, they simply aren't if you consider large numbers
 
@badp Counterpoint to what? I'm just talking.
 
7:36 PM
@Koviko Conceal and Carry users should be through training to prevent this
 
Granted I haven't the slightest interest in playing it really, but still! You needn't wallow alone!
 
@GraceNote I still have 2/3rds of the Civ V achievements to get, so I can work on that while I wait.
 
@Unionhawk always do
 
@Batophobia And then that person is now required to shoot a kid.
 
Alright, no opinions yet it would seem, and I really really really don't want to dive in on this debate. So later all
 
7:36 PM
I don't think I could handle that
 
Technically the bridge goes nowhere but in circles
 
Always.
 
@Koviko Someone would have to if that kid is killing everyone else
 
I'm not going to fix US gun laws by simply arguing on the internet in a chat room
 
@Batophobia There aren't any solutions that don't result in the death of the kid?
 
7:37 PM
@Koviko they don't have to shoot to kill.
 
@Rapitor I thought, lawfully, you had to
IANAL, but I thought drawing a weapon meant intent to kill
And purposely injuring was illegally
 
@Koviko No, you are legally able to but not required
 
@Koviko they are "allowed" to, but its not a requirement
 
@Koviko I pretty much just ended up doing .directions ol { padding-left: 2em; }
 
Like, the law that you can't shoot a burglar in the back as they are running away.
@Powerlord yw ;)
 
7:38 PM
Laws vary state to state
 
@Unionhawk ...but you really need to review your laws about acquiring, storing, handling and securing them, and the enforcement thereof
 
@Koviko The laws I know of are generally based around a life in danger or personal property at risk
 
So, are there laws that you can't purposely just, for example, shoot a guy in the hand to disarm him?
 
@Koviko Because they're running away? I mean at that point, I don't see a reasonable justification for self-defense.
 
Yeah, saying "US laws are broken" is so horribly vague
 
7:39 PM
@Koviko Does the fact that nearly nobody is this good a shot count as a law?
 
@Yuuki If they still have all your money or something, maybe
 
@Yuuki Yeah, I think that's what it is. You have to be in fear of your life to legally shoot to kill o something.
 
@Koviko not to kill, but to capture you can
 
Because seriously, this is shitty movie gun-use and not a thing that actually happens.
 
@Koviko I think that only works in movies
 
7:40 PM
@LessPop_MoreFizz What's the point of a gun range if not to get this good?
 
@Batophobia That's not self-defense, that's vigilantism.
 
Yeeeeah, done. Nope.
 
Anyone who is a serious user of a gun is trained to shoot for the body, because that is a hard enough target to hit.
 
^
 
@Koviko To become a good enough shot to hit the person you intend to in the chest at what amounts to point blank range, which is kind of hard enough to begin with.
 
7:40 PM
@Yuuki Alright, so a robber takes all the money in a bank and runs off can't be shot, even if he crippled an entire business
 
i mean if you are a sharpshooter that could get the hand with a pistol.. good on you I guess
 
@LessPop_MoreFizz Which goes back to the, if you are in the position, run away
 
@Batophobia If he's not shooting back, I don't think you can shoot at him.
 
since then you add the moving target issue
 
You should never shoot a gun unless you intend for that bullet to bring down and potentially kill the person you are shooting at.
 
7:41 PM
2 mins ago, by Origami Robot
Laws vary state to state
 
@Batophobia You know he'll still be pursued by police and, considering it's a bank robbery, the FBI, right?
 
@Koviko That's not true in every case I know of
 
It's not like he's home-free just because he stepped outside.
 
(Or properly monitored and regulated target shooting for sport conditions etc. etc. this isn't about that.)
 
@Yuuki Police officers are required not to use "excessive force" and if they aren't being shot at I'm not sure they can just start shooting
So I don't see why civilians would be able to.
Unless they say "We are going to shoot unless you comply with X directions"
But even that might be slippery.
 
7:43 PM
@Koviko I didn't say the police were going to shoot. It seemed to @Batophobia's proposition was that bank robbers could steal money and just get off scot-free because they're running away.
Essentially, "we should be able to shoot someone with our money because they'll get away".
 
