Profile

Cover photo
Dave Pacheco
Attended Macalester College
Lives in Minneapolis, MN
544 followers|175,966 views
AboutPostsPhotosVideosReviews

Stream

Dave Pacheco

Shared publicly  - 
 
I am shocked, I tell you, SHOCKED, that the "welfare rancher" who has been illegally using Federal lands for his own personal gain and doesn't recognize the government of the United States (while proudly flying its flag) and likes the idea of hoodwinking crazy people into defending him with their guns has less-than-savory opinions about non-white people. Including the fact that they were probably better off as slaves.

SHOCKED BEYOND WORDS I TELL YOU.

The scuttling sound you hear is that of right-wing politicians running away as fast as they can. Well, except for those who will still remain behind to defend him, which tells you all you need to know.

Prediction: the more mainstream-to-right-wing Republicans who have been defending Bundy will distance themselves at the speed of light. Tea Party members will not, but will yell about the government trying to change the focus (probably to distract from Benghazi).

Prediction #2: we're not about to see Republicans jumping to defend his "freedom of speech" to insult black people in the same way they piled on to defend the Duck Dynasty guy, in spite of the fact that the things Bundy and Robertson said are both equally hateful and prejudiced. Let us clarify: Bundy and Robertson both have the right to say whatever hateful, racist, homophobic, stupid cow-slash-duckshit that coagulates out of their brain stems. The rest of us have the right to describe them using colorful, rich adjectives that call attention to their lack of ability to co-exist in civilized society.

Prediction #3: Sarah Palin will still defend Bundy, and in fact will invite him onto her TV show. The word "patriot" will be tossed around liberally (pun definitely NOT intended).

Prediction #4: Sean Hannity, whom Bundy has described as his "hero" will continue looking like a doofus, but it will be fun to watch him squirm.
5
Dave Pacheco's profile photoJake Miller's profile photoRichard Holmes's profile photoBisbo Nian's profile photo
7 comments
 
It's the predictions that have already happened that you should be getting right!
Add a comment...

Dave Pacheco

Shared publicly  - 
 
Happy Birthday William Shakespeare!  I had Christopher Marlowe write you  a nice note, but now everything thinks you wrote it
2
Add a comment...

Dave Pacheco

Shared publicly  - 
 
YOUR LAST CHANCE FOR ONE MONTH OF FREE LINKEDIN PREMIUM kind of loses its urgency after you've seen it every week for three years.
2
Fred Bradbury's profile photoJohn Walkenbach's profile photoPaul M's profile photo
3 comments
 
I still get requests to get linkedin with somebody occasionally.
Add a comment...

Dave Pacheco

Shared publicly  - 
 
I think Noah giving all those animals free room and board was just government welfare. GET A JOB, HIPPOS.
2
Add a comment...
 
Since nobody asked me but I have a keyboard so suck it, here's a couple of thoughts on "infinite parallel universe" theories.

Much has been said about the fact that if there are infinite universes, that anything that you can think of is reality in one of those universes.  A universe in which Justin Bieber is a type of mollusk?  Sure.  A universe in which "Star Wars" is real history?  Absolutely.  A universe in which "Frozen" is NOT the best animated movie of all time?  Definitely (spoiler alert: it's this one.  Sure, it's a good movie, but c'mon...).  

These are all theoretically possible in a reality with infinite universes that demonstrate infinite variety; but there are different types of infinity.  Just because something has an infinite number of instances, doesn't necessarily mean there is infinite variation between them.

Take the fraction 41/333, for example.  It converts to 0.123123123123... with the ellipsis meaning that the "123" part repeats forever, an infinite number of times.  Infinity embedded in a fraction. So does the fact that there are infinite instances of that "123" pattern mean that at some point there HAS to be a variation down the line where just one of the instances is actually "124"?  Or does the concept of infinity somehow imply that several trillion instances down the fraction you'll find the pattern "12zappos.com3"?

Of course not.  There is a basic rule to that particular infinity, and that rule is that there are an infinite number of instances of that single pattern, but they will not vary.  That rule will not be broken no matter how many times you repeat it.  Infinity doesn't work that way.  

The same can be the case in the multi-verse: just because I can imagine it, doesn't mean that there HAS to be a universe out there with that set of properties.  For example, there wouldn't be a universe in which the Earth as we know it today coalesced fully-formed out of the quark soup in the first millionth of a second after the Big Bang, except all the people are golems made out of spoons and gravity reverses directional pull every Thursday and the Sun is made out of Chiclets yet still has all the other sun-like qualities like heat and nuclear fusion and requiring Bono to wear sunglasses everywhere, even indoors.

There could be an infinite number of universes, but a finite variation of instances. Maybe there are an infinite number of universes, but there are only 60 different types of them, each type with an infinite number of instances.  Infinite "you"s with no variation, 60 different "me"s that only show slight changes in handsomeness and sex appeal.

And I'm stuck in this universe, where obviously something went horribly wrong.

But here's the other thought: if there truly were an infinite number of universes and every possible thing that you could imagine happening is true in one of those universes, then one of those universes has a version of me that has discovered the ability to jump between universes.  Not only that, but there HAS TO BE a universe in which a version of me has discovered the way to jump to THIS universe, and will post a followup comment to this post that will prove this fact.

The fact that he will not (or she will not: I accept an alternate universe in which I am a different gender, and I have a prehensile tail I use to type) is good enough for me to disprove the concept.

In fact, in the theoretical all-things-are-possible-in-one-of-the-multi-verses, there are actually an INFINITE number of "me"s who will now jump to this universe instance and post comments below, crashing Google.

The fact that you can read this post is proof that this has not happened.
4
ASH LAW's profile photoDave Pacheco's profile photoJohn Walkenbach's profile photo
7 comments
 
We can be absolutely certain that 0 is nothing, even if we don't count to infinity.  How can we be certain?  Because that's how we define zero.  If zero ends up being different than nothing, then it is no longer zero by our mathematical definition.  It's not faith in zero, it's the actual, literal definition of the term.  If you show me something that has infinite zeroes and then 0001 at the end, by my very definition of zero, THAT number is no zero, which I have defined as the number that has one zero and then infinite zeroes after the decimal point.

If I define a number as 0.123... (the ellipsis meaning, by definition, that "123" repeats infinitely), then it's not "infinitely unlikely" that there's a 4 in there somewhere.  "Infinitely impossible" implies a non-zero possibility in an infinite sequence, which this is not.   It is, by definition, impossible, because that is how I am defining that number.

If I define a number as 0.123... (the "123" repeating infinitely), then the probability of my phone number being in there is not "infinitely unlikely", it's precisely zero, by definition.  If my phone number is in there, then the number is not 0.123... with the "123" repeating infinitely (as I defined it), therefore it's a different number than the one I defined.
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
544 people
Bill Helgeson's profile photo
Rose Marie Holt's profile photo
Doug Rousso's profile photo

Dave Pacheco

Shared publicly  - 
 
"The only propositions we are entitled to accept as premises for action and further thought are those that it is rational to accept because they have passed the test of reason or observation or both."

- AC Grayling
1
Add a comment...
 
Eternal vigilance is the price we pay for putting way too much coffee grounds in the Aeropress.

I dunno, Winston Churchill, maybe?
1
Add a comment...

Dave Pacheco

Shared publicly  - 
 
Ugh, looking outside and everyone still has all their Earth Day decorations up.  TAKE THE DAMNED TREES DOWN, PEOPLE, IT'S APRIL 23 ALREADY.
4
Add a comment...

Dave Pacheco

Shared publicly  - 
 
I'm not celebrating Earth Day until Pluto is recognized as a planet again and gets all the Federal and State rights it has been denied for TOO LONG.
2
Add a comment...

Dave Pacheco

Shared publicly  - 
 
There is a remarkably simplistic, captioned sepia-toned photo making the rounds here and on other social networks. I won't post it in this entry, but the gist is that until 1913 Americans "kept all of their earnings", and in spite of that fact we had schools and roads and railroads and an Army and unicorns pooped tax-free rainbows. Therefore people today are being "extorted".

The implication is that prior to 1913, when the 16th Amendment was ratified (allowing Congress to levy income taxes without apportioning them among the states or basing them on the United States Census), we weren't paying taxes on our earning, and we did just fine. Therefore taxes = extortion.

But this is a remarkably ignorant reading of history. Just because in 1913 Congress could levy taxes without apportioning them, doesn't mean taxes didn't exist before then. You can't even claim to have read the Constitution and say that, since this was just a modification of Congress' ability to levy taxes as granted in Article I, Sections 2 and 8, not something brand new. Prior to 1913 there were taxes: excise taxes and tariffs, import taxes, property taxes, taxes on economic activities, personal income taxes (on and off since 1861), inheritance taxes, poll taxes, sales taxes, etc. Or does someone think the state and federal governments worked with zero budgets until 1913?
In addition, a lot of the income taxes imposed before 1913 used wars as their justification, so that helps explain the Army, Navy and Marine Corps. Heck, one of the main reasons the Constitution came to be was because the nation was unable to pay its war debts, thanks to the lack of collection powers in the Articles of Confederation. And prior to the establishment of public education, schools and colleges were available only to those who could afford to pay for them personally or within their community, so it wasn't exactly an educational utopia for those who wanted the opportunity to better themselves but lacked the money.

But fundamentally we need to ask the question: does anyone think that 1912 was the high-water mark for American society and the welfare and happiness of its citizens, one that we should strive to recreate?

Sure, there is tax fraud and waste today, and we can work to eliminate that within the current tax context. But as my friend Ben Zvan said after April 15th this year, quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes: “I like to pay taxes. With them, I buy civilization.” To equate taxation with extortion or to claim that prior to 1913 no one paid taxes and everything was peachy because of it is ridiculous.
3
Dave Pacheco's profile photoPaul M's profile photo
2 comments
 
Yes, but only in the "free" states.
Add a comment...
People
Have him in circles
544 people
Bill Helgeson's profile photo
Rose Marie Holt's profile photo
Doug Rousso's profile photo
Work
Occupation
IT Enterprise Architect
Employment
  • IT Enterprise Architect, present
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Currently
Minneapolis, MN
Previously
London, UK - San Jose, Costa Rica - Santa Clarita, CA
Links
Story
Tagline
I am why we can't have nice things. I could be ANYONE!
Introduction
President of the MN chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

I'm not a nerdy IT guy with all kinds of issues, but I play one in real life.
Education
  • Macalester College
    Computer Science / Dramatic Arts, 1991 - 1993
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Other names
El Conejo del Oubliette
A smaller selection of food and pastries than what is available in the other locations, but it's a smaller location too. Very cozy, very friendly.
Quality: ExcellentAppeal: ExcellentService: Excellent
Public - a year ago
reviewed a year ago
Best popcorn ever!
Public - 3 years ago
reviewed 3 years ago
The beef with onions appetizer is amazing.
Public - 3 years ago
reviewed 3 years ago
Spring rolls goooooooood.
Public - 3 years ago
reviewed 3 years ago
8 reviews
Map
Map
Map
Original and thought-provoking theater.
Public - 3 years ago
reviewed 3 years ago
Best Bánh xèo since the Bona burned down...
Public - 3 years ago
reviewed 3 years ago
Public - 3 years ago
reviewed 3 years ago