Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:January:22 Sunday <Saturday, Monday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2006/1/22-24 [Reference/BayArea] UID:41476 Activity:moderate
1/21    SF schools better than San Jose or even Berkeley:
        \_ Who said SJ or "even" Berkeley had great schools?  Anyway, the
           other problem with SF that compounds the distribution problem
           mentioned below is that you don't have a choice which school your
           kid goes to.  You could easily end up with your child having an
           hour+ commute each way to HS every day to a shitty school.
           \_ What the FUCK? Could you provide either and explanation or
              a link to an explanation for those of us who've never lived
              in SF please?  Is this random selection at all merit based?
              \_ I think the pp is talking about .
                 I notice that geographical proximity to the school is not
                 part of the Diversity Index Lottery calculation.  Worse,
                 the academic preformance of the sending school is.  So if
                 you get screwed once on the school you're assigned to, the
                 screwing will tend to continue as you continue to make your
                 way through the school system.
                 \_ Wow. I'm speechless at the level of stupidity here.  Isn't
                    this what they tried in Boston in the late 60's which led
                    to a parent revolt?  Wasn't this the wedge issue that helped
                    Nixon win the 72 election?
                    \_ Remember this thread started with a claim that parents
                       are leaving SF partly for educational reasons.  Would
                       you put your kids in the SFUSD?
                       \_ I didn't really pay attention to how the thread
                          started.  And hell no.  If I had kids, I wouldn't
                          even consider taking part in what ammounts to a
                          communist/fascist approach to education, just on
                          principle, even if my kids were allowed to go
                          to the best school.  I didn't realize just how
                          far off the deep end of communist ideology the fucks
                          who ran SF were.
          \_ Seconded. I have a friend who has a 2 year old daughter; they
             live in Noe Valley across the street from an elementary school.
             If SF lets her go to that school, she's a public school kid.
             If not, it's private school. Driving her to Bayview every day ...
             not going to happen.
        \_ There's some quote about lies and statistics, I think.  The problem
           with SF high schools is the distribution, not the average.  Out of
           15 SF high schools, 5 have a ranking of 2 or 1 (out of a possible
           max of 10).
           \_ Although, to be fair, the top 5 enrollment high schools in SF
              had rankings (in enrollment order) of 9, 10, 9, 6, and 5. The
              low-scoring schools are generally smaller. You can't punish SF
              for the performance of Newcomer High.
              \_ Well, it does matter, insofar as Lincoln and Washington
                 (the 2 9's in your list of large schools) are highly impacted
                 and Lowell (the 10) has a separate application process. Many
                 students are therefore shunted to mediocre or worse schools.
        \_ Isn't that common knowledge?  Since when were San Jose or Berkeley
           known for having top high schools?
2006/1/22-24 [Computer/Networking] UID:41477 Activity:nil
1/21    I am trying to setup a small network for my girlfriend's
        mom's company.  They just bought an accounting package
        which requires windows 2003 server.  And they want internet
        access from each computer.  How should the network be setuped?
        Would it be dumb to use static IP for each computer and a
        computer as internet gateway?
        \_ DHCP is probably better than static IP for each computer
           b/c you don't have to bother setting up IP on each computer
           and if they ever get a new computer they can plug it in
           and get it running w/o your help.
           You could probably get away with a netgear (or some such)
           hardware only router/firewall, but if you want a bit more
           security, get a sff pc and run Open/FreeBSD w/ pf.
        \_ I humbly recommend getting a PCEngines WRAP 1E-2 with case and
           64MB CF card from and running
           M0n0wall ( on it.  You can turn the
           WRAP/M0n0 into a wifi AP if you want, although I'd run that on
           separate hardware off the third interface.  Use DHCP.  -John
        \_ or you can be non-elite and install a D-Link DGL-4300 gaming
           router next to your DSL modem.  Then just get some 802.11g NICs
           for each computer and you're all done.  If you want wired, you can
           buy some 8-port gigabit switches and run the wire along the
           bottoms of the walls. users say the DGL-4300 is rock-
           solid.  servers can be static IP from with IP address w.x.y.2 to
           .99, and you can have your router give out .100 to .253 for
           the dynamic IPs.
