| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2006/1/31 [Uncategorized] UID:41606 Activity:kinda low |
1/27 the FURIOUS is here. I'm about to go to sleep
to link:tinyurl.com/b4xby
\_ That's DER FURIOUS to you. |
| 2006/1/31 [Consumer/Camera] UID:41607 Activity:nil |
1/27 http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004342.php |
| 2006/1/31-2/2 [Computer/SW/Languages] UID:41608 Activity:nil |
1/27 I have a file I want to stream to a socket. (Read file, write
socket) A loop that copies 1K at a time seems a bit silly, is
there a way to directly stream it?
\_ sendfile(), if you don't need to be terribly portable. -gm
\_ Perfect, thanks.
\_ netcat is ideal for this, its as simple as: nc < file |
| 2006/1/31-2/2 [Computer/SW/Unix] UID:41609 Activity:nil |
1/27 Is there some common unix tool to chop off the head of a file up to
some marker? Other than perl etc.
\_ sed or awk
\_ what the pp said. or tail if you know the line number, and
grep can tell you the line number. actually, there's an
ungainly grep way to do it.
\- hasnt this come up before?
sed -n '/<regexp>/,$p'
but that will operate on lines (as will grep).
--partha "sed" banerjee
\_ Ok I just wrote a little perl script. Basically this tool
takes two files and diffs them, but you can tell it
a different "differ". I need it to ignore these files'
variable length headers. So my diff script processes them into
temp files and calls diff. Is there some clever way to
get that done in a commandline substitute for diff?
\_ look up "named pipes" if you want to avoid temp
files... other than that i don't think there's
much you can do
\_ tail +/marker -- for a reasonably modern version of tail.
\_ It looks like "tail +" takes an offset rather than a
match. What version of tail are you talking about? |
| 2006/1/31-2/1 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41610 Activity:moderate |
1/27 Justice Stevens is 86. Oh Fuck.
\_ Don't worry, once #$%^ hits the fan, people will start voting
Democratic again. Right now, people are just complacent.
\_ Ah yes, the D party isn't corrupt and incompetent
like the R party. And only the D party cares about the
environment, welfare, healthcare, minorities, and things
that matter to the people. D=good, R=bad, and spread the
word. I got your message. Thanks.
\_ Shit hits the fan everyday. We're not living in special times.
Yesterday is like today is like tomorrow.
\_ Yeah it sucks. He has to hang in there and we can't have another
whacko Repub Prez next term. If he resigns or dies it's going to
be an unpleasant 25-30 years. For the President it's good news,
just as we are facing the end of the empire, financial collapse
and a severe energy crisis the Supreme court will be all set to
give him all the power he wants.
\- justice stevens is suppose to be in pretty good health.
he's become by favorite justice. i think nobody talks about
hime being a super genius or anything but i think from his
long tenure he brings a lot of wisdom to his practical
decisions.
\_ People who agree with us a lot are always wise. BTW, how
did Stevens vote on Kelo?
\- you know STEVENS wrote the KELO opinion, right?
you know also he after the fact said that he thought
new london was likely doing the wrong thing as a
matter of legislative policy in this case but they
did have the right to do so in this case based on
his reading of established practice [this was in a
speech after the opinion came down]. similarly
STEVENS ruled congress had the power to overrule
state pro-marijuana laws eventhough he personally
though maybe they should stay out of regulating
this at the national level. --#1 STEVENS FAN
\_ I'm quite aware of who STEVENS is and what STEVENS
has done. It was a RHETORICAL question. One should
know that RHETORICAL questions, even about STEVENS
are not intended to be EXPLICITLY answered, even
if STEVENS or KELO are the topic. STEVENS wrote
a legal OPINION that the government has the right
to FUCK people out of their property and GIVE it
to some random fuck PRIVATE developer to build
GOLF courses on. Are you or STEVENS big fans of
GOLF? That was also a RHETORICAL question.
-- fuck STEVENS and his FANS
\_ USSC ruled it constitutional. The local
government made the law. Seriously, bitching
about the decision is stupid. If you want to
change it, talk to your representative. It will
take legislation to change it.
\_ Hmm, what did the USSC say about slavery?
The Constitution as originally written was
ok with it, so it must be ok!! Yay! Saying
that because the USSC ruled in a particular
way makes it right is what is stupid. Blind
allegiance to some politically appointed
body is stupid. Think for yourself.
\_ Suck it. You're complaining about Stevens
doing his JOB. I didn't say the SC ruling
makes it "right". In fact, Stevens made
exactly that point. So just fuck off.
