| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2005/10/17-19 [Transportation/Car] UID:40131 Activity:low |
10/16 Which insurance policy/company would you recommend for a first-time
car driver in his late 20s (just got the license).
\_ Looking to save money, or looking for customer service, or what?
It'll cost a buttload any way you go. Don't register an
expensive car, for sure.
\_ Looking to save money of course. Should I be looking to good
customer service too? I'll drive a 5-year old Taurus.
\_ When my wife was in a similar situation (1st-time driver in her
mid-twenties), she found an insurance agent who was willing to
give her credit for 10 years of (nonexistent) driving experience
back in the mother country, which lowered her rate somewhat. Both
my wife and the agent are <ethnic>, and that made the deal possible.
YMMV, of course.
\_ hope your wife and agent didn't make other deals
\_ Isn't impugning another person's honor a sorryable offense
now? Politburo?
\_ What honor?
\_ if you had your permit for those years, allstate gives you credit
for them. -dwc |
| 2005/10/17-19 [Recreation/Music] UID:40132 Activity:nil |
10/16 "Pi" the music video!
http://keithschofield.com/pi/std.html |
| 2005/10/17-19 [Uncategorized] UID:40134 Activity:nil |
10/16 The new version of Ubuntu is out, has anyone tried it yet?
\_ I'm not talking to you anymore jrleek. I've lost respect for you.
\_ FreeBSD6.0 RC is out too. |
| 2005/10/17-19 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll, Computer/SW] UID:40135 Activity:low |
10/16 Poll for those who purchase home(s), poor students need not respond:
the housing boom has been:
An American Dream Come True:
An American Dream Broken:
\_ Yermom is so fat, when she sits around the house, she sits AROUND
the house!
\_ This is your first and last warning. If I continue to see
character assasinations against any mom of any member of the
CSUA, myself included, I will sorry your account. If I
continue to see defamation against mymom, I will file for a
restraining order against you that bars you from your behavior.
No friends that you think you have with moms will be able to
help you. If you wish to debate the virtues of mymom or yermom,
do so as an adult. - !amckee
\- there is a clear precedent in english common LAW that states
that all citizens shall have the right to post YERMOM jokes
to the motd [long excerpt from english common law]. your
censorship is much like NAZI persecution of JEWS, and can
be summed up by the following obscure latin phrase: [obscure
latin PHRASE]
\- dont make the pburo MANDAMUS your ass. |
| 2005/10/17-19 [Industry/Jobs] UID:40136 Activity:low |
10/17 What's the purpose of HR in a company? Is it to bring in the best
people at the lowest possible cost? Just curious cuz I'm going
through the process...
\_ there's a great deal of employer/employee relationship things
that HR in a company normally takes care of. Quite a bit more
than could easily be covered in a motd post.
\_ In terms of job offers, however, is that essentially what their
"duty" is (to get someone to accept at the lowest price)? Do
they somehow have incentive to get someone to accept at lower
salary ranges?
\_ Probably not. Acutally lots of HR people don't have much
leeway on hiring price. HR does a lot more than just hire
people. Benefits, payroll, handling employee conflicts,
workers comp, dealing with unions, etc etc. There's a lot
of crap that falls into HRs laps.
\_ crap is an understatement.
\_ why are you asking, anyway?
\_ I'm curious, that's all. Plus it doesn't hurt to know how the
salary process works.
\_ "It depends". Ranges from "tell this guy I am hiring about legal
stuff and arrange contract/$$$" to actually hiring, dealing with
trainings and evaluations, firing, management development, etc.
Varies enormously by company. Usually non-management HR is
staffed by planks (general observation.) -John
\_ The cruel truth is that HR's main role is to prevent the Company
from being sued. ie., all the employee happy relations programs,
mediations, comp/benefit structures, compliance, training, etc.
That's my understanding. --chris (who was in HR and recruiting) |
| 2005/10/17-19 [Recreation/Media] UID:40137 Activity:moderate |
10/17 Anyone buy Firefly? I think people will start wanting to bring
back Firefly after Serenity.
