Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:June:06 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2006/6/6-9 [Computer/SW/Apps/Media, Computer/SW/Security] UID:43284 Activity:nil
2006/6/6-8 [Transportation/Bicycle] UID:43285 Activity:nil
        Bicycle Weight. Now you can calculate the weight of your bike
        with these component weights!
2006/6/6-9 [Uncategorized] UID:43286 Activity:nil
6/6     I've heard some talk about articles over the weekend on how much
        money the UC system wastes.  I can't seem to find them, does
        anyone have a link?
2006/6/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Reference/Tax] UID:43287 Activity:nil
6/6     Don't forget to vote today!
        \_ Yes vote for tax more or tax even more.
           \_ Robinhood, we need you! Please tax the rich to support the poor
              because the super rich like Kenneth Lay, Skilling, Fastow,
              Bill Gates, Martha Stewart, the Bush Dynasty, so on and
              so forth have had a history of ripping off the poor ever
              since the dawn of mankind. Please help Robinhood.
              \- i think BGATES may be a pigdog for other reasons but i
                 dont think he is one of the people pushing plutocracy.
2006/6/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:43288 Activity:low
6/6     So are people voting for Angelides or Westly?  Westly even has the
        former eBayer and Asian ch1c thing going on. (
            "Angelides promises to raise taxes on the rich and on
            corporations. Westly, while promising to close the deficit without
            cuts to schools, will not say how he plans to find the money.
            Westly is a dot-com millionaire from eBay who is largely self-
            funding his campaign... Angelides, a former chairman of the
            state Democratic Party, has the edge, with a potential army of
            party volunteers and the unions that have endorsed him. To counter
            it, Westly is expected to mount an expensive direct mail campaign
            to convince absentee voters to cast their ballots for him."
            Sounds to me that Westly is a Republican in disguise of
            a Democrat.
        \_ I am probably not voting for Angelides, but I'm totally
           NOT voting for Westly and I hope everyone understands why.
           Westly started his aggressive negative ads against Angelides
           early on and they're very mean spirited ads. This is an
           indication that he's a complete ass. Furthermore I have had
           enough experience with upper-class white male who are completely
           out of touch with reality. Enough is enough and I just want to
           see new faces, preferably non-white representatives. I was so
           happy that Jim Hahn the I-prefer-status-quo-because-everything-
           looks-alright didn't get re-elected. Just say no to white male
           who are out of touch with reality. Just say no to Westly.
           \_ Your sentiment is strongly felt in Hawaii, the reason why
              pale looking blond candidates historically don't compete well
              with the native candidates. Many Hawaiians resent whites for
              historical reasons, but they do of course welcome the tourism
              money they bring in. I'm guessing your sentiment is starting
              to be felt by many natives in California, many of them are
              non-whites and feel that California should be controlled by
              people who are more in-touch with their world.
              \_ Because us whiteys are all just too busy keeping the ethnic
                 underclasses down.  -John
           \_ but Westly is trying to undo his evil while upper class
                                                    \_ white
              heritage by marrying a h07 azn woman! That makes Westly
              a better candidate. I'm voting for him. White Power!
           \_ Well, today is the primary, who are you voting for?  Nice
              racist screed BTW.
           \_ You could've just said, "I hate white people" instead of your
              long rant.
              \_ Yes, I hate white people. However, I assure you that I'm not
                 the only person feeling this way. Many Californians are
                 non-white, and feel that whoever represents them should
                 reflect them instead of rich white men who live in huge
                 mansions and own big SUVs.                     -op
                 \_ You and they are idiots for making assumptions like
                    that. I guess you'd be fine with a rich Chinese man
                    who lives in a huge mansion and owns a big Mercedes.
                    Who cares what they say, they reflect me!
                    \_ Why is it that corrupt and incompetent black New
                       Oreleans candidates do better than white candidates
                       in Louisiana? Because the majority of the voters is
                       an idiot. And yes if I were a chink I'd still vote for
                       a rich Mercedes driving chink, he'd have more
                       sympathy as to why I want to lobby to reverse bills
                       that discriminate against our culture, like
                       local laws that prohibit the culture of processing
                       live food in front of the restaurants. Maybe you
                       should ask why many non-whites resent dominant whites
                       before you start calling them idiots. Fuck you for
                       not respecting our culture.      -Minority Power
                       \_ LOL.  Thanks -- that's the funniest thing I've
                          read on motd all week.  With an attitude like that,
                          you deserve whatever oppression you get.
                    \_ I think (hope) you've been trolled.  -John
        \_ Angel(ides) of Death 666
        \_ I don't like either one of them, but mostly because of these
           asinine attack ads. It's to the point where I'd almost throw my
           political ideals aside and vote for any candidate who refrains