\_ By your 'logic' we should still have
slavery and a bunch of other nastiness
and no right to abortion. "So just
fuck off"? If you can't back your
words with reason and login, then go
back to the play ground. The 6th
graders are waiting for you.
\_ You don't read too good, do ya?
The SC gives their reading of the
law. Stevens said he didn't like
what they were doing, but the law
as it stands makes it constitutional.
That doesn't mean it can't and
shouldn't be changed. You'd have a
hard time stretching Kelo to compare
to slavery. In fact, if you want
to compare Kelo to Dred Scott, it
took legislation to correct the
legally right/morally wrong decision.
And before you whine that it wasn't
"legally right", take it up with the
founders who defined the SC.
\_ Thanks for the basic civics
lesson. Care to explain how the
SC found the "right" to abortion
in the C? You can't. And when
it gets overturned who is going
to bitch loudest about it? The
SC makes up tons of shit based on
nothing. Nothing required them
to go with Kelo as they and in
fact IMNSOH their reading of the
law re: Kelo was flat out idiotic.
They made a wrong call on Kelo.
A later court is likely to do a
100% about face on this dog of
a ruling. It has certainly
happened before. Why would that
be if Constitutional interpretation
were as black and white as you
make it out to be? It isn't black
and white and your falling back on
"Well the SC said so, so it must
be a good ruling" is just silly.
At least if it was a unanimous
ruling you might have a leg to
stand on with a point like that.
The SC ruled for Bush in 2000.
Was that a good ruling? It was
7:2 and 5:4 on two different
issues both in Bush's favor. All
Hail The Absolute Wisdom Of The
Supreme Court! Yay!
\_ Hint: There's a reason I
brought up SCOTT. I never
said KELO was "good".
\_ Christ.. You people and Kelo.. Get the fuck over it.
Federalists should be happy. They granted local government
the permission to make their own choices about use of ED.
If you don't like what your local gov is doing, change it.
Personally, I don't like Kelo because ED should yield a
public commodity. Being able to use it to help a private
interest secure land makes it just an easy way to lock in
an artificially low market rate. But I suspect your
argument boils down to "gubmint wants to take mah land.."
\_ Who said I was a Federalist? I think it sucks that
any two bit bribable mayor or local council can force
people from their land and give it to some private
developer. What is so wrong about being opposed to
that? Your "suspicians" are cheap personal smear at
best and not useful to a discussion on Kelo, the SC
or anything else. If you want to know what my points
boil down to, you can read them and ask for
clarification without being an ass about it.
\_ "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance"
\_ Property rights are important, but why are property
rights and gun ownership rights the only ones worth
defending? Alito will likely take them *all* away if
the executive wants it. |
| 2006/1/31-2/1 [Reference/Military] UID:41611 Activity:kinda low |
1/31 Never bring a rifle to a tank fight -John
http://www.youtube.com/w/rifle-tank-battle?v=VV41UM7oh_4&search=tanks
\_ in bed.
\_ Also, never try setting up a tank battle at home:
http://caricatura.ru/parad/saveliev/pic/6537.jpg
\_ RIDE BIKE!
\_ Unless you happen to have a M67 Recoilless Rifle.
\_ Eh, not really. You probably mean something more like an
FGM-148...though that's not really a reckless, and would ruin
the 'joke'. The '67 is *really* outdated and mostly useless
against modern armor.
\_ I agree that these days you would use a Javelin, but
that damn thing is a missle launcher. The M67 is the
last infantry weapon classified as "recoilless rifle"
so its the only one that would work as part of the joke.
\_ I agree that these days you would use a Javelin against
a tank, but that isn't a recoilless rifle. The M67 was
the last weapon I knew about that was called a recoilless
rifle, so I used that to make the joke work. |
| 2006/1/31-2/2 [Uncategorized] UID:41612 Activity:nil |
1/27 MPAA violates copyright and perhaps the DMCA to protect "raters and
their families":
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004342.php |
| 2006/1/31-2/2 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:41613 Activity:nil |
1/31 Hack your Prius to enable electrical only operation:
http://www.calcars.org/prius-evbutton-install.pdf
\_ It'll be better if they make the Prius pluggable.
\_ there might be other issues which prevents Toyota from doing so,
things like effect on the life of its batteries, etc. no?
Otherwise, it would be stupid for Toyota not to do this.
\_ This is what makes me wonder about politicians getting
into the act recently.
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VQPGRGD
\_ a cached copy somehwere? economist is very expensive!
\_ /csua/tmp/economist.plug.and.play |
| 2006/1/31-2/2 [Computer/SW/OS/Linux, Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:41614 Activity:nil |
1/31 Goobuntu, teh G00gle OS:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/31/google_goes_desktop_linux |
| 2006/1/31-2/2 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:41615 Activity:nil |
1/31 Anyone else have problem with Firefox hogging up the machine when it
wakes up from stand-by mode? I can reproduce this problem consistently.
