Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:January:19 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2006/1/19-21 [Computer/SW/Database, Computer/Companies/Google] UID:41430 Activity:kinda low
1/19    Feds Seek Google Records in Porn Probe
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_hi_te/google_records
        \_ That's definitely seems to be overreaching.  I hope
           Google can win that one.
        \_ Note that it isn't a specific case they're prosecuting, but a
           desire to find out how often Americans search for (child) porn.
           Also note that AOL, Microsoft, and Yahoo! have already rolled
           over, accepting this child porn explanation; however, the data
           can be used for other purposes ...
           Also note that AOL, Microsoft, and Yahoo! have already rolled over.
           If the stated purpose is to go after pedophiles, I can understand
           their rolling over, but the data can be used for other purposes ...
           They originally asked for a complete list of all search terms and
           returnable URLs over a two-month period, but now they've "limited"
           this to a 1-million-count random sample of queries and returnable
           returned URLs over a two-month period, but now they've "limited"
           this to a 1-million-count random sample of queries and returned
           URLs for a one-day period.
           \_ Are they going to pay for an engineer's time to do this?
              If not, pound sand no matter the reason.
              \_ Whatever about this case but generally speaking, if the
                 request is legal, the business doesn't get expenses.  The
                 alternative is the FBI comes in and confiscates everything
                 in sight and extracts what they need on their own time.
                 Anyway, even if the childish "pay up or pound sand" thing
                 was realistic, the cost would be about 10 minutes since
                 they should have this data easily accessible anyway.  Knowing
                 what is in their logs *is* their business model.
                 \_ While they should have a good database of search queries
                    turning that into a list in the format the gov't wants
                    may be non-trivial.  I could easily see it taking someone
                    A few days if their database is really not set up for this
                    type of thing.  And it does seem like a the sort of thing
                    that cannot be subpoenaed because it's not in reference
                    to a particular crime, or even for investigating a crime.
                    It's basically saying "we demand you do free research for
                    our legal case".
                    \_ By the way, the URL above shows it would take a
                       "disproportionate amount of engineering time and
                       resources" to comply.
                    \_ Exactly. If the FBI wants to send people in (with
                       court orders) to look at the data then feel free,
                       but don't waste my time. Google is not a party to
                       any case, so they shouldn't have to spend time
                       and money on this. They can dump the entire database
                       and let the FBI sort it out on their own time.
                       \_ No, you don't understand.  They don't look at it
                          onsite.  They *take the computers* and look at it
                          later.
                          \_ They wouldn't even know what to take. Dump
                             all the data to a RAID and they can have at it.
                             If it's too much data to fit then you ask
                             them where they want it dumped. They are
                             entitled to the data, not the hardware.
                             \_ Still not getting it.  I'll make it simple for
                                you: the FBI can and would *take the
                                computers*.  *All* of the computers if they
                                felt it necessary.  FBI >>>>>>>>> google.  If
                                google loses in court, they'll have no choice
                                but to hand over everything the Feds want and
                                no they don't get to bill the government for
                                the 5 minutes it will take some geek to write
                                an sql query.
2006/1/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:41431 Activity:low
1/19    Ron Paul, the only Congresscritter to tell the truth? Truth most
        Americans don't want to hear ... (http://www.house.gov
        http://tinyurl.com/d6g7y
        \_ I'd vote for him.
           \_ What's your favorite federal program?  Ready to have it slashed
              or eliminated?
              \_ Please please don't cut the massive farm subsidies to ADM!
                 \_ Someone hasn't read the article.  Come back when you have.
                        \_ I posted the article.  See:
                           11.  Cut funding for corporate welfare, foreign
                                aid, international NGOs, defense contractors,
                                the military industrial complex, and rich
                                corporate farmers before cutting welfare
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                                for the poor at home;
        \_ I'd vote for him too. --PeterM
           \_ Uh, wow.  Did you actually read the whole thing?  The guy's a
              libertarian radical.
              \_ I thought the article was great not because of his
                 proposed "solutions" but for his summary of the problems.
