| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2006/2/27 [Uncategorized] UID:42013 Activity:nil |
2/26 She's back!
link:tinyurl.com/j89j9 -motd boob guy |
| 2006/2/27-28 [Recreation/Music] UID:42014 Activity:nil |
2/27 Stupid question: I know that a lot of free music-type pages exist,
with small bands that try to promote their music, but is there
something similar for opera? I'm looking for classics for which
copyright is no issue due to age, but usually the performances and
recordings themselves are commercial. -John
\_ I don't think this is exactly what you are looking for, but
take a look at http://www.pandora.com You get to choose a song and
it generates a radio station based on songs that are "like" your
song. No charges and commercial free (they may put comercials in
later). -mrauser
\- If there was some IMDB type canonical site for this, I think
I would have stmbled onto it. And it is possible classical
music people sitting on copyright unemcumbered recordings
arent the types that sit around building WEEB sites or
putting them out on the p2p networks. If you are looking for
something in particular, you can request "samples" on the motd.
\_ The canonical IMDB-type site for music is http://allmusic.com, but
that's for reference, not a source of free content.
\_ Hi, I work for Pandora as an engineer. You should definitely
check it out, John, but just as a warning we don't have any
classical or opera as such. Perhaps in the future.
We do have the Utah Saints, though. ;) --lye
\_ Well, now we _know_ that somethin' good is gonna happen.
--dbushong
\_ Eh? --lye
\_ Spend more time listening to Utah Saints
\_ Oh, that was just an attempt at a John-related
in-joke. --lye |
| 2006/2/27-3/1 [Reference/RealEstate] UID:42015 Activity:high |
2/27 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060227/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy Now officially begins the housing bubble pop. Swami the Magnificent was right all along. \_ He will only be right if there's actually a pop. This is still just a slowdown (oh no 6% appreciation? they'll be ruined!) \_ Actually yeah. Given the interest rates and taxes, around here you have to be appreciating at something like 12% to actually make any money. (Assuming you bought the house right now and certain load characteristics) \_ Well not making money isn't the same as being in trouble. Also that article is about nationwide numbers. Regionally the market could be different. --not a homeowner \_ There's a difference between a primary home and an investment. I dont' have to *make* a penny on my primary. I don't care *at all* what the market does. I have to live somewhere and paying a mortgage to own something is better than paying rent to make someone else rich in my book. My mortgage never goes up. I don't have a landlord or share a wall with my neighbors and I take the mortgage interest off my taxes. By the time my 30 years is up my mortgage will be a fraction of someone's typical rent. My grandmother's mortgage was $200/month when \_ what about property tax? \_ prop 13. Based on the original sub-100k price, it was peanuts. she died. I was paying $1250 for an apartment in a bad area at the that time. I do have to pay for maintenance on the house of course but I get to choose what I pay for and when and how much I'm willing to put in it. I expect to sell in about 10-15 years, take my profit and roll it into a nicer place closer to work and have that entirely paid off within another 5-10 years, live there til I retire then go buy some huge gorgeous place in some other part of the country and have a zillion bucks in the bank and no worries. The ups and downs of the market day to day or even year to year don't concern me in the least right now. It all runs in cycles and I can easily afford to wait to sell until a higher point. I don't think I'll get the top of a cycle, I think trying to time that is impossible but housing moves slow enough that it's always clear if things are generally up/down/hot/cold. \_ Are condos bad then? You're buying something and still have to *eeeck* SHARE walls. \_ IMO: house>>>condo>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>renting. \_ If your time frame is 10-15 years before a move, then you're in much better shape than the average CA homebuyer. If your time frame is 0-~10 years (which you're not of course) and you recently bought a house in CA, there is a very real chance you may be paying more in interest, property tax, and other non-principal costs compared to living in an apartment, and may also lose equity in your 0-~10 year time frame. \_ No hurry. I live 15 mins from work, reverse commute. Eventually I'll be 2 mins from work, streets only but if that never happened, whatever. I don't see buying a house with a <5 years time frame so much as a primary residence as much as a mid term investment/speculation event for most people. This is a general statement of course. When I was a kid, we moved every 1-4 years and my parents always bought a house and never lost money on one but that was a weird work thing. I suspect most people