           from attacking.
           \_ Ah, the blissfulness of not having TV.
           \_ What is asinine about attack ads?  How are they any more
              asinine than ads claiming the candidate loves children and
              dogs?  -tom
              \_ In the context of Primaries, they're asinine because they
                 make it harder for the losing candidate to support the
                 winning candidate without appearing like an utter
              \_ Why do you hate children and dogs?
        \_ Umm, no on 82?
           \_ What, you make more that 400k per year?
              \_ "...and then they came for me..."
                 There's tyranny to democracy too, you know.
                 \_ That may be true, but I don't think making the tax curve
                    a little more progressive is tyrannical.
                    \_ It's not more progressive. The people who benefit from
                       this are the middle/upper-middle class parents who
                       are already sending their kids to pre-school. poor
                       kids can already go to first start. i would have voted
                       for increasing funds to first start, but we don't need
                       yet another program with yet another tax that actually
                       helps somewhat wealthy (100k-400k) parents.
                       \_ So let's see... the people who benefit are the
                          people who are paying for it and perhaps some
                          others with lower incomes. Wild idea!
                    \_ It's not making the tax curve on the whole more
                       progressive.  When you do that and you want to spend gvt
                       money on something (almost) everyone pays at least a
                       little.  This is saying "hey, let's make the minority
                       pay for this because there are more of us and we can
                       _make_ them pay it"  If the money were going to pay for
                       something like "roads that expensive SUVs ripped up" or
                       "a larger airport for business travelers" or something
                       even remotely related to the "burden of the rich on
                       society" it would be one thing, but this is as arbitrary
                       as that Mental Hospital thing that passed earlier.
                       Someone's just found an easy way of getting things
                       funded: bill those who are too few in number to fight it.
                       \_ I am opposed to these sorts of taxes, but while
                          these people are few in number they are not
                          small in influence on our politicians.
             \_ I am voting against and I make significantly less than 400k.
                I am disgusted by those kinds of measures. Everyone should pay
                at least SOMETHING if they want the benefits.
                \_ The government is not a fee-for-service business.  -tom
                   \_ Nor is the government a way for the majority to abuse
                      the minority for the majority benefit.
             \_ There are a number of problems with those sorts
                of measures.  For one thing, high incomes like that tend
                to be very flighty.  They are often tied to the
                stockmarket and other highly volitile sources of income.
                Which rasies the question, of what will happen when
                there's a downturn and tax reciepts on the rich drop?
                Oops.  Not to mention, I don't really think the way to
                fix our mess of a school system is to expand it.
                \_ I agree. We should privatize the school system, and
                   revive it like the way GWB tried to privatize
                   social security, like the way the Republicans tried
                   to privatize electricity and utilities, so on and
                   so forth.
                   \_ Way to open your mouth and prove yourself a fool.
          \_ I'm voting against 82 because the LA Times board said the system
             is poorly implemented and I'm trusting them on that.  I'm also
             for small, efficient government with a safety net and against
             welfare for people who can work but don't.
             I'm also for a progressive tax system, with an inheritance tax
             rate of 0% for amounts up to $1.5 million (kids get the family
             house + extra for free, or $500K/kid assuming 3 kids,
             inflation-adjusted) and >= 50% for extra inheritance.  The
             inheritance tax money can be used to subsidize a lower tax rate
             for people who are still working. -dem
                I am disgusted by those kinds of measures. "Oh this will be
                FREE because we'll make the RICH pay for it!" "Oh lovely! You
                have my vote! What else can we make them pay for?"
                I think, out of principle, no tax should be levied ONLY on
                a certain tax bracket. It's just wrong. Everyone should pay
                at least SOMETHING if they want the benefits. The people
                making a lot of money are often important players in the
                economy and stuff like this just provides incentives to
                drive them out. I also hate the idiot democrats that say
                things like "make businesses pay for everything!" Way to
                screw over the very things the entire state economy depends
                on. I'm gonna go Republican this year because the dems are
                too stupid. At least the CA Republicans seem a lot smarter than
                the federal ones. The CA Dems are like a caricature of
                themselves, always promising "free stuff from the government".
                I'll vote for the Green secretary of state though. Only
                because I'm a firm believer in IRV.
             \_ Ok friends and relatives, Tuesday is California's
                primary, so it's time for me to get cranky and tell y'all
                how to vote! :-)

