8/18    San Diego, San Jose, Santa Ana and Oakland -- had a more-than 50%
        likelihood of price declines, according to the index.
        http://tinyurl.com/ap6bm (WSJ)
        \_ We've been hearing about this for years.

8/18    http://tinyurl.com/alu76
        How rich are Googlers? Now you find out.
        \_ Crap!  If you can afford a $12 million dollar home, RETIRE!
           \_ I don't know a lot of really rich people, but in my observation
              truly retiring is always a bad idea.  Changing careers later
              in life is one thing, but ending all productivity is a great
              way to have your health go downhill and die young(70's instead
              of 90's) and bitter, even if you have enough money.  I'm just
              basing this on observations of older family members who've
              kept working in some capacity forever vs. those who truly became
              retired.  I'm never going to totally retire, even if I have
              enough money to never work again.
              \_ I basically agree.  I don't really think 30
                 year-ld googlers are going to retire in the "sit around
                 and watch TV all day way," anyway.  But there's all kinds
                 of things I'd like to do/work on other than showinging up
                 here 8-5 everyday. I would at least ditch the bay area. -op
              \_ I basically agree.  I don't really think 30 year-ld
                 googlers are going to retire in the "sit around and watch
                 TV all day way," anyway.  But there's all kinds of things
                 I'd like to do/work on other than showinging up here 8-5
                 everyday. I would at least ditch the bay area. -op
              \_ I know a woman with a few million in cash and many
                 millions more in real estate. Even though she made the
                 money doing other things (real estate, businesses) she's
                 also a psychologist. She continues to run her practice
                 on a small scale (accepts no new patients) even though it
                 only makes her $60-70K per year. Why bother? I've never
                 asked her, but I'm sure she does it because she enjoys
                 it. If the GOOG guy enjoys his job then that's all that
                 matters.
           \_ No, a good capitalist keeps working until he owns everyone
              else, like Gates, Rocketfeller, Walton, and Lay. Capitalism
              is what makes our nation so great! Haven't you learned anything
              in grade school?
              \_ I find it hard to believe that you'd compare someone like a
                 Rockefeller, who at least believed in a work ethic and just
                 about gave away most of his fortune to a Ken Lay.  -John
           \_ I have an acquaintance who owns his own business. Last year
              he bought a house in Beverly Hills for $4 million in cash.
              He owns many cars, including a Cayenne S and a Bentley.
              Another acquaintance of ours asked him why he bothered to
              keep working at this point when he and his family are set
              for life. His reply: "I don't want to have to drive a BMW
              5 series, which is what I'd be limited to if I stopped
              working." So there you have it.
              \_ Huh, I'd be interested in talking to him about
                 diminishing returns.  What's the real difference between
                 a BMW and a Bently?  Why is it worth 10 hours of every
                 day?
                 \_ It's an example. What he is saying is that he'd live
                    a good life, but not his current lifestyle.
                    \_ No duh.  The law of diminishing returns extends to
                       pretty much all areas as well.
                       \_ Sure, but who is to say what when returns are
                          not worth it? Is it when you own your own
                          home? Whether it is worth it or not is an
                          individual decision. You might be happy with a
                          5 series. This guy is not. You don't think it's
                          worth it. He does. Lots of people could get by
                          with less, but they want more. Right? Are you
                          going to decide for them when enough is enough?
                          \_ Did you take too much meth this morning or
                             something?  I said I'd like to ask him about
                             his motives, and what he thinks; I did not
                             say I wanted to tell him what to do.
                             \_ I didn't read the question "Why is it
                                worth 10 hours of every day?" as an honest
                                question, but as criticism. If it was an
                                honest question I apologize.
                                \_ No, it was quite an honest question.
                                   I'm surprised more people don't ask it.
                                   \_ I've had the privilege of test driving
                                      a $150k sports car and of receiving an
                                      upgrade to a stupid $$$ hotel room (no
                                      clue why) and being invited to try some
                                      really expensive delicacies, stuff which
                                      I can't-but-would-like-to afford.  Even
                                      if there's no intrinsic motivation to
                                      work, there are some pretty definite
                                      material benefits that I imagine I could
                                      really get used to.  -John
              \_ I think owning your business is different.  The
                 business becomes your baby, and you can't just let it
                 die.  My girlfriend's mom runs a business and makes
                 a few million a year, but she works like crazy
                 (15 hour days, 1 day of rest per month).  My gf is
                 more tired when she goes home for vacation cause
                 she has to help her mom and follow her schedule.
        \_ The grape is very sour to me. :-(

