Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:February:15 Sunday <Saturday, Monday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2004/2/15-16 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:12263 Activity:high
2/14    Not that any of you will heed any of this information, but:
        \_ this article is poorly written.  It doesn't even address the actual
           implications of an oil shortage, such as famine.  It also
           cites magic New Energy invented by Tesla.  Don't get me wrong, I
           not only believe in the coming catastrophic oil crisis; I am
           counting on it as a bloodthirsty investor.  But this guy is just
           going off.  His citations have quotes like the second to last
           paragraph of .
        \_ vote for a guy who takes energy issues seroiusly.  vote Harry Braun.
           \_ You can't be president unless you were in Skull & Bones.
        \_ Do I need to state the obvious?  People will start relying on
           other forms of energy production.  Duh.  We are not going back to
           the stone age.
           \_ I think you need to read the whole page.  There's a fairly
              persuasive argument on why that won't help avert massive
              catastrophe in the short term.  Note that our current economy
              is not based on the _existence_ of oil but an _abundance_ of
              _affordable_ oil.  Obviously, once the dust has
              catastrophe in the short term.  Obviously, once the dust has
              cleared and most of us are dead, future civilizations will
              rely on other forms of energy production.
              \_ It doesn't make a persuasive argument at all.  Think about
                 the shape of a bellcurve.  People are not stupid.  At worst,
                 I predict about 5-10 years of relative discomfort (i.e.
                 WWII style rationing, etc) while a LOT of resources are spent
                 on energy R&D.  This is tinfoil hat fodder, sorry.
                 \_ i mostly agree with your conclusions, but people are stupid.
                    i think it's probably possible to cut our energy usage at
                    least 10% without great discomfort, just by not having a
                    bunch of idle computers on all the time, lights on when
                    no one's around, etc. unfortunately, stupid fuckers (like
                    some of you, i'm sure) never listen to this until the shit
                    really hits the fan. it's always discouraging to me when
                    i think about how many computers are on, doing pretty much
                    nothing, and how pretty much no one cares. also, not
                    everyone needs to have his own server on 24/7, but most
                    people who do it probably do it just to feel
                    \_ People are stupid?  Spoken like a typical
                       intellectually elitist cs geek.  Do you ever stop
                       playing Doom and Everquest long enough to leave the
                       house, or do you just sit around brooding over your
                       Twinkies telling yourself how superior your intellect
                       makes you over the jocks that gave you wedgies in high
                       school?  Grow up, son -- the real world isn't as
                       deterministic and simple as your 'intellectual' point of
                       view would seem to indicate.
                        \_ I think his argument that people are stupid is
                           very well-supported by evidence that he can obtain
                           by just leaving his house and going for a drive.
                           Roughly--60%? of the people out there are driving
                           gas-guzzling SUVs, which are almost the most
                           INefficient means of transport available.  Ergo,
                           people are stupid, and what's more, wasteful, and
                           in a fit of spite, I'd be THRILLED if the gov't
                           slapped on a $4 gas tax and screwed SUV drivers.
                           I want the stupid waste to stop before all the
                           nasty economic consequences occur.
                           \_ I agree with you that SUV drivers are stupid
                              assholes.  However, punishing them for driving
                              SUV's is going to make them into angry stupid
                              assholes.  We can only win by better technology
                              and education (technology to make vehicles with
                              the look and feel of an SUV but without the
                              shitty gas milage, the visibility hazard or the
                              rollover hazard and education to teach people
                              that their choices matter.)
                              \_ Doesn't conservation just delay things? Oil
                                 isn't growing back anytime soon. Also, we
                                 do have hybrid tech for example which has
                                 a vast gas-saving potential. But that's not
                                 being pushed much by gov't.
                                 \_ sure, but it buys us some more time,
                                    assuming we're smart enough to take
                                    advantage of it. which unfortunately,
                                    we probably aren't.
                                 \_ a decreased burn rate might mean that the
                                    shortfall, when it happens, will have less
                                    of a dangerous shock effect on the world
                       view would seem to indicate.
                                    we probably aren't.
                       \_ making ad hominem attacks against someone you don't
                          even know is hardly a good way to make an argument.
                          \_ Tee hee...true.
                \_ Years of R&D and millions invested has yielded a "bike".
                        \_ enjoy biking your food across the country!  Doom!
                          \_ Maybe we can bike to work and still
                             truck our food?
