Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2003:September:30 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2003/9/30 [Uncategorized] UID:10378 Activity:nil
9/30    Enough political trolling already!  Instead, check out Megaman vs.
        Metroid, or should that be Megaman vs. Samus:
        \_ You rock!
2003/9/30 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic] UID:10379 Activity:nil
9/30    Is it me, or Westley Clark is more of a Republican than Democrat?
        \_ Your choice, bad R or wannabe D.  Probably just (S)elfish mostly.
           \_ I think you're "probably an (A)sshole mostly". What does this
              comment add to the debate? Incredibly prejudicial.
              \_ And your ad hominem is SUCH an improvement.
                \_ Ah, but the evidence that the 2P is an asshole is right
                   there in front of us, while there's no evidence given
                   for 2P's assertion.
2003/9/30 [Uncategorized] UID:10380 Activity:nil
9/29    Anybody else trying iRate?  I've noticed the track selection
        sometimes gets stuck in a loop where it will keep playing a series
        of ~5 songs in a row.  Is there anything I can do to fix this?
        \_ You can change the size of the playlist in one of the menus,
           which would at least increase the time between hearing the same
           song twice.
        \_ reboot
        \_ Gee, um, that would make me pretty irate.  Har har har.
2003/9/30 [Uncategorized] UID:10381 Activity:nil 53%like:12001
9/29    What's the difference between a pharmacist and a pharmacologist?
        Which one goes to "pharm" school?
        \_ Try using a dictionary.
        \_ the "pharm" one.  stanford.
2003/9/30 [Uncategorized] UID:10382 Activity:nil
9/29    just think about it
        \_ Old, old, old, old, ol,d lame alt.conspiracy.shit.shit.shit.old
           \_ hm... you apparently missed the joke.
2003/9/30 [Finance/Banking, Computer/SW] UID:10383 Activity:nil
9/29    "The most difficult adjustment is for capital expenditures, which
        reflect spending to maintain and build property, plant and equipment.
        (For some companies, other items such as "Software development costs"
        or "Purchase of software licenses" would also be included in cap ex).
        These expenses are depreciated over many years, but since depreciation
        reflects cap ex in the past, it's not a cash cost today. Thus, it is
        added back on the cash flow statement under "Depreciation and
        amortization." (Depreciation is for tangible assets; amortization
        is for intangible assets such as goodwill.) But to balance adding
        back the non-cash cost of depreciation, you must subtract the real
        cash cost of cap ex, which appears under Investing Activities in the
        cash flow statement."
        Can someone help me with the above?  Why is depreciation "added back"
        (positively) on to the cash flow?  I don't get the reasoning behind
        that.  Is it just a way to smooth out capital expenditures so that
        it doesn't go up and down too much from quarter to quarter?
        \_ Cash flow is real money out and in per quarter. The depreciation
           comes off the bottom line, because presumably depreciation reflects
           the fact that your once new equipment is now worth less used, but
           then you need to add it back to reflect actual money spent.
           Depreciation is the cost for goods already paid for. When you buy,
           say an apartment building, you don't have to write the total cost
           off against profits right away: you get to depreciate it over
           27.5 years. But the hit to cash flow occurs immediately, depending
           on financing of course, which also goes to cash flow. I hope this
           explanation makes sense. -ausman
           \_ Jim!  I didn't know you were such the capitalist!  I'm very
              \_ Nah, it's just that liberals tend to be smarter than
           \_ It's still counterintuitive to me, but thanks for the clari-
              fication.  Depreciation is not "real money in" but I guess
              that's why the article said one should take it out of the
              cash flow calculation.
              \_ It will become clearer as you work with some real figures.
