Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:August:25 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
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:
                 \_ 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:
        Our CL ad for java position:
        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.
        \_ "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
  it fair for the government to reassess your property and
           then tax you on their assessment?  That sounds a bit scary doesn't
           \_ 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?
                                           \_ Whatever we've pumped money
                                              into recently. The State
                                              spent a lot of money in the
                                              <DEAD><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:
                                              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
                 \_ 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.
                                        \_ 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
                                   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
        \_ 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
                    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
                 \_ 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.
        \_ 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?    (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. "
        \_ 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?
                   \_ 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."
        \_ Are you reading theonion?
              \_ 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
           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:
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
           \_ 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                -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
              \_ 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)
        \_ 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
           \_ "... like twin dirigibles emerging from the same hangar."
           \_ 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!!
                    \_ 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
           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
        \_ 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.
              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
                      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
                    \_ 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
        Play games too long, you'll die.
        \_ Maybe it's a hoax.
           In other news, China has a new regulation for limiting people's
           playtime in MMOs:
           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.
        \_ 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:
        Photographic evidence:
        \_ 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?
           \_ 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
                 \_ thanks much! i guess i have to go through registrar hell.
        \_ RD = "Original D grade; units attempted, units passed and grade
                points counted"
           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" (UK Telegraph)
        "The Bush administration finally did something right in brokering
        this constitution"
        \_ The intellectual dishonesty of Brooks continues.  Why should the
           Sunnis accept most or all of Iraq's oil revenue being taken from
           \_ 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
                               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
           \_ 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.
2019/05/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:August:25 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>