        \_ The problem with these sorts of arguments is (among other things)
           they're always very black and white.  They assume technology will
           never improve or change.  They assume the world is static and will
           just grind into entropic nothing.  If that were so we never would
           have left an agriculture based society that was barely life
           sustaining.  We're not hooked on oil, but on advancing technology.
           Everything is ok and will continue to be ok until the day some numb
              rely on other forms of energy production.
                        \_ enjoy biking your food across the country!  Doom!
                          \_ Maybe we can bike to work and still
                             truck our food?
           nuts decides we should stop spending on tech research.
           \_ Indeed, in the 19th century we feared the end of the supply
              of *whale* *oil*.
2004/2/15-17 [Health, Health/Sleeping] UID:12264 Activity:nil
2/15    anyone own the Sharper Image air filter? Is it really better than
        HEPA filetrs? Is it worth getting? Please respond only if you have
        it, thanks.
        \_ I bought one of these at Bed Bath and Beyond. It doubles as a
           humidifier. It's hard for me to tell how effective it is as an
           air filter since I really don't have much of a dust problem.
        \_ Well, I know someone who liked them. They do collect stuff pretty
           well, and are silent and simple to maintain. But I've read a
           consumer reports article that basically said there are much better
           air filters.
        \_ Honeywell HEPA air filters are more effective, cheapter and
           easier to maintain than Sharper Image's. I got mine at Home
           Depot. -allergic to everything
           \_ Hepa filters are expensive to replace, so how can they be cheaper
              than a wipe-n-walk device like SI's?
              \_ Buy replacement filters online. They are much cheaper. The
                 S.I. air filters may be silent, but how many changes of air
                 per hour? Are they really cleaning the air effectively? I
                 don't think so.
                 \_ Those are two different issues.  Buying filters online is
                    still more expensive than something that *never* requires
                    a new filter.  I don't own either.  I don't know which
                    cleans better or how much better one does than the other.
        \_ DO NOT GET ONE IF YOU HAVE ASTHMA!  What they don't tell you is that
           their ion technology produces ozone, a pollutant that will greatly
           exacerbate the symptoms of asthmatics.  I have the Hamilton Beach
           HEPA filter and love it.  Yeah, it can be loud when cleaning a room
           from an introduced pollutant, but it adjusts its speed and intensity
           based on the quality of the air.  It is usually pretty quiet, and I
           actually sleep better with some background noise.  Also, you may
           like to know that there is a class-action lawsuit against sharper
           image because of the ozone their unit produces hurting people with
           asthma.  The best ones are the BlueAir and IQAir (I think) HEPA
           filters, but they cost more than I can afford.
2004/2/15 [Computer/Theory] UID:12265 Activity:very high
2/15    Ok we disagree on many issues, but can we agree on something? Start
        your list here, and delete any entry you don't like (hence an
        intersection of issues we agree on):
        -bush is stupid
        -math is fun
        -linux is better than Winblows
        -berkeley is better than Cal State
        -berkeley women are uglier than Cal State chix
        \_ Rather than deleting, wouldn't it be more fun to start flamewars
           under each subject? I disagree at least somewhat with all of
           those except the ugly one. It probably applies to guys too though.
           \_ are you talking shit about math?
              \_ I guess some math is fun, sometimes. I'm a math centrist.
                 \_ Mushy head!
2004/2/15 [Computer/Rants, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:12266 Activity:nil
2/15    Israel! Palestine! Bush! Pine!  Global warming! Outsourcing to India!
        \_ Cutting government spending, and then cutting taxes, followed
           by building more houses to cut the cost of houses (a.k.a.
           increasing supply to lower costs) will do much to cut the
           cost of American labor.
2004/2/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12270 Activity:nil
2/15    Dated Dean, married Kerry, entertaining graphic sexual fantasies
        about Edwards.
        \_ finger-banged Kucinich
           \_ Ewww! -fab
        \_ fantasied on licking Manuel Noriega's face
2004/2/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:12271 Activity:kinda low
2/15    Seth Schoen w/the best reporting I've seen on the new SF gay marriages:
        \_ What's so great about this article, compared to other articles
           written on this topic?
        \_ How delightful! WIsh my wedding was that spontaneous.
        \_ How delightful! Wish my wedding was that spontaneous.
           \_ Yeah... Britney Spears spontaneous...  I am willing to bet that
              the more thoughtful members of the gay community are not very
              happy about all the activism, because of the inevitable backlash.
