Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:January:31 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2006/1/31 [Uncategorized] UID:41606 Activity:kinda low
1/27    the FURIOUS is here.  I'm about to go to sleep
        \_ That's DER FURIOUS to you.
2006/1/31 [Consumer/Camera] UID:41607 Activity:nil
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
              \_ 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
        \_ in bed.
        \_ Also, never try setting up a tank battle at home:
        \_ 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":
2006/1/31-2/2 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:41613 Activity:nil
1/31    Hack your Prius to enable electrical only operation:
        \_ 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.
                 \_ a cached copy somehwere?  economist is very expensive!
                    \_ /csua/tmp/
2006/1/31-2/2 [Computer/SW/OS/Linux, Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:41614 Activity:nil
1/31    Goobuntu, teh G00gle OS:
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:
        \_ 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
           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
        \_ 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
                  \_ *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.
              "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
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.
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.
              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."
           \_ 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
              \_ 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. [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)
        \_ 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
        \_ 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
        \_ 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
              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.
                                                  \_ 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?
                                                        \_ 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
                                                                 to DIS, not
                                                                 that DIS is
                                                                 \_ DIS's story
                                                                    has zero
                               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?
                                        \_ 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:
        \_ 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
        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."
        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
       , 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. 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
                 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
        Like I said, fuck Greenspan.
        \_ Jim Bunning?  You must not have been paying attention to his
           re-election.  Check out [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".
2020/07/16 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:January:31 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>