@Koviko Not to open another can of worms here, but I'm pretty sure that the police in the US fires far before that point
 
@Yuuki I'm saying that you can still go after them just not start shooting.
 
@Yuuki They could if they got out before law enforcement arrives or anything
 
@MadScientist lol
 
The clearance rate for bank robberies is the highest of any crime.
 
7:44 PM
@Yuuki Alright, say they kidnap your child and run off, can you shoot?
 
Well all I know is this Sunday's Last Week Tonight is probably going to be pretty interesting
 
@Yuuki Clearance = conviction or the opposite?
 
@Batophobia If you want to risk hitting your child, sure.
 
@Batophobia WOuld you shoot in the direction of your kid? o.O
 
@Batophobia HELL YES. Oops. That was my father voice.
 
7:45 PM
@JasonBerkan ... I don't want to be your son.
 
@Koviko to protect them, yea
 
@Batophobia But a small mistake and you can kill them
 
@Batophobia That's a definition of "protect" I was not previously aware of
 
If you legally own a firearm, you are good enough to not hit your kid
 
7:45 PM
@Yuuki Assuming my kid is not in harm's way.
 
And if you do kill them, then what?
 
@Batophobia That is not true at all.
 
@Batophobia ... Ha.
 
> If I can't have my kid, you can't either!
 
@badp So let you child get kidnapped and who knows what
 
7:45 PM
I don't see how this will ever change in the US, gun culture seems pretty deeply embedded. I just find that hard to comprehend, I wouldn't even think of getting a gun for self-defense
 
What do you think legally owning a firearm entails?
 
@Batophobia Legally owning a firearm != accurate with a firearm.
 
@MadScientist I think about it all the time. I just keep thinking about what could go wrong.
 
@MadScientist pretty simple. they have gun, with intent to kill you. you could defend yourself if you had a gun.
 
@MadScientist Yea, I have guns and I don't think I could ever shoot a person even in self-defense. I just like shooting paper and cans.
 
7:46 PM
@Batophobia if I'm powerless I'm powerless. The whole point of having a police is because mob justice doesn't work.
 
@badp Yea, good luck with that. Some people prefer to be able to fight for their families if need be
 
Just look at the list of assumptions you're making
 
@Rapitor I simply don't feel threatened. This kind of violent crime is not commen enough in Germany.
 
@MadScientist exactly, thats understandable. USA is not a friendly place, though...
 
@badp Admittedly, I'm assuming legal owners of firearms have to take some form of training
 
7:48 PM
@MadScientist My thoughts as well. I would definitely own a gun to protect my family, if I felt it was necessary. It isn't even remotely.
 
@Rapitor They have orbital laser with intent to kill you. You could defend yourself if you had a Gundam.
 
Well, how often are people held up versus actually shot by a stranger?
 
@Batophobia You are assuming incorrectly.
 
@Yuuki i mean... yeah? why not
 
And I've used guns more than a decade ago in military service, I know that I wouldn't hit a thing with a pistol.
 
7:48 PM
you DON'T want a gundam?
 
My assumption is that, usually, comply and you won't be shot.
 
@Unionhawk Possibly, but this is where things should change
 
I just don't think I could live with myself if I shot someone no matter the circumstances.
 
@Rapitor Depends on the Gundam.
 
@Yuuki Ball.
 
7:49 PM
Concealed carry permits often require training (state by state etc etc), but owning a firearm no
 
@Rapitor Eh...
 
- Your child is being kidnapped
- You are around
- You are not tied down
- You have a gun
- The gun is loaded
- The gun does not misfire
- You have a good shot opportunity
- You can draw, fire and aim before the kidnapper turns a corner or gets into cover
- You can hit the kidnapper, and disable him
- The kidnapper does not have an accomplice
 
fine fine... Big Zam
 
If and only if all of those are true, then you have a shot at making the day
What are the chances to find yourself in that situation to begin with?!
 
@badp Also that you have a reasonable probability of not (accidentally) shooting your kid.
 
7:50 PM
If you're with your child, and somebody wants to kidnap your child, disabling you is the first step
 
Just get a Strike Freedom. It has so many guns, it can't miss!
 
Chances are, if you have a weapon and are not trained enough or committed to use it, your attacker might use it against you
 
@badp Not always, separating the 2 of you is generally easier
"Want some candy?"
 