        \_ I can't believe this post mentioned his girlfriend's mom and
           nobody took the bait.
           \_ have you seen his girlfriend's mom?
2006/1/22-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others] UID:41478 Activity:high
1/21    "India must not allow itself to be dragooned into joining the
         Washington-led nuclear lynch mob against Iran," The Hindu, one
         of India's most influential newspapers, cautioned Thursday.
         Iran Sanctions Could Drive Oil Past $100
         Looks like US and Bush admin addiction to oil is compromising
         our abililty to impose sanctions without hurting ourselves.
         $100 oil will tip US into recession.
         \_ Trolling at its finest.
         \_ Simple answer--India wants gas.  Iran has lots of it.  Viz.
            China and Sudan.  -John
            \_ Iran supplys something like 18% of petro to China.  and
               Iran is only major oil-producing nation which China has
               big investment in it.   To ask China to mess around with
               Iran is like asking USA to mess around with Saudi's.
               \_ Sort of my point, isn't it?  The only difference is that
                  some nations exhibit more scruples about the types of
                  government maintained by their energy suppliers (at least
                  when it suits them to do so.)  -John
                  \_ absolute monarchy which export extreme version of Islam?
                     FYI, China deals a lot of nasty government for its
                     energy needs (Sudan, for example).  But Iran is *NOT*
                     one of those 'nasty' governments.
                     \_ I'm pretty sure everyone here but you would consider
                        mainland China to be one of those 'nasty' governments.
                     \_ Uhm, wow...chicom troll doublethink at its finest.
                     \_ Chicom troll, I am sad.  After all my intensive troll
                        training, your reading comprehension still equals your
                        grammar skills and no more.  -John
                        \_ care to explain how US-Saudi relationship is morally
                           more superior than China-Iran relationship?
                           \_ Why should I?  You did catch the "when it suits
                              them" part, right?  You may also have noted a
                              mildly sarcastic tone in my post.  Back to
                              reading comp 101, grasshopper.  -John
         \_ To the person worried about Pakistan as a greater proliferation
            threat than Iran, one of the key problems with Iran getting
            nukes is they're a terrorist state and, unlike Pakistan, would
            be very likely to try directly or help their proxy terrorist
            armies smuggle a nuke into some other country's harbor.  There
            can't be any retaliation for such an act since it would be
            impossible to prove who nuked the city.  That city could be any
            coastal city with a port (all of them) in the world, or any city
            reachable easily by land due to lax boarders.  "Iran getting a
            nuke just isn't that big a deal" is a stupid concept for this and
            many other reasons.  This whole thread is troll heaven.  Have fun.
            \_ Iran is not a terrorist state.  They support certain group to
            \_ Iran is *NOT* a terrorist state.  They support certain group to
               achieve their foreign policy.  If anything, USA has outdo Iran
               in Afganstan in the 1980s, both in terms of amount of money
               involved, and the degree of extremism which the group receiving
               the aid.  Iran, though eccentric from our point of view, is
               nevertheless a rational State.  No rational state would give
               out nuclear weapon to any group just because chances of getting
               backfired is very high.  Pakistan is a problem because their
               intelligent service, one of the best in the world, has close
               tie to Pushtuns/Taliban in Afganistan.  N.Korea is a problem
               because they have an army which is one million strong but
               could barely eat two meals a day... and that they don't
               really need any delivery mechanism to do some harm across the
               38th parallel.  By comparison, Iran is a much less of a problem,
               as their youth is demanding more and more reform and open policy
               in the near future.
            \- It is extremely unlikely any state would as *a matter of policy*
               give away nukes. Schelling and Waltz [see links below] agree
               with this position and the scenario you spell out seems
               ridiculous ... iran would give one of its only nukes to a
               "terrorist army" to do whatever it wanted with it ... something
               that doesnt really advance iranian state aims in any concrete
               way but does run massive risks of getting caught and in
               which case iran faces a gret likelihood of this getting traced
               back to them. so the "policy" of xfer to terrorists scenario
               is not likely. the "loose nukes" -> terrorists scenario seems
               more likely and the more reasonable threats there are russia
               [lots of nukes], pak [state meltdown] or nkorea selling nuke
               tech. again the issue isnt "should we be happy or sad about
               iran getting nukes" but "what should he us policy be" and
               the policy formation stage depends on your beliefs about how
               this changes iran's "intentions and capabilities".