8/19    Two Illegal Immigrants Win Arizona Ranch in Court Fight
        http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/national/19ranch.html?hp

8/18    Eminem cancels show due to dependency on sleeping pills:
        http://csua.org/u/d38 (CNN)
        If this doesn't debunk his street cred, I give up; sleeping pills are
        so... SUBURBAN.
        \_ Well, considering that he is originally from St. Joseph, MO...
           \_ What?  I was told he was from the ghetto!
              \_ Ice Ice Baby!  -John
                 \_ He's white white baby

8/18    Hey Ilyas.  Re: Intelligent Design.  Please prove that P(C)<0.5.  For
        extra credit prove P(C) << 0.5.

8/19    Hmmm, right-wing columnist writes in favor of the Gaza withdrawl.
        http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20050819.shtml
        \_ Krauthammer is sounding more and more like something out of a
           Kubrick film.
           \_ Mr. President, we must not lose the mine-shaft race!
              \_ You are destroying the humor content by butchering the quote!
                 "Mr. President, we cannot allow a mineshaft gap!"
                    -- General Buck Turgidson
           \_ Just out of curiosity, why?  His historical and political
              are completely sound.  -John
              \_ Were you planning on modifying something with those adjectives?
              \_ Were you planning on modifying something with those
                 adjectives?
                 \_ Yah, seriously.  The suspense is killing me -- John always
                    does that: teases you with interesting adjectives, then
                    leaves it up the reader's imagination to fill in the
                    blanks.  I'm going to be thinking about it all damned day
                    now!  That bastard!            -mice
                 \_ "analyses"? "comments"? "arguments"?
                    \_ "tunafish"? "storms"? "triffids"?
                    \_ "storms"? "tunafish"? "triffids"?
                    \_ "xxxxxxxx"? "storms"? "triffids"?
                        \_ Deleted for national security purposes.  -John

8/19    http://compilers.cs.ucla.edu/~kchang/interesting/shortcar.jpg
        What kind of car is this? I'm trying to find more info like name,
        model, mileage, and other things. Thanks.               -kchang
        \_ If you're interested in a small car, you might want to read
           http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150
           http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html
                -- mini owner
           \_ Note that is from 2002. And the Neon, Cavalier/Sunfire, and Civic
              and Corolla do all have higher driver deaths than even the
              midsize cars. The Jetta is also not "tiny" as they say; it's
              a bigger car than a Civic.
              \_ But in general, some of the most dangerous cars to be in
                 are SUVs (or light trucks as some people call them).
                 http://tinyurl.com/cwp5w (NHTSA/DOT)
              \_ 3 of the 4 worst performing cars are subcompacts. Indeed, it
                 seems like midsize cars had the best ratings. --mini owner
        \_ SMART car. Owned by the greater DCX corporation.
           \_ I saw quite a few of them in Canada. I wonder if they're in US
        \_ You buy it, and you go straight to Dr. Yeung.
        \_ I believe the guy driving the car is a 25 year old Bengali.
        \_ http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5217861  and  http://akasa.ca/smart
        \_ When you get into an traffic accident, it conveniently crushes into
           the shape of a coffin, saving you funeral expenses further down the
           road.
           \_ And the solution is to have everyone buy bigger and heavier
              cars, thereby, starting an arms race and making everything,
              in general, more dangerous?
              \_ What solution?  Is there a problem here?
                 \_ The problem is that people getting bigger cars to make
                    themselves safer is a fallacy because once other people
                    start doing that, your "big" car will become dangerous
                    to be in because of other bigger cars on the street.
                    Meanwhile, your car will become more difficult to
                    control because of the extra weight and size and you're
                    more likely to get into an accident in the first place.
           \_ The problem with modern light (small is irrelevant) cars isn't
              being crushed; they have really strong frames (good ones do).
              The problem is just inertia.  Your car will be hurled by the
              big SUV and when you then hit something else you and the pinball
              car will come to an abrupt stop.  This is why buses don't have
              seatbelts.  In general they don't need them.
              \_ When a bus rolls over, big inertia doesn't help.  When you
                 don't have seatbelts, you hit the roof and break your neck
                 and die.  BTW there are usually seat belts for the bus
                 drivers.  So I think buses should have seatbelts for
                 passengers also.
                 \_ Sure sure.  There are lots of ways to get hurt and die in
                    a car.  Sometimes the seatbeltless guy who got ejected
                    lives.  Small nimble cars are more likely to completely
                    avoid accidents but less likely to survive head-on
                    collisions, yadda yadda.
                    driver.
              \_ http://www.smart.com  They are actually quite safe.  Very
                 rigid frame, tons of airbags.  You see a lot of them in
                 Europe (use almost no gas, very roomy--a colleague has one
                 and we carpool regularly.)  Not very much storage, fairly
                 zippy, and there's a 4-door (which sucks), a roadster (which
                 is cute but being discontinued) and the crossblade (which is
                 an awesome idea-- http://www.smart-j.com/e/cb.html )  I think
                 they even make some bizarre Brabus mad turbo version.  The
                 company's at least co-owned by DaimlerChrysler, and they sell
                 them here in these giant glass towers that look like 10 story
                 car vending machines.  Pretty cool, and you can wedge them
                 in perpendicularly into many gaps in parking spots.  -John
                 \_ That crossblade doesn't look safe.
                    \_ OK granted, but I don't think "safety" is entirely
                       the point with something like that.  -John