\_ There is no chance of Firefly getting another network season.
\_ Serenity's only made $22M
\_ I bought it. The first episode (two-hour pilot) was long and kind
of boring. I'm seeing the movie tonight for my b-day -- hope it's
better.
\_ First two episodes are very dull. The third one is when things
start to click in terms of story, pacing, actors getting into
their characters, etc.
\_ Well, I just got back, and while the theatre had only four
other people (and two left half way), the movie was an 8/10
in my book. Not bad, but the Zephram Cochrane movie was better.
\_ I hate time travel movies like that. It's like going back in
time and forcing your dad to nail yermom at "precisely the
right moment" to insure your birth. (Potential porn plot!
Added twist: timing off, guy turns to gal! But the threesome
continues.)
\_ I thought Serenity was horrible, there's no way it will spark
interest in Firefly. In fact, now I'm certain I'll never watch
the show after seeing how bad the movie is. My date hated it
too. It's definitely a cult-film and series. A few things that
made me want to leave half-way through...
- Really bad acting
- Really bad lines (script)
- Bad action scenes
- Bad, TV-like cinematography
- Weak, boring villian
- Bad, TV-like special effects
- Weak story (something about [spoiler removed])
+ Girl who knew karate, fight scenes with her
\_ Uhm, sometimes we see movies that just aren't our thing. I
didn't see the TV shows so I'm not a cultist but I really liked
the movie and so did my date. Some of the things you say were
bad about it are the things we liked most. It just wasn't your
taste, I guess.
\_ Interesting. If you replace "bad", "boring", and "weak"
in your post with "not cliche", you have my take on it. The one
thing you liked was the most mainstream element of the movie,
I'd say. Oh, except the special effects, which were indeed
mediocre... but the movie cost $22M, not hundreds of millions. |
| 2005/10/17-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40138 Activity:high |
10/17 http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Meet-the-Press-Condi-Iraq-war-9-11.wmv http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Meet-the-Press-Condi-Iraq-war-9-11.mov http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9684807 What I got from Condi's interview: (1) al Qaeda attacked us (2) Don't get al Qaeda; Saddam is the bigger priority (3) Get Saddam while he's small (4) Build a democracy in Iraq to weaken dictator-led countries (and especially to enable a democratic-revolution in Iran) -- since democracies are more predictable / easier to deal with on WMDs (5) Don't tell the American people this is the strategy. Instead, focus on Iraqi WMDs to win required political support. This may or may not be the smoking gun, but it sure as hell tells me what Condi thought. \_ Don't forget (6) PROFIT!!!!! \_ nah, I don't believe that -op \_ Erm, we've seen the military-industrial complex at work before our eyes, and you just "don't believe it"? You think this was all just international dick waving? \_ I believe the administration did what it thought would protect America, even though both the overall strategy and \_ So did Joe McCarthy. You've read 7 Days in May? So does General Scott. That's no excuse. -John \_ It /is/ no excuse, and I'm in complete agreement with you. I was just answering the guy who was saying that profit was a big motive. -op \_ Why else give extended no-bid contracts? Why short change on things like armor? Non-rotted food? Why avoid at all costs anything resembling the Truman commission? Or are these things just afterthoughts in your opinion? The people in this administration have been in the _business_ of war for generations. \_ I'm mostly just playing devil's advocate here, but wouldn't good, expensive food and armor have brought even more profits to the military suppliers, especially in light of the no-bid contracts? It seems to me that whether this war was for preventing terrorism, spreading democracy, bringing peace to the middle east, maximizing American corporate profits, or spreading some kind of American Empire, it ends up looking like a clusterfuck run by morons. \_ No because if the contracts weren't no-bid the people fullfilling them would have to actually deliver decent services for their money, which would leave more money for things like armor and edible food. \_ Indeed. look up Bunnatine Greenhouse, \_ Indeed. look up Bunnington Greenhouse, formerly in charge of army (?) procurement. The no-bid contracts that came across her desk were for 5 year terms. no-bids are rarely for more than 1 year, because they're meant to be stop- gaps. she also says that the pentagon stopped asking for cost-justification reports, which are the only teeth the government has to keep an eye on cost-plus contracts \_ The desire to protect America came first. The clusterfuck and the war-profiteering came after we invaded. Sure there were people calculating how to make big bux prior to the invasion, but I think protecting America came first before big bux when Dubya decided to invade. -op we invaded. -op how to make big bux to capitalize on the coming war, but I think protecting America came first before big bux when Dubya decided to invade. -op \_ I