                 I agree with him that the Abramoff scandal is just a symptom
                 of Congress & the Executive branch selling out to the
                 highest bidder.
                 highest bidder. -- not PeterM
                 \_ That's no reason to vote for an optimistic anarchist
              \_ A libertarian radical wouldn't say "cut corporate welfare
                 before you cut benefits to the poor"
                 \_ He's just prioritizing.
2006/1/19-21 [Uncategorized] UID:41432 Activity:nil
1/18    Wait til Pamela Anderson hears about THIS:
        http://csua.org/u/eoq (boston.com)
        \_ eh?
        \_ For those who don't speak Japanese, "gohan" mean meal.
           \_ Yes,  that in article.
        \_ What does this have to do with Pamela?
2006/1/19-21 [Finance/Investment] UID:41433 Activity:moderate
1/20    http://biz.yahoo.com/tm/060117/13793.html
        4/10 Playboy models outperform 11705/11739 equity mutual fund
        managers for picking out better stocks.
        \_ All that says is that the companies that Playboy models know are
           doing well at the moment.  Let's continue the experiment for 10 years
           and see who's ahead.  (Not that I'm a fan of fund managers, but the
           conclusions here are silly.)
        \_ Mutual fund managers are not free to choose whatever companies they
           think will do best.  Fund manager can only choose companies within
           the fund's sector.  A real estate fund can't buy MSFT, for example.
           The playboy models don't have this limitation.
        \_ I didn't know there are so many PB models that aren't blonde.
           The Playboy models don't have this limitation.
           \_ If you thought about this a little bit, you'd realize how silly
              this theory is.
              \_ Care to explain?
                 \_ From a description of Magellan's strategy:
                    "Normally invests primarily in common stocks of domestic
                    and foreign issuers. Invests in either 'growth' stocks or
                    'value' stocks or both."  I guess the bunnies can invest
                    in non-growth, over-priced stocks and Magellan might not.
                    Even not knowing any specific example, you should realize
                    that if picking whatever from wherever is a superior way to
                    invest, then there would be funds to exploit that.
                    \_ Morningstar categorizes FMAGX as large blend.  "While
                       the investment objective stated in a fund's prospectus
                       may or may not reflect how the fund actually invests,
                       the Morningstar category is assigned based on the
                       underlying securities in each portfolio."
                       \_ The category is descriptive rather prescriptive,
                       \_ The category is descriptive rather than prescriptive,
                          which is exactly what Morningstar said.
                    \_ Even not knowing any specific example, you should
                       realize that if the Playboy models really can do better
                       than the mutual fund managers out there, they would all
                       become mutual fund managers.
                       \_ Yes.  However, the original claim was not that the
                          bunnies were necessarily better pickers but that
                          they had more freedom in choosing stocks.  Therefore,
                          your point, while valid, does not apply.  Whereas
                          showing that non-specifically targeted mutual funds
                          should and do exist does apply.
        \_ I didn't know there are so many PB models that aren't blond.
        \_ I don't think the all of the fund managers of the 11739 funds have
           \_ Almost none of them are. Hair dye.
              \_ I guess dyeing blond doesn't make one stupid, unlike natural
                 blond.
        \_ I don't think all of the fund managers of the 11739 funds have
           Harvard MBAs.
        \_ Long-term everyone reverts to the mean, unless you have
           insider information.
        \_ The fund contestants are "all funds listed on Morningstar".  How
           are the model contestands picked?
2006/1/19-21 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41434 Activity:kinda low
1/19    http://www.frugalmarketing.com/dtb/kennedy.shtml
        The initial CAFE fuel standards were set by Carter, then
        lowered later by Reagan.
        \_ I can't back this claim up, but I think fuel efficiency would
           be helped tremendously by ending welfare for the U.S. auto
           manufacturers.  The public wants higher mileage.  As long as the
           executives at U.S. auto manufacturers continue to live on the
           public dole, they have no motivation to give a shit about what
           the public wants, and shareholders and union workers have no
           motivation to revolt against the cockroaches who run their
           companies.  I find it both sickening and amusing that so many
           so-called conservative republicans support welfare for auto
           manufacturers.