8/19    Sight Seeing with Google: http://perljam.net/google-satellite-maps

8/18    Really, I probably wouldn't admit to this attack
        http://csua.org/u/d3a (Yahoo)
        \_ Why not?  Terrorism and guerilla warfare rely only in part on
           intimidating your military opponents into thinking they can be
           attacked from anywhere; a large part of the point is to gain
           credibility with the kind of gullible young thugs who're easily
           impressed with this sort of thing--and what's more daring and
           impressive than hitting a US navy warship?  -John
           \_ Except they didn't.  They just killed some random innocent
              Jordan soldier.  I would file that under "screw up."  I see
              what you're saying though.
           \_ terrorism is weak , nothing more absolute than dropping
              a nuke on mecca
              \_ That would just incite more retributive attacks.  How about
                 nuking (or really just conventially blowing up) one of those
                 extremist Islamic schools for every terror attack.
                 \_ Yeah, cuz killing children doesn't piss anyone off.

8/18    Practical photography lesson:
        "Funny thing about angles and webshots"
        http://csua.org/u/d39
        \_ Slightly NSFW.

8/19    Apple: Free speech? Pshaw!
        http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1238
        \_ The 1st amd provides a right, but rights can be waived.
           By signing an NDA, the people who recv'd the dev kit
           gave up their right to talk about it. They can't get
           this right back. The NDA also bound them to prevent
           the dev kit from getting into the hands of those not
           covered by NDA. While it is arguable that the posters
           never agreed to the NDA thus are not bound by it,
           the possession of the dev kit is comparable to the
           knowing possession of stolen goods and should be
           treated as such.

8/19    More on the gorelick intelligence wall
        http://thinkprogress.org/2005/08/19/gorelick-ignorance

8/19    Explosion on Post and Kearney in SF; probably a transformer:
        http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_231131708.html
        \_ autobot or decepticon?
           \_ Okay, I laughed.

8/19    Poll: Seehan's peace movement is:
        1: the start of a lasting anti-war movement:
        2: a fleeting summertime story: .
        3: in-between: .
        4: A good place to pick up hippy chix: .
        5: A good place to practice off-road driving: .
        \_ All of the above: .