\_ STF Motd. Lazy fucks these days:
http://csua.com/?entry=41212
\_ Which version? Which OS?
\_ No, but I have problem with Fx eating up >100MB virtual memory even
after I close all the windows and tabs except one for http://www.yahoo.com
Version 1.5, running on XP.
\_ Confirmed... I've seen this a couple times. I've also had the FF
process freeze in the background.
\_ Wake-up or not, some sites will cause it to hog CPU. I suspect
Flash or badly-written JavaScript.
\_ Are you running Gmail all day?
\_ Yes, but that's not the problem. -pp, !op
\_ Yes I have the problem. Just learn to exit firefox before you go
to standby. |
| 2006/1/31-2/2 [Uncategorized] UID:41616 Activity:nil |
1/31 RIP Coretta Scott King.
\_ glad she didn't have any speech which charge copyright fees. |
| 2006/1/31-2/1 [Reference/Religion] UID:41617 Activity:kinda low |
1/31 OK, so this is trolling but I'm half-serious:
With regard to the "Muhammad cartoon" controversy, are the Muslims
insane? I can understand being mad that someone is making fun of your
main religous figure. But leaders if Muslim countries are closing
their Danish embassies and demanding the Danish gov't punish Danish
cartoonists in Denmark. They are calling it hate-speach when it is at
worst a disrespectful political caricature. While the Muslims
obviously have no concept of freedom-of-speech, don't that at least
understand that a foreign country has the right to apply its own laws
to its own citizens? How much of this is just grandstanding and how
much is actually intolerance of free speech?
\_ This is one reason the demographic trends in Europe are kind of
disturbing.
\_ The US and Europe have felt free to tell Muslim countries how to
run themselves for centuries...
\_ True, but in situations like say 'honor killings' and religious
repression, western societies generally say "stop that", not
"we demand you punish the perpetrators"
\_ It has nothing to do with "felt". It has to do with "the strong
always rule the weak". It is the nature of things. For this
reason, you should hope the West never falls to Islam during
your lifetime. You'll have a lot more to bitch about and a lot
less freedom to bitch about it.
\_ I agree. The West wiped a whole continent clean of its
original inhabitants. That's how they "rule the weak".
Don't believe in their bullshit about freedom, etc.
They don't really give a shit about your freedom. When
it comes to their self interest and your freedom, you
can be sure that your freedom will be flushed down
the toilet. That's why I like Putin a lot. He knows
how to say "fuck you" to the face of the Western
hypocrites.
\_ *laugh* Yes, ex-Soviet Russia under Putin is such a nice
place to live compared to *any* Western nation. You had
a good start with the genocide thing to which there is
a response which could have turned into an interesting
debate, but once you held up Putin as some kind of hero,
you went over the edge and became Yet Another Lame Troll.
The Young Troll Ratings board rates this troll as: WEAK!
\_ A lot of it is for appearances, especially to their constituents
and the rest of the Islamic world. Libya, mind you, is wacky
enough that they might just be doing it on principle (that
principle being that anything the Colonel doesn't like is evil).
OTOH, imagine how the Catholic world would react to political
cartoons of the Pope buggering an altar boy; I doubt they'd close
embassies, but there would certainly be an outcry.
\_ I'm not sure anyone would even notice such a cartoon. There
are pleanty of anti-catholic cartoons around. You're
attempt at equivelency doesn't work.
\_ http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/382
"Meanwhile in Brussels a young Muslim immigrant published a
poster depicting the Virgin Mary with naked breasts. Though
the picture has drawn some protest from Catholics (though not
from Western embassies, nor from the bishops), this artist need
not fear being murdered in the street. On the contrary, he is
being subsidised by the Ministry for Culture."
\_ I submit to you that a cartoon equivalating the Pope with a
child molester is somewhat more specific and offensive than
a picture of the VM baring her breasts or even a cross in
a jar of urine.
\_ I'm not really up on my Catholic doctrine, but I'm
pretty sure Virgin Mary >> pope, by orders of magnitude.
\_ Either way, I don't think you'd see rioting in Rome
and Western or Catholic countries threatening to
close embassies. The "moral equivalency" crowd should
take note of this and a lot of other things coming
from the middle east. Some elements of other cultures
are not worthy of respect. Some elements of other
cultures are inferior to the Western cultural model.
\_ You're right, VM is greater than Pope in magnitude.
However, what I'm saying is that by picturing Mohammed
as a terrorist, the cartoonist is labeling all Muslims
as terrorists, much as depicting the Pope bugger an
altar boy labels all Catholic priests as pedophiles.