        \_ Oops, even the 1978 standards weren't set by Carter but by
           Congress: http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/CAFE/docs/162944_web.pdf
           "Conress itself set the standards for passenger cars, which rose
            from 18 miles per gallon in automobile model year (MY) 1978 to
            27.5 mpg in MY 1985.  As authorized by the act, the Department of
            Transportation (DOT) set standards for light trucks for model
            years 1979 through [munged by pdf->html, year lost, sorry].  The
            standards are current 27.5 mpg for passenger cars and 20.7 mpg
            for light trucks".  Light trucks includes SUVs, etc, as we know.
            Report issued in 2001.
        \_ Garbage.  I dismissed this link since it provides no facts or
           details.  I restored the discussion below about this which has
           links with actual facts.  Good effort though.  CAFE predates
           Carter.
           \_ http://csua.org/u/eox
              "The rules for Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE
              standards, were first set for automobiles during the Carter
              years." I am waiting for your mea culpa.
              http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0412-11.htm
              "As the administration of President Jimmy Carter was
               winding down, Claybrook advanced a NHTSA notice that
               called for fuel efficiency standards to reach 48 mpg by 1995."
              \_ Mea this: http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/auto/cafe.html
                 The Energy Policy Conservation Act, [EPCA] was enacted into
                 law by Congress in 1975, and established Corporate Average
                 Fuel Economy [CAFE] standards for passenger cars and light
                 trucks. The Act was passed in response to the 1973-74 Arab
                 oil embargo. The stated near-term goal was to double new car
                 fuel economy by model year 1985.
                 \_ http://www.energybulletin.net/9657.html
                    "Carter insisted that U.S. automakers build more
                     fuel-efficient cars, with a goal of 27.5 miles per gallon
                     over the following decade - a requirement passed under
                     Gerald Ford but put into force by Carter."
                     You are wrong, but too stupid to realize it.
                     \_ So the Ford admin created it and passed it but Carter
                        should get credit for it and you think I'm the dumb
                        one here.  Okey dokey!  Go Jimmy!  Woot!  You *can*
                        credit him with saying "nucular" all the time.  That's
                        good for 15 minutes.
                        good for 15 minutes.  Your own quote backs what I'm
                        saying: CAFE wasn't Carter's.
                        \_ The law was passed before Carter, but Carter set
                           the initial stringent standards, which were then
                           raised during his adminstration. If we had followed
                           those standards, we would use 25-35% less oil today.
                           Reagan lowered those standards. If you bothered to
                           actually read up on the topic, you would see that
                           I am correct.
                           \_ Correct about what exactly?  The initial
                              standards were pathetic.  They were later
                              ping ponged around and today it's 27.5 for
                              cars and 20.5 for light trucks including most
                              SUVs.  I'd like to see a link for that 25%
                              number you keep bandying about.  And yeah, I've
                              only got about a dozen links and pdfs open for
                              this idiotic topic, most of them .gov sites.
                              My research skills suck.  If only I could have
                              found some quality links from a Kennedy clansman.
                              \_ Hey, are you dissing http://frugalmarketing.com?
                              \_ If by ping ponging, you mean raised by Carter
                                 and then lowered by Reagan, you are correct.
                                 I think it was raised by 1 MPG by Bush I.
                                 Sierra club guy says we could have saved
                                 3 to 4 M BBL/day, which is 15-20%, but I
                                 think it would be higher if we had the 48 MPG
                                 fleet average proposed by Carter and no SUV
                                 exemption, instead of our current 23 MPG.
                                 2/3 our oil is spent on transportation,
                                 double fuel economy would mean that we would
                                 use half as much fuel on transportation,
                                 hence 25%. I need to get back to work, but
                                 you can be sure that I have researched this
                                 before.