         \- What does a nuclear Iran with a small number of bombs with
            limited delivery options let Iran do that it cant do now,
            except significantly deter say bombing Tehran. This is a
            serious question and I have some ideas but I want to hear
            what other people think first. --thehindu@soda
            \_ much of US' attitude toward Iran is irrational.  We
               overthrow their democratic government in the 1950's, then
               the Shah we installed got overthrown, and we were angry at
               Iran ever since.  So, answer your question, a nuclear
               Iran is probably less problematic than Nuclear N.Korea or
               Pakistan.   By the way, India were on the side of USA last
               time UN voted on this matter.
                    \- i didnt ask "why is the us concerned about iran"
                       [which would be a foreign policy question], i asked
                       "how is the iran+nukes scenario different from
                       the iran-nonukes scenario" which is a question
                       about prediction or capabilities. anyway, one
                       scenario which i suppose is possible is that
                       the new iranian leader will feel a little more
                       emboldened to pursue low level terrorism sponsorship
                       [unlike libya or syria now] with nukes than without.
                       btw, aside from anti-western fatatics, you can hardly
                       blame reasonable iranians for being pissed off about
                       how the us handled the aftermath of the vincennes
                       shooting down the iranian airliner.
               \_ Hi pro-Iranian Troll!  No one gave a shit about the Shah.
                  Are you totally unaware of that little thing we called
                  The Hostage Crisis that went on for a few hundred days?
                  \_ no one give a shit about Shah?  The demand *WAS* about
                     1. apologize the overthrow of Mosaddeq and
                     2. hand over Shah back to Iran so USA won't try to
                        install him again.
                     This is typical... memory selectively failed on
                     all the wrong doings beforehand, then react violently
                     to the repercussion in the name of self-defense.
            \_ Threaten to hit southern Europe.  I don't understand how this
               isn't obvious.
               \_ why Iran want to bomb southern Europe again?  it's not
                  obvious at all.
                  \_ I'll rephrase it from the other point of view: if you
                     were in south europe would it concern you if the crazies
                     in Iran got nukes?  (yes, you're in reach in S.E.)  Crazy
                     people should not have nukes.  That should be obvious.
                     \_ it is *NOT* obvious that Iran is a "crazy" state.
                        Just because USA doesn't like Iran doesn't make it
                        crazy.  There are plenty of nations having plenty of
                        normal bilateral relationships with Iran.  They are
                        no less / no more diff than any other countries in the
                        region.  In fact, if anything, Iran is a much normal
                        state than, let say, Saudi Arabia.
                        \_ BUD DAY does *NOT* like your tone, son.
               \- So if Iran gets 10 nuclear bombs they may threaten
                  to nuke Athens? Rome? Nice? Can you spell out this
                  obvious scenario a little more? I would be helpful
                  if you signed your name since I want to know if I am
                  speaking to the same person in a followup. Just out of
                  curiosity, why isnt Pakistan interested in hitting
                  southern europe. Obviously it is implicit in my question
                  "what could they do and would have some interest in
                  \_ I think I'm being trolled so my answer will be brief:
                     Pakistan is a secular dictatorship who wants nukes
                     because their long term enemy next door has them.
                     Pakistan also doesn't have the range to hit most of India
                     much less Europe so that isn't an issue even if they
                     wanted to do so.
                     Iran is run by religious fundmentalist Muslims who
                     believe it is their duty to spread their form of Islam
                     over the entire world.
                     Europe is a secular super nation/state and happens to be
                     the closest interesting area to Iran.
                     Finally, what is the point of asking for my name when you
                     don't give yours?  How do I know any responses will be
                     \_ Two additions.  They are willing to spread Islam
                        by murder/conquest if necessary, and they seem to
                        think it would be a good idea to nuke Israel. -!pp
                        \_ you are mixing up Iran with Saudi Arabia.
                           Further, USA spread democracy by murder/conquest if
                           necessary too, right?
                           \_ When did you stop beating your wife?