@Batophobia There is no possibly, you are assuming incorrectly.
 
> "You are around"
 
7:51 PM
@Unionhawk Florida has pretty lenient laws. Rifles and shotguns at 18, handguns at 21, personal carry is like 20$ (plus one day class).
 
@Rapitor wat
 
@Yuuki Not close enough, apparently
 
Rifles and shotguns before handguns?
 
@badp the logic behind it is you can't really carry a rifle around on your person as easily
and hunting culture is REALLY common here
 
@badp Florida follows the Halo 1 schedule of Escalation of Firearms.
 
7:53 PM
you can get a hunting bow pretty much whenever you want
 
@Yuuki Halo 1 handgun is pretty beast, not sure under 21 can handle it
 
In NC, you need a permit to purchase a handgun, but there is no stringent process involved with that, you just pay $5 per permit. It's just an old Jim Crow law.
 
Wait, if you think someone is kidnapping your child, are you legally allowed to shoot them?
 
@Koviko yes
 
11 secs ago, by LessPop_MoreFizz
15 mins ago, by Origami Robot
Laws vary state to state
 
7:54 PM
15 mins ago, by Origami Robot
Laws vary state to state
 
@Unionhawk Hell, any state
 
@Koviko Texas, probably
 
@Koviko Depends on your jurisdiction
 
@Koviko Some yes. Some no.
 
That seems a weird judgment call to make.
 
7:54 PM
@Koviko If you believe they pose an imminent danger to your child, then probably
 
I think in most states it would be illegal, but you would not be charged
 
@Batophobia you need to go through 5 years of SPARTAN training before you can purchase that ;)
 
I'm picturing someone snatching your kid in a park and you pulling out your gun
 
As I understand, in general, the extension of self-defense laws allows for using deadly force against someone who poses a clear and imminent threat to the life of another person
 
@Batophobia Pretty sure explosive rounds are illegal.
 
7:55 PM
In a park with kids.
@murgatroid99 Any person, or just family?
 
@Koviko At that point, you're endangering people more than anything else
 
@murgatroid99 If you miss.
 
@Koviko Any life
 
@OrigamiRobot state by state, but you're probably right for I'd say 49 states. Just a guess.
 
@Koviko I think it doesn't matter if they're family, but the threat to life has to be there
 
7:56 PM
Let's find out!
 
@Unionhawk I think that's at federal level.
 
@Koviko People don't become marksmen just because their child is in danger
 
The main thing that varies with respect to self defense laws is not whether you can defend yourself or someone else, or who you can shoot to defend, but rather, the concept of a 'duty to retreat'.
 
And, in general, firing a weapon in a crowded area probably counts as endangerment
 
@murgatroid99 I agree. But if you are able to draw to protect, there's the issue of your protection actually being a danger
Because in general, having a gun drawn is dangerous
 
7:57 PM
(This is also what 'stand your ground' laws such as were invoked in the Trayvon Martin incident were about.)
 
@LessPop_MoreFizz Stand your ground laws that are flimsy and don't always apply.
 
Historically, most states have operated under a principle where you have a duty to retreat unless doing so is unreasonable, in which case, you can be indemnified against charges because you defended yourself.
 
@LessPop_MoreFizz Right, in this particular case I was talking about protecting a third person who is unable to retreat
 
@OrigamiRobot Ah, yes it is.
 
What stand your ground laws do is modify that 'duty to retreat', either by removing it completely, or removing it situationally, i.e. in your own home.
 
7:59 PM
They're considered a destructive device like a grenade or bomb
 
Meh. If my kid is in danger, the last thing going through my mind is what is legally allowed.
 
TOPIC CLEANSER
user image
2
 
That's for lawyers to decide after the fact.
 
@JasonBerkan Yeah, but that's doesn't mean what's legally allowed isn't going to determine whether you get to see your kid again.
 
@Koviko It's not that they're flimsy, it's that they vary wildly, and, in murder cases, often result in he-said/he-said disputes where one party can't get their 'he-said' in.
 
7:59 PM
@JasonBerkan But maybe "Am I more likely to kill someone else than save my kid?"
 
@Rapitor Adorable, looks like my parent's cat
 

« first day (1562 days earlier)      last day (3479 days later) »