                                 \_ Researched this at more high quality sites
                                    like http://frugalmarketing.com?  Do you have
                                    quotes from <DEAD>spiffyliving.com<DEAD> too?
                                    \_ no, that is what google pulled up
                                       in a hurry. I have spent a lot longer
                                       researching this that you and you have
                                       not really bothered to actually bothered
                                       to. Read up on it and we can talk some
                                       more later. You just don't know what
                                       you are talking about. The vast
                                       majority of our oil today is burned
                                       in cars and SUVs.
                                       \_ And did you learn that from
                                          <DEAD>shinyobjects.com<DEAD>?  How much of your
                                          heavy research did it take to figure
                                          out it takes more energy to move big,
                                          heavy objects?
                                       \_ The "holier than thou" thing is a
                                          really distasteful way to walk away.
                                          If you don't have the time and can't
                                          prove what you're saying when the
                                          links start flying, just step out
                                          and try again when you're prepared.
                                          "I'm smarter than you and know more
                                          than you but I'm too busy to prove
                                          it with links worth clicking on"
                                          isn't flying.  Carter: bad President.
                                          And frankly even if CAFE was his idea
                                          and he chose extremely high standards
                                          and demonstrated the leadership
                                          required to make those standards
                                          stick, he would still have sucked
                                          as President, but at least then he'd
                                          have *one* positive thing to lay
                                          claim to for his 4 years.
                                 \_ Then you can save me the trouble and find
                                    something that says Carter wanted 48 and
                                    the current is 23.  Sierra Club?  They
                                    say a lot of things but aren't exactly an
                                    unbiased source.  How about a .gov url
                                    instead of some axe grinders?
                                    \_ Sorry have to work. Later.
              \_ Or how about this?
                 http://feinstein.senate.gov/booklets/CAFE_booklet.pdf
                 "In 1975, Congress mandated separate Corporate Average Fuel
                 Economy (CAFE)... [These] requirements where passed with
                 bipartisan support and signed into law by President Gerald
                 Ford."  A search for Carter in that pdf yields nothing.
        \_ Carter invented the internet..
           \_ Pshaw!  We all know Gore did that.
              \_ No, Al Gore invented the algorithm. It even bares his
                 name, AlGore-ithm.
                 \_ Carter invented the carts.  He named his family after his
                    invention.
                    \_ I somehow doubt the current president will ever claim
                       to have invented the bush, however.
           \_ Actually, Nixon did.  The first IMPs were deployed in 1969.
              So what exactly did Carter do that was useful and noteworthy?
2006/1/19-21 [Computer/SW/Compilers] UID:41435 Activity:nil
1/19    Political talk is boring, let's talk about the Linux kernel and
        Java compilers! Viva la technology!
        \_ OK:  If I build a reasonably large website using Apache SSIs in
           every page, will I want to shoot myself later?
           And if I enable MultiViews, what could go wrong?
2006/1/19-21 [Computer/SW/Languages/Misc, Computer/SW/Languages/Web] UID:41436 Activity:moderate
1/19    How do I configure apache so that all the files in certain
        directories are executed as PHP without the ugly .php extension?
        \_ Turn on MultiViews; you can leave the files with the .php
           extension, but just access them without using the extension.  -tom
           \_ Oh goodie, someone talking about MultiViews.  Are there any
              potential problems with turning them on I should be aware of?
              - !op
              \_ I suppose it makes it marginally easier for someone to
                 guess one of your URLs.  There is some potential confusion
                 if you have two files with the same base name in the
                 same directory.  But I don't think there are significant
                 issues.  Our site has been that way for several months:
                 http://ls.berkeley.edu/lscr.  -tom
              \_ MultiViews are not the rigut solution for that. They use content
                 negotiation, IIRC and that causes problems with validation and
                 old browsers. I'd recommend using URL rewriting. in your
                 .htaccess put something like:
                 Options -MultiViews
                 RewriteEngine on
                 RewriteCond   %{DOCUMENT_ROOT}%{REQUEST_URI}.php -f
                 RewriteRule   .* %{REQUEST_URI}.php
                 \_ How does MultiViews cause problems with validation or
                    old browsers?  It's transparent to the client unless
                    the client asks for something specific in content
                    negotiation.  -tom
                    \_ I thought it used to. Apparently I was wrong.