                              \_ My eyes, they see only happy things!
                                 \_ You and chicom troll, man.  Maybe you
                                    should switch to a lower dosage....
            \_ Some possibilities that I can think of:
               1. Nuke strategic targets in Israel. I do not think that
                  Iran has sufficient conventional weapons that can be
                  delivered as far as Israel and cause serious damage.
               2. Give the nukes to Iran friendly factions currently
                  fighting in Iraq or Afganistan. Iran's conventional
                  capability, again, is probably insufficient to signif-
                  icantly affect American forces.
               3. Give the nukes to Pakistan for use against India (or
                  perhaps direct use against India).
                        \_ Seriously, each of your points are so dumb,
                           you really need to stay out of this discussion.
                           What does a faction struggling for political
                           control need a nuclear bomb for?  Given that
                           Pakistan already has nukes and Iran doesn't,
                           doesnt it seem a little odd to be talking about
                           Iran -> Pak nuke xfer.  And what does Iran get out
                           of seriously pissing off India?  Are you are troll
                           or are you an idiot?  To be ignorant of politics
                           is ok, but to be so dumb as to wade into a
                           conversation where you have no grasp of any of
                           the relevant facts, is just ...
                           the relevant fact, is just ...
                           India and Iran are on decent terms.  Khatami was
                           the guest of honor at the 2003 Republic Day
                           festivities. Later this week, this year's chief
                           guest will be the Saudi king.
               \_ Do you seriously think there would be anything left of
                  the place formerly known as "Iran" within several hours
                  of a nuclear attack on Israel?  Israel almost certainly
                  \- or france, or italy or ...
                  has the H-bomb, and presumably already has everything in
                  Iran targeted with the finger on the button, and one would
                  imagine that Iran knows this.  I would also hope, as an
                  American, that if they ever used a nuclear weapon on Israel
                  and  Israel was unable to retaliate for some reason, that
                  the U.S. would level their country.
                  \_ Do you seriously think the nutheads running Iran share
                     your belief in Mutally Assured Destruction theories or
                     your western view of the value of life?  Willing to bet
                     a few million lives on it?  Not even the Iranians are
                     willing to try to push that line.  Their entire public
                     stance is that this is about peaceful energy sources
                     for their own country which is a crock since they're
                     the fourth largest oil producer in the world and have
                     relatively tiny energy needs.
                                \- yes the public stance is a lie but the
                                   bush administration also knew that the
                                   steel tarriffs were illegal. and the us
                                   signing on to plank ii of the NPT is also
                                   a "crock". the rhetoric is not important.
                                   whether you would choose to bet on it is
                                   also not important, since preventing this
                                   is not a free choice. the question is
                                   what should the us do about it, and then
                                   three categories are accept that it will
                                   happen [not necesarily quietly], try to
                                   prevent it without military action, try
                                   to prevent it with military action.
                                   i personally think the us will not be able
                                   to prevent iran from getting nukes although
                                   it is possible some actions can make it
                                   take say 10yrs instead of 5. i also dont
                                   think the mullahs actually in power are
                                   as irrational as you seem to think they are.
                                   this isnt an especially great interview
                                   but it is from a long time commentator on
                                   nukes who isnt a liberal fruitcake on this
                                   exactly question. BTW Schelling also won the
                                   Econ nobel last year, in part for this work
                                   on nuclear deterrence theory:
                                   After stumbling on that article i searched
                                   for some other good names. see the last
                                   page of this article:
                                  Nicely put: "the us worries as much
                                  about being deterred as being attacked".
                                  Well i dunno about the "as much" but
                                  if you factor probabilities in, that is
                                  probably true. Waltz is ex-UCB and
                                  "The world's most influential International
                                  Relations scholar" and "most cited book
                                  ever written in the field of International
                                  Relations". Mearshimer is also a pretty
                                  interesting fellow. Allison is a little
                                  airy-fairy. Jervis is solid. I am not
                                  familar with the other fellow.
                                   BTW, do you think the people advocating
                                   SDI dont believe in MAD? do you think they
                                   are willing to bet millions of lives on
                                   SDI/ABM technology?
