memebag

I love D-Link products. I have their basic wireless G router, but when I upgrade it will be to another D-Link.

The solution is to create a web site where people review the review sites! Then we'll all know what to believe without any effort, and for very little money. Of course, some might see a flaw in that logic, since the meta-review site could be manipulated just like a review site, but I've thought of that! Since the site that reviews sites that review things is also a site that reviews things, it will review itself. So you can always check the meta-review site to see if the meta-review site is trustworthy. Which it will not be.

Iowa Senator Charles Grassley has an interesting idea for AIG execs:

I'd add the construction of JSC as a significant event. That brought in a lot of tech jobs and fueled the development of the southeast areas.

With guns, silly. Mousie Dung says all political power flows from the barrel of a gun. When the government says your lunch counter has to let black people eat there, they back up that statement with punishments, all ultimately backed by guns. And bullets. BryanS: You seem to be picking the information that support your desired view of this event and ignoring anything that contradicts it. I don't know what happened, but I'd be just as wary of lies or exaggerations from either side on this topic. I've seen several people say Union Bar is gay friendly, so the whole "you can't come in because you look gay" thing doesn't sound plausible. And really, Midtown needs more gay awareness? That seems a little ... safe. How about Pasadena or Dickinson?

I was only saying that because Editor said the same thing when I asked if someone else was high. Personally, I had no trouble with your post. Well, the part about bongs and Nickelodeon. The rest of it is so wacked I won't ever bother responding to it.

You said: "Unless there's malicious intent or criminal negligence, I don't really believe that there's ever a good time for blame..." So if someone didn't intend to screw it up, then we shouldn't blame them for screwing it up. I don't really care about intentions. Someone broke a big company and jeopardized a bunch of jobs. I have no trouble blaming them. Oh, and please, no personal attacks.

My jaw literally dropped. I can't believe these words are coming out of your mouth. You're saying that no matter how much they screw up, executives deserve their bonuses? You're saying that we can never blame anyone for anything?? Isn't that some kind of freakish parody of socialism? Forward looking vision??? "Captain, we've hit an iceberg!" "No time for the blame game, full speed ahead! And where's my bonus?" Sure, I want to fix it. But I also want to not waste tax money on bonuses for anyone involved in a company that lost money. Bonuses are supposed to be paid out of profit, and there is no profit, there's the opposite of profit. There's loss! No profits, no bonuses. If you're eligible for a bonus when there's extra money, you ought to be liable for a fine when there's not enough. Put some skin in the game, bootstraps, self determination, hard work, and all that capitalist noise.

I'm not arguing about management of AIG's compensation programs. I'm arguing about management of AIG. And I have some evidence that AIG was mismanaged. Which sort of changes the whole compensation program deal. "Too quick to cast blame"? We should wait until when, exactly, before casting blame? I think the instant the government invested our money in AIG was a fine time to cast blame. So, do you really believe that other firms are trying to steal AIG's best and brightest, and that these bonuses are all we can do to keep them? And that we can't let them leave and maybe find someone better and brighter at a company that isn't on the skids?

How can I prove you wrong? Is it even possible? Now that we're paying these bonuses, at least in part, shouldn't we be able to see why we're paying them? And if you don't have any information about these executives, why are you so convinced they need bonuses to stay at AIG? Do you have some inside info?

It doesn't? Who are these AIG execs that need to be bonused? Can we find some individuals and point out their merit?

If there are other firms chomping at the bit to hire away these AIG guys, then something is seriously wrong with the foundations of capitalism. They've taken insurance, which is a very well understood way to make money, and screwed it up. Are folks at other companies really thinking, "Hey, we're making a lot of dough, I ought to bring in some AIG execs and screw this up, too"? In other words, I don't see how it's mathematically possible to underpay AIG executives, unless we're talking about fining them.

Their servers are a little slow. Nothing major, but noticeable on a good cable connection.

I just checked and it seems the be about the same speed as usual.

Let's organize a Gay Gorilla Bar event. But where will we find 150 gay gorillas?

I started a Twitter account last week, just to reserve my name. I'm following Penn Jillette and woot.com, but woot is lame and I may stop following it. No one is following me. I say absolutely nothing. So if you do decide to follow me, I can promise I won't steer you wrong.

I wear my HAIF shirt about once a week or so, and I've never had anyone comment on it or ask about it. I get lots of comments about my Frisky Dingo and Metalocalypse shirts, though. So I'm guessing the people I meet on a regular basis aren't HAIFers, and predicting that HAIFers don't smoke a lot of weed and watch late night cartoons.

Memebag just lost $75 playing poker. Memebag is reading a thread about Twitterers. Memebag is about to eat a donut and watch Top Gear.

I don't know anyone on Twitter, so there's nothing for me to do there. My friends tend to be as anti-social as me.

Try not getting attached to names; they change all the time. Galveston used to be named "Island of Doom", for instance. On the bright side, sometimes old names come back. I think Amazon should buy the naming rights to that building, since they are the new Sears.

Everyone needs to watch that.

So if non-white voters turn out when a non-white candidate is on the ballot, that's because of skin color, but when white voters turn out when only white candidates are on the ballot, that's because of merit and how the campaigns were run? I don't get it. If we're going to say that more non-whites turned out in 2008 than 2004 because of skin color, that means skin color was an "anti-motivation" in 2004.

Why does the candidate's name matter if all you needed to win in 2008 was black skin?