                 Profit should reflect increase in business value, not just
                 the ability to shuffle some money around. Imagine you borrow
                 $1M at 0% interest in Q1. Your cash flow for that quarter
                 is +$1M. Next quarter you buy a building worth $1M. Your
                 cash flow is -$1M. But still no profit. Now you just let
                 it sit there empty and fall apart. That is your depreciation,
                 which by IRS rules would be $1M/27.5 a year. Your cash flow
                 is not changing, but there has to be some way to reflect the
                 fact that you are really losing money, because someday that
                 bank loan will have to be repaid and you will have only
                 a falling apart building to show for it. Of course, real life
                 is much more complicated, with interest, maintenance, rental
                 income, appreciation, etc. Email me if you want to look
                 at a more complicated example. -ausman
        \_ This is how the accountants and MBAs stay in business.
2003/9/30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10384 Activity:nil
9/29    This has probably been covered already, but what is the prevailing
        rationale, if any, on the part of recall proponents as to why this
        recall is merited? Considering that we anyway have elections every
        4 years, Davis won, and the stuff ppl complain about is no different
        than what they complained about before the election? And does anyone
        doubt that if he gets recalled, the replacement will also get recalled?
        \_ no, you're right, it's dumb, it sucks that the rest of
           us have to suffer due to a quirk in the law, and it sucks
           that this stuff has to be test driven in one of the world's
           largest economies and America's most populous state.
           \_ a quirk in the law?  the recall isn't a technicality.
        \_ Davis needs punished for sucking.  Cutting Davis' career short is
           reason enough for me (conservative policy is more likely to help
           california also). -- petty and vindictive
           \_ so when democrats decide to try to recall a republican govorner
              a few months into their term and win, only to be recalled by
              angry republicans whose candidate is recalled, etc., will
              that have been worth it?  the whole thing seems like a bad
              precedent for an already over politicized state.
              \_ Over politicized now?  Check the polls.  Lots of democrats are
                 for the recall.  If it was only politics, that wouldn't be the
              \_ You *might* buy enough signatures to start a recall against
                 Arnold but it'll *never* pass the general voting population
                 a few months into his term.  Don't confuse the minimum req'd
                 sigs to start a recall with step 2 where we all get to vote.
        \_ Troll, he's getting recalled primarily for lying his ass off about
           the true state of the economy before his election and then dumping
           the truth on us only after he thought his position was secure.  He
           is so cynical it even makes me ill and I've got really thick skin.
           The rest of his corruption, lying, incompetence, and stupidity is
           just icing on the recall cake.  Davis is dead.  Unless someone gets
           Arnold on tape raping under age nuns, it's over.
           \_ Sadly, no matter who is elected, this state is still Fucked (tm).
2003/9/30 [Transportation/Car] UID:10385 Activity:nil
9/29    It's time to change my timing belt and water pump. The dealer charges
        $299 for the timing belt and $200 for the pump, while a generic
        store charges $345 for the whole thing. That's about $150 difference.
        My question is, is there ANY reason to go to the dealer? Is the
        authentic OEM timing belt and water pump worth going to the dealer?
        \_ oh my car is a Honda Accord. Why would it matter?    -op
        \_ call the small independant shop and tell them "i want oem parts"
           and they will do that. most shops do that anyway and get the parts
           at a huge discount straight from the local dealership.. and if your
           car isn't a high end german car, chances are their generic obdII
           gear will be able to do everything needed. the huge price difference
           is that they are willing to pass on part of the savings on parts
           and also cheaper labor prices. dealerships usually bill at about
           $80-$95/hr where as independant shops are closer to $65.
        \_ Small shop is good enough for this. What kind of car?
        \_ Do you have a warranty? If so, I'd go to the dealer since having
           the work done at a 3rd party might void your warranty.
           If you car is a generic japanese import then a 3rd party will
           work well.
           \_ This is a timing belt. You don't change a timing belt when the
             car is still under warranty. That's at least 75,000 on a recent
             Accord. Unless you are commuting from one end of the bay to
             the other on a daily basis or are a shipping company you
             don't rack that kind of mileage up usually in under 3 years.
        \_ if you know a good, reputable 3rd party repair shop, then, go
           ahead.  My toyota dealer cost about 10-15% more. I guess i am
           willing to pay that extra premium.
        \_ Can a generic store deal with the "computers" under the hood on
           most of today's cars?