                Actually this election is rather short and there isn't
                much to it, and it actually has not been much to do, as
                far as ballot Propositions go, so let us start with them:

                STATE PROPOSITIONS:

                Proposition 81 - $600 million in library bonds -- NO. As
                much as I might like to, NO. Not at this time.

                Prop 81 would increase state spending by $1.17 billion
                because, in order to finance $600 million in bonds, the
                state would pay $570 million in interest over 30 years.

                I was a bookish kid and enjoyed the library, and I still
                do. And I know how wonderful for young and old minds they
                can be. However....

                In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 14, which
                was $350 million in bonds for library building projects,
                25 year bonds which we are still paying off, for a
                projected legislative analyst cost of $600 million in
                year 2000 dollars.

                Meanwhile, Governor Ahnold recently issued a lot of bond
                debt for infrastructure improvements. (Those improvements
                should have been paid from raided gasoline tax funds, but
                I'm getting off topic.)

                The point is that more bonds, at this time, is just plain
                irresponsible.  Was it just the other day we were reading
                in the papers about a state financing crisis? Now the
                economy has improved and state revenues are up, but that
                could sour as fuel prices rise, another calamity breaks
                out somewhere in the world, or any host of other
                reasons. It is irresponsible to do this at this time.

                Proposition 82 - Socialized pre-school -- NO. Oh hell NO.

                Prop 82 would amend the state constitution to offer
                taxpayer-funded universal preschool to all four-year old
                children in California. The state would determine the
                educational standards for the preschool programs.

                Now doesn't that make you feel warm and fuzzy, given that
                Governor Ahnold just had to veto SB1437, a demand hatched
                by the most demented of State Senators, Sheila Kuehl--Mom
                and Dad, you might remember her from the Dobie Gillis
                by the most demented of State Senators, Sheila Kuehl--
                you might remember her from the Dobie Gillis
                show-- to "require social science textbooks sold in
                California to include the significant contributions of
                gay, bisexual and transgendered people."

                In an age when kids often don't even know the basics,
                this attempt to politicize education further is
                positively horrid. What's next? Saying whether a notable
                preferred blonds to brunettes? What people do to
                contribute to history, not who they sleep with, is what
                matters in an education.  Students have a hard enough
                time learning history - and every other subject in
                California's schools. Adding notable cross-dressers or
                people who have gender reassignment surgery - two
                inappropriate subjects for high school - to the curricula
                will not correct the woeful state of education.

                The fact that SB1437 made it all the way through both
                houses of the Legislature and we were only spared it by
                Governor Ahnold's veto, as well as the Legislature's
                majority endorsement of the illegal alien rallies on
                Communist May Day no less, tell you everything you need
                to know about the current rulers of the California
                Democrat Party. Help!

                But I digress. Back to Prop 82:

                Teachers in the preschool programs would also have more
                educational requirements and would be paid more than
                existing public preschool teachers. In order to fund this
                universal preschool, an additional 1.7% income tax would
                be levied on individuals earning over $400,000 per year
                (and couples earning over $800,000 per year). It sounds
                fun to make someone who earns more than you pay for your
                kids state-run preschool, but watch all those business
                owners get Nevada incorporation or some other state's
                incorporation and leave the state overnight if this
                passes. High income almost always means high or even
                higher overhead, something the socialists who cooked up
                this proposal never seem to grasp.

                Approximately 62% of California children already attend
                some kind of preschool or daycare program before going to
                kindergarten. Prop 82 would simply require the state to
                pay for preschool, and presumably shut some perfectly
                fine church or private business pre-school programs out.

                As if the state government doesn't have already have its
                hands full enough with focus on improving education in
                K-12 levels (California test scores in science currently
                rank second to last) rather than building a whole new
                bureaucracy to control the education of four-year-olds.