                       By the way http://ls.berkeley.edu/lscr does not
                       pass validation at http://validator.w3.org
                       \_ It validates in HTML Tidy.  I'll look at the
                          issues http://w3.org brings up.  -tom
                          \_ Update for those who care: It looks like HTML
                             Tidy only validates against HTML 1.0 Transitional,
                             even if the DOCTYPE is HTML 1.1 Strict.
                             The 1.1 Strict warnings include stuff for
                             backwards compatibility with not-very-old
                             browsers (IE 5.5), so we may look at falling
                             back to 1.0 Transitional.  -tom
                             \_ Do you mean XHTML rather than HTML?
                                also there is no "XHTML 1.1 Strict."
                                just XHTML 1.1   fwiw.
                                \_ Yes, I mean XTHML.  -tom
        \_ Do your files have an extension now?  If it's, e.g. ".html", you
           could just toss this into your .htaccess:
           AddType application/x-httpd-php .html
           --dbushong
2006/1/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41437 Activity:nil
1/19    Can someone provide a URL for:  "the NSA was basically wiretapping
        everyone, not just suspected terrorists, and running a massive data
        mining operation on it."  All I'm getting is Russell Tice saying
        "could be in the millions [of Americans] if the full range of secret
        NSA programs is used", and the key word is "if".
        \_ This was given as the reason for why FISA wouldn't work; because
           they were following from Al Qaeda guy to everyone he called to
           everyone they called to everyone they called, etc.  I mean, with
           guilt-by-association, everyone's a suspected terrorist.
           \_ url please.  I want to understand what "basically" means.
           \_ Do people understand that the issue is not rather government
              can wire citizens or not, but rather, a check-n-balance
              procedure is in place to prevent abuse and provide a channel
              for those who are wrongly accused?
        \_ http://www.boingboing.net/2005/12/24/nsas_domestic_datami.html
           (original NYT article costs money now)
           \_ Thanks, full article:  http://tinyurl.com/bb2f4 (chicagotrib)
              I think the source for the NYT article is Tice.
              \_ Admittedly, there is a bit of conjecture in my statement...
2006/1/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41438 Activity:nil
1/19    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1561226/posts
        "Asked whether the president 'should have the power to authorize the
        NSA to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists
        without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in
        the U.S.?' - 58 percent of those surveyed said yes.
        ... Fifty percent of those surveyed called those responsible for
        blowing the NSA's cover 'traitors,' while just 27 percent agreed with
        media claims that the leakers were 'whistleblowers.'"
        \_ those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither.
           \_ misquote.
           \_ This is the year I finally break down and buy a gun.
              \_ Good luck if you live in SF...
                 \_ Where I'm moving, it's practically illegal to not own
                    a gun.  The apocalypse is coming, and I'm gonna be ready.
           \_ Americans don't mind sacrificing the freedom of "suspected
              terrorists", as long as they're not one or a close friend of one.
        \_ "...a Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll has found...."
           Try harder, young freeper_troll.
2006/1/19-21 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Computer/Rants] UID:41439 Activity:nil
1/20    http://finance.yahoo.com/columnist/article/futureinvest/2237
        India and China to enjoy prosperity for the next few decades.
        \_ Possibly.  Or possibly not.  Especially in China's case.  They have
           some serious issues with food supply/arable land.  *SEVERE* water
           pollution and a few zillion less than entirely happy peasants in a
           constant state of low level revolt.  India is a better bet now that
           they appear to have resolved their issues with Pakistan such that
           nuclear war isn't very likely and they're working on modernising
           their internal structure, legal system and education system.  They
           are still a third world country by any measure but are working on
           it.