This is a much more specific charge than depicting VM
as a whore, and I think it would engender more outcry.
that said, I'm not applauding or excusing the reaction
of the governments who closed their embassies over a
rather silly political cartoon. Really, these people
cannot take a joke.
\_ Now, there are plenty of cartoon and art pieces with
Jesus (who as son of god probably outranks Mohammed
theologically) in compromising situations. You
mentioned Piss Christ, which was just a crucifix.
How about Madonna and Child II, also by Serrano?
Would that be more offensive than Mohammed as a
terrorist? MaC2 oddly attracted less controversy
than Piss Christ. (N.B. MaC2 is similar to Piss
Christ, excedt with VM and baby Jesus instead of
a crucifix.)
\_ Not all that odd. It's not like people were
fascinated by Serrano. Falwell found Piss Christ
and publicized it. You wouldn't even know his
name if it wasn't for Falwell.
\_ I saw the Pope ask for 5 year old boys to
molest and then get fed to a giant dinasaur
which spurted blood all over the mosh pit
at a GWAR concert, and as far as I can tell
no one cared and it got no publicity(except
in death metal circles where all the publicity
was positive because GWAR rulez.)
\_ So if I draw a cartoon mocking the Flying Spaghetti Monster, do I
get pulled before the European Court of Human Rights (or whatever)?
Or is it only when your free speech steps on the toes of billions
that it's actually a Human Rights issue?
\_ You need to make that billions who take their religion and
themselves too seriously.
\_ And are engaging in a long term war to push their religion
on the rest of the world by force and numbers.
\_ Courts of human rights are western thing. The Muslim reaction
is violence.
\_ Though calling back diplomats is in another category of idiotic,
if you need to convincing that freedom of speech is interpreted
capriciously in the west too, google for then Mayor Giuliani's
reaction to Chris Ofili's art work or read about how a rep. of
the Green Party to the European Parliment called for the entire
nation of Iran to be banned from the World Cup because of
Ahmadinedscad's anti-Semitic comments.
\_ But you didn't see Israelis rioting in the streets or
threatening Iranians over that. And those are just a couple of
low-level politicians. Why do you have to equate everything?
Maybe those cartoons could fall under the "fire in a crowded
theater" category though, given how fucked up the Muslim
population is. The concept of personal expression must
be alien to them.
\_ There is a difference between the response of an individual
(Guiliani or that Green Party rep.) and the response of a
nation or multi-national group. There is also a difference
between threatening to withold funding or deny entrance into
the World Cup and threatening to bomb a newspaper or kill a
cartoonist. |
| 2006/1/31-2/2 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:41618 Activity:nil |
1/31 What's the difference between the Chairman, President, CEO and COO of
a company? To me, all of them are "people up there". Thx.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_operating_officer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_executive_officer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairman |
| 2006/1/31-2/1 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41619 Activity:kinda low |
1/31 Can someone please explain to a dumb oblivious foreigner like me
the 411 on why Alito is bad for the nation? -dumb foreigner
\_ Most importantly, because he doesn't seem to believe it's his role
to provide an actual check on executive (i.e. presidential) power.
\_ Because he's a solid conservative vote replacing a swing voter in
a lifetime appointment post. Ideally the court would be 9 swing
voters, but having it be a majority party-line-voters without any
swings is bad for the nation.
\_ So does this mean you were also against the nominations of
Ginsburg or Breyer since they were also not swing-voters?
\_ He doesn't believe in women's reproductive rights; he has expressed
racist and bigoted views in the past; he doesn't believe in the rights'
of individuals (vs. the govt).
racist and bigoted views in the past; he doesn't believe in the
rights' of individuals (vs. the govt).
\_ Note how the above posts say nothing about the constitution.
\_ Note how the above post begs the question: if individual
rights and the balance of powers have nothing to do with
the constitution, then what does?
\_ 1) It's "raises" the question.
2) Interpreting the constitution according to how it is
written (and prior rulings) strikes down laws that the
legislative and executive branches enact if they
violate the constitution. That's not a check?
\_ He has lied to congress in the past under oath in order to get
a federal judgeship, and has admitted he did it because otherwise
he would not have gotten confirmed. Does that sound like someone
fit to be the highest judge in the nation?
\_ Cite?
\_ he said in a job app that he interprets the Constitution to mean
a right to abortion isn't covered. when questioned about this, he
said, that was his personal opinion, but not his legal
interpretation of the Constitution.
no, it was his opinion AND his legal interpretation -- it's clear
as day in his job app. he lies in your face. someone who lies
in your face should not be a supreme court justice.