                Prop 82 paves the way for mandatory preschool and lowered
                compulsory attendance ages. This will infringe upon the
                rights of parents to direct the education of their own
                children and determine when their own children are
                physically, mentally, and emotionally ready to start

                Additionally, studies touting that children receive an
                educational advantage by attending preschool are not
                reliable because they a) do not show any long-term
                advantage or b) they are based on insufficient data.
                Prop 82 is an all-around bad idea.

                NON-PARTISAN OFFICES:


                Jack O'Connell is the current incumbent, and given the
                advantages of incumbency will probably be re-elected

                However, if you want to know why I really like this lady,
                check out her website at
                compare it with those of the other candidates on page 44
                of the Official Voter Information Guide, and decide for
                yourself. In particular, check out

                PARTISAN OFFICES:

                Well, all of you know I am a Republican and am only
                focused on that primary as a result. This is not to say
                that registered Democrats are bad. I have a co-worker who
                is a registered Democrat even though he has not voted for
                one in a general election in nearly 30 years, because he
                likes "to practice primary damage control, voting for
                lesser evils," he says. I understand that. In fact, so
                much of politics is damage control, for either party.

                Allow me two observations about the Democrat Primaries:

                1. For all the alleged unpopularity of convervative
                Republican ideas, two Democrat primary candidates seem to
                be running on them.

                Governor wannabe Steve Westly is just bashing rival
                Democrat Phil Angelides for being a tax raising socialist
                weenie, and Attorney General wannabe Rocky Delgadillo is
                bashing Jerry Brown (rising out of his political coffin
                as current Mayor of Oakland) for being a criminal
                coddling commiecrat and is raising the spectre of Brown
                court appointees Rose Bird and Cruz Reynoso. (Man, I
                could VOTE for a Democrat like that; go Rocky go!)

                2. A serious game of political "musical chairs" is going
                on in the Democrat Party, which means that term limits
                may be doing some good after all: --Current Controller
                Steve Westly and Current Treasurer Phil Angelides are
                fighting for Governor.  --Current Insurance Commissioner
                John Garamendi and Current State Senator Jackie Speier
                are fighting for Lieutenant Governor.  --Current
                Lieutenant Govenor Cruz Bustamante is running for
                Insurance Commissioner, flip-flopping with Garamendi!
                --Aspirant state legislators State Senator Joe Dunn and
                Franchise Tax Board head John Chiang are fighting for
                Steve Westly's old controller slot.  --Meanwhile, former
                Governor and current Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown is trying
                to rise out of his political coffin and become Attorney

                From a "damage control" and admittedly Republican biased
                perspective, here goes my take on the Democrat Primary:

                Dem GOVERNOR: Steve Westly, because he is less sleazy
                than Angelides. I only say this because my sleazy state
                employee's union, for which I pay compulsory dues, is
                backing Angelides.

                Dem LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Jackie Speier. She may be a
                wacky lefty, but she's transparent, unlike the political
                snake Garamendi.

                Dem CONTROLLER: John Chiang is less obnoxiously partisan
                than Joe Dunn, and the Controller probably shouldn't be
                an obnoxiously partisan office.  I admired Karen
                O'Connell, yes a Democrat, when she was Controller (I
                think no relation to Jack?), because she stated the
                budget like it was, to Republican and Democrat
                legislators alike.

                Dem ATTORNEY GENERAL: Go Rocky Delgadillo, go....even if
                I will still vote for the all around awesome Chuck
                Poochigian in the fall.

                OK, now onto the Republicans. Here, the primary contests
                are few:

                Rep GOVERNOR: Ahnold has no serious opposition.

                Rep LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Tom McClintock has no serious
                opposition either.

                He is the Last Honest Politician or, to quote Ayn Rand's
                optimistic protagonist, "The first of their return."

                This guy ran in the Governor's recall race on a
                shoestring budget and in spite of the official Ahnold the
                Republican bandwagon, still did respectably well.  I wish
                Ahnold had campaigned for McClintock in the recall and
                chose to become a "Senatator" vs. Dianne Feinstein in
                2004 instead of a "Governator", but oh well, Ahnold went
                for the sure thing.