aren't in that mobile a situation. \_ The average homeowner sells a house after 7 years. Coincidentally, housing markets usually go in cycles >= 7 years. So if you get supremely unlucky and buy at the very top you might have to wait ~14 years to sell for more than you paid, which is ~7 years more than you wanted to. to wait ~14 years to sell at the peak again, which is ~7 years more than you wanted to. In reality, though, talking to people who were in that situation they just took a 'loss' on the property since they had paid enough of the mortgage down to afford to take a loss. I say 'loss' in quotes, because they all traded into bigger houses in better areas and when the market (eventually) turned around they were much better off than if they had stayed and waited it out. If your house falls in price so usually does the one you want to trade into, so qualifying for the mortgage is easier. Many of my coworkers bought houses now valued at $1M+ by selling for a loss in a down market. They don't worry about the (say) $100K they lost when their (new) $600K house doubled to $1.2M and their $300K house (which they sold for $200K) is now worth $600K, since they made that money back and then some through the magic of leveraging. I don't know anyone who bought a house that didn't eventually make money. It's like the stock market in that way. The general trend is up. \_ I lived 2 minutes from work and church when I rented. Now I bought my own place and it's a 20 minute commute, which kind of sucks. The consolation was that there are lots of shops on the way home so it's convenient to pick up stuff when going home. \_ It doesn't take a genius to predict 20% year-over-year won't last forever. However, it's difficult to predict the bottom as well as the top. I would've told you 2 years ago housing was overvalued and yet it kept rising. So now if it falls when do you buy? Stop trying to time the market and buy something you can afford when you can afford it. I did, despite fears of a 'bubble' in 2001, and now I don't worry over it. I have a house with payments I can afford and it would take a 50%+ drop just to go back to what I paid. In short, even if swami is right, he's still an idiot. \_ Not all of us were in the housing market in 2001. \_ Yes, but if you were you might have called it 'overheated' and 'overvalued' then, too. Who knew it would keep rising? I mean, I knew in 1996 that the <DEAD>dot.com<DEAD> bubble would burst, but it rose higher and took longer than I thought. That's another way of saying I was (at least partially) wrong. Same with this guy. He's been saying the housing market will crash and has thus predicted 7 of the last 2 housing crashes, so to speak. \_ Has he? I only started seeing "Swami the Magnificent" stuff about a year ago. \_ I don't know how long, but , again, it doesn't take a genius to point out we're near a top after the run we've had. The market was frenetic 5 years ago so to predict the housing bubble will eventually burst is no great feat. The questions are: When? How far down? For how long? Markets are cyclical. I can predict now that the market will fall, rise, fall, rise, fall, and then rise again with close to 100% accuracy and yet so what? That in itself is obvious (and useless) information. \_ Well, here's his first "Swami" prediction. http://www.csua.com/?entry=36812 http://www.csua.com/?entry=3681 Here in Livermore, prices did begin to fall in 4Q 2005. I'm not saying you're wrong, but as the "Swami" he made a prediction, and so far for my area, he's right. Of course it was just a silly shot in the dark, but you can't really accuse him of predicting 7 of the last 2 housing crashes, so to speak. \_ Prices fell year-over-year? Link, please. -tom \_ Re-read above and try again tom. \_ The yahoo link says that prices were up 4% from December, which means they are probably up 20% from last year. -tom \_ yea but it is still below the all time high set in october, which means Swami's prediction that housing will start falling in 4Q 2005 is so far so good. \_ only if you're a complete moron. Median sale prices go down in 4Q *every year*. -tom \_ how do you make sense of this then, genius?: http://tinyurl.com/p5gfj \_ Uh, December 03 was lower than November 03, and December 04 was flat from November 04. It's called seasonal variation. That's why you compare to the same month (or quarter) one year ago. -tom \_ I am sure you understand the difference between a quarter and a month. Are you admitting that your statement "Median sale price go down in 4Q *every year*." is .... wrong? (I don't expect tom to admit he's the moron, so I will let the that pass. Let's see how tom will continue to try to wriggle.) \_ If you want to define by quarter, prices did not start to fall in Q4 2005; they hit an all-time high, and were up from Q3 2005 and significantly up from Q4 2004. As for your other "point," don't be pedantic; I am saying that the fact that sales prices dropped in December is neither surprising nor meaningful. If it would help you masturbate better, I will admit that home prices do not drop "every" December. -tom \_ No, I was defining by month and using what the original article says (october peak). You were the one who started talking about quarters, with idiotic proclaimations like "Median sale price go down in 4Q *every year*". Yes, exposing you as the "complete moron" (you started the name calling) was kind of fun. \_ I am not the one who brought up 4Q 2005; read the thread, twink. -tom \_ I was talking about peaking in "october", which is in the 4th quarter of 2005, which is very clear from the thread above. You first tried to claim that its a yearly seasonal trend, which was exposed as a load of crap. Next you tried to say that I am wrong if I am using the quarter as the time unit for the peak, but it's obvious from the above that I am using the month. I am sorry, but the only "twink" here is your honor. _/ Your claim is akin to predicting that global warming will stop in the Northern Hemisphere in Q4 2005, and then claiming you're correct after Q4 hits temperature records, because November and December were cooler than October. It's completely asinine. -tom \_ Are you predicting that home prices will go up this spring, then? Do you think Q1 2006 wil be higher than Q4 2005? \_ I think Q1 2006 will be higher than Q1 2005, which is the relevant comparison. But I'm not really in the predicting business. -tom / - So, if home prices go down from Nov to Dec, then go down again from Q4 to Q1, you will still not call that a "top"? When exactly would you admit that home prices had started falling and when that happens, when would you put that date? \_ Homes are not commodities; the fluctuation in prices over the course of the year has more to do with what homes are going on the market than what current prices are. (You don't have an open house on your perfect 3/2 move-in-ready, good school district, nice neighberhood, on Christmas). I would say that home prices have started to fall when three or four consecutive months show declines from the comparable months the year before. -tom |
| 2006/2/27-28 [Recreation/Dating] UID:42016 Activity:nil |
2/27 So, does anyone know how the bra became a symbol of male
oppression? I thought it was just hold things in place and keep
them from flopping around uncomfortably. Most guys I know seem
to like it fine when girls don't wear bras.
\_ Designed by men for women like most women's underwear.
\_ It never really was a sign of oppression, except for those who
think women who don't wear a bra are somehow subversive:
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/burnbra.htm
\_ Oh, that actually makes sense in context. I hate the Miss
America contest too. |
| 2006/2/27-3/1 [Uncategorized] UID:42017 Activity:nil |
2/27 Does anyone keep personal copies of comic strips lying around?
I'm looking for the January 5th Get Fuzzy strip where Satchel says
"Oooh snip!" instead of "Oh Snap!" My friend used to archive the strip
but the archive is now dead. |
| 2006/2/27-3/1 [Academia/OtherSchools, Academia/GradSchool] UID:42018 Activity:high |
2/27 http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/06/pf/college/professor_pay/index.htm I'm making more than my professors! HAHAHA! Proof that academia is for suckers. \_ As I recall, CS professors make a LOT more than that. The 100s of useless English PhDs are throwing off the numbers. \_ Indeed. I know physics profs at top, well-funded research schools can start out at over 100k, when they're assistant profs. \_ Well, they have tenure. See you in New Dehli. \- The Chronicle WEEB site had the list of the compensation of a lot of the top paid University staff ... most of the big $$$ were medical school faculty and CS/Engineering profs but strangely Vaugn Jones was one of the top paid profs. Also, this doesnt factor in a lot of perqs like number of hours expected, outside consulting income, jobs for spouses, sabbaticals, travel opportunities etc. \_ Professors usually make a lot more through, as you say, outside consulting income. They also receive perks like free travel to conferences, free computers, and so on. I know that at Caltech, for instance, certain well-compensated faculty receive use of Caltech facilities, which can include university-owned housing. Even at Cal the Chancellor gets use of a house. At Caltech (at least 8 years ago) tenured faculty often received $400K interest-free to buy a house with the condition that they split profits proportionally with Caltech when/if they sell the property (and pay back the $400K) I know one particular professor received $1M interest-free for housing when he took an offer at Caltech. This is their way of retaining faculty in an expensive place like California. Certain individuals receive large bonuses, large payments to their retirement plans, free medical for life, and so on. There's a lot more to compensation than mere salary. \_ Vaughn Jones is one of the top paid profs because he's a fucking Fields Medalist. Winning the Mathematical equivalent of the Nobel Prize when it's not even awarded every year is a big deal. I imagine UCB's Turing award winners are similarly compensated. -dans \- yes i know VFJ is a Field's Medalist. I also know the other fields medalists and nobels and turing award winners are nowhere close by in the compensation list. the highly compensated people in CS were people list (i do not recall what year borchards and mcmullen left). the highly compensated people in CS were people like patterson, not KAHAN. BTW, the 2006 FM should be interesting because of the uncertainty over the age of that strange russian fellow. see wall discussion etc. also there are some giant figures here much more famous than the "avg" fields medalist, e.g. CHERN. i think the fields medalists may be better compensated by the university than econ nobels or turing award winners because they have less scope for outside income possibly. actually after some thought, my guess is somebody tried to capture VFJ [as with CMCMULLEN and say PSCHULTZ] and UCB managed to hold on to him [unlike CMCMULLEN, PSCHULTZ]. because they have sless scope for outside income possibly. \_ Compensation for faculty is largely set by hiring and retention cases. So the faculty who are most highly paid probably got that way by getting a lucrative offer from Harvard/MIT/Stanford and getting Cal to match it. -tom \_ Clearly VFJ is a better negotiator than those other Field's Medalists. -dans \_ Which is different from "Vaughn Jones is one of the top paid profs because he's a fucking Fields Medalist." And the question still remains, do the compensation numbers significantly miss some of the accomodations to faculty ... maybe one guy got a spouse hire in lieu of +40k to salary." And why did VFJ beat superstars in say English [this was post-GREENBLATT leaving, also post [this was post-GREENBLATT leaving, alswo post KARP etc.] \_ Sciences bring in money, and English doesn't. When a top science research prof brings in a 5 million dollar grant the University taxes that at something on the order of 50%, in addition to \- believe it or not, at a research university a 50% burden is pretty good. isnt harvard's burden around 80%? also i am aware of this, however somebody like GREENBLATT [or stanley FISH] are special cases, in case you are not familar with them. and this is also nicely seen on small scale ... like people who work on practical stuff liek microprocessors [PATTERSON] vs airy fairy theory people. the tuition that they charge the grad students which gets paid out of the PI's grant. I would also claim that science benefits society and creates new ideas, whereas academic English "scholarship" does neither. Obviously this is subjective, but I'm clealy not the only one who thinks this way, and that is reflectded in salaries. \_ A society is more than the flashy gadgets it creates. If we don't support the arts then we're nothing as a people. \_ I couldn't agree more. The fact that you automatically equate university English "scholars" with the arts is laughable, however. They're not writing novels, they're cranking out endless unreadable academic shit that no one but themselves will ever read, and that has no bearing on real \- well not everybody is a JUDITH BUTLER. for example an associate of mine did his phd in the english dept here ostensibly on HFIELDING but wrote a bunch on the history and develoment of copyright [since you need some protection for to make writing a career your could make money at] and he now teaches in at HLS. so some of this is actually interesting work which touches real world issues and isnt just trendy inscrutable humanities nonsense. of course he was sort of a rockstar here and the other eng phd i've met writing on thrid rate authors would be serve society better plugging holes in dikes/ dykes. writing. Their role as teachers is extremely important to society, but that always comes second at a school like Berkeley. \_ A second quartile science/engineer is more likely to produce something of value than a second quartile medival historian. This is why an avg engineer gets $100k say for his dayjob and an avg musician needs a dayjob. \_ I had no idea that being a prof was such a poorly paid job. I'm glad I choose law skool over grad skool. \- I'm glad I chose CS. --mstonebraker \_ FYI, starting salary at a Tier-1 research school (top 50) for a 9-month appointment for CS/EE fresh-PhD assistant professors is in the $75k-80k range (so $100k-110k or so including summer salary, which is typically part of the startup package for a couple of years but needs to be covered by the professor's research grants in the long term). Benefits are typically very good compared to industry, but of course no stock options. \_ There are plenty of Cal professors who have become filthy stinking like Prof. Brewer *cough*__/ rich during the .com boom. So there are lots of side benefits. Haven't you ever had Hilfinger talk about being an expert witness, talking on the phone for a few hours and making a killing? |
| 2006/2/27-28 [Health] UID:42019 Activity:low |
2/27 The Yellow Fever video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5847984513475560733
\_ d00d, the asian actors are such nerds. the l0s3r white guy, the
indian dude, and the black guy were 10x better.