              The fact of the matter is that a good sized majority of Americans
              think "marriage => man + woman."  Gay rights must be protected,
              but hijacking words will earn the gay community nothing but
              resentment outside of enclaves like SF.
                \_ WTF are "gay rights"?  Do gay people have rights that
                   everyone else does not have?  Are there black rights?
                   Midget rights?  White heterosexual male rights?  -John
                   \_ Settle down John.  I just mean the rights of people who
                      are gay to the same stuff as other people.  'Gay rights
                      = rights of gays.'  Settle down.
              \_ Yeah, speaking of backlash, I will never vote for any more
                 protections for gays, etc. in my life.  It's clear that gays
                 aren't for the rule of law.  I didn't feel that way when it
                 was the mayor and some radical activists, but with gay couples
                 flocking to SF over the weekend, I've changed my mind.  Also,
                 the argument that conservatives are "just forcing their
                 morality on everyone else" is irrelevant now.
              \_ By definition, yes, marriage is between a man and a
                 woman. But honestly, I don't give a rats ass whether or
                 not gay people get married. Are you really that offended
                 by it? There are other groups of people I would rather
                 see having the priveledge of marriage being denied to
                 (like terrorists, criminals, assholes, etc.)
                 \_ It's not a matter of being offended.  It's a matter of
                    sticking to word meanings.  Word meanings and politics
                    are tightly linked, something noticed by a number of
                    people, including Machiavelli, Orwell, etc.  Redefining
                    words to suit one's agenda, however laudable, sets a
                    very bad, very dangerous precedent.
                 \_ They're welcome to get married as long as they are required
                    to go through the same ugly divorce procedures and all the
                    brutal unfairness involved.  And if there's any children
                    involved you'll be seeing the genetic parent screaming
                    bloody murder and denying gay marriage can exist.  This is
                    going to be fun to watch.  Marriage?  You're welcome to it.
                    \_ BDG, is that you?
                       \_ Not this time.  I'm happily married but marriage is
                          tough.  It takes real work and effort and requires
                          real sacrifices.  They seem to think it's some
                          utopian panacea of happy fun ball inspired legal
                          rights and benefits with no costs and *that* is what
                          I find offensive about the whole thing.  I'm looking
                          forward to seeing the ugly gay divorces and child
                          custody battles and the support payments and wage
                          garnishings and all the rest.  Gays seem to think
                          they're better than straights and only need a chance
                          to prove it.  They're doomed if they get the same
                          rights *and* responsibilities as married people.
                          \_ Well, gays do have ONE advantage.  I think
                             most of the problems in my marriage stem from
                             the fact that we don't understand the
                             opposite sex worth crap.  Of course, that's
                             what makes it great too...
                          \_ "happily married"? That doesn't sound bitter
                                nor divorced.
        \_ gay marriage, whether you support or not, is not legal because one
           state/city can not impose such a legal transaction on another
           \_ Interesting. So if I, say, get married in Arizona, it's not
              legal in California because Arizona can't impose its legal
              transaction on California? What a refreshing legal theory!
              \_ Yeah, fuck that full faith and credit.
              \_ Pretty much except for other laws that say marriage in one
                 state is accepted in others if the couple is male/female.
                 This is different from SF deciding to hand out marriage
                 licenses which are illegal because it's a state issue, not
                 a local one.  A city has no legal authority to invent new
                 marriage laws.  However, CA could decide to allow gay marriage
                 but Arizona would not be required to accept it.
        \_ Liberals completely miss the mark again (and again and again).
           The issue is not innately gay marriage, but the process you
           go through to legalize it.  As with every other leftist cause you
           go through activist judges and subvert the republican process.
           \_ That's the only way to get your agenda through when the majority
              of the voting public doesn't agree with you because you have an
              extremist position well outside the mainstream.
              \_ I'm personally for male homosexuality. It helps to reduce
                 mating competition for the rest of us. Lesbianism, on the
                 other hand...
                 \_ removes a lot of bulldykes from the pool.
                 \_ that's great and all for men, but women... they'd rather
                    date a queer guy
                    \_ no, they'd rather date a guy acts queer, dresses nice,
                       smell nice, but pay for everything and fuck the hell out
                       of them behind closed doors.
                        \_ the term is metrosexual.
        \_ Yeah, if we don't like a law, we'll just ignore it.  It's open
           rebellion.  The governor should declare martial law, remove the
           Mayor from office, and appoint a new mayor.
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:February:15 Sunday <Saturday, Monday>