           \- If Japanese && EBay, you can try OCEANWORKS. As for the
              Danhimal Discount. --psb
2003/9/30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:10386 Activity:high
9/30    When people say "fiscal conservative." What do they mean by that?
        Is fiscal "responsible" i.e. no deficit spending a "conservative"
        or "liberal" platform traditionally?
        \_ Various definitions, several of them very, er, interesting.
           Generally means don't spend more than you can bring in as tax
           revenues, don't spend one-time revenues (i.e. increased taxes
           during boom times) on long-term commitments, keep as much spending
           as possible in the private sector and only spend public money
           on services that the private sector would probably not invest in
           if left to its own (see Adam Smith), keep taxes low to make more
           private income available to spend on goods and services.
           Essentially, the same sort of common-sense money management that
           private individuals ought to engage in.  Most implementations have
           some problems, like the EU's stability pact, which prevents
           governments from 'priming the pump' to kick-start their economies,
           if their deficits are already too high, and the fact that many
           elected representatives try to bolster their electoral popularity
           through sometimes unnecessary spending "at home".  And let's face
           it, you'll be hard-pressed to find two people who'll agree
           entirely on who should be taxed how much on what.  -John
        \_ It means fiscally conservative: e.g. only spend and increase
           national debt to fund issues like: defense, anti-immigrant,
           big-tax-cuts-for-wealthy-few, pro-business-let-them-do-what-
           they-want-no-oversight-Enron, anti-environmental-regulation.
           \_ Are you angry?  -John
2003/9/30-10/1 [Computer/SW/Editors, Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:10387 Activity:nil
9/30  what happened? The site has been super slow.
        \_ oops, that was me constantly hitting the reload button.
        \_ I hit the (k)rash item on the menu.  sorry.
2003/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:10388 Activity:kinda low
9/30    Guardian is reporting that several of the journalists have named Karl
        Rove as the source of the agent leak...and *doooooown* goes the ship.
        \_ urlP
              Unfortunately this is a real audio link, sorry I can't do better
              as its a developing story.  The report is about 1:20 in.
              Also I should add, none of them have gone *public* with this
              information yet...
              \_ Is it because all the journalists Rove called are Republican
                 buddies like Novak
                 \_ Revealing your source is a big no-no for a journalist.
                    \_ Definitely.  However, if a subpeona is issued in the
                       course of a criminal investigation the reporter would
                       be obligated to name the source, or face contempt of
                       court.  We're a long way off from that, but you never
                       \_ Journalists have First Amendment protection. Look
                          at the Pentagon Papers for precedent.
                          \_ they still get thrown in jail for not
                             revealing sources.  -tom
                             \_ not usually.  the exceptions get in the news.
                          \_ as in most things it's more complicated than
                             that. law is a balancing of rights and the
                             court has a track record of not weighing
                             journalist privilege as heavily as other types
                             of first amdmt privilege. not making a
                             judgment here, just pointing it out. --aaron
                             \_ I'm suspicious.  This thread has been
                                remarkably well-behaved, on-topic, and troll
                                free.  WHO IS THIS IMPOSTER, AND WHERE IS THE
                                REAL MOTD?
                                \_ With yermom. Happy?
                                \_ Because us conservatives take criminal
                                   activity very seriously no matter who did
                                   it.  We won't defend Rove if he turns out
                                   to be a criminal.  It's that whole thing
                                   about having principles.  Should I make the
                                   obvious comparison or let it be?
                                   \_ We liberals applaud your adoption of
                                      our principled stance.
                                      \_ So as good liberals and not as (D)
                                         party hacks, you were in favor of
                                         removing Clinton from office due to
                                         his crimes?  We have a very different
                                         idea of what principles are.
                                         \_ Many people (including enough
                                            Senators) didn't think Clinton's
                                            offences rose to the level of
                                            necessitating removal.  Time
                                            shall tell what comes of this.
                                                \_ Yea... he was debarred in
                                                   Arkansas and debarred by
                                                   the USSC.  Lying under oath
                                                   before the US Congress.