\_ (not pp) an E'ist article mentioned something about him
putting all his money in a Vanguard fund and stating that
he would declare it if he were ever confronted with a
case involving Vanguard, but forgetting to do so (then
informing after the fact.) According to the article, there
was no effect on the case. -John
\_ Did it say which case? There was at least one case where
his decision was vacated.
\_ http://www.factcheck.org/article367.html
Monga v. Offenberg: Alito was part of a unanimous 3-judge
rule in favor of Vanguard. Alito also requested the case
be reheard by a new panel, who also ruled in favor of
Vanguard unanimously. At that time, Alito owned several
hundred K of Vanguard funds, but he said the funds were
not an issue in the case and no conflict of interest.
Johnston v. Smith Barney: Smith Barney was Alito's stock
brokerage, but he had no financial interest in Smith Barney.
Sister's law firm: no one really knows, and there's no record.
\_ Of Alito, a Democratic staffer said, "It became clear to us
early on that the guy may be way too far right for our tastes,
but we think the guy is a man of honor."
http://tinyurl.com/b5fyr [nyt]
\_ If the above stories are what pp is talking about, this is
about the most disingenuous statment I've read so far this
year. We need some sort of motd award for this kind of
thing.
\_ He said under federal oath "I will not do x." When
the chance to do x happened, he did x. It doesn't matter
if it was a cut and dry case. He presided on the case,
after saying, once again UNDER OATH, that he wouldn't ever
preside on a case concerning Vanguard.
\_ Keep working on those Vanguard issues. Privately,
Democrats are blaming the emphasis on Vanguard and
other canards for their poor showing in Alito's
nomination. http://tinyurl.com/b5fyr [nyt] |
| 2006/1/31-2/2 [Computer/HW/Printer] UID:41620 Activity:nil |
1/31 Does it cause color troubles to print photos from on Canon glossy
paper in an epson printer?
\_ it can cause color and image clarity issues. basically use canon
paper in canon printers and epson in epson. however as said below
there are some GREAT 3rd party options that look great. some will
even come with profiles to help your print driver and printer -shac
\_ Everything I've read says that modern inkjets are very, VERY pissy
about using their own brand papers. (particularly Canon printers)
--dbushong
\_ I've been using Epson Photo Paper at $0.50/sheet on my Stylus
Photo 1200 for several years. One day I tried Fuji glossy photo
paper (forgot exact name), also at $0.50/sheet. The ink droplets
don't spread out on the paper and remain as visible drops.
Eventually it jammed the printer. I then tried Kirkland Glossy
Eventually it jammed the printer. I then tried the Kirkland Glossy
Photo Paper from Costco at $0.20/sheet. The printouts look even
better than on Epson Photo Paper.
\_ Update: I checked at home. The Fuji paper I used is Fuji Premium
Plus photo paper (glossy), and the Kirkland paper is Kirkland
Professional Glossy Inkjet Photo Paper. --- PP |
| 2006/1/31-2/2 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:41621 Activity:nil |
1/31 dave, suppose you put in a regular non-hybrid Civic engine into
the Prius, how much mileage do you think you'll get out of it?
\_ which dave? |
| 2006/1/31-2/2 [Reference/Tax] UID:41622 Activity:nil |
1/31 Is the land above/below the freeway owned by the state or
federal government? Who pays property tax on I-80, 880, 680,
280, 237, 101? If the federal government owns a piece of land,
does it pay state tax on those properties? -land newbie
\_ This probably depends on whether it's an Interstate or regular
CA highway. As for tax, the government doesn't pay tax. Are
you kidding?
\_ federal property in DC is not subject to local taxes.
\_ To see why the fed. gov't. is not subject to local tax,
perform a thought experiment where you're a mayor and
you get to tax Fed. property however you like.
\_ We declare this here bridge is worth $1 billion
and we like to tax the feds at 50%.
\_ I don't think there is a question as to why. I was
just posting an example to help answer the question.
\- See MCCULLOCH v. MARYLAND on the tax question.
\- See McCulloch v. Maryland on the tax question.
That is The Standard. note, this also applies to
when say LBL buys a pencil in CA ... you are not
supposed to be taxed.
\_ And if you are there is a form for reclaiming
that money from the State. |
| 2006/1/31-2/1 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:41623 Activity:low |
1/31 Legislators in five states introduce sweeping anti-abortion legislation
http://www.washtimes.com/upi/20060131-090347-1251r.htm
\_ Reference other than moonies? They say "proposing," not
"introduced." -tom
\_ Is the UPI moonie-ville as well?
\_ yes. -tom
\_ could you post a list of "Tom Approved News Sources"?
