| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2005/8/25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39260 Activity:very high |
8/24 Which president owns the biggest ranch? Is it Bush? Or Washington
with his plantations? How about biggest mansions?
\- i'd have thought LBJ.
\_ wealthy rich Republican presidents from Virginia have the biggest
ranches and mansions
\_ I wonder what you would have said if the ketchup gigolo had won.
-- ilyas
\_ Rich Republicans have ranches; rich Democrats have compounds.
\_ Same ho, new lo!!!
\_ Bush's "ranch" isn't a "ranch" at all. A "ranch" would imply that
cattle are being raised. However, "sprawling mansion" makes him
sound less like a "regular guy," so "ranch" it is.
\_ Is it really a sprawling masnion? URL of pictures?
\_ Aparrently not. Or at least, I see no evidence of sprawling:
http://csua.org/u/d5g
\_ cease all fact bringing! ack!
\_ Don't look where the Google map marker is, look at the
estate at the end of the road, with the private tree-lined
drive, 3 buildings, lake view, and main house which is
about twice as large as the one by the map marker. While
it doesn't look palatial from the sattelite, it *does* look
like a mansion. |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Computer/SW/Languages/Java] UID:39261 Activity:nil |
8/24 My company is looking for a Sr. Java GUI developer, and also an
Embedded Developer with PPC expertise: http://www.arxan.com
Our CL ad for java position:
http://www.craigslist.org/sfc/sof/91503771.html
We are located in downtown SF. If you need more info, email me. -jose |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:39262 Activity:high |
8/26 Does anyone know how prop 13 even come about? On one hand it makes
sense that old people who owned homes for 30 years should not have
to pay mortgage up their nose. On the other hand, new home-owners
many who are young and owning homes for the first time have to pay
MORE than old home-owners, many who are corporate land owners, or
individual investors owning and controlling vast amounts of lands?
We talk about flat tax, but this is the opposite of that. Is this
even fair?
\_ How about taking an end-run around prop13 by abusing the newly
refined powers of eminent domain (thanks SCOTUS) to force longtime
landowners to sell in order to bring the property taxes on
their properties in line with current valuations of the property.
Yeah!
\_ "old people who owned homes for 30 years should not have to pay
mortgage up their nose" You mean pay taxes up their nose. Let's
see...is it fair for the government to reassess your property and
then tax you on their assessment? That sounds a bit scary doesn't
it?
\_ This is how government has been raising taxes as long
as there has been government and still how it is done
all over the world. Don't know why it scares you so much.
\_ It's not fair at all. It passed because people were sold fake
images of old people sitting on extremely valuable property,
losing their homes because they couldn't pay property tax. -tom
\_ Well, the people who voted for it were people who owned
land. In another word poor people didn't vote, and people
who wanted to protect their assets, did so regardless of
consequences like less funding for infrastructures, etc...
\_ Were you in CA at the time prop 13 passed? I was. People were
selling houses left n right and moving out of state because they
couldn't afford to own their houses anymore. They were taxed
out of home ownership.
\_ True, but you didn't answer the question about fairness. Why
is it fair that new hard-working home owners have to pay
more than everyone else? Whatever happened to meritocracy,
where the harder you work, the more you should get back?
What about the fact that old timers usually own properties
close to down-town or working areas where they no longer
work, forcing young home owners to buy properties much
farther away, and causing traffic? You mentioned one effect
of not having Prop-13, but what about its side-effects?
\_ The idea is that over time people will sell and the house
will be reappraised at market value or die or whatever.
The effect is to slow down the overall rate of increase of
property taxes across the state. Those same young people
(but really *any* new buyer) who pay current value rates
will be paying next to nothing in 30 years, the same as
that "old couple" who stayed in their house. I see nothing
wrong with encouraging and even rewarding people to stay
in the same neighborhood, helping to build a community
instead of the super transient "don't know who my next
door neighbor is and don't care" nature of many people
today. Those old people paid high rates when they were
young. They pay low now. Same thing for current young
people. No issue.
\_ The issue is that the cost of the services keeps going
up, so other taxes, like sales tax, get raised to
pay for them. So Prop 13 transfers the tax burden
onto people who don't happen to be sitting on half
a million dollars in equity. -tom
\_ I'm not the pp but I think he will respond like
this: "No. The old couples were once young and
had to share the burden of having to pay more.
Now new young couples have to share the burden
of paying more but when they're older, new
young couples will share their burden, so on and
so forth. No issue."
\_ Uh, you might not realize this, but there are
a lot of people in California who don't own
property and are not likely to ever own
property. So they get to pay more for their
whole lives. -tom
\_ That isn't the first thing I thought of, but
yes I believe that's true. In direct response
to tom above, "the cost of the services keeps
going up" is not just an inflationary measure
but also an ever increasing number of 'services'.
I'll happily pay my share of roads, schools, etc,
but there's a zillion other "services" I'll never
use which are just vote buying at best and high
corruption and criminal at worst.
\_ That's a red herring argument; the vast bulk
of municipal government expense is roads,
schools, police and fire. -tom
\_ When Warren Buffet advised Ah-nold to repeal Prop-13 to raise
revenue, Ah-nold said "If he mentions Prop-13 again I will make
him do 500 push-ups." Thank god for Ah-nold, thank god I
voted for him. -going to inherit 3 properties from my parents
\_ If you're inheriting properties from parents, don't worry.
There's a law protecting that.
\_ Why should this be "protected"?
\_ It's written into the Prop. It was part of the selling
package. Sold as "preserving" neighborhoods and avoiding
"poor kids inherit pricy house - must sell" scenario.
\_ Where do people get the idea that government has a right to
endlessly tax your house, and raise those taxes without limits?
Imagine paying $24K for your house in 1970, as my parents did,
now their house is worth $600K. If they paid property taxes
on 600K as they would without prop 13, they would be spending
100% of their retirement income on those taxes alone. -ax
\_ They're sitting on $600K in equity and you don't think they can
afford, what, $5K/year? And of course, the services they
receive from property taxes still cost the same as they did
in 1970. -tom
\_ When the premise of your argument is that we aren't taxed
enough, I give up and walk away right there. -ax
\_ The premise is that the *wrong people* are taxed. -tom
\_ Under what conditions should someone escape taxes?
Shouldn't retired poor people pay the least amount
of taxes, if any? You want a flat tax? -ax
\_ I think it's fair to say that property owners
should be taxed more than non-property-owners.
