Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2002:September:23 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2002/9/23-24 [Industry/Startup, Finance/Investment] UID:25978 Activity:low
9/23    Can someone explain this?  GMGC filed for Chapter 7 last Wednesday, yet
        its stock is still being traded and it even went up 67% today.
        \_ The bankruptcy filing means that the assets are going to be
           liquidated soon, instead of sitting around indefinitely.  The
           stock probably went up in anticipation of possible recoveries
           from the asset liquidation proceeds.  "67%" is a little
           misleading -- it went from 3 cents to 5 cents.
           \_ But the mere fact that it went up at all puzzled me.
              \_ 2cents.  background noise.
2002/9/23-24 [Consumer/Camera] UID:25979 Activity:very high
9/23    With all the digital equipments today, what are some of the advantages
        of using traditional equipments (e.g. darkroom, enlarger, developing
        equipments, etc)? I'm talking about hobbiest equipments, not pros
        -ok thx
        \_ the snotty art-fags who do photography as "art" will always
           make you look like a pro.
           prefer analog without bothering to learn about the alternatives.
           you could call that an advantage, if you want.
        \_ One would be hard pressed to ID the digital (printed on a $150
           epson photo printer versus my film prints.  For hobby use, it's
           in the same ballpark.  But consumer digicams still have the
           problem with lag, so I use film and a negative scanner too. -jor
           \_ Let's wait 2 years and see what your 'photos' look like.
        \_ One advantage I can think of is that using traditional equipments
           makes you look like a pro.
           \_ Only if you know how to use it in which you're a pro, eh?
        \_ In terms of the results you can get, there's not a lot of advantage.
           Film will provide somewhat higher resolution than mid-range
           digitals, but top-end digitals are getting really close, and they
           have numerous functional advantages.  If you don't already have
           a big investment in film, it's probably silly to work much with
           it.  -tom
           \_ In terms of affordable, there's still a big difference.  It's
              getting closer, but if you don't want to drop a huge load of
              cash you get better pictures from film and a good developer.
              The main advantage right now with digital is you avoid
              developing costs.
              \_ digital has enormous advantages, but just in terms of cost,
                 it's pretty much always gonna be cheaper than film over
                 time due to the processing issue.  -tom
                 \_ Depends.  For personal use I doubt it matters.  For my
                    own use I'd want the best quality and an extra few dimes
                    a shot is no big deal.  At bulk rates, digital is still
                    a new technology for the big players and not exactly
                    cheap.  --works for film/digital processor
                    \_ for my personal use it's mattered enormously.
                       I have taken 5000 shots with my digital camera;
                       a "few dimes" a shot is greater than the cost of
                       the camera.  If you're doing anything more than
                       taking occasional family snapshots, digital
                       will always be cheaper in the long run.
                       And your photos will probably be better, because
                       you get better, quicker feedback on what you're
                       shooting.  -tom
                       \_ 5000 = bulk.
                       \_ But cheap inkjet prints don't last as long as
                          traditional prints.  You don't want the pictures
                          you send to your grandma to fade in two years.
                          Archiveable (sp?) digital prints are more
                          pictures on paper are more valuable.
                          expensive.  Of course you can send a CD instead
                          which lasts practically forever and can be
                          refreshed by copying, but to many people personal
                          pictures on paper have more sentimental value.
                          \_ 90% of the shots I take, I don't print at
                             all.  The ones I want to print, I use
                             ofoto/shutterfly.  -tom
                             \_ shutterfly isn't long for this world.  careful
                                who you trust with your pics.  ofoto is kodak
                                owned so they should be around.
                                \_ snapfish is also kodak invested. snapfish
                                   can get pretty cheap if you prepay in bulk.
                                   \_ Actually we're owned by District Photo
                                      HQ'd in Maryland.  It is my understanding
                                      that no one has lower prices than we do,
                                      but I haven't personally checked. DP is
                                      doing most of the eastern seaboard for
                                      film and all of our digital and film.
                                      They keep up with print technology and
                                      spend considerable effort on keeping
                                      print quality high.  --snapfish employee
                          \_ Beh.  New inkjet printers that have
                             pigment-based inks are on the market now.
                             \_ gotta love those pigment-based inks!
                             Furthermore, you can send your digitals to
                    or and have them printed
                             on photo paper for cheap.
                             And you can remove red-eye and gamma-correct
                             your digitals before having them printed.  Oh,
                             and like tom said, you can throw away the pics
                             that aren't good before spending a thing on
                             printing. -emarkp
2002/9/23-24 [Academia/GradSchool/MBA, Academia/GradSchool] UID:25980 Activity:high
9/23    You're applying for your second PhD in B-school.  It's mostly
        because you didn't find a permanent job after two post docs in
        your first field of choice.  You think the PhD in org. management
        is really interesting (no joke) and plus it might make you more
        marketable than you currently are.  Is there any decent way to
        answer direct questions about 'why are you changing fields'
        without sounding like a total loser?  ps - he thinks with his
        past work he is pretty competetive despite his failure to land
        a job in his prev field.  flame away and pls email if you wish,
        thanks very much in advance for your advice, motdgods --hahnak
        \_ why are you going for a PhD, as opposed to something less
           time-consuming (and perhaps just as marketable) such as
           an MBA?