\_ How about, most things not owned by the Moonies?
The Georgia legislation, for example, is that
you have to look at an ultrasound before you get
an abortion. -tom
\_ Isn't it kind of moot anyway? I thought Georgia
was one of those states that only has like one
functioning abortion clinic.
\_ You're thinking South Dakota and Mississippi.
Georgia has Atlanta for a liberal influence. |
| 2006/1/31-2/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41624 Activity:nil |
1/31 All Bush job growth due to government spending
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20060126
\_ First line: "Changes in tax law since 2001 reduced federal
government revenue by $870 billion through September 2005." Yeah,
that number is kind of pulled out of someone's ass.
\_ URL that contradicts that line? You didn't even read the rest of
it, did you? It's mostly from the whitehouse and defense
department's own jobs numbers.
\_ It's a projection. It's not a real number.
\_ Bush upped the ante on this number last night. He called
it $880B.
\_ Not according to the Congressional Budget Office.
2001 Revenue = $1991.4B
2004 Revenue = $1880.3B
2005 Revenue = $2153.9B
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf
We can hope the rest of his data is more accurate.
\_ I assume the article claims $870B in lost "potential"
revenues. That is, the projected minus the actual. Ignoring
of course any effect the cuts had (or didn't have) in spurring
the economy.
\_ Is that your bias speaking? The quote is very specific.
"Changes in tax law since 2001 reduced federal government
revenue..." Even if the author did mean "potential"
earning, he is being extremely deceptive. Again, one
can only wonder at the quality of his other "research".
\_ That's a prime example of well-documented research. |
| 2006/1/31-2/2 [Computer/Companies/Google, Industry/Startup] UID:41625 Activity:moderate |
1/31 ObShortGOOG
\_ i imagine anyone who shorted at 400 and saw the stock go back up
to 440 must be breathing a sigh of relief now
\_ Google is a POS stock and the company is (at best)
equivalent to a media company like DIS. However, there's
still a lot of Kool Aid. Way too much for me to bet against
it again. Do you realize GOOG is valued at 3x DIS and even
3x YHOO? The stock is worth at most $130/share.
\_ GOOG trolls VS. housing bubble trolls FITE!!!!!!
\_ Hey, where's tom? I remember him naysaying the naysayers.
Guess he's wrong, again.
\_ Please locate a quote that backs your position. Don't
forget the one where I noted that predicting the stock
price of an immature company like Google was foolish.
They still reported almost 100% revenue growth and
over 70% earnings growth. Anonymous cowardly twink. -tom
\_ IIRC, weren't you the one saying their "forward looking
PE" justified their current and even high stock prices?
\_ I never said anything justified their current price;
I don't own GOOG and I never have. I did point out
that trailing P/E is not a good way to measure the
value of a company that's growing as fast as GOOG
is. The question with GOOG is how long they keep
up their growth rate and where they level off.
Certainly when you release a report that your
revenues are up 100% and earnings are up 70%
year-over-year and your stock price tanks 10%,
people are pricing perfect execution into the stock.
But I think it's nuts to short a freight train,
which has been my point all along. -tom
\_ Why should it be a 'freight train'? Truth is,
I overestimated the intelligence of the average
GOOG shareholder and investor in general. It
fell a little now, but there's no credible
reason for the run-up from IPO.
\_ It *is* a freight train of a company; name
another company that's growing revenues at
100% per year and earnings at 70%. Google
is making all the rules in its space. To
bet against a company like that is folly. -tom
\_ There are companies growing much
faster than that. Check out the technology
Fast 500. There are companies growing at
rates like 60000% over the last 4 years.
GOOG is just a household name and so lots
of people drink the Kool Aid.
of people drink the Kool Aid. GOOG is
#14 on the latest list.
\_ did you happen to notice that Google's
2004 revenue is two orders of magnitude
larger than any of the companies ahead
of it? In fact, the highest-ranked
company that is within one order of
magnitude of Google's revenue is
#134, Leap Wireless (1,542% growth
compared to Google's 16,591%). There
is only one company on the entire list
that has higher revenues than Google,
and that's Cingular, and Cingular's
revenue increase came because they
bought AT+T Wireless. Thank you for
making my point that Google is an
extremely exceptional company. -tom
\_ You are making too much out of
the size of total revenues. If
anything, it shows that continued
growth at these rates is impossible.
GOOG would be exceptional if they
could maintain, but only a Kool Aid
drinker would think they can.
\_ I don't think Google can double
in size yearly indefinitely. But
the fact remains, they are the
*only* company that is anywhere
near their size that is growing
at anywhere near their rate. You
want comparable companies? How
about EBAY, circa 2000? -tom
\_ Why does their size matter?
