Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:February:27 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2006/2/27 [Uncategorized] UID:42013 Activity:nil
2/26    She's back!   -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  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, 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.
                 \_ 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
        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><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.
                          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?:
                                            \_ 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
                                                        \_ 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.
                                                     \_ 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:
           \_ 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/GradSchool, Academia/OtherSchools] UID:42018 Activity:high
        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
        \_ 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
                    \_ 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
                             \_ 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/
                                   writing.  Their role as teachers is
                                   extremely important to society, but that
                                   always comes second at a school like
                                \_ 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
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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
        \_ 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
     -- 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:
        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
2006/2/27 [Uncategorized] UID:42023 Activity:nil
2019/04/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:February:27 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>