           \_ because he *likes* research.  and bc he wants to stay
              in research (academia -> professorship if all goes well)
              hope this helps...
        \_ my response depends on a PhD in what field. English literature?
           Medieval music? French? Electrical engineering?
           \_ his first was in physics this second one would be in
              org. management.  hope this helps
                \_ in that case my response to your first is WHAT ARE YOU
                        STUPID? You asked for it. My second response is
                        What are you, stupid?
                        \_ why do you even bother posting?
2002/9/23 [Uncategorized] UID:25981 Activity:kinda low 60%like:25988
        One woman's claim to fame.
        \_ She looks stoned.  *Really* stoned.  More stoned than a Dell or
           Apple "it went beep! beep! beep!" commercial....
2002/9/23-24 [Computer/SW/Mail] UID:25982 Activity:moderate
9/22    Will CSUA provide pop3/spop3 access soon?
        \_ The CSUA does provide spop3 access.
        \_ no. fuck off.
           \_ go fuck yourself you dip shit!!
              \_ someone get this freshman a beer.  this fool needs to chill.
        \_ my question is... why do you want pop3 anyway? pine/mutt/elms are
           so much better
           \_ archiving
        \_ Why would you use the csua for your email anyway?
           \_ it's my last berkeley connection, and was until now
              something permanent.
           \_ for the same reason you do, dumbshit
              \_ child, I don't.  using me as an example is not enhancing
                 your case at all.  want to be like me?  run your own server
                 and domain at home.
                 \_ damn you're cool! why are you even bothering
                    with this lowly csua?
                    \_ no im not cool.  im doing what everyone with any sense
                       is already doing: taking control of my online world. i
                       come here so i can hang out with k-kewl people like you.
        \_ dude, csua does support pop3 access... only from localhost...
           just use ssh to tunnel in. I've
           been using this for almost 2 years.
           \_ damn it!  now they'll all start asking how to set up tunnels and
              "how to tunnel pop ssh?"   what were you thinking?
        \_ POP is not going to work from a non local machine,
           but POP over SSL works.  What mail client are you using?
           Windows clients like Eudora and Outlook and Outlook Express
           and Mozilla Mail all support POP over SSL, you just have to
           click on the right button.
           \_ thanks! finally got it. I am using outlook...
        \_ I never did get an answer to my SMTP question from last week.
           Is it possible to send mail from a non-local host to a non-local
           host without going through an ssh tunnel? --different guy
           \_ The answer was "no".  Go look up "open relay" on google.
              \_ I know what an open relay is.  That's why I expected some
                 way to authenticate myself so the server can verify that
                 I have an account.  Oh wait, but smtp doesn't do
                 authentication, despite the fact that my mail client has a
                 checkbox for it.  Whee.
                 \_ Some mail servers support SMTP AUTH.  RFC 2554,
                 \_ So you seriously expect the csua to do smtp auth of some
                    sort so you can relay via soda?  I don't see a big need
                    and wouldn't ask the VP to spend their time on it.
                    \_ not really.  I was just looking to see if it was
                       possible so I know if I'm configuring my mail client
                       incorrectly.  these are the types of responses I was
                       looking for, not the as "you don't need to authenticate
                       to SMTP, you retard" responses I was getting before.
                    \_ why would the CSUA not want to do SMTP AUTH?  -tom
                        \_ Because it'll require effort on someone's part for
                           minimal gain.
                           \_ You have a superfluous prepositional phrase in
                              that sentence.  -tom
                              \_ Uh huh.  So what?  You had a point?
                              \_ is there really one "tom", or is it a
                                 group of people having a contest to see
                                 how fucking annoying they can be?
                                 \_ I've been watching.  There's just one.
2002/9/23-24 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:25983 Activity:very high
        Where's a bleeding-heart liberal when you need one...
        \_ fool, it's okay because Black people are doing it
        \_ that's an interesting, sad story, and has popped up
           in the mainstream press, i'm not even going to make
           fun of you for posting news from World Net Daily.
           The pathetic attempt at the beginning to link
           'enviro tree huggers' in this country to the Zimbabwe
           government is kind of funny though, what do they have
           to do with it?
           \_ PointerP to mainstream press about the wholesale slaughter of
              animals (including endangered species) in Zimbabwe?
           \_ Why would you make fun of him for posting from the WND?  Are
              you ragging on it because you think the content is false such
              as "my baby is an alien" stories from the tabloids or because
              it has a conservative slant which is contrary to the leftist
              slant you're used to seeing from the self proclaimed mainstream?
           \_ Like so: because Mugabe is taking land from the white farmers
              and the whites knew it was coming, they didn't bother to plant
              anything this season.  Without enough food, people have gone
              into the animal sanctuary areas and killed lots of animals for
              food.  There's no real link.  She's just pointing out the tree
              hugger types only whine about small local NIMBY issues and don't
              say anything about mass slaughter of protected animals somewhere
              else presumably because they think it's a-ok to take the white's
              land and land redistribution (to your family and cronies) is a
              good thing even if the consequences are starvation for everyone
              and dead animals in the sanctuaries.
                \_ what's wrong with whining about small local issues?
                   do you live on the moon?  I think presuming that
                   "left leaning hippies" are a-ok with killing
                   white people over land is presumptious.
                   [rude interuption moved]
                   \_ The problem is when you set aside your principles of
                      "justice, fairness, and hey maybe let's not starve the
                      entire country", in favor of some oddball ideal where
                      land redistribution (to your cronies and family) is more
                      \_ I don't know about Zimbabwe's case, but land
                         redistribution is about justice and fairness.
                         \_ Taking someone's land away and giving it to someone
                            who doesn't know how to farm it--how is that just,
                            fair, or even compassionate?
                            \_ Why do you assume land redistribution necessarily
                               mean giving the land to someone who doesn't
                               know how to farm?
                               \_ How do you learn to farm except by farming?
                                  The investment made by the current farmer in
                                  time and learning is lost.  Historically any
                                  resource redistribution by government has been
                                  from the people who have a resource and know
                                  how to manage/use it to novices.  Do you have
                                  a counterexample?
                                  \_ Ever heard of tenant farmers, who don't
                                     own the land but are employed by or pay
                                     rent to landlords?  Sometimes, it's the
                                     land lords who have no idea of how to farm.
                                     You really need to study some history.
                                     Try history of Russia, India or China.
                                     Or closer to home, the South before the
                                     Civil War.
              \_ Land redistribution is good.  No land redistribution in
                 South America.  That's why they remain fucked up
                 countries forever.  Land redistribution in Japan, Taiwan,
                 Korea, that's why they became successful countries.  It
                 has nothing to do with white or non white.  Stop playing
                 the race card.
                 \_ You have no clue what's going on in Zimbabwe.  They're not
                    redistributing the land.  They're stealing it and giving it
                    in whole to Mugabe's family and top 100 (or so) leading
                    cronies in the military and government.  That's not land
                    redistribution in the way you mean it, my communist friend.
                    And I didn't play the race card.  That's something people
                    from my part of the political spectrum don't do.
                    \_ That communists do land redistribution does not
                       mean land distribution equal communists.  Get your
                       facts straight.  Land distribution when done right
                       and under the right circumstances is good.  Communists
                       kill landlords, and also they collectivize farms and
                       destroy market system for selling farm produce.
                       Those are bad.  So please don't label me a communist,
                       thank you.  I don't give a fuck what political
                       spectrum you are from.  As far as I can see both
                       the right and the left play the race cards.  Do you
                       have a habit of labelling anyone who disagrees
                       with your political views a communist?
                 \_ bullshit, if white people where doing the killing and
                    maiming you would want to send the military, but since it
                    black people, it's okay.
                    \_ I don't condone killing and maiming, but land
                       redistribution itself is good in principle.  Are the
                       killing and maiming verified?  From the reports I have
                       read, there are some white farmers refusing to leave
                       their land, and people are waiting to see if they will be
                       \_ Read some newer reports.  People already have been
                          kicked off their land, beaten, raped, etc.  Yes, it
                          is verified.  The land went to Mugabe's family and
                          the top ~100 cronies in his government and military.
                          \_ It is not land redistribution that is the problem,
                             it is that Mugabe is an idiot and a thug. -!OP
                             \_ Yes, well that's true enough.
        \_ More people would be outraged if more people knew. Instead, we
           are being inundated with stories like the mom who beat her kid.
           \_ That's the "mainstream press" in action.  Bread n circuses.
           \_ Yeah.  What's the big deal with parents beating kids?  I was
              beaten by my mom all through my childhood.  Now I'm an adult and
              I still think it was an effective way to discipline kids.
2002/9/23-24 [Uncategorized] UID:25984 Activity:nil
9/23    Is anyone else getting junk mail from
        Anyone successfully unsubscribe to their list?  Thx.
2002/9/23-24 [Computer/HW/Printer] UID:25985 Activity:high
9/23    I want to buy a color printer to print digital photos but don't want
        my photos to disappear in 3-4 years. Do modern printers still have
        this problem? How much of it is an issue with the paper used? URLPlease
        \_ oh yes!  modern printers are terrible!  this stuff won't be any
           good at all until entirely new technologies are invented!  keep
           using online photoplaces if you care about your pics!  don't lose
           your loved ones to bad ink/paper!  --works at online photo place ;-)
           \_ is this serious, sarcastic, tongue in cheek, or a shameless plug?
              \_ Ok, the serious answer: printers are ok but not beyond the
                 pale.  Printing is expensive.  No one can assure you your
                 photos won't fade out in 12 months.  OTOH, I've been watching
                 this market advance very quickly and have serious doubts as
                 to the 3-5 years-out viability of anyone doing digital prints
                 online *or* off and making money off it (except HP and other
                 printer, ink, and paper makers). --online photo employee
2002/9/23 [Uncategorized] UID:25986 Activity:nil
9/23    True or false:  "Bad government is the leading cause of poverty."
        \_ What kind of stupid troll is that?  Why are libertarians
           always so boring?
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2002:September:23 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>