                If McClintock can win Lieutenant Governor this fall,
                there is hope for Cali. Otherwise, stick a fork in the
                state and turn it over.

                Rep CONTROLLER: Abel Maldonado. The other prominent
                Republican, Tony Strickland, would be great too! But what
                I liked about Mr. Maldonado was his bold opening
                candidate statement on page 34 of the Official Voter
                Information Guide. Somebody in the Republican Party gets
                it about the ilegal alien problem!

                Sadly, the President, his advisor Karl Rove, and a good
                many Republican senators DON'T get it, which explains
                their utterly low approval ratings, and they deserve to
                suffer the consequences this fall. Sadly, some major
                "conservative" media, like the Wall Street Journal, in
                their quest for ever cheapr gardeners and maids, don't
                get it either.

                (Mr. Strickland, to his credit, also has a comment about
                the problem at the end of his candidate statement).

                Perhaps Mr. Maldonado makes such a bold opening statement
                and isn't afraid of being called "anti-Latino" by the
                Smearing Left because he IS Latino.

                Rep TREASURER: Keith Richman. The other prominent
                Republican, Claude Parrish, also appears to be a stand up
                guy, and he'd be fine too, just like Tony Strickland for
                Controller above. I especially liked Mr.  Parrish's stern
                admonition "to oppose all but the most vital bond

                But like Mr. Maldonado in his candidate statement above,
                Richman discusses the real fiscal impact of importing a
                larger underclass, and when too many Republicans at the
                national level just don't get it about excessive
                immigration (obviously illegal, but also certain
                categories of legal immigration have been abused),
                Mr. Richman's candor is refreshing.

                Rep ATTORNEY GENERAL: Chuck Poochigian has no serious

                Rep INSURANCE COMMISSIONER: Steve Poizner has no serious
                opposition.  Like Tom McClintock, if he can win this
                fall, there is hope for Cali.

                Rep SENATOR: Richard Mountjoy has no serious
                opposition. He is as hard Right as his opponent this
                Fall, the wretched Soviet Slut, Wobblie Wench, (OK,
                enough invective) Barbara Boxer, is hard left. He will
                also campaign on a shoestring budget. And you know what?
                I say GOOD to all that.

                For the last decade and a half, the Republicans have made
                three choices in taking on the Boxer - Feinstein Axis (in
                fairness, Dianne Feinstein is not shrill like Boxer is):

                1. Serious principled conservative (so-called
                "extremist") Republican candidate, who campaigns on a
                shoestring budget and who loses VERY narrowly (Bruce
                Herschensohn 1992).

                2. Pathetic "moderate" Republican candidate who has
                backing of party establishment, is afraid to raise hard
                questions, and gets utterly trounced (Matt Fong 1998, Tom
                Campbell 2000, Bill Jones 2004). Are we learning anything

                3. Vacuous and vapid rich Republican candidate who also
                has backing of party establishment, throws his fortune
                into the race, and still loses, albeit very narrowly
                (Mike Huffington 1994)

                I know which path Mr. Mountjoy will take, and I know what
                path I am on.  I want a real choice, not a pathetic
                echo. The only way to fight a nasty bitch like Boxer is
                with a crusty ol' bastard (and I say that with affection)
                like Mountjoy. If he loses, he at least loses narrowly
                and doesn't spend much.

                FOR EITHER PARTY:

                critters: Given gerrymandered districts, incumbents rule
                the roost. Deal with what you have where ever you live.
                \_ You couldn't post a link?
             \_ You can already gift up to $1 million over a lifetime and
                leave $2 million in your estate tax-free.
                \_ (
                   "The total amount used against your gift tax reduces the
                   credit available to use against your estate tax."
                   My reading is if you gift $1 million today and keel over,
                   you can leave $1 million more tax-free for $2 million total.
                   $3.5 mill total in 2009, and unlimited in 2010, but the gift
                   part (while you're alive) is always $1 million.
2006/6/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:43289 Activity:nil
6/6     How many voted for prop 82?  Did you see the bit about having a
        parent tax if the income tax doesn't generate enough revenue yet
        no one will be denied access for lack of ability to pay?  So where
        does the shortfall come from?  The general fund?  A bonus tax for
        \_ The fact of the matter is, our government is poor. We don't
           have enough money in the education system and everyone has to
           suffer more crime and somehow make it up, like paying for more
           jails. We're freeloaders leeching from our past social projects
           such as our transit systems and power grids. We no longer build
           anything these days, thanks to our tax-cutting loving Republicans
           who have two things in mind-- privatizing everything that our
           government can't afford, and cut even more tax. Thanks to them,
           we have to suffer from sky rocketing crime rates much of it
           due to the lack of education our kids have. We are forced to
           build one of the largest jail systems in the world, and the quality
           of living has been going down since the 80s when conservative
           movements became popular. Fuck all this tax-cutting conservative
           movements. Stop thinking about yourself and just raise the fucking
           tax. It'll be better for everyone.
           \_ Where do you keep pulling this "sky rocketing crime rates"
              line from?  Everything I've seen has crime dropping for the
              last 20 years.
           \_ Interesting theory since CA has some of the highest taxes in
              the US but worst education system, bad jail system, and as you
              say is living off the public works of the past.  How do you
              justify more taxing going into what we agree is a broken syetem?
              How will throwing good money after bad make anything better?
              Also, are you ok with hidden taxes like prop 82 creates?  All
              those parents who think they're getting free day care at the
              expense of the wealthy will end up paying for it in the end.
              That's a crappy way to write law or a proposition.
              \_ How do you fix the system when you don't have enough
                 money to fix it? The only other alternative to not
                 taxing is privatizing everything and let the
                 free market take its course. Is that what you want?
              \_ CA is 15th in state tax burden.
                 \_ 21st if you count only state taxes...
           \_ 1 in 5 US workers is employed in some form by the government.
              This giant mass of leeches, who demand anachronistic pension
              and benefit plans and only ever grow in size, is a worthless
              drag on the nation. I'm in favor of privatizing every public
              school in the nation, and the postal service.
              \_ Ah yes, fuck the system that attempts to give a flatter level
                 of playing field because survival of the fittest is how
                 the world should work. Let the free market take its course
                 because everything in life is be measured by efficiency,
                 profits, and making stock holders happy. I get it now.
                 Thank you very much!
                 \_ Ah yes let's make unfounded assumptions! The current
                    field is not flat. Privatising the schools wouldn't
                    necessarily make it worse given a voucher-like
                    system. In fact, odds are good that things would
                    be improved. Everyone would have more choice.
                    There would be more competition among the different
                    private schools with voucher money making them
                    more affordable for people. The private school I
                    had for 3 years was soooooo much better than any
                    public school I ever saw. And no, not everything
                    in life is measured by efficiency etc. That is
                    a stupid statement. Schools would be measured
                    the same as otherwise. Thanks for playing.
              \_ This monolithic government that supposedly employs 20% of
                 working Americans does not exist. Each level of govt. (city,
                 state, federal) has its own system of employment benefits;
                 within those, different departments and branches have their
                 own systems and even different unions. Note also that govt.
                 jobs not tied to political appointments pay roughly 10-20%
                 less than equivalent private sector positions. I agree with
                 you that there is room for reform, but your sweeping
                 generalization does not do the situation justice.
                 \_ Actually, even political jobs pay less. For an example,
                    look at the pay of the President. However, the government
                    is also a lot more inefficient and wasteful than the
                    private sector. That is, in many positions (except the
                    most prestigious and for things like nuclear physicists
                    which depend on the DOE), the government is also
                    getting what it pays for - or often not even that.
                    \_ Yes the government is inefficient, there is no doubt
                       about that. Take the firefighters in New Enland
                       for example. Prior to the 1900s people paid private
                       firefighter insurance and when there were blocks of
                       homes on fire, the firefighters would extinguish fire
                       nearby homes that had special signs that they paid
                       for, while letting everything else burn down. It was
                       profitable and efficient, but it obviously didn't
                       provide a consistent service to everyone. It is NOT the
                       goal of the government to be profitable, it is to
                       provide everyone a consistent service at some monetary
                       loss which hopefully will benefit everyone in the
                       end. Most of the tax-cut loving conservatives will
                       never understand this, because their world is entirely
                       measured by efficiency and profits.
                                \- also plenty of "tax cut loving
                                   conservatives" are ok with "mercantilist"
                                   inititatives like: import-export bank,
                                   subsidized research in their area of
                                   interest, making private interests matters