                                  Relations scholar" and author of "the most
                                  cited book ever written in the field of
                                  International Relations". Mearshimer is
                                  also a pretty interesting fellow. Allison
                                  is a little airy-fairy. Jervis is solid.
                                  I am not familar with the other fellow.
                  \- look the "iran nukes X" scenario is ridiculous.
                     one thing that is possible is they will be
                     emboldened to more aggressively pursue low level
                     terrorism and figure the US is less likely to
                     bomb tehran in retaliation [along the likes of
                     Raygun bombing Khadafi]. i actually think the pakistani
                     bomb is more dangerous than the iran bomb because
                     a meltdown of the pakistani state in the crazy direction
                     is a lot more likely and then you may have loose nukes.
                     if pakistan has a meltdown in the next 10 yrs ... say
                     their maximum leader is assassinated and different
                     military generals start a violent struggle and one
                     tries to ally with a fundamentalist faction ... it will
                     be an interesting question whether india or the united
                     states will freak out more.
                     \_ How would a "meltdown of the pakistani state in the
                        crazy direction" look any different from what Iran
                        already is?
                        \- iran is not an anarchy. i would worry more about
                           the period of anarchy than the aftermath. that's
                           what i mean by "loose nukes". nuclear weapons are
                           good for deterring threats against the homeland.
                           the big problem with the is the problem of
                           accidents and proliferation to non-state actors.
                           what effects nukes have lower of the "ladder of
                           escalation" is unclear. like would the iran-
                           iraq war have looked different if one side had
                           5-10 bombs? i dont think that is clear. if both
                           sides had 5-10 nukes do you think it would have
                           happened at all?
                           \_ Pakistan is a different issue and is not
                              currently 3 months from having nukes running
                              around loose.  And even if Pakistan was in
                              the midst of chaos the Iran situation would
                              remain a problem and need to be dealt with.
                              I don't understand this "we can only deal with
                              or think about one problem at a time and the
                              worst problem makes the second worst problem
                              ok and acceptable by comparison."  This sort of
                              deflection is the second weakest form of
                              rhetorical debate tactic.
                              \- i'm not the one saying "we can only
                                 deal with one problem at a time" and i
                                 am not sure anybody else here is.
                                 my position is:
                                 1. i think iran will get nukes
                                 2. i think from their point of view it makes
                                    sense for them to get nukes [just like it
                                    makes sense for pakistan and the israelis,
                                    and note "makes sense/is rational" !=
                                    "is a good thing/makes me happy"]
                                 3. i would personally be more worried about
                                    the PAK nukes[#4], but that is a estimation
                                    of risks not a policy prescription ...
                                    i might think Las Vegas real estate will
                                    do better than Phoenix real estate but
                                    that doesnt mean i am suggesting buying
                                    into Vega$.
                                 4. in gereral i think the concern about
                                    proliferation is really about "loose
                                    nukes" rather than states we dont line
                                    having the bomb. so the problem is
                                    stability and competence more than
                                  [once again, you may wish to see the
                                  adelphi paper "the spread of nuclear weapons,
                                  more may be better", written by a now
                                  fmr ucb prof kenneth waltz.]
                                  5. sure iran is doing lots of lying but
                                     guess what, that's standard in diplomacy.
                                     if country A asks country B, are you
                                     spying on us, what are they supposed to
                                     do, answer the question completely and
                                     truthfully? when the us signed the non-
                                     proliferation treaty which says the
                                     nuclear states should eventually be
                                     pursuing the goal of total disarmamanet
                                     did the us lie?
            \_ Sell their oil to whomever they wish, continue with theocracy
               without fear of US inteference, etc. Nukes are a deterrent.
               They say leave us the hell alone.
               \_ No one is invading Iran.  Their 18 year effort to get nukes
                  and the lies they've told about it are not about getting a
                  \_ Instead of speaking in negatives, how about explaining
                     what Iran is doing, then?
                  \_ Various elements in the Bush Administration have
                     threatened Iran with invasion and Bush included them
                     in his "axis of evil" so I think it is reasonable that
                     they are concerned about an invasion. If things had
                     gone well in Iraq, Bush proabably would have invaded
                     Iran by now.
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:January:22 Sunday <Saturday, Monday>