think you're naive. I think if that was their first thought, the military would have had an actual war plan. They were pie-eyed. They had planned how they would restructure the economy, but not how they would keep the peace. These are crooks. \_ Don't forget that the miltary DID have very detailed plans of what would happen in various cases, and those who spoke out about insufficient forces were sacked by Donald Rumsfeld. We KNEW we getting into a mess and did it anyway. Future generations will ask \_ Exactly my point. In chaos it's easy to "lose" money (read "steal). They haven't changed their approach because they're perfectly happy with the situation. So a few soldiers die... big whup. So a few civilians die... Dude, they're, like, brown. why we didn't do anything about the neocons in the same naive tones that schoolchildren today ask about the Nazi party rise to power. \_ If you took a poll of informed observers, I think the majority would agree with me, and the majority would also say that while you have a noble interest in finding out the truth, you're overstating. I agree with the pie-eyed characterization though, and I think the lack of a realistic post-war rebuilding plan was Rummy's mistake, since there were plenty of generals who questioned why we didn't have more troops for that phase. -op \_ CNN already took this poll, and a plurailty of Americans believe you are wrong. \_ You fail on two points: (1) CNN did not ask Americans "Was the war to protect America or 'for profit'?", which is what we're arguing about. \_ You're setting up a false dichotomy. The question "is this war making us safer" has been polled for the duration. the yes side has steadily gone down as people have realized it will drag on forever, and is against the wrong "enemy". \_ Apparently you forgot the original topic. The original topic was "for profit" vs. "protecting America". You - forgot - the - original - topic. Follow the precise thread of conversation. I'll show you: CNN already took this poll .. If you took a poll ... I think you're naive ... The desire to protect ... [all the way to:] ... (6) PROFIT!!!!! -- And there you have it. Trust me: I am completely aware that more Americans than not feel that the war may not have been worth it, nor made us safer. \_ Seriously, discussing this with you is like discussing ID with a true believer. I'll dub this the "incompetent intent" theory on the Bush presidency. (2) I said "informed observers". \_ Then why haven't they made any moves to FIX their mistakes. I can only conclude that they're happy with the situation. Stay the course, beeyotch \_ We're not sending (a lot) more troops because the generals are saying sending (a lot) more troops would make things worse. \_ sourceP overstating. -op \_ #t \_ just google for "send more troops iraq worse" \_ Fuck off. \_ what's the problem? most informed observers already know this, and the search works. \_ It's hard sometimes to figure out where Bush admin desire for "crusades" in the middle east to install compliant, pro-Western "democracies" ends and where the desire to shovel as much $$$ to Halliburton, et al begins. It's all a dangerous mix of corruption & incompetence. execution were bungled. Jury's still out on whether "Bush lied" or not, but at least I now know what Condi thinks about the reason for toppling Saddam. \_ We toppled Iran in 1950s and it didn't get us anywhere. Don't you see the pattern now? all the "enemy" of the middle east *HAPPENS* to be those country whose oil is not in few monarch's hand. Get real. \_ We kicked Saddam out of Kuwait because Kuwait had oil. We haven't done much about Rwanda and Darfur. I'm keeping this discussion very real. Is it oil "for profit" as point 6, or is it oil for "protecting America", like I've said? -op \_ The oil "for profit" explanation doesn't make much sense to me, at least to the extent that it's just oil company profits that they're concerned about. Tightening oil supply leads to high prices, which puts money in the pockets of oilmen. I.e., I agree with you. -!pp \_ Actually the ultimate goal is to control this area of the world so that when oil is no longer a fungible commodity, the US economy still has a supply. It's unlikely to work since people in the region hate us with a passion. \_ You have the right idea, but not quite. The ultimate goal is to protect America. Re oil, the target is to have a predictable and significant share of oil supplies, in such a way that oil- producing countries can't easily blackmail us or turn off the spigot in times of war, and we know how much is left. If this target can be maintained (and it has been for a couple decades), then the availability of oil should then the availabitily of oil should decrease gradually and predictably. Market forces will encourage the steady development of alternative and more energy-efficient technologies. Key words efficient-energy technologies. Key words are "gradual" and "predictable". -liberal/moderate \_ posting 3 url's is reason enough to change the motd into a bbs forum. cutting and pasting these links... gawd!! - napoleon |
| 2005/10/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:40139 Activity:nil |
10/17 "Iraqi election officials said today that they were investigating ...