The beneficiaries of Prop 13 are almost
exclusively not retired poor people. -tom
\_ I'd like to see the numbers. I know a lot
of retirees in my neighborhood benefit
from Prop 13. You call them rich because
they own a $700K house free and clear,
but the reality is they have very little
income and would have nowhere to go if
they sold. By the way, if you raise taxes
on property owners then guess who will
eat that? Owners will pass the costs on
to the renters anyway.
\_ Look, it's pretty simple. The proportion
of tax paid by property owners after
prop 13 is less than before. This is
trivially obvious even if you account
for rents rising to pay property tax.
Therefore, non-owners pay a greater
proportion than they used to.
And it is also trivially obvious that
poor retirees who own their own homes are
a tiny portion of all property owners
in CA. -tom
\_ It is not trivially obvious that
the beneficiaries of Prop 13 are
almost exclusively not retired poor
people. Young people tend to move
much more often. It is also not
obvious that non-owners pay more
now than they did. Essentially,
the same people pay either way
(the wealthy landowners) whether
it is in the form of income tax
or property tax. Renters can pay
more rent (w/o Prop 13) or more
in other taxes (w/ Prop 13). Sales
tax is a red herring, because it is
about as high even in states w/o Prop
13. At issue is whether the state is
collecting enough, not who is
paying for it. The poor are never
paying for it, unless you consider
the poor retirees who would pay
if Prop 13 is repealed. Given state
revenues, I think the state is
collecting more than enough as-is.
\_ OK, given that the state is in
deficit, and two-thirds of the
budget is schools and health care,
what do you think should be cut?
-tom
\_ Whatever we've pumped money
into recently. The State
spent a lot of money in the
<DEAD>dot.com<DEAD> years when we were
flush with cash. What did we
spend it on? I also guess
I am not opposed to raising,
say, income taxes or the
VLF. I just think going after
Prop 13 is barking up the wrong
tree. Here's the budget:
http://tinyurl.com/ckduv
If you look at previous
years you see we spent now
than before, so it's not
that anyone wants to 'cut
education' but instead
change how we spend some of
the money allocated to it.
years you see we spend more now
than before. Why?
\_ Because of increasing
education and health care
costs, mostly. -tom
\_ Health care costs are
rising faster than
inflation, but what
about education? Why
would that be true?
\_ Because we're comparing
against historically
low (abysmal) school
spending from the
Wilson years. -tom
\_ What about before
that? Prop 13 was
around a long time
before Wilson.
\_ Equity is meaningless until you sell your home. When you
sell your home, you don't need to pay property tax.
\_ Umm, the whole economy is currently being powered by
cash-out-equity financing. Don't forget there is always
the reverse mortgage for old folks. So equity is NOT
meaningless until you sell your home.
\_ So you get to determine how much someone can pay? In a city
that has normal property turnover, aggregate taxes will go up.
That doesn't give gov't the right to decide what property
values are and then tax you on it.
\_ Alright. No do you feel the same way about commercial property?
I.e., would you oppose something that specifically repealed
prop 13 with regards to commercial property alone? -- ulysses
\_ YES. A general pholosophy of taxing: Taxing on real gains,
fine. Taxing on paper gains, NOT GOOD. My fater recently
sold his business's building for about 2x what he paid.
But if property tax kept going up on PAPER gains before
he sold it, it would have been a significant additional
expense.
\_ Alright. Now does that same approach apply to the
massive land value appreciation of, say, the Shorenstein-
owned buildings in downtown San Francisco or the hundreds
of square miles developed into office parks by Kaufman and
Broad - which have, incidentally, made outfits like these
the most powerful political players in the State?
\_ It is a NECESSARY evil when you get bubbles in the market.
I'm all for taxes on real gains and real property, but being
taxed on paper gains is, emm, problematic. Would you like to
be like my friend in Virginia who's property tax went up
by $5000 a year because his rather modest suburban townhouses'
appraised value went up by ~$200k?
\_ I think it is fair to be taxed $5000 a year. It's called
natural forces of capitalism. If you have to pay more, you
work harder. If you can't afford it, then you leave so that
someone else more capable or more desperate can take your
place. Look at Silicon Valley. Half of the inhabitants are
tech-related workers but can't afford housing, thanks to
land investment companies that lock down land, or people who
locked properties from generations and generations even though
they have nothing to do with the local industry they're in.
You either help with progress, or inhibit progress.
\_ I think it's fair if you are taxed $100000 a year. It's not
natural forces of capitalism, because the person didn't sell
their property. It's an artificial reassessment by the
government who then tells you to hand over more cash. Doesn't
sound fair to me.
\_ My issue with granting immunity to land owners is that
often times they own a huge amount of land and lock
them down for things that are not necessarily good for
the people. For example, a Sunnyvale nursery built 100
years ago, now surrounded by young working people who are
desperate to find housing in one of the most expensive
places in South Bay. This is not helping everyone.
\_ Actually, in spite ofyour communist rant about
'helping everyone' it might be nice to have things
like a nursery within a 100 mile drive of your
house, right? Some of those old mom and pop
businesses are valuable to the community. Tearing
them all up for (what exactly?) doesn't sound good
to me.
\_ What if the property-owner enjoys letting the field
lie fallow and unused?
\_ You gonna tell him how to use his land, comrade?
\_ Not me, but that fellow a few posts up ("My
issue with...") sounds like he's got a few
ideas. -pp
\_ Well, the law could build in some hysteresis and do the
increase as an increment every few years based on the
difference or sth. But permanently exempting prop owners from
tax reassessment is bullshit when those taxes are what's used
to support community services that all use. It makes the
rates higher for the rest of us. (And doesn't the tax base
get transferred on an inheritance? And of course to rental
investment properties.)
If values go up like crazy then at some point that tax rate
should be cut also, since services costs probably don't
go up linearly.
Not wanting to pay taxes in general isn't a good enough reason.
\_ Prop 13 doesn't exempt property owners from reassessment.
It limits the amount the assessment can be raised each
year. Also, if you do something like improve your home
you will trigger a reassessment on the new construction.
In short, I think people opposed to Prop 13 are whiners.
The government doesn't tax you on stocks until you sell,
so why tax on property? My coworker just received a
'special assessment' of $40K from his city in order to
upgrade the sewer even though he has a septic tank which
he just installed a few years back. He has no choice but
to pay. This is fair? If shit like this happens with Prop
13 in place can you imagine what will happen without Prop
13? Every time the city or county needs money they will
take it rather than make the necessary cuts. In LA, even
with Prop 13, there was an unexpected windfall because of
property taxes. Most people sell after ~7 years. If Prop
13 is ever repealed the CA economy will be screwed.
\_ I paid plenty of AMT tax on stocks I didn't sell, so the
statement that the government doesn't tax you on stocks
until you sell doesn't work for stock options.
\_ Sure it does. Did you exercise the options or not?
If you didn't then you shouldn't have owed any
tax. You mean you exercised them and then didn't
sell the stock afterward. Not quite the same.
\_ Exercising is not the same as selling. You can
exercise the stock, the company can go bankrupt
and not be able to sell the stock ... You've now
paid taxes on paper value only. The statement
was "The government doesn't tax you on stocks
until you sell" -- I didn't sell and still paid
tax. This is not advanced logic here, the
statement is simply WRONG.
\_ He said "stocks". Not "stock options". No
matter how bitter you may be, he is right.
\_ When you exercise an option you are 'selling'
the option. A transaction has taken place.
People are taxed (generally) on
transactions. If you don't exercise you
don't pay tax. Same idea.
\_ Thx for overwriting my response. And the
argument here is about SELLING stock you
don't SELL options. You
\_ Of course you can buy and sell options.
http://www.cboe.com
\_ Funny I sat through hours of stuff
and my company never mentioned
selling my options, because that
doesn't apply here. And matters
not since I'm not selling the
option anyhow.
\_ You made a categorical statement
that was factually incorrect.
\_ Ok I probably should have
said "I couldn't sell MY
options"
can exercise an option and not be able to
sell the stock. You may never be able to
sell the stock. The statement was "The
government doesn't tax you on stocks until
you sell" -- NO STOCK SALE HAS OCCURRED!
Exercising options and selling stock are
totally different things, unless you believe
that BUYING stock and SELLING stock are
the same thing. And I'm not bitter about
anything, I did quite well. However, I
know many who had to declare bankruptcy
because of AMT taxes on now worthless stock.
\_ I'm opposed to AMT on stocks as well.
\_ Well, stock taxes aren't the same as yearly property
taxes. It almost sounds like you're opposed to those at
all. Basically I stand to benefit from this stuff
because my parents inherited some property, and I stand to
inherit that same property eventually, and I don't forsee
ever doing anything to trigger a tax reassessment. But I
still think it's unfair. They rented this prop out and I
probably would end up doing the same. Other thing are
bullshit like depreciation writeoffs, exemptions from
taxes on gains, etc. I believe all taxes should be very
clear and straightforward, not a myriad of special rules
that people manipulate and that interfere with the free
market. I also think it's bullshit that tax rules are
voted on in general propositions and the legislature is
crippled.
\_ Prop. 13 came during a housing bubble akin to what is happening
today. The initial proponents were small goverment conservatives
who saw the backlash against the huge rise in property tax as a
chance to "starve the beast" by limiting property tax increases and
reassessments to a minimal level. As such CA has become more
dependant on income and sales tax and fees for it's budget.
Unfortunately, those sources of revenue are not as reliable nor
as progressive as property tax, so you get CA's socially liberal
stance clashing with it's constant budgetary problems and failing
infrastructure.
until you sell doesn't work with stock options.
\_ I believe prop 13 is a good thing. Without prop 13, a lot
older retired and soon to be retired people will be forced
to leave, because there's no way they could afford to pay
property tax that's more than their retirement income.
Raising property tax without a limit is NOT FAIR any way
you cut it. Forcing people out of their homes because the
market has gone up (especially in a crazy time as now) is
not fair. Capping the gain is a reasonable compromise. I
suppose you are also against prop 60/90 that allows seniors
to carry over the current property tax to their new place.
I pay a premium now on my property tax, but knowing that it
will not grow without limit and I can have a comfortable
retirement life later in life sounds pretty fair to me. I
made a wise choice buying a home a few years ago, the
savings I get on property tax now is my reward, plain and
simple. Just like I have no problem with people making
millions because they bought Microsoft 10 years ago. It's
their reward and they earned it. There are other ways to
solve the housing shortage problem. Most retired people
does not want to sell because they have no place to go and
anywhere they go they cannot afford the new property tax.
Prop 60/90 is a step in the right direction.
\_ Your reasoning is flawed. Seniors are by far the richest age
segment today and most likely to afford increases in taxes.
Before Prop. 13, you could have your property reassessed or
apply for property tax relief. Those imaginary poor old people
being "forced" out of their houses? The state would have had
them jump through a few hoops, but they wouldn't have to pay
anything close to the full amount. This is how it works in
other places. Your whining about having to pay property taxes
is nothing more than more self-interest. It's always amusing
to hear people speak of the downfall of American communities and
society, and yet when it gets down to brass "taxes," forget it.
It's all about the individual.
\_ I don't think anyone is whining about paying property
taxes. Prop 13 doesn't eliminate that. What it *does* do
is set a reasonable rate that taxes can be raised. You
might think seniors are the wealthiest, but they are not, by
the way. They might have high net worths if they happened
to own a home (which many do not) but their incomes are
low in any case and much of the income they do have goes to
medical care. If this real estate bubble crashes many
seniors won't have any money at all beyond Social
Security. In fact, many people depend solely on Social
Security as it is. I am going to guess that you are
either a wealthy limousine liberal (in which case you
can afford to fund the government's waste) or else someone
who doesn't own any property and thus doesn't care. |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Computer/Rants] UID:39263 Activity:kinda low |
8/26 What are the pros and cons of Arnold's plan to increase the time
it takes for public school teachers to gain a tenure?
\_ One of the problems (and always a sure sign that something else
is going on) is the wording here. The "tenure" that they're
talking about isn't tenure. For the first two years of a new
teacher's career, it's basically at-will employment. After those
two years, they can be fired but must be given a review process
to defend their position. In a job where 40% of people leave in
the first 5 years because we DON'T PAY ENOUGH TO KEEP THEM, and
where there are extreme shortages pretty much across the board,
this measure is a petty slap in the face so the gropenator can
say he's doing something about the schools.
\_ So you agree with the idea of ending any sort of tenure and
pension system for teachers and treating them like any other
degreed professionals? Meaning: at-will for their entire career,
their retirement is whatever they can get from social security,
and personal savings in their 401k, but pay them higher wages
along the way?
\_ Yeah, I'd love to see it. But the "higher" wages would need
to be on par with, say, tech workers. A 10 year veteran
should be pulling down 6 figures. I doubt we'll come anywhere
near this sort of a system in the next 50 years, though. Until
then, because the wages are so low, I'm all for teachers
having strong unions yielding good job protection.
\_ Are you effing kidding? 6 figures?! Lots of university
professors aren't pulling that down!!!
\_ Doesn't matter. They shouldn't get tenure anyway.
\_ Right, take away the one thing that actually attracts people
to teaching jobs! That'll learn 'em!
\_ Your solution to bad schools is to guarantee life employment
for anyone hired in after a short period of time? How about
paying them more and making it easy to get fired, just like
the rest of us. Professors get tenure so they can say/write
wacky things that might actually be true and not get fired
for it. People who aren't willing to take a 10th grade
proficiency exam should not be teaching. They sure as heck
shouldn't get locked in for life. Worse than tenure is the
teacher's unions but that's another story. Why should
teachers get tenure and no one else? I don't have tenure.
You don't if you're not a teacher. There are lots of crummy
jobs that need doing that don't provide tenure (all of them).
They don't provide pensions either.
\_ Your argument sounds suspiciously like "I didn't mine, so
why should anyone else get theirs?" The solution to your
problem, brother, is to unionize your profession, not
complain because others have unionized theirs. And before
you get into the evils of unions, remember that if you're
in on the ground floor, you can avoid the mistakes of
others.
\_ Your example fails on the first step. No one is offering
teachers bundles of money. In addition, at-will employment
would be disasterous. Changes in administration could
result in mass job dissatisfation. Say CA does a Kansas and
implements an Intelligent Design requirement or something
more subtle such as using a certain teaching method which
some disagree with. Most teachers I know are working more
than 8 hours a day on a job that requires more than a
little emotional attachment to their students and their
futures. If you make teaching just another job to them
where they have to worry about the bottom line instead of
a life choice, you're going to lose a lot of good teachers
to other jobs where they aren't going to be hassled.
\_ Since when did public school teachers officially get tenure?
\_ It has occurred to me that part of why pols can use public
schools and public teachers as punching bags is because
people know very little about public schools and public
teachers. To answer your question: Since before you were
born, at least, in most districts. I'm told that polling
shows the odd result that people generally feel their own
kids' school is in good shape and should simply receive
more funding while feeling public schools, at large, are
in awful shape and require massive reform. -- ulysses
\_ That result is interesting to me because I've lived
in 3 seperate CA school systems, Bakersfield, Santa
Maria, and Chico. Chico was ok, Bakersfield wasn't
good, and Santa Maria was mind-bogglingly awful.
-jrleek
\_ The biggest problem is not the tenure portion of the initiative but
rather the part where ANY teacher (even those "tenured") can be
dismissed for having a unsatisfactory review. This means all
teachers fall into an at-will employment situation. A neat trick
to avoid paying pension and retirement benefits. Another is to
drop the at-will teacher after four years to prevent having pay
more for the five-year vet vs the new kid. This will be especially
useful for those school systmes who are experiencing budgetary
problems. A nice quick fix. |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:39264 Activity:nil |
8/25 Vancouver has a lot, I mean A LOT of massive planned communities
which include really nice looking affordable high-rise condos like
the ones you'd see in HK or Taiwan. Does Bay Area have something
similar?
http://www.concordpacific.com/inourhomes/in_our_homes.html
http://tinyurl.com/a3o8t (Do we have this "social housing" thing?)
\_ Wow. Those taglines sound like stuff out of the 80's.
\_ I wasn't born till the 80s. What's so special about those
taglines? And is that GOOD 80s or BAD 80s?
\_ These are owned, developed, and sold by HK's wealthiest man,
Li Ka-shing. His vision was to transform parts of Vancouver into
a completely walkable city, with shops, restaurants, work places,
affordable home, and luxurious homes. It is no wonder many
Canadians take pride in the HonKouver.
\_ "About half of the 1,200 condominiums built so far have been sold
to Hong Kong investors, who do not live in them. "
http://www.nytimes.com/specials/hongkong/archive/0214hongkong-vancouver.html
\_ Doubtful the BA will develop these. SF would be the ideal location
but there is a general distrust against developers and skyscrapers.
Recent residental towers in SF demonstrate that distrust and the
results are unappealing. The punchline would be "the food is
horrible AND such small portions too." |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Reference/RealEstate, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:39265 Activity:nil |
8/25 Is property tax painful because the housing price / rent ratio is
so out of whack? It's like, for the property tax one is paying,
one may as well go rent.
\_ If you are not taking property tax into account when buying a
house, you don't deserve to own.
\_ Yes, which is why Prop 13 is so valuable. If you take it
into account and then 3 years later it rises 50% because
the market goes nuts you can be screwed. It is not a good
solution to sell or to take out a loan to pay for the tax,
in spite of what Tom says. Prop 13 actually allows one to
budget because it limits the rise of property tax to a
reasonable level (1%/year).
known level (1%/year).
\_ do you think artificially low property tax has artificially
jacked up real estate prices?
\_ Heh, that's pretty funny. "artificially low property
tax". You do know that all taxes are arbitrary, right?
-emarkp
\_ Well, if property tax is raised then prices will
fall, sure. Does that sound like a good idea to you?
Transfer more wealth from the people to the
government, right? It's here to help us.
\_ Not to mention that if the rate rises and the
values then fall the government still collects
the same amount of $$$ except the homeowner is
assed out of his equity.
\_ How about a scheme that keeps track of additional property
tax owed and then charging the seller that amount when the
property is sold?
\_ too fucking complicated.
\_ What do you call the IRS? |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:39266 Activity:nil |
8/25 "A final version of Iraq's constitution has been completed and the
document will be approved later on Thursday, said government spokesman
Laith Kubba. He told reporters parliament did not need to formally
meet to approve the charter because it had effectively been passed on
on Monday."
Yay!
\_ Are you reading theonion?
\_ http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1556425,00.html
\_ So you read the one line that could possibly be a "yay"
and ignored the rest that tells you that they really haven't
gotten anywhere in terms of consensus...
\_ hey, someone thought it was from the onion, right?
\_ It was a joke, son.
\_ "The interim constitution, adopted when the U.S.-led coalition ran
the country, states simply that parliament 'shall write the draft
of the permanent constitution' and that the document 'shall be
presented to the Iraqi people for approval in a general referendum
by Oct 15.'
... if two-thirds of the voters in any three of Iraq's 18 provinces
vote against it, the charter will be defeated [in the Oct 15
referendum]"
hey, is that two-thirds of people who actually vote, two-thirds
of registered voters, or two-thirds of estimated legal voters?
Here's the interim constitution:
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/TAL.html |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:39267 Activity:low |
8/25 You know, I don't like tom's personality but at least we're
both socialists and agree on certain social/government issues.
Way to go tom. -tom's #2 fan
\_ What's socialist about opposing prop. 13? Prop 13 is anti-free
market. Of course, the kool-aid drinking greedheads who call
themselves "libertarian conservatives" on the motd don't care
to notice this because prop 13 saves them money, but it's still
true.
\_ It's a socialist position to want to raise taxes and a
libertarian position to want to eliminate them as much
as possible. How is Prop 13 anti-free market? I didn't
realize tax rates were determined by supply/demand.
\_ I have an advice for you tom. Occasionally you make valid points
and you'd definitely add more weights if you simply don't sign your
name. The reason is that people are used to laughing at your rants
that even when you do in fact make a valid point they turn their
heads away knowing it's from you. -tom's #2 fan
\_ You're mistaken. -mice |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:39268 Activity:low |
8/25 My feeling wrt Prop-13 is that many proponents of Prop-13 also
think that tax is too high, that we should do whatever we want
with our own money, and that flat-tax is fair. Is this
completely off?
\_ Yes. You're completely off.
\_ Pretty much. These days, most Prop. 13 proponents are people
owning property they haven't bought in the last year. A
general reassessment would hurt that much.
\_ I purchased my house about 5 years ago. Today, similar houses are
selling for more than 2x what I paid. Should my property tax
double? My income certainly hasn't. -emarkp
\_ I think YOUR tax should quadriple because I don't like you as
fucking stubborn thick headed conservative dweeb who thinks
the Iraq war has made the world a safer place to live. Fuck you.
\_ Absolutely. If someone is really willing to pay twice what
you did, and you can't pay the taxes, I think you should
be forced by economics to sell and move. That's how it would
work in any other state, and I know of no place in the U.S.
where real estate is as blatant a rip-off pyramid scam as
in California.
\_ This is bullshit. The government should not force people
out of their homes just because some other person is an
idiot who overpaid for a property and will be foreclosed on
in 3 years. Now that other states are seeing the type of
price inflation that CA has had for the last 30 years
more and more states are realizing how progressive and
valuable Prop 13 really is.
\_ Even Prop 13 allows the assessed value to rise, but only
like 2% or whatever. I think that should be more like 5%.
So if prop values double they'd have to stay that way
for like 10 years+ before you reach that level. Gov't
wouldn't "force people out", it would tax them the same as
the others in your neighborhood. If prop values double
they'd still have all that equity sitting there.
\_ I am talking about the situation if Prop 13 did
not exist. People have seen their taxes rise 50%
in 3 years in other states (and in CA before Prop
13). Prop 13 prevents that. As for the rest of your
argument, read my example. Someone overpays for
a property and will lose the house anyway.
Meanwhile, the prudent consumer has to sell because
the government bases taxes on market forces?
\_ For owners that bought properties that are similar in your
neighborhood but bought/sold at different times, are they
paying similar taxes?
\_ No, they aren't. When I bought my house, which had been
in the family for 60 years or more, the property tax
went up a factor of 7. The old family was undercontributing
and now I am making up for it. That's fine, because I
budgeted for it. Some day I will reap that benefit if I
don't sell. It all balances out.
\_ What if my neighbor and I bought the house at the same time,
but he's a better negotiator and paid less for the house?
\_ I think it should approach that gradually, giving you time
to evaluate your options. (and faster than 2%). But yes.
\_ I disagree.
\_ That's just because you don't feel like paying taxes.
\_ I think more than half of the people on the motd
base their entire political philosophy on this one
principle: not feeling like paying taxes.
\_ I'd be much happier paying taxes if I can pick and
choose what programs my tax dollars fund.
\_ You can, it's called voting.
\_ Only if your guy ends up winning in that case.
And then the control is indirect at best.
I want a system that I can fund programs on
a line-by-line basis. |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:39269 Activity:low |
8/25 Cindy Sheehan equates US to Syria
http://media.putfile.com/Sheehan_SFSU_Speech -jblack
\_ Oh my god, Fox News! Fair and Balanced!
\_ "It's okay for Israel to occupy Palestine ... and it's okay for ...
the United States to occupy Iraq, but it's not okay for Syria to be
in Lebanon? They're a bunch of fucking hypocrites." April 27, 2005
My answer: Israel is in Palestine (right now at least) because
suicide bombings were popularized in the Israel-Palestine
conflict. The U.S. occupies Iraq because we thought they had WMDs
(they didn't have them when we invaded, and their WMD programs were
dormant, but despite the fuckup, we're not leaving until things look
stable). Syria is occupying Lebanon, but not because they're
being attacked by suicide bombers or a belief Lebanese have WMDs.
\_ So, basically, you like our excuses better?
\_ hey, I said it was a fuckup didn't I?
\_ And israel? (that "our" was supposed to be collective)
\_ what about Guantanamo Bay
\_ What about it?
\_ So occupied area fighting back = justification to continue
occupying.
\_ Nah, it's just cleaning up your own mess. You lose points
if you're making a bigger mess in the cleanup.
\_ My answer (and hers, although she's got an unfortunate way of
putting it): No, it's not okay. And since we're happy to have
Syria kicked out of Lebanon, we should be happy about the Gaza
pullout, and we should be making plans to leave Allawi to get
his own act together.
\_ Allawi? You're behind the times, dude. |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Uncategorized] UID:39270 Activity:nil |
8/25 Headline on yahoo news: "Pullout leaves Sharon on slippery ground."
Huh huh uuhhuh huuhuhuh. |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Consumer/Camera] UID:39271 Activity:kinda low |
8/25 She's hot! (SFW)
http://image10.webshots.com/11/0/93/11/143609311mdCzFb_ph.jpg
\_ Go motd boob man go!
\_ those pants are hideous
\_ You're the only one who noticed.
\_ Um, okay mr. queer eye.
\_ I'm gonna guess I'm not alone here: eww.
\_ You're not alone - you've got Rosy Palm and her five sisters.
\_ If I don't like grotesquely large breasts, I'll be forced to
resort to masturbation? I think you've got that backwards...
\_ I like this one better
http://tinyurl.com/73s8s
\_ "... like twin dirigibles emerging from the same hangar."
http://community.webshots.com/photo/195587840/195587840eBNkEY
http://community.webshots.com/photo/392263358/392289114JKSXsh
http://community.webshots.com/photo/288499898jueFXg
http://community.webshots.com/photo/392263358/392289932hxQtNI
http://community.webshots.com/photo/392248611/410327667RPmPFa
http://community.webshots.com/photo/410019847/410054858yhpWaG
http://community.webshots.com/photo/401676323/401722637uZSwBy
http://community.webshots.com/photo/401676323/401721327KcZHLm
http://community.webshots.com/photo/401676323/401715729iaJCiU
http://community.webshots.com/photo/411231453/411293059OgPRtp
http://community.webshots.com/photo/422487425/430591768bNjSVl
http://community.webshots.com/photo/422487425/430591472hPuipH
http://community.webshots.com/photo/422487425/422570388beeiBX
http://community.webshots.com/photo/422487425/422569620ESIvPI
http://community.webshots.com/photo/422487402/422560097PcfbjV
http://community.webshots.com/photo/346939855/363235560XSfOjt
http://community.webshots.com/photo/346939855/370745895MROxyX
http://community.webshots.com/photo/346939855/370784110RlIVEJ
http://community.webshots.com/photo/346939855/371092413XYRDQG
http://community.webshots.com/photo/346939855/371094774cPPmPh
http://community.webshots.com/photo/346939855/432165551sjnnXZ
http://community.webshots.com/photo/331877678/331877678vFjqrM
\_ You guys need girlfriends or balls to go to a stripclub or
something. Lusting over the tits of random clothed women
is pathetic.
\_ Nah. Who'd want a gf, even with big boobs, that's accessible
to thousands of other men?
\_ Huh? |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:39272 Activity:low |
8/25 Trying to follow threads on motd is confusing. In particular, I
have no idea who the "pp" is refering to (like, what level of
thread to go up to refer to the pp). Anonymous posting is good,
but it'd be even better if you guys can stick to an alias.
That way, it's easier to follow threads without having to guess
who the poster was and what he stood for. -alias
\_ A consistent alias combined with KAIS motd would pretty easily
destroy anonymity. KAIS motd probably has a good guess about
who wrote this post. --not-really=anonymous
\_ How about consistent alias wrt the post, but not the entire
lifetime of the poster? That'll be nice. -alias
\_ Someone once suggested using hex numbers for exactly this
purpose. I thought it was a good idea, but no one actually
did it. -- 0x1
\_ Who are you!?
I am number 0x2.
Who is number 0x1?
You are number 0x6.
I am not a number, I am a free man!!
Haaaahaahahahahahaaaa!!!
\_ NEEEEERDDDDSSSSS!!!!!!
\_ If you were not also a nerd, you wouldn't know what
I was talking about. -0x6
\_ Good point! -- 0x1
\_ Ok. So who are you, really? -alias
\_ KAIS motd is a piece of shit and whoever wrote it needs to
get squished and die because it violates the spirit of
saying whatever I want on motd. -kais hater |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Computer/SW/Languages/Perl] UID:39273 Activity:nil |
8/25 Is there any way in Perl for win32 to explicitly kill a process started
with fork? kill 9, $pid doesn't do it.
\_ cygwin or activestate?
\_ I'm using activestate. -op |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Uncategorized] UID:39274 Activity:nil |
8/25 Holy cow I missed out. How did soda get all the extra storage? I,
I don't know what to do with all my storage!! help!!
\_ There's this thing called pr0n.
\_ 125 Meg is not enough for porn. |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Reference/Tax] UID:39275 Activity:nil |
8/25 How about tying property tax with income, such that if your
property tax goes above certain percentages of your income, you
only have to pay a smaller and smaller percentage of the "full"
property tax.
\_ Extend that to corporations, partnerships and the like as well
and it seems reasonable.
\_ That's called (wait for it) "income tax".
\_ It's called it a progressive property tax.
\_ Thank you Mr. Orwell.
\_ Umm I was serious ... If you don't own property
wouldn't pay a penny, so how is it an income
tax exactly. |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Reference/RealEstate, Reference/Tax] UID:39276 Activity:nil |
8/25 How much is california property tax like? ballpark figure?
here in the chicago suburba, my property tax is about 1.2% of the
price of my house.
\_ 1% per year, based on the assessed value of your house. The house
is re-assessed when it's sold or there's new construction.
\_ how is "new construction" defined? Anything with a contractor/
building permit? (new windows? update bathroom?) Or more major
things (build an addition?) Seems like this would be a major
disincentive to do repairs/updates?
\_ Minor stuff doesn't count. I dunno what the cutoff is though.
Not minor remodeling.
\_ Yes, minor remodeling counts. However, you are only
assessed the added value of the construction. That is,
if you add a $50K den to your house then you pay
property tax on $50K. If your previous assessment was
$100K it is now $150K. It doesn't cause the entire
house to be reassessed.
Otherwise, the assessed value changes +/- 2% per year depending on
inflation.
E.g., my parents' house owned for ~ 15 years is taxed at $375K even
though it's worth $800K right now.
If they decided to gift it to me for $0, I'd have to pay 1% of
$800K per year.
\_ I've always wondered how it worked with inherited property -
some articles I have seen seemed to imply that if it was not
a sale, it would still have the original cost basis. Anyone
have any experience with inherited houses and the resulting
property tax?
\_ Yeah it retains the cost basis.
\_ Your parent's house is from 15 years ago and it only
went from 375k to 800k? Something's not quite right
here. 15 years ago 375k would by you a lot! I for sure
would've bought one in Palo Alto for that price ;)
\_ it's next to a freeway ... the 10 freeway
and you're doing your math wrong. it's taxed at $375K
today, but new it was purchased for ... $150-200K? I forget.
\_ 15 years ago was the top of the last real estate bubble.
Houses have about doubled off of that high (after
subsequently falling for a few years) so it's totally
feasible. My neighbor bought her house in 1989 for $280K.
It's worth probably $600K. In the interim it fell in
value all the way to maybe $220K and was only worth $300K
again in 2001. So it doubled in 4 years, but fell before
that.
\_ 1% + regional additions. Albany, for example, is 1.25% I believe.
\_ Alameda county base is 1.1%, Berkeley adds 0.6%, so in Berkeley
you pay 1.7%. |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Reference/RealEstate] UID:39277 Activity:nil |
8/25 <Ahhh, nothing like multiple housing related flamewars on the motd.>
\_ It's called the housing flamewar boom. It'll bubble soon.
\_ THERE IS NO BUBBLE!!! THE NUMBER OF HOUSING FLAMES WILL INCREASE
FOREVER!!!!1!!! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!! LALALALALALALAA!!!!! |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Reference/Military] UID:39278 Activity:high |
8/25 Hah, San Francisco is voting to ban handguns in November. -- ilyas
\_ why is that amusing? -tom
\_ Because ilyas is not exactly what you called, a stable person
\_ I suppose I am amused stupidity is alive and well in San
Francisco. -- ilyas
\_ That would never happen in LA.
\_ LA has already banned 50 BMG weapons. Because you know,
they are used in crimes ALL THE TIME. It's a veritable
CRISIS. -- ilyas
\_ cuz this is America biatch!
\- wasnt this tried in a chicago suburb a few yrs ago?
was that case materially different or are they trying to
get inconsistenecies on the books so cert. will be more
likely.
Why is the Deliverator so equipped? Because
people rely on him. He is a roll model. This is
America. People do whatever the fuck they feel
like doing, you got a problem with that?
Becuase they have a right to. And because they
have guns and no one can fucking stop them.
ok tnx.
\_ Because it's almost-but-not-quite as stupid as the Berkeley
"nuclear free zone". I object to them not trying to ban knives
and clubs and ice picks and fruit bats and orang-utangs. -John
\- i dont know what is going on in SF, but the morton grove
law had teeth. it wasnt an essentially symbolic move like
berkeley "nuclear free policy" [or berkeley's various foreign
policy pronouncements]. note that after the law passed the
police didnt "round up" all the guns but were empowed to
keep what they came across. also this law had enough teeth
to be challenged in court. in "reponse" another community
in GA or alabama i believe passed a law requiring the head
of household to have a gun, or something like that.
\- BTW, the morton grove case applied to "handguns" not all
guns.
\_ Yes, like in the UK where you can still have rifles if
you are a member of a gun club. Incidentally, the UK
also has the world's highest rate of video surveillance
and, IMHO, really-fucking-scary big brother-type laws,
such as ASBOs, RIP and PTA. None of which stopped a
sharp rise in knife crimes, burglaries and beatings
since they banned private handgun ownership. Not that
the ban was the direct cause of the rise in non-gun
violent crime, but it certainly didn't help curtail it
in any form. I object to people who have problems with
mandatory waiting periods, background checks or safety
training as prerequisites for gun ownership, but a ban
is the sort of badly thought through populist gut-
reaction you get from "concerned citizens" and
politicians who want to be seen as "doing something".
It's as stupid and irrational as the NRA. -John
\- well fighting it may cost the NRA $ and resources.
\_ Come on, John, the "argument" that they'll just
kill people with knives instead is ridiculous.
England's rate of death by stabbing is at least an
order of magnitude lower than the US's rate of
death by handgun. -tom
\_ Somebody overwrote my reply to this. Tom, re-read
my statement; I did not claim causality. The
problem in the US is NOT GUN CRIME. It is crime,
plain and simple. Americans have this weird
psychotic "ban them" or "pry them from my cold
dead fingers" relationship with guns, neither of
which is a solution. Anyway, about a year after
the handgun ban in the UK, a study found that
non-gun violent crime there was much higher than
in the US. Once again, not causality, but I
stand by my assertion that banning guns simply
does not help; the UK did not have a tremendous
amount of gun homicides before the ban; in the US,
I would assume that other forms of crime would
rise after a ban, yes. -John
\- the gary becker school has claimed if guns
become difficult to find, it will shift the
victim profile toward old people and women
in face to face confrontations, since a hood
will be less inclined to hold up a young
male with "only" a knife.
\_ Another dose of true-but-irrelevant statistics
from Tom. What you should be comparing is, for
instance, murder rates pre and post ban. Or,
more interestingly, crime rates in general pre and
post ban. Or, even more interestingly, the pre
ban gun crime rates (we are talking about three
(3) gun homicides a year). What societal crisis
ban gun crime rates. What societal crisis
was this ban supposed to have solved exactly?
-- ilyas
\_ high murder rate isn't a societal crisis,
right. -tom
\_ Are you claiming England had a high gun
murder rate, pre-ban? Compared to
other countries, and other kinds of murders?
-- ilyas
\_ A handgun ban in San Francisco is particularly
offensive since the SFPD is notorious for simply
ignoring the pleas of citizens to patrol and
protect certain areas. I have a cute female
friend who's rather short of stature that has
recently been forced to take an apartment in
the Tenderloin (long story). She has seen some
incredibly scary shit in her neighborhood in
just the 3 weeks that she's lived there, and
fears for her life. When she saw a gang of
approximately 30 people beating a single man
to death, she called the cops - no response.
Her complaints and calls to various departments
and government offices around the city have all
been met with the same response - basically,
"We don't give a fuck." Not everyone who lives
in the TL is a crackhead or a prostitute, and
it's just insane that the SFPD basically thinks
you're expendable if you have to live there.
Take away the guns, and you probably take away
one of their few options for self-protection.
\_ knock on the nearest manhole and borrow some
weapons from the ninja turtles.
\_ Call them and tell them you and 3 friends are
about to open fire on the guys. -John
\_ Will DiFi be allowed to keep her concealed carry? |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Uncategorized] UID:39279 Activity:nil |
8/25 Anybody know of a working installation of the w3 validator
version 0.6.7. Because the new main site v0.7.0 can get slow! |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Recreation/Computer/Games] UID:39280 Activity:nil |
8/25 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050825/ap_on_hi_te/skorea_computer_game_addiction Play games too long, you'll die. \_ Maybe it's a hoax. http://csua.org/u/d5p In other news, China has a new regulation for limiting people's playtime in MMOs: http://www.interfax.cn/showfeature.asp?aid=4913 But maybe it's just to prevent Chinese from playing in foreign servers and becoming impure. \_ Koreans are weak.. played more than 5 days straight and lived.. House Of Doom.. \_ Breathe too long, you'll die too, 100% guaranteed. |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Recreation/Dating] UID:39281 Activity:kinda low |
8/25 Man jailed for porn in Sinapore, where "Playboy" magazine is banned,
while oral sex remains technically illegal under a law that says
"whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of
nature with any man, woman or animals" can be fined and jailed up to
10 years, or even for life.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050825/od_nm/singapore_porn_dc
\_ How do Singaporian men relieve themselves?
\_ There was a red-light district when I visited in 1988. Don't
know if it still exists now.