           \_ Just OOC, not disagreeing with you, what would pessimists have
              said in a similar vein about the prospects for the US in, say,
              1940?  (and _why_ would they have ended up being wrong)
              \- IMHO, the india-pak threat was never both of them going
                 to nuclear war, it was pakistan having a meltdown. and that
                 is still possible and that is a problem for more than india.
              \_ The US became a power because of its natural resources.
                 While China and India also have lots of natural
                 resources, their populations are much larger.
2006/1/19-21 [Academia, Academia/GradSchool] UID:41440 Activity:nil
1/20    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060119/ap_on_go_ot/literacy_college_students
        Most new college grads cannot handle many complex but common tasks,
        from understanding credit card offers to comparing the cost per ounce
        of food. One more reason why I would never hire fresh out of
        college kids these days.
        \_ How old are you?
        \_ Umm, yeah. And "Overall, the average literacy of college students
           is significantly higher than that of adults across the nation."
           So, then Mr. Adult, you're saying that would be you?
2006/1/19-20 [Recreation/Dating] UID:41441 Activity:high 86%like:41450
1/19    http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060119/cm_usatoday/blondeisbeautifulmystique
        King Kong the movie is racist!!! They should have had a Caucasian
        King Kong falling in love with an African American woman.
        \_ So, the article has some good points, but it vacilitates
           between reason and abject stupidity.
        \_ So, most of the article is fairly reasonable, but, as usual,
           the lead in ruins the article by being stupid.
           between reason and abject stupidly.
                                     \_ stupidity
2006/1/19-21 [Recreation/Dating, Recreation/Humor] UID:41442 Activity:high Cat_by:auto
1/19    Marketing at its best:
        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6685078570737229515
        \_ Thank God for creating cute Asian girls. Now I need to go to
           the bathroom to relieve myself.
           \_ It wasn't God, it was evolution!
              \_ whatever it was, intelligent design was at work.
           \_ She could've been green for all I care. By the way, what
              was the commercial about? ;) (Maybe not *too* good marketing.)
              \_ "She couldn've been been green..." meaning you find her
                 unattractive? Or you don't care about looks?
              \_ Chocolate candy, FWIW. I wonder if there is anything one
                 cannot successfully sell with boobs.
                 \_ Anyone happen to know Japanese?  What did she say after
                    she looked down?
                 \_ I think having boobs upstage your product is not
                    such a good thing. What did you say the commercial
                    was about again?
                    \_ Brain transplants for the intellectually feeble.
                       Are you the same person who was so bothered by the
                       "naked news" post a few days ago?
                 \_ You can't sell breast reduction surgery with these, I
                    guess.
                    guess.  http://rallosnobr.afreeserver.com
              \_ I think it was "brand reinforcement" style; not targetted
                 at actually being informative.  Look at Nike ads.. would
                 you ever know what they're actually for?
           \_ Cute Japanes girls to be specific.  In other Asian countries it
              would be politically incorrect and frowned upon by flat-chested
              women and hypocrites.
        \_ If you want to save the .wmv for off-line relief, go to
           http://www.jengajam.com/r/Choco-Party-Good
        \_ Another funny one:http://hpbimg.rydell.nl/Map-Movies/Boob-Popper.wmv
2006/1/19-21 [Computer/SW/Unix] UID:41443 Activity:nil
1/19    Anyone know of a good neighborhood website?  Like a sort of discussion/
        photos/party planner/for sale site etc. specific to a fairly small
        area (few blocks?).  I'd love something like that.  And before anyone
        says "just walk next door you geek", this is impractical for all sorts
        of time-logistical reasons.
        \_ In other words, you're just a lazy, fat geek, AKA The Comic Book
           Guy.
        \_ Yahoo Groups was practically designed for this. I built one to
           accommodate our apartment block. Getting people to actually use it
           is another matter....
        \_ http://www.meettheneighbors.org
           the guy who runs it is a dweeb ... but this is exactly what
           you want
2006/1/19-21 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:41444 Activity:nil
1/19    The CD player in my car is skipping everytime i hit a bump even a
        a tiny one.  It's really annoying, and I want to get it fixed,
        does anyone know of a good place to have this done?  It might
        just need to be cleaned, but I'm not sure how to do that with the
        slot type player.  Any suggestions?  --jwm
        \_ Is your CD player designed to handle vibrations (by buffering data)?
           Some CD players are not designed to do that.  It's not a defect.
          \_ It's a new behavior, the car's an '01, and it just started doing
             it a few months ago.  It's now so bad that it happens a few
             times a min. on the freeway. --jwm
        \_ New CD players are cheap nowadays.  Buy a new & better one.
           \_ It sounds like it is built in to his dash and not easily
              replaced.
           \_ I may replace it, but it's the factory stereo, and it looks
              better than an aftermarket unit will.  If it costs too much
              then I'll pull it out. --jwm
2006/1/19-21 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:41445 Activity:low
1/19    Current US fleet average MPG is 21
        <DEAD>www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s05001.htm<DEAD>
        John Claybrook issued a NHTSA directive
        requiring a CAFE fleet average of 48 MPG in 1981:
        http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0412-11.htm
        (Yes, the source is Ralph Nader but it is still accurate)
        US oil consumption is 21M BBL/day:
        http://www.eia.doe.gov/mer/pdf/pages/sec11_7.pdf
        Imports at 9.5 M BBL/day:
        http://csua.org/u/ep1 (DOE)
        Gasoline consumption at 400 M gal/day:
        http://csua.org/u/ep0 (Conoco Phillips)
        400 M gal/day = 9.5 M BBL/day
        21/48 * 9.5 M BBL/day = 4.1 M BBL/day
        (9.5-4.1)/21 = 26% of US overall oil consumption or
        5.4/9.9 = 55% of US overall oil imports
        Here is a single URL that pulls all this together, but without
        references:
        http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/gasprices.asp
        They claim that 40% of US oil is used by cars and trucks, so they
        get a 20% reduction instead of my 26%, but the number is similar
        either way. I don't know how you can seriously dispute all this.
        You can quibble about the exact numbers, but not the overall result.
        \_ "requiring a CAFE fleet average of 48 MPG in 1981".  You mean
           when Reagan was president?  Ronnie's da man!  Now what does this
           have to do with Carter setting Cafe standard?  Sounds like you
           should be a Reaganite.
           \_ Do you look as stupid as you are?
        \_ Be careful doing simplistic math like this.  You're talking about
           human behavior which is dynamic and not easily predicted.  If gas
           prices were to skyrocket to $15/gallon over night, you'd see the
           total miles driven drop to the baseline driving people *must* do
           to survive (work, buy food, etc).  If gas dropped to 5 cents/gal,
           people would be driving more than they do now.  Same thing with
           mpg.  If I got 500 mpg, I'd be doing a lot more driving for fun
           than if I got 5mpg.  Increasing average mpg isn't necessarily going
           to reduce overall gas consumption by that amount.  It won't and it
           can't.  People aren't like that.  Also, taking a single giant
           number like "current fleet average" is going to change as people's
           tastes change.  Since light trucks, SUVs, etc, get lower mpg, that
           has had an impact on SUV sales causing more people to buy lighter
           vehicles and push up the average over time as those vehicles are
           phased out.  Also, there is another cost to lighter vehicles no
           one has mentioned yet, which is the estimated 1300-2600 additional
           fatalities per year (I couldn't find injury stats, only death) due
  http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150 _/
  uhh, no.  Look at those numbers.  The safest cars FOR THE DRIVERS have
  little to no relation to the size of the car.
           to CAFE standards forcing more light vehicles on the road.  Nothing
           good comes free in life.  More traffic deaths is one of the trade
           offs for having CAFE.  Note that I'm not disputing any of the
           original raw data you're providing but the interpretation of that
           data which says we'll save x% of gas if we increase mpg average
           by y% is not realistic.
           \_ Okay, I will not argue with any of this. Perhaps increased
              fuel economy would encourage people to drive more, etc. The
              main point is that there was and *is* still a relatively
              effective tool we could use to massively decrease our dependence
              on foreign oil, we just refuse to use it.
           \_ Could you provide a reference which shows that people whose
              cars get better mileage drive more?  Because observationally
              that's definitely not true.  And it's certainly not true that
              vehicles which get better gas mileage have more fatalities;
              SUVs cause more fatalities than smaller cars.  -tom
              \_ The death #s are in one of the pdf links I posted earlier
                 from a government CAFE study published in 2001.  Do you have
                 a link showing SUVs cause more fatalities?  I believe the
                 same study also have a lengthy bit about driving habits, but
                 common sense should convince one that higher $/mile will
                 reduce driving by some amount X, and lower $/mile will
                 increase driving by some other amount Y.  If gas was free do
                 you honestly believe people wouldn't drive more?  If gas
                 cost $25/gallon do you honestly believe they wouldn't drive
                 less?  It's late, I'm going home.  The 2001 CAFE study link
                 is on the motd somewhere.
                 \_ If gas was significantly more expensive I would drive
                    a lot less, however if it was significantly less
                    expensive I wouldn't drive any more than I do now.
                    I don't take public transportation for money, I take
                    it for quality of life.
                    \_ So your driving habits are directly changed by the
                       price of gas, which is exactly what I was saying.
                       Pricing is relative, there is only a sliding scale.
                 \_
        http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150
                Besides the object lesson, the stats there show that SUVs
                kill more non-occupants than smaller cars, and that the
                likelihood of occupant fatality is related to the quality,
                not the size of the vehicle.
                I think you can go to the 580/680 interchange and count SUVs
                headed to San Francisco in the morning if you want proof that
                people's gas mileage isn't a major factor in their decision
                to drive.  -tom
                \_ The CAFE thing was originally a minor side point about
                   Carter.  I'm satisfied that we hashed that one out
                   pretty much.  I don't see a point in discussing fatality
                   and usage statistics or anything else with anyone who
                   uses "go to the 580/680 interchange and count SUVs" as a
                   way to determine nationwide behaviour re: gas usage, SUV
                   sales numbers and pricing, yet who starts off asking for
                   links in the same post they say something like, "because
                   observationally that's definitely not true".  The CAFE
                   thing was heated but mostly civil (especially for the motd).
                   I don't see this headed that way.  You "win" if you want
                   to think of it that way.
                   \_ translation: "I have no evidence for my position."
                      OK, thanks for letting us know.   -tom
                      \_ The link is there.  You choose not to read it.
                         Talking with others has been interesting and
                         educational.  That's so rarely the case with you
                         that there's no point.  "YOU WIN! YAY! CONGRATS!"
                \_ If cars actually produced energy, there were no traffic
                   ever so I could drive at 100 miles an hour all the time,
                   and they gave orgasms to all the women one passed, I'd
                   still ride my bike.  I will never drive.  I believe slightly
                   more people of our generation feel this way than our
                   parents' generation, and that this trend will continue.
                   \_ You're a very silly person.
                      \_ You can call my silly all day long--just don't make
                      \_ You can call me silly all day long--just don't make
                         me drive to work.
                         \_ LOL, okay, fair enough.  :P
2006/1/19-21 [Computer/Companies/Google, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41446 Activity:nil
1/19    Original documents on the govt request and the Google lawyer's response
        http://news.com.com/2300-1028_3-6028780-1.html
        You'll be proud of the latter (starts on page 5).
        You, too, can defend GOOG with a B.S. in Economics from Cal
        http://www.kvn.com/attorneys_bio.php?id=33
        (as long as you graduate cum laude from Harvard law too ...)
        On the flip side, you can be a fully tenured professor at Cal and work
        for Dubya (ob John Yoo reference)
        http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/users/stark
        \- stark used to traffic with then had a nasty breakup with
           a sloda user. --your black muslim gossipmonger
2017/11/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
11/20   
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:January:19 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>