Lazy Thursday Open Thread
Awfully quiet around here since Owen and Wendy are cruisin’.
So feel free to toss out anything you want to talk about. Will the Packers go undefeated? How badly will the Angels regret Dec 2011 in 2016? How much longer will Holder last before he meets the bus undercarriage?
This blog seems to be “hosed” or something. The “recent comments” link only goes back one page, and I think less than 10 of the comments are real ones, place is infested with spam to the point where this blog is unreadable.
For awhile (I think it was on Tuesday) clicking on the “recent comments” link got an error response.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2011 at 1836 hrs
Sorry about that. We got him with a major spam attack overnight. Try it now.
Posted by Jed on December 08, 2011 at 1854 hrs
Your CAPTCHAs obviously are too easy to “break” - most CAPTCHAs are the squiggly askew characters. Was reading that spammers have outsourced that function to low-wage workers (India, I think). Don’t need to know any English, just the ability to correlate the characters with the correct letter of the alphabet. Get paid $.75 for every 1000 they crack, can make $2.00 to $3.00 a day.
Was also reading about “cultural” CAPTCHAs - there you are asked questions that require a certain level of knowledge to answer. Things that a non-English non-educated in a far away country would not know.
Maybe that’s what is needed here. Questions to answer like, Who is married to Wendy? Who is Owen’s Governor? What is Jed’s occupation? Questions that regular readers would know, or information that could be found by looking around the site.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2011 at 2029 hrs
The problem is finding a captcha plugin that works with the blogging software. There aren’t many.
Posted by Jed on December 08, 2011 at 2104 hrs
Interesting trend for those 50+?
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2011 at 2125 hrs
Sorrry wrong link
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/12/labor-force-participation-rate-kids-are.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 08, 2011 at 2127 hrs
Trend. It will be true for every age group as they reach middle age and realize they can’t retire and continue to live the life they are used to.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2011 at 0543 hrs
SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR OUR GOVERNOR
Please join us as we Stand with Scott Walker on Saturday morning, Dec. 10, 10:00 – Noon on Paradise Drive and Silverbook Drive in West Bend. Bring signs, banners and flags. The recall petitioners will be down the street. Let’s show them who’s in the majority in Washington County!!Posted by bill meyers on December 09, 2011 at 0611 hrs
From Factoropinions link:
The decline in labor force participation for ages 16-24 might be partly due to a short term “bad news” story about discouraged workers, but it is mainly due to a longer term “great news” story about ongoing gains in school enrollment and academic attainment.
I am glad they used the word attainment over achievement. If less lead equals more IQ, why has it not shown up in average test scores? Also, if there is such an increase in enrollment, why are secondary Ed costs still skyrocketing? In any other business, that would equate to bigger profits, or in this case, reduced cost per student. Kids aren’t staying in school to get more education so much as to stay out of the workforce and in Mommy & Daddy’s security blanket. Just my opinion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2011 at 0821 hrs
So what should the courts do with this loser?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2011 at 0912 hrs
Walker signs ‘castle doctrine’ bill, other measures
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2011 at 0924 hrs
We’ll hear the *tha*thunk* with Holder on a low news day (one of the Fridays late in the day) during the holidays or shortly afterwards.
Posted by hsgbdmama on December 09, 2011 at 1251 hrs
Nobody discussing the plight of Ruthelle Frank?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2011 at 1457 hrs
Something needs to happen at the Justice Dept. What did people think of the questioning yesterday by Sensenbrenner?
I find it hard to believe that “I don’t know” is going to save Holder.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 09, 2011 at 1532 hrs
I received my property tax statement yesterday, and true to what I predicted months ago, my taxes went up.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2011 at 0829 hrs
is anyone else concerned with the fact that in Wisconsin you may be able to go into stores and drink half ounce shots of alcohol? If that law passes people will be able carry a gun into a store and drink. that seems like less than good idea.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 10, 2011 at 1043 hrs
Kris, Wisconsin’s concealed carry law requires absolute sobriety. If people drank shots in the grocery store while carrying, they would be breaking the law.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 12, 2011 at 0841 hrs
The speed limit is also 55 that doesn’t mean that everyone drives 55. Everyone spent necessarily do that sober either. My point was, shouldn’t we be a little concerned with the fact that we as a society have created a way for people to drink and carry a firearm. I am not against either, but I am not for the two together.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 12, 2011 at 0901 hrs
Not spent. S/B doesn’t. Stupid autocorrect
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 12, 2011 at 0903 hrs
My point was, shouldn’t we be a little concerned with the fact that we as a society have created a way for people to drink and carry a firearm. I am not against either, but I am not for the two together.
The 2 together are still illegal. If you carry, where you drink makes no difference, it is illegal to drink. I can see you being worried about someone drinking while carrying, just like drinking and driving, but both combinations are legal separately, and illegal together. Are you just trying to scaremonger by implying that since there are thousands of DUI and DWI’s given out every year, that we are now likely to see thousands of drunken gun carriers?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 12, 2011 at 1025 hrs
No. I’m pointing out that a person will be able to walk into Pick n Save and get what amounts to a few shots and could easily be carrying. We have opened the door for bad behavior. A door that did not need to be opened. Again, I am not opposed to either one. My original point was it seems like we are moving in a direction that is not good and there has been little said about it in the press or anywhere else.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 12, 2011 at 1524 hrs
They could also walk into Pick n Save and get what amounts to a few shots after driving to the store. We shouldn’t let them drive.
Or while on their way to sit kids at the local daycare. We shouldn’t allow daycare centers.
Or while pregnant. We shouldn’t allow women to breed.
Posted by Jed on December 12, 2011 at 1734 hrs
Better said, Jed.
Thank you.
That is what I was trying to say. It is not an open door in any other way than that the grocery stores can do this. Virtually no one by percentage will find themselves in the legal quandary to take a drink illegally while carrying a gun in a grocery store, while virtually everyone will find themselves in a drink, but not drive quandary. Why are you more worried about a tiny percentage of gun carriers rather than the huge percentage of drink and drive offenders?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 13, 2011 at 1053 hrs
I haven’t been clear. My problem is that in Wisconsin we are opening a door that does not need to be opened. We are giving easier access to liquor. It is fundamentally different to go to a liquor store or bar and drink than it is to casually walk by the shot girl in the grocery store and pick up a shot like you are sampling Wheat Thins new flavor. When to allow the free consumption of alcohol as opposed to having to buy it in a certain place or take it with you from the store you are creating a situation that is, in my opinion, fraught with unforseeable consequences. The reason I mentioned concealed carry is that the two came on the scene at about the same time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2011 at 0910 hrs
We are giving easy access on roads to people riding their bicycles.
It is fundamentally different riding a bicycle on a bike path, than on a road.
Combining bikes and the easy accessibility of them to be on the road is fraught with unforeseeable consequences.
I think cyclists should be required to install turn signals and brake lights on their bikes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 14, 2011 at 1014 hrs
Kris, I have no problem with your point then, but you certainly inferred that you only cared about the free alcohol because of concealed/carry. Big difference there…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2011 at 1254 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134042
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 07:36 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 112
Total anonymous users: 3
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 07:40 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).