\_ How was the service |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Religion] UID:39282 Activity:nil |
8/25 Former Creed lead singer engaging in decidedly un-Christian activity:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/tomluv/13923.html
Photographic evidence:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/56197582@N00
\_ Wow, this is just fucked up in a lame kind of way. |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Computer/SW/OS] UID:39283 Activity:nil |
8/25 I just got an Compact Flash -> IDE adapter. Seems to work fine, but
I'm getting these messages:
kernel: hdc: task_no_data_intr: status=0x51 { DriveReady SeekComplete Error }
kernel: hdc: task_no_data_intr: error=0x04 { DriveStatusError }
kernel: hdc: Write Cache FAILED Flushing!
Is this normal for CF-IDE? Is there something I should do differently?
\_ mount -o sync |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Academia/GradSchool, Academia/Berkeley] UID:39284 Activity:nil |
8/25 Does anyone know if retaking a course you got a D or F in should result
in getting both grades counted in your GPA or just the latter grade?
I intentionally failed a class a few years back and retook it, but
just now realized that I got an RD and both were included in my GPA,
bringing it down quite a bit...
\_ I got an F, re-took the course, and the new A grade took precedence.
The F is still on my transcript, although not counted in the GPA.
BTW, what is an RD grade?
http://csua.org/u/d5r (UC)
\_ i think you can do this for up to 16 units. then it gets averaged
into your GPA..
\_ Yes, it's something like this. It's still on the
transcript, however.
\_ here's a link, it says only 12 units
http://academic-senate.berkeley.edu/resources/regs_part1.html
\_ thanks much! i guess i have to go through registrar hell.
\_ RD = "Original D grade; units attempted, units passed and grade
points counted"
\_ http://registrar.berkeley.edu/Records/courserep.html
Is orreg@uclink the best email to use to contact the registrar to
get my GPA fixed? Anyone have any experience with this? |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39285 Activity:kinda low |
8/25 "Iraq on brink of meltdown"
http://csua.org/u/d5q (UK Telegraph)
"The Bush administration finally did something right in brokering
this constitution"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/opinion/25brooks.html
\_ The intellectual dishonesty of Brooks continues. Why should the
Sunnis accept most or all of Iraq's oil revenue being taken from
them?
\_ they are not. They are being alienated from oil resources, so
they can be crushed in civil war later... Their only ally
is Saudi Arabia... provided that Saudi Arabia has the extra
bandwidth to supply arms and money for Sunni's cause :p
\_ I really think this "constitution" thing is all for American
domestic politics than for Iraq. There is hardly any sense of
rule of law there. Having constitution which no one going to
follow is kind of pointless.
\- what do you propose? we're not talking about just deciding
whether there will be jury trials or not. but you have to
define the basic existence of the organs of government.
britain may famously have an unwritten constitition but
the do have written laws governing elections to parliament
and such. striving for something as detailed as the failed
eu constitition is obviously absurd, but you do need something
like article i/ii/iii.
\_ i think i am trying to say that don't put much hopes up.
sure, constitution is nice, but there are no concept of
things like seperation of power, independent judicial branch,
etc. it is a classic example of what we are throwing
what worked for us at someone and naively think it will work
for them.
\- i think it is well understood(*) that order is a prereq
for law, that law does not mechanistically follow from
order, or even order + a constitution. the constitution
is supposed to help get from "mere" order [under saddam
there was order, just not justice, law equity or any
values procedural or substantive] to the rule of law.
(*) = excepting anarchist or libertarian fruitcakes.
bring it on, fruitcakes. --psb
\_ You know Partha, your rants about libertarians are even
less amusing than usual given that you don't even seem
to understand the crucial distinction between libertarians
and anarchists. What you just said is comparable to
\_ That anarchists listen to better music?
me saying 'it is well understood(*) that property rights
form a basis for a civilized society.
(*) = excepting communist and liberal fruitcakes.
bring it on, fruitcakes.' -- ilyas
\- 1. i understand libertarian != anarchists.
i didnt write "libertarian/anaarchists".
2. i agree communists dont appreciate the
importance of private property. i dont
like "liberals" means much there. a lot of
the liberal hedonists in a place like SF
are very keen on private property.
3. my dispute with you would be over the word
"basis". i am merely asserting the empirical
theory [as opposed to a value claim] that
order/law preceeds property, i.e. is "more
foundational".
4. i agree libertaians and anarchsts view of the
situation is different. just addressing
libertarians ... or even Friedmanite "flat
worlders" ... this is an example of modeling
too much behavior with narrow microecon
type thinking. --psb |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:39286 Activity:kinda low |
8/25 OK, here's a big hardware 'WTF?'. I'm putting together a new computer
and it can't detect the drives. It seems they aren't getting powered.
I hook both drives into an existing computer with both power and IDE
cables and they are detected. On a lark, I hook the drives up to the
new computer but attatch only the power, not the IDE cables. I hear
them both power up. Trying a different IDE cable, using only one
drive at a time, and trying the secondary IDE connecter all fail. It
seems like by attatching the IDE connector, the drives fail to power
up. All this is happening with the old-style 4 pin power connector
and ATA133 cables. Any ideas?
\_ Are the drives new? What make and model?
Are you sure the drives aren't powering on when you attach IDE
and power cable at the same time? Feel for a vibration. Sometimes
you don't hear anything but they're actually on.
Try putting in a spare hard drive in the new computer and see if
it works when plugged into IDE.
\_ While off, I connect both - power on - nothing.
While off, connect power only - power on - drives spin up.
\_ Assuming you are using the same cables then try to flip them
around if they connect both ways. Otherwise, I say your
motherboard is bad and/or incompatible with the drives you
are using. I agree with the previous person to check to see
that they aren't actually on, too. Then it's just a driver
issue.
\_ They definitely aren't on. When I try it without the PATA cable
i see the DVD LED and hear the hard drive spin up.
\_ I've had this happen with IDE drives. It ended up being a problem
with the master/slave pins. Try fiddling with the BIOS settings
for the drive with single drives hooked up as well (powering off
each time after saving settings.) It's also possible that you
have a duff MoBo or PSU. -John
\_ Could a bad master/slave setting actually cause a drive to not
even spin up?
\_ Yes, this is exactly what happened to me. I have even had
MoBos just not like the particular master/slave order of
certain mfgr/geometry disks (so I had to make the slave the
master and vice versa.) It's all weird fucked-up voodoo, but
just a suggestion as to what could be causing your problem. |
| 4/15 |