                                                   Interesting.  Accused of
                                                   rape by at least two women,
                                                   and of philadering by
                                                   at least 1/2 dozen more.
                                                   \_ Paula Jones is angry
                                                      with her lawyers and
                                                      has said publicly she
                                                      believes they
                                                      represented the Repub
                                                      interests that funded
                                                      them at the expense
                                                      of her own. --aaron
                                                      \_ says nothing about
                                                         Clinton's crimes.
                                                   \_ Clinton was not debarred.
                                                      And I hate to break it
                                                      to you, BUT CLINTON IS
                                                      NOT THE PRESIDENT ANYMORE!
                                                        \_ Debarred from Arkansas
                                                           resigned from
                                                           USSC before he was
                                                           What now?
                                                           \_ Disbarred, for
       v 1: bar temporarily; from school, office, etc. [syn: {suspend}]
       2: prevent the occurrence of; prevent from happening; "Let's
          avoid a confrontation"; "head off a confrontation"; "avert
          a strike" [syn: {obviate}, {deflect}, {avert}, {head off},
           {stave off}, {fend off}, {avoid}, {ward off}]
       3: prevent from entering; keep out; "He was barred from
          membership in the club" [syn: {bar}, {exclude}]
       [also: {debarring}, {debarred}]
                                                           \_ CEASE! NO FACTS!
                                                                        \_ Thi
                                                                           s p
Jeeze you Clinton haters are pathetic, you can't even get the
basic facts right. Five year suspension is NOT disbarrment.
                                         \_ Or maybe a different idea of "high
                                            \_ Yes, leftists have no trouble
                                               selling out our country to get
                                               a few votes until some day we
                                               won't need to bother with all
                                               that pesky democracy and choices
                                               because we'll have the liberal
                                               elite making all the decisions.
                                               after all, when you're the
                                               smartest woman in the world, you
                                               don't have need for democracy.
                                         \_ What crimes?
                                            \_ Don't bait me.
                                         \_ Apparently my Lvl 5 Troll Summon
                                            spell worked.  Must have been the
                                            +3 Staff of the Magi.
                                \_ He's busy with the Falun Gong Republican
                                   Jew Asian woman fetishists.  And it's
                                   'impostor'.  -John the Troll King
                                   \_ CROM!
2003/9/30-10/1 [Transportation/Airplane] UID:10389 Activity:nil
9/30    Anybody know about the four fighter planes flying over Oakland? They
        are grey rather your standard performance-group paint job.
        \_ A fly-over for the 1pm Giants game?
           \_ Yep. It was the "Fighting Redcocks" from Lemoore NAS.
           \_ Yup, it was the fly-over for the start of the Giants game.
              \_ 2-0
2003/9/30 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:29548 Activity:high
9/29    "N.H. Court Trashes Private Garbage Search" (Yahoo News)
        Hmm, let's see.  I rape and kill a random hot chick on the street in
        the middle of a dark night, dump her body in my garbage can with all
        my semen and fingerprints on her.  I even let her leg stick out of the
        lid and write my name on the garbage can.  Now I'm jail-free because
        I'm protected by the constitution, because the cops can't search my
        "trash" and determine that I have committed a crime without first
        getting a warrant, and they can't get a warrant without first looking
        at my "trash" and determine that I have possible committed a crime.
        Chicken and egg.
        \_ is that a fantasy of yours?
        \_ You're being dense. Familiarize yourself with the concept of
           probable cause. The idea is they need to have a reason to search
           that will hold up in court ("I saw a leg sticking out of the
           garbage can") to prevent police abuses like fishing expeditions.
           Your logic is awful and betrays naivete about constitutional thought
2003/9/30 [Uncategorized] UID:29549 Activity:nil
9/29    RIP Elia Kazan
2003/9/30 [Uncategorized] UID:29550 Activity:high
9/29    i predict states wanted to succeed from the union in 2004
        \_ i predict you will still suck at english in 2005
           \_ English is the most screwed up language in the universe.
        \_ how can you predict something past-tense?
2018/11/15 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2003:September:30 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>