8/19    Hey Emarkp.  Re: Religion. Please prove that there is God. For
        extra credit prove Joseph Smith was telling the truth.
        \_ Someone deleted this along with a post about ID.  I'll note that I'm
           not presenting God or Joseph Smith as a falsifiable scientific
           theory.  ID proponents /are/ claiming their theory as science.
           -emarkp
           \_ We had a long discussion about this already.  In the narrow
              sense of
        \_ Please prove there is no god.  For extra credit prove Joseph Smith
           was not telling the truth.
           \_ The burden of proof is on someone who claims God exists.  (Just
              like the burden of proof of evolution being on someone who claims
              evolution is real.)
                 \_ Absence of proof is not proof of absence ;-)
                    \_ yup, Rumsfeld can tell you that it worked well with
                        Iraq.
              \_ You are confusing a syntactic distinction with a semantic one.
                 You seem to be saying that existence statements are 'special'
                 and require more proof than their negations.  But almost
                 anything can be phrased as an existence statement (e.g.
                 there exists a sequence of physical events giving rise to
                 a bacterium while starting from raw chemicals).
                 \_ What about "One can't prove a negative."?
                    \_ I don't understand what this means.  In mathematics,
                       as in empirical science, 'a negative' is just a
                       syntactic distinction.  In math what you can prove
                       usually has little relation to its syntactic form.
                       In empirical science you can prove nothing.
                       \_ Apparently you flunked Science. The central tenet
                          of science is that if you can't empirically prove
                          that it does exist, we will assume that it
                          doesn't. Science has traditionally followed
                          such principals as Occam's Razor, in which
                          the simplist explanation (we assume that
                          things do not exist until they are empirically
                          proven to be as such) is usually the most
                          \_ Uh no, science says that if something cannot be
                             empirically proven, it means that it cannot be
                             empirically proven.  Whether that implies "yet" or
                             "at all" is up to the observer.  Last I checked,
                             science made allowance for, say, circumstantial or
                             observational evidence not obtained through proper
                             empirical experimentation, even though you wouldn't
                             necessarily rely on these as proof.  Note that I'm
                             not implying that ID and friends are complete and
                             not implying that ID and friends aren't complete,
                             utter intellectually dishonest bunkum, I would
                             just like to point out the flaw here.  -John
                          likeliest. Also, in science, it's not merely
                          a syntactic distinction, that's why it's referred
                          to as empirical science vs. religious wizardry.
                          And math != science, because yes, math IS
                          pure syntatics.
                          \_ 'Empirically prove'?  'Pure syntatics?'
                             'Simplist'?  'Likeliest'?  You such at science,
                             you suck at English, you suck at trolling, and you
                             suck at life.
                          \_ Since Science can't explain the change from
                             "nothing" to "something" in the universe should
                             we assume that Science doesn't exist or that
                             the universe doesn't exist?  Please explain
                             further.  ;-)
                             \_ Science CAN explain how the universe could
                                have come from nothing:
                      http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=541
                                \_ Nonsense.  Did you even read your own link?
                                   It not only doesn't attempt to explain how
                                   the universe was created.  It makes it
                                   quite clear that we have no idea and
                                   presents a bunch of ideas that don't rise
                                   above the level of hypothesis.  These
                                   non-explanations are no better than "God
                                   did it" or "it fell out of a magic hat with
                                   a rabbit".  By the standards mentioned
                                   earlier in this thread not only does
                                   science not exist, but the universe doesn't
                                   either.  Your link (that you apparently
                                   didn't read or expected others not to) says
                                   something entirely different from what you
                                   claim it says.
                                   \_ Alexander Vilenkin (mentioned in the
                                      link above) has written many papers
                                      about this. You can google for more
                                      detailed info.
                                   \_ Well the universe does exist to
                                      science since we observe it.
        \_ http://www.yfiles.com/y3nf.html

8/19    I'm about to replace all original windows and glass doors at my 30-yr
                                  \_ eh, I was about to say, run linux
        old home with dual-pane ones.  Any recommendation?  Are prices at Home
        Depot reasonable?  What about <DEAD>www.customs-exteriors.com<DEAD>  TIA.
        \_ Stay away from Home Depot. Go to a window and door store. Also
           consider laminated glass instead of dual-pane gas-filled, depending
           on the application. My house is 76 years old and I wanted to keep
           the original windows while also soundproofing and insulating. I
           went with laminated glass to preserve the look. Your house is
           1970s, so maybe you don't care so much. IMO, lots of replacement
           windows look like shit. I'd go wood instead of vinyl, too.
                                   \_ If you're going to paint the wood, why?
                                      \_ Aesthetics. Also, what if you
                                         later want to change the color?
                                         Most high-end houses use wood or
                                         aluminum-clad wood.
           \_ My windows have metal frames in gray color and no paints.
              They're not broken, but they don't look good and my wife thinks
              it's too chilly in winter.  How does laminated glass work?  How
              does it soundproof and insulate without two panes of glass
              trapping a layer of air/gas? -- OP
              \_ Two panes of glass with a layer of carbonate between.
                 They do not insulate as well as, say, argon but they are
                 better for sound. The look better because you cannot tell
                 they are really two panes. This is important when having,
                 say, divided lights.
           \_ What in particular is Home Depot bad for?  Thx.  -- OP
        \_ Get the Linux brand.  Red Hat is good.
        \_ If you're living in the bay area, vinyl should be decent enough. Get
           the Milgard windows.  Aluminium is better for colder environment.
           \_ I live in north Fremont.  -- OP
           \_ I have Milgard windows that the previous owner installed and
              I cannot wait to remove them. Ugly and also the double hungs
              have this habit of coming untracked. I hate them.
           \_ I second Milgard windows. My parents had all the windows in our
              about 5 yrs ago w/ Milgard windows and they have worked great.
              I would get the work done by a experienced installer, most of
              problems I've heard about re new windows are due to inexperienced
              installers goofing things up rather than manufacturing defects.
        \_ I just recently remodeled my house and replaced all the windows with
           Jeld-Wen windows (from Home Depot).  These windows cost 50% less compared to
           other brands.  To make it look nice, I spent another $1k for the custom
           stucco molding around the windows offered by my contractor.  Overall, I like
           the looks and efficiency of these windows.  I got the low-e type windows.
           Jeld-Wen windows (from Home Depot).  These windows cost 50% less
           compared to other brands.  To make it look nice, I spent another
           $1k for the custom stucco molding around the windows offered by
           my contractor.  Overall, I like the looks and efficiency of these
           windows.  I got the low-e type windows.
        \_ I got Simonton double paned vinyl windows. I wanted wood, but they
           would have cost 2-3X as much and I could not get my wife to agree
           to the extra cost. I used to have single paned aluminum windows
           which were cold and noisy. The vinyl is a huge improvement, but
           looks kind of tacky. A couple of contractors recommended Simonton
           over Milgarde.
           over Milgarde. -ausman

8/19    My root partition is pretty filled up, what are some quick and
        dirty ways to remedy this? I don't know which /var/log files are
        safe to delete, though I'd like to delete unnecessary packages
        like X, etc. How to go about that, safely?
        \_ rm -rf /
        \_ Assuming /tmp is in your / partition and not its own mount point,
           almost anything in /tmp should be safe to delete if you're in
           single-user mode.  In /var/log: if you're not going to be reading
           them, any files with .0-9 at the end (e.g. messages.9 or
           messages.9.gz) are safe to delete.

8/19    Motd.official cleaned up, here is a summary:
        - Home directory quotas went up... way up... and are bound to go up
          again soon.  Soda is not almost free of the oppressive TDA.
        - NIS was put on soda, and then promptly removed.  We're working on
          LDAP
        - We're working on some serious issues with new soda's OS.  Just be
          patient
        - I think we've fixed most of the csua lists.  Most of you got a
          "Welcome to the CSUA mailing list" email recently because we forgot
          to use the "don't send welcome messages" flag when importing the old
          majordomo lists into the new software.  Sorry.
          \_ jobs@csua migrated.  email jobs-leave@csua to unsubscribe
             yourself from it. -mrauser 9/13/05
        - jvarga

8/19    Looking for news feeder/reader on the web. I'd like to use a browser
        so that I can keep up while I switch between a Mac and a PC.
        \_ an RSS reader or a NNTP reader?
        \_ i use jwz's portalizer [http://www.jwz.org/cheesegrater/]

8/19    Okay, when are we *really* going to have to worry about storage of
        yottabytes?
        http://www.thedailywtf.com/forums/41025/ShowPost.aspx

8/19    Anybody who knows any physics, what's the deal with QM being based
        on the notion of an 'observer?'  Does anybody understand what an
        'observer' means in QM context?  I mean of course the standard
        interpretation of QM usually taught. -- ilyas
        \_ Once you *know* the cat is in the box, the cat can't not be in
           the box.
        \_ all of modern science builds models with a latent component and
           an observable component. QM isn't "based" on an observed. Its models
           just follow the latent-observable dichotomy. It's healthy. There
           are things you see, and things you want to know.
        \_ As I understand it under the most widely accepted interpretation
           of QM, the Bohr-Heisenberg Copenhagen Interpretation, the state
           of an atom is indeterminate prior to observation. Note that CI
           is not the only interpretation of QM (some others I've heard of
           are the hidden variables theory, the many-worlds theory and
           decoherence)
           \_ It's a probability function and where on the function the
              atom is can only be known when you observe it. By observing
              it you "give" it a state.
              \_ The problem, as I understand it, is that you can only
                 give something a state via observation if that thing
                 is in a closed system. However, no such system exists
                 anywhere in the universe.
                 Also the implication of CI is that w/o some sort of
                 observers the universe does not "exist" other than
                 as a superposition of all possible states. Many,
                 including Einstein, felt that this cannot possibly
                 be true. [ Note I am not a physicist, I've mostly on
                 read about this stuff in Lectures on Physics, &c. ]
        \_ At a basic level you can't observe a system without changing it.
           You need to affect its state in some way to make a measurement.  An
           'observation' is really no different from plain old interference.
           To take the Shrodinger's cat example, observation is information,
           aka. photons leaving the box, and prior to that any internal state
           was possible.
           \_ I don't mean to be rude, but I don't think what you posted is
              really answering my question.  -- ilyas
           \_ So what exactly changed that allows me to see a live cat?
              Why would a camera (or a robot) not see a live cat? -- ilyas
              \_ Because now the box can't not have a live cat.
                 \_ You don't seem to understand my problem.  Why am I an
                    observer, but a camera, or a robot, or a robot that looks
                    and acts exactly like me isn't an observer?  What is an
                    'observer'? -- ilyas
                    \_ Anything that alters the internal state of the box by
                       letting photons out of it is an observer.  So a robot
                       which opens the box and snaps a picture would cause the
                       cat to assume a single state.  However if you set up
                       the experiment with a camera on a timer inside the box
                       then until something external observes/changes the box
                       both the cat and the image on the film are in an
                       indeterminate state. -pp
                       \_ But what if the robot himself is also in another
                          bigger box?  Shouldn't the state of the at now be
                          entangled with the state of the robot?  I can setup
                          lots of boxes like one of those russian Matryoshka
                          dolls -- at what point does the state of the cat
                          get settled? -- ilyas
                    \_ In any given problem you're applying QM to you define
                       something to be your "system".  In real life it's
                       probably an atom or something, but in the cat example
                       it's generally assumed to be the box and the cat
                       together.  An "observer" can be anything from the rest
                       of the universe interacting with the system.  So it's
                       a bit arbitrary.  I think the point is, though, that
                       you always draw the line between observer and system
                       between *you* and your experiment somewhere.  Another
                       observer could put you in the "system" box and say
                       the same things about your quantum state that you can
                       about some cat in a box.  So to I think answer your
                       question, in the interpretation of QM I was tought
                       the concept of observer has nothing to do with sentience.
                       the concept of observer has nothing to do with
                       sentience.
                       Of course, since you've already classified my brain
                       as:small, you might want to ignore what I have to say.
                    \_ The camera doesn't make an observation. Until you
                       view the film the state of the film is indeterminate -
                       the film could be in any valid state. Only when you
                       view the film does its wave function collapse into
                       a particular state.
                       In order for any of this to make sense the observer
                       must be outside the closed system that is observed.
                       HOWEVER, there is no such thing as a closed system
                       w/in the universe.
                       \_ So to summarize, there is no closed system in the
                          Universe.  So while in Schrodinger's hypothetical
                          experiment the cat's state gets settled, it would
                          not get settled in ours.  So does the collapse
                          phenomenon exist or not? -- ilyas
        \_ http://www.fishnet.co.nz/ted/murph/wpd.html#BM2Slit
           In the wave model, much significance is often attached to the
           idea that determining the position of a particle close to the
           slits "destroys" the "interference" because the "wave function
           collapses".
           If you measure the position of the electron just before it gets
           to the slit, you totally change the outcome of the experiment.
           A simple and elegant way of proving that the observer is part
           of the experiment. I will try to find a cleaner explaination
           of this phenomena. -ausman
           http://www.daviddarling.info/works/ZenPhysics/ZenPhysics_ch10.html

8/19    I have files full of  s that I NEED to squash, nothing I've tried
        works though. (shy of going in with an editor and deleting each one).
        They all exist at the beginning of a line and are followed by another
        strange charcter "»" if that helps.  OS = Linux.
        \_ sed is your friend.
        \_ tr -d
        \_ PERL baybee PERL!  It'll even copy the old file before modifying,
           from the command line!
        \_ awk me awk me awk awk awk
        \_ Any of many substitution processes
        \_ Have you tried emacs?
        \_ Do you know the hex/octal value of the strange character? od or
           hexdump might be of help to you. Then use tr -d to get rid of it.
        \_ perl -pi -e 's/^\xc2(?=\xbb)//' file1 file2 file3 ...
           --dbushong