                                   of public policy [RIAA], or changing
                                   more natural priorities of govt resources
                                   allocated to things like trade negotions
                                   in IP, agricultural subsidies, govt
                                   allocating public resources without seeking
                                   to maximize the return to the public
                                   [sketchy ways of selling rights to say
                                   airwaves, frequency, western grazing lands,
                                   mineral rights etc].
                       \_ It is not the goal of government to be profitable,
                          but it should be efficient. The amount of red
                          tape that doesn't even make any sense is
                          staggering and constantly growing. It's why this
                          country produces more lawyers than the rest of
                          the world combined. Example from NASA: I want to
                          buy a supercomputer. The vendor agreed to provide
                          3 years warranty on the quote. However, one of
                          the five tasks funding the computer ends in one
                          year. (The rest continue past three years.)
                          Regulations say that we cannot accept the three
                          year warranty, as that is longer than one of the
                          funding tasks will be in existence (or maybe
                          not, because it could be extended perhaps).
                          Therefore, we had to ask vendors to provide only
                          one year of warranty, essentially throwing away
                          two free years. This is highly inefficient and
                          as a taxpayer, too, I am horrified. --dim
                    \_ Having survived the dotcom bubble and govt. jobs at
                       the city, state, and federal level, I respectfully
                       disagree with your assessment insofar as I think you're
                       being much too generous to private sector employees.
                       \_ <DEAD><DEAD> was just a big party. To be fair,
                          compare to *profitable* companies.
                          \_ What, like Enron? WorldCom?
                             \_ Are you suggesting the employees at Enron
                                and WorldCom were not hard-working and
                                efficient? I would guess that most were.
                          \_ I don't think there's any real evidence that
                             private companies as a whole are more efficient
                             than government as a whole.  Good private
                             companies are more efficient than bad government,
                             and vice versa.  If Orange County had been a
                             corporation, it would have laid everyone off,
                             bilked its investors, and sold pieces of itself
                             out for pennies on the dollar, as Enron and
                             WorldCom did.  That's highly inefficient.  -tom
                             \_ Private companies are efficient at maximizing
                                ***PROFITS*** without regard to anything else
                                such as the quality of service, unless of
                                course there is enough competition to drive
                                them to be less profitable. Government
                                services on the other hand have initial
                                noble intent of creating services for the
                                people but many fail because of a lack of
                                accountability (FEMA, CIA, etc). In the end,
                                neither pure free-market nor strict government
                                controlled programs work well on a
                                consistent basis for a long period of time.
                             \_ "In particular, studies of garbage collection,
                                water utilities, electric utilities, office
                                cleaning, firefighting, and transportation
                                (airlines, railroads, buses) found that
                                private providers were more efficient under
                                conditions of competition and accountability
                                (Donahue 1991; Spann 1977).
                                Notably, though, in several instances public
                                provision was more efficient than private
                                provision, even under competitive market
                                conditions (Donahue 1991)."
                                There are instances where it doesn't make
                                sense to privatize a service (e.g.
                                duplication of infrastructure involved in
                                electricity transmission) but I think it's
                                obvious that in most cases the private
                                sector is more efficient because it has an
                                incentive to be. What incentive does the
                                government have to be efficient?
                                \_ Civilian and press oversight; not something
                                   corporations generally need to worry
                                   about in this country.  -tom
                                   \_ The point is not that it has no incentive
                                      to be efficient. The problem is that
                                      lack of competition and choice is less
                                      efficient. The government can just do
                                      stupid things and there is no market
                                      to punish their stupid decisions.
                                      They just get more money when they
                                      squander what they have. They set up
                                      idiotic and corrupt contract deals.
                                      Oversight doesn't prevent mediocrity.
                                      It doesn't really do anything at all,
                                      just generates discussion when something
                                      particularly egregious comes up, or
                                      laws are broken. Corporations do still
                                      obey laws in this country.
                                      \_ You think competition is inherently
                                         more efficient?  Tell me, how many
                                         programming languages does your
                                         company's main product use for
                                         development?  Would your development
                                         be more efficient if you had two
                                         different groups, one using Java and
                                         one using Ruby, competing to develop
                                         the same product?
                                         Competition between companies doesn't
                                         prevent mediocