Disqus - Latest Comments for Xichekolas

Re: The Mailbag Lightning Round – April 2013

Xichekolas — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:52:53 -0000

Regarding the casual office pants, my favorite is Levi's 508 Chinos:

http://www1.macys.com/shop/...

$40 at Macy's, normal rise, room in thighs for my cyclist legs, still taper nicely below the knee.

Re: Seven Sales that Sorta Stink

Xichekolas — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 23:12:47 -0000

It equates to worse than that, because the half off is on the item of lesser value. IF the two items cost the exact same amount, then it's 25% off. If one costs more than the other, it's less than 25% off... the bigger the difference in price, the lower the discount actually is. And lets be honest, if you aren't getting at least 30% off retail at places like Express and BR, you're paying too much.

But I totally agree, when I saw the headline for this article, that was the first sales gimmick that came to mind. Express fills my inbox with BOGO offers (and #7, while we're at it).

But I keep the emails because of those occasions where you can coupon code on top of crazy end of season extra clearance and get that merino sweater for $14.99. :-P

Re: The $1500 Wardrobe – Pants

Xichekolas — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 17:32:19 -0000

I'm a fairly avid cyclist (so have well developed thighs and glutes) and I recently discovered the 508s. Same fit above the knee as the 514, but with a slight taper to the lower leg. My biggest complaint with the 514 was that it felt like I had a sail's-worth of denim flapping around my ankles. The 508s fit like a dream.

Re: GreenChip lighting lets you flip the switch remotely, thumbs nose at IPv4 depletion

Xichekolas — Tue, 17 May 2011 01:27:53 -0000

Routing and Network Address Translation mean that the IPv4 apocalypse is about as likely as the Mayan apocalypse...

Re: Engadget's back to school giveaway, part one: win $1,500 worth of gear!

Xichekolas — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 01:01:03 -0000

Also want!

Re: Artfully Underemployed

Xichekolas — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:10:19 -0000

That is why I doubled it to $120k in my figuring. My dad worked for GM, so I realize what they bring in. ;) And I maintain the the pay and benefits of an individual worker are irrelevant in regards to this. The problem was the lack of flexibility to hire/fire or trim health insurance benefits.

I'm not advocating paying them full salary and benefits, merely pointing out that we can afford that much for one year of full time career retraining. $60k salary + insurance is enough to make the transition into training doable, but not enough that they won't be looking for other jobs and taking them as soon as possible. I figure it's much less likely that people will show up to training if they have to sell the house and take a low paying job to pay the bills right away, and having 74,000 more skilled workers is better for the economy than 74,000 unskilled and unemployed ones plus several million people suddenly without pensions.

Re: Artfully Underemployed

Xichekolas — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 00:54:08 -0000

Just bought it and hoped for the best.

Still getting used to it. Just did a bit of D2 to attempt to train myself, which seems to have helped, but I'm still having problems making precise up and down movements, like I'll get close to something, but it seems to stick or overshoot. Not sure if that is the mouse or me though.

Re: Artfully Underemployed

Xichekolas — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:10:59 -0000

Yeah, but not an explanation. Basically I have a chunk of code the book gave me to read/write to a file, and it basically said "use this for now, we'll explain it later". Think I am still several chapters away from them.

Hoping to study under Perry or one of the other Haskell-centric professors this fall. I know there are two others, one of whom worked on GHC.

Re: Artfully Underemployed

Xichekolas — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:08:44 -0000

Well it's more the king of all small cases. By virtue of its size it'll never be as good at holding a ton of hard drives as harry's beast is.

It can hold four hard drives, but they run a bit hotter than I'd like... It'd probably be fine if I sprang for the extra $20 to get one of the more energy efficient hard drives.

Re: Search Y Combinator - Feedback

Xichekolas — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:32:16 -0000

Noticed you have a firefox plugin, but my HN Toolkit GM script adds a SearchYC box to the actual HN page... in case anyone cares. ;)

http://userscripts.org/scri...

Re: Huckabizzle’s Progressophobia

Xichekolas — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 02:16:50 -0000

So if the two words afford the exact same rights, why bother having two words at all?

If the problem is the actual word used (marriage), then I say we just replace all instances of the word 'marriage' with the words 'civil unions' in all statutes related to marriage. Then all couples, gay and straight, can be in a union. If some couples want to be married by a church, then they can be 'married' as well as in a 'civil union'... but as far as the State is concerned, only civil unions matter.

Of course, this is a rather silly way to do things, but the reason we have to consider such idiotic things is that religious conservatives seem unable to separate the idea of 'legal marriage' from 'religious marriage'. No one is trying to tell churches whom they should marry... Social progressives are simply trying to get equal rights/privileges, under the law, for everyone.

Re: Six Lanes

Xichekolas — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:30:55 -0000

That was poetic. A+

Re: Artfully Underemployed

Xichekolas — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:10:49 -0000

Yeah this post definitely was unsatisfying to me after I wrote it.

I think the libertarian in me was questioning why the state needed to know whether you were single or married, since all these other laws could cover the same ground.

But even as I wrote it I knew that kids would be the issue. While the state currently doesn't require you to marry in order to have children (how could they?), I personally think it makes sense that you are.

I guess the real question is, absent any legal consequences and formal hassle, would people be less likely to stick it out in their marriages for the sake of their kids? The optimist in me says no, nothing would change, but the pessimist wonders that if, by not formalizing marriage legally, people wouldn't even bother with it, which would be a shame.

I think my original motivation was that I see marriage as a personal commitment to another person for life, and question the need for external compulsion or validation of that commitment by the government. I think that absent any such formal legal stature, people would still get married just like they do now, but then again, I could be wrong there. The benefits as far as simplifying your paperwork and legal codes are easy to see, the consequences on actual marriages is somewhat less clear.

Re: Artfully Underemployed

Xichekolas — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:52:10 -0000

You stop interfering with my gut-reaction-justified-by-flimsy-logic! If we start adjusting the rules because of corner cases like athletes, we'll eventually have chaos!

Re: Artfully Underemployed

Xichekolas — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:41:22 -0000

But I reject the claim that the validity of rules only comes from endorsement from some 'higher authority'. Theft is not wrong because someone told us it was... societies with rampant theft simply could not compete with societies that respected personal property; and were eventually usurped. We benefit from the knowledge accumulated over millennia that survival and prosperity over the long term has a better chance in large societies, which depend on trust and specialization. Once a society gets large enough, it usually has a system to enforce trust (courts) and facilitate specialization (monetary economy). Trust increases immensely with equal and consistent application of the law.

Anyway, in this case, I don't see what is 'morally ambiguous' and necessitates us appealing to a 'higher authority' about equal application of the law to everyone. Time and again, American society has found it better in the end to treat all citizens equally under the law. First with a democratic government and universal male suffrage, then with the abolition of slavery, then with women's suffrage, then with an end to segregation. Our bill of rights codifies equal access to the courts for everyone, equal freedom of speech for everyone, and equal freedom of religion for everyone.

If a specific religion does not agree with gay marriage, then by all means, they can refuse to marry gay couples, obviously that is not in question. But the state's recognition of marriage as a legal entity should not be applied differently to different people. This is akin to allowing only white couples to file jointly, which would be an outrage.

(Redacted my parapraph on marketing here, because it most likely just comes off as offensive, even though that wasn't my intent.)

But to go meta on the authority idea: Which 'ultimate authority' should we listen to? There are many, and unless you have demonstrable evidence of which is the best, then your 'ultimate authority' is just as valid as anyone else's.

People select their 'ultimate authority' based on what they think is best, since if there were a clear way to discern which was *actually* best, then everyone would have come around to that choice. While this may mean they don't pick and choose individual rules, if they only follow the rules of their chosen authority, then their rules are still determined by 'what they think is best'.

Re: Artfully Underemployed

Xichekolas — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 23:07:23 -0000

So you will join me in invalidating all marriages between fat people?

Segregation was also what the majority of people once thought to be 'best' ... that doesn't change the fact that it stripped a group of people of their rights just because they were different.

Re: Artfully Underemployed

Xichekolas — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 02:12:01 -0000

That is why I say only let them diagnose things with easily verifiable tests. It is easy to swab for strep or do a blood test for flu. If something looks like poison ivy, and they have a test to conclusively prove it's poison ivy, then that is fine, but I wouldn't trust anyone (doctor or no) to just "eyeball it".

Re: Artfully Underemployed

Xichekolas — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:22:54 -0000

Test comment!

Re: I Have an Announcement to Make

Xichekolas — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 00:28:17 -0000

Toejam football.

Yeah, not original.

Re: My Future's looking up | hXXh

Xichekolas — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:13:57 -0000

Bicho, you should obviously write the next Bret Easton Ellis novel.

Re: Title field is required | hXXh

Xichekolas — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:58:45 -0000

"In strange times, even death may die."

Totally off topic, but I saw a sweet book by Piers Anthony the other day about a guy who accidentally kills the personification of death and must assume his duties by going around killing people. Then Satan somehow plots to make him kill his own girlfriend, at which point he goes all Constantine on everyone.

Anyway, it's on my list, as any book about being Death seems cool to me.
http://www.amazon.com/Pale-...

Re: My trailer

Xichekolas — Mon, 19 May 2008 16:20:05 -0000

> 550' worth of PVC

Holy shit... piping your oil somewhere?

Re: Blag: Data - storage and recovery | hXXh

Xichekolas — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:42:12 -0000

Easy general fix... stop using Windows.

Ubuntu/OSX + updates = win.

Re: new comments

Xichekolas — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:47:37 -0000

To everyone else: If you want it to remember your name and put a picture next to it, click that options icon and create an account. Added bonus is this account will work on all other sites that use disqus, like my blog.

Re: new comments

Xichekolas — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:45:40 -0000

yup, I see