vote totals in 12 Shiite and Kurdish provinces, where as many as 99
percent of the voters were reported to have cast ballots in favor
of Iraq's new constitution"
\_ We'll just call those the "red provinces". At least the elections
in Iraq don't seem to be more crooked than ours. |
| 2005/10/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40140 Activity:nil |
10/17 Bush refuses to discuss CIA leak probe. Go Bush!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051017/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_investigation
\_ "I refuse to comment on any investigation that might make my
administration look like it's full of crooks, liars and traitors" |
| 2005/10/17-19 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:40141 Activity:nil |
10/17 Hi motd and Politburo:
Is it okay to post on http://ucb.org.csua all e-mail exchanges between psb
and cc'd to {politburo,csua}@csua.berkeley.edu?
I am specifically excluding private messages sent between psb and
individual Politburo members with no cc's to the above e-mail
addresses. Thanks.
If you want me to e-mail politburo@csua.berkeley.edu with this request
instead of asking on motd, please go ahead and post that.
\- BTW, it's ok with me. BTW, is this a "sorryable" offense now?
Is http://ucb.org.csua moderated now? --psb |
| 2005/10/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40146 Activity:kinda low |
10/17 Great new graph, showing Bush's approval rating:
http://www.yeeguy.com/freefall
\_ Ok, just curious... let's say his approval rating fell to zero.
So what?
\_ chance of people rebel against him within his own party
would increase and thus, chance of Bush successfully push
his agenda will drastically decreased :p
\_ possibly true, but a closer look shows that his approval
among his Republican base remains at 84%. These people
are innured to facts.
\_ The lower the approval goes, the crazier the stuff they
will try to do/get away with. Admitting fault and changing
are less likely.
\_ Oh, yeah? What happened to Bush's social security
agenda? He's playing defense. Thanks to Bush being
put on the defensive there might actually be a glimmer of
hope for social security. Neutering that fucker will
have real, notocable positive effects on peoples lives,
have real, noticeable positive effects on peoples lives,
and his present popularity disaster is doing exactly
that. Why do you think he nominated Meiers and
Robertson instead of some drooling fascist fuck like
Roberts instead of some drooling fascist fuck like
his base wanted?
\_ That's Roberts, not Robertson. And he nominated both
\_ That's what I love about MOTD. We never let the
ignorance of basic facts stop us from spouting
from our soapbox. BTW, isn't it Miers?
of them on the strength of his administration over
the GOP. I haven't heard one Republican senator say
they would vote no. They mumble about doubts and
concerns, but in the end they will nearly all swallow
their bile and vote "aye."
\_ I'm glad there will be notocable positive effects.
\_ Bush has indeed changed somewhat from his 1st term. After
9/11, he basically sought to unilaterally do everything,
regardless of public opinion. Since the 2004 re-election,
he at least seems to have moderated himself |
| 2005/10/17-18 [Uncategorized] UID:40147 Activity:nil 80%like:40148 |
10/17 Has anyone been in Reno around thanksgiving holidays? Is it normally
snowing during that time? |
| 3/17 |