Only expected growth rate of
profits matters.
\_ Don't be obtuse. Google's
profit also dwarfs all of
the similar companies on
that list, and profits
are still blasting upwards.
-tom
\_ Does GOOG's EPS dwarf
all the others? How
much is a share of
GOOG again?
\_ You are now bordering
on too stupid to argue
with. But my last
post here: of the
public companies
listed ahead of GOOG
in the Fast 500,
FalconStor Software
(FALC) has the highest
profits, at 0.02/share.
Google is earning
over $4/share. Oh,
and did I mention the
$8 billion in cash?
-tom
\_ FALC is expected
to earn 8x that
next year and
a share is not even
$9. Some math
shows GOOG as
having a marginally
better P/E, which
is *bad* for a
company the size
of GOOG. Companies
3x the size of DIS
(market cap)
are not growth
companies. Why do
you feel GOOG is
worth 3x YHOO?
Will GOOG
revolutionize how
stocks are valued
or will a lot
of investors be
screwed in the end?
\_ Go invest in
DIS, see if I
care. -tom
\_ My point is
that GOOG is
equivalent
to DIS, not
that DIS is
great.
\_ DIS's story
has zero
relevance.
-tom
As a large media company like GOOG _/
it is very relevant.
\_ GOOG gross margins: over 50%
DIS gross margins: under 15%
GOOG revenue: 90+% growth year over year
DIS revenue: 5% growth year over year
So, besides the fact that DIS's business is
content and GOOG's is not, there's
the fact that one is growing rapidly and
one is not, and one has large gross
margins and one does not. So, uh, how
is DIS relevant again? -tom
\_ DIS has 6x the revenues that GOOG does.
It is a reasonable upper bound to
what GOOG's revenues might be. GOOG
already has 3x the market cap. GOOG's
margin and growth rate have more to
do with its maturity as a company
and are not really predictive of
where it is headed. So if GOOG
increases revenues by 6x (or even
12x) do you think it should be worth
18-30x DIS? That would make it the
largest company in the world.
\_ I would not use a completely
dissimilar company as a measurement
of anything. Are oranges worth
three times as much as apples?
-tom
\_ Are there any large advertising
companies even remotely close to
google's size? --new to this thread |
| 2006/1/31-2/2 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers, Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:41626 Activity:nil |
1/31 IE7 Beta 2 is now available:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/IE/ie7/ie7betaredirect.mspx
\_ w00t w00t - jvarga
\_ they stole that tabbed browsing stuff from AOL's web browser |
| 2006/1/31-2/1 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41627 Activity:nil |
1/31 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183363,00.html Who says Bush is not popular? \_ I have this odd vision of FoxBots adding positive or negative weight to comments based on keyword combinations and then only publishing when the end product returns zero. |
| 2006/1/31-2/1 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41628 Activity:low |
1/31 "Bush offered a proposal aimed at ending U.S. dependence on foreign oil."
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/bush.sotu/index.html
Uh oh. I hope the oil execs don't get too pissed and do
a JFK. Anyways, Bush vowed to increased R&D by 22% to use alternative
energy. What are some research company stocks I should buy
tomorrow? Please respond ASAP before 8AM EST. Thanks.
\_ He's offered a "plan to end dependence on foreign oil" in every
SOTU of his presidency. We've gone from a little over half of our
oil coming from foreign sources to 2/3 in that time.
\_ They give $500 mil to the ethanol people and call that alternative
energy research even though it's bullshit. (So... ADM?)
\_ 22% increase in DOE clean energy research is still pretty much
nothing. Coal-fired plants and ethanol? Sounds like the same old
same old. -tom
\- i dont think it is "nothing". theDoE has been ramping up
energy research for more than a year now. lots of people
are being sucked into "solving the energy crisis" from
other fields [like director chu, jay keasling, for two
local people]. they already saw the funding writing on the wall
going back at least a year and have stated that is their big
initiative [as computational science, gene sequencing,
nanotechnology etc have been in the recent past]. the reseach
program has broadened a lot beyond airy-fairy plasma research,
burying nuclear waste in yucca mtn.
\_ Looking at the budgets at
http://www.energy.gov/about/budget.htm, all the programs
Bush talks about don't add up to $1 billion. So we're
talking about $200 million at most, or three orders of
magnitude less than the cost of the Iraq debacle. The
reason he said 22% instead of giving the dollar amount is
because the dollar amount is so paltry. (Overall DOE budget
is $24 billion, with the majority of that being nuclear
cleanup and weapons programs). -tom
\_ Bullshit. Show me the labs. Or the budget items. I also
work at a national lab, and I say you're talking out of
your ass.