\_ I agree. The asian dude's role would've been played
much better by any white guy.
\_ This is not worth watching. And the name "Yellow Fever"
implies it is about Whites' attraction for Asians, rather
than Asians' attraction for Whites.
\_ I also thought so in the first 5 minutes, but after the
white d00d showed up it got so much better.
\_ Interesting premise, but it has the feel of a beginning high school
or college film makers first attempt, and it shows. -dans
\_ The main character reminds me of Urkel. |
| 2006/2/27-3/1 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:42020 Activity:moderate |
2/27 Dutch (whoo hoo) design of bus is 50% more efficient and 90%
quieter than a conventional diesel bus, no fuel cell needed. -eric
http://tinyurl.com/jprn2
\_ Dutch were the first to start massive slave trade!!! Not
\- i think that is sort of an arbitrary call.
only that, they committed mass murder and other cruelties.
FUCK THEM! FUCK THEM ALL!!!
\_ What, in the 17th century? Don't complain when Muslims
bitch about the Crusades either then.
\_ I LOVE GOLD!!!
\_ New... in 2003.
\_ DOH! Didn't notice. Hmmm wonder what happened to it? ... Ah
http://www.etraction.com -- wow 14 MPG for a bus, vs 3.5 MPG for a
conventional US bus. Looks like the system increases the
price by about $25,000 per bus, maybe that is slowing adoption.
\_ Probably. From what I read, buses are a loss in many US
cities in terms of both dollars/rider AND gas/pollution per
rider mile. (Due to mostly empty buses). In places where
that's the case, a more expensive, more efficient bus
probably isn't much of a sale.
\_ Probably. From what I read, buses are a loss in many US cities
in terms of both dollars/rider AND gas/pollution per rider
mile. (Due to mostly empty buses). In places where that's the
case, a more expensive, more efficient bus probably isn't much
of a sale.
\_ At current prices you'd be saving more than 40 cents/mile, so
it wouldn't take very long to recoup a capital investment of
$25K for a bus that's operating full-time. Often there are
other costs of new technology (shorter life, higher repair
costs) as well, though, and that could be the case here.
\_ Well according to some of the information, some of the
costs would actually be lower, because there are fewer
moving parts (no transmission) and the diesel engine
is smaller and can always work at the optimum range.
However, the question mark is the battery pack. But it
appears that there are a lot of advances to be made in
battery pack design in the next 5-10 years.
\_ diesel @ $2.50/gallon
bus averages 15 miles/hour, 10 hours a day
= 150 miles/day
150 miles/day / (1 gallon / 3.5 miles) = 43 gallons/day
assume the bus runs 80% of the year (maintenance, etc)
= 292 days
43 gallons/day * 292 days = 12500 gallons * $2.50/gallon
= $30,000/year in fuel
[(3.5 MPG) / (14 MPG)] * $30,000 = $7500.
Savings of $22,500 / year
\_ Interesting. It's actually quite similar to the design of a diesel
locomotive, although it brings the extra complication of a battery. |
| 2006/2/27-28 [Uncategorized] UID:42021 Activity:nil |
2/27 I bet you haven't seen a lot of these before:
http://www.al.com/unseen
The rioting white people dress better than I do at
funerals. - danh |
| 2006/2/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:42022 Activity:nil |
2/27 Al Haig, Bill Clinton and the COSCO deal
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1586548/posts |
| 2006/2/27 [Uncategorized] UID:42023 Activity:nil |
helo? |
| 4/15 |