\_ Remember the 2003 SOTU? Remember the "hydrogen" initiative?
\- see e.g. http://www.lbl.gov/solar note: i am not saying
this is a state of the union initiative. it pre-dates the
speech tonight. i am saying in govt science funding
community and other people in scientific leadership positions
this has become a bigger priority. i certainly wouldnt be
surprised if the BUSCHO initiative was pork to oil/car/agri
industries. see also http://www.lbl.gov/Publications/Director
note all of his talks there deal with energy or science educ
and not say optics.
\_ People in "scientific leadership positions" are simply not
listened to by the people who control the money. Why
do I say this? Because I work in a field that is largely
concerned with the interaction of photons and electrons--
nanoelectronics--and no one, repeat:no one is getting any
money in my field to do solar research. The top priority
is quantum computing by far, with NASA detector research
next down. We're spending hundreds of millions on quantum
computing, it's totally dominating as a priority in
solid state and atomic physics right now. How the FUCK is
this a higher priority than energy? I don't know, but
it is.
\- ok, i have been a bit surprised at how much of this is
going to bio and chem people rather than material
science/solid state physics etc. but that may in
part be some of this is driven by carbon management
and environmental factors rather than energy production
in the narrow sense [plasma or building better nuke
reactors etc]. i am not saying this is a "manhattan
project" or a tidal wave, but i think there is
definitely a detectable wave in the area of
energy securty with an eye to medium horizon
less dep on oil rather than just global warming.
between the enviro factors and the dependence
factor i think the impeduts to do soemthign has
gone beyond the tree huggers.
\_ Oh, yeah, I'll agree with you that it's gone far
beyond tree huggers, but I think the private sector
is where the action is, and that the gov't is
still not doing enough right now. I also have my
own personal axe to grind, since I think QC research
is a bit retarded.
\- re: private industry: arguably the barrier to
the private solution are indirect subsidies
to the oil indstryy [in the large ... including
things the the govt dredging channels so oil
can be moved on ships etc] ... so if consumers
faced a more honest cost for oil, that demand
stumuli would be more effective than minor
amounts of research funding. [i dont have a
sense if nuclear is also indirectly subsidized
by the govt not requiring private firms to
fully account for risk, or waste disposal costs,
but i would expect it is]. BTW, i frankly think
conservation is silly. that just keeps things
cheep for the non-conservers. that's roughly
analogous to "if you think taxes are too low,
feel free to send the govt some extra money".
QC research isnt as retarded as sending
people to mars/moon etc.
\_ I agree with you on all points. Have you ever
read Cradle to Cradle or Natural Capitalism?
\- no, i've just heard some talk by that
ALOVINS fellow. to go back to foreign policy
and energy policy for a moment, i think an
interesting foreign policy driver will be
china and maybe india's apparoach to locking
up bilateral energy deals rather than the
global mkt for energy approach the US has
sort of championed. it has been done in the
past on a small scale [like my parent built
a LNG plant in ACEH PROVINCE with japanese
money in exchange for some kind of prefer-
ential sales deal to japan] but i am
wondering if the US is going to decide
oil nations are not "allowed" to make
those kinds of "futures contracts".
\_ NASA's entire budget has been raided to
send people to the moon. Science (includes
earth science) and technology have been hurt
the most. This manned spaceflight directive is
proving to be a disaster. However, let's
not kid ourselves. All the real money goes
to the DoD and DOE. We can't spend money on
research and technology when we are spending
all we have in Iraq. There's your energy
policy right there: go take oil from the
Middle East at any cost. By the way, a lot
of solar energy research is done by NASA
for obvious reasons. |
| 2006/1/31-2/1 [Finance/Investment] UID:41629 Activity:low |
1/31 http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060131/cm_usatoday/greenspansrecordnotsorosy Like I said, fuck Greenspan. \_ Jim Bunning? You must not have been paying attention to his re-election. Check out http://csua.org/u/euy [Wapo]. I wouldn't use him as an authority if I were you. \_ He is responsible for the stock market bubble, soaring home prices and record consumer debt because he was to quick to raise rates? \_ Greedy people with too much money and not enough brains are responsible for the stock bubble. Consumer debt is the fault of consumers (shocking, eh?) while rising home prices are the end result of many factors coming together such as the drop in the market, speculation, low rates, demographics, green lining, and probably a bunch of other things. \_ While consumer debt is the fault of consumers, yes, there are plenty of enablers out there. Not giving beer to alcoholics seems like a straightforward idea. How about not extending easy credit to the irresponsible? \_ Yeah, prohibition sure worked out great. And so's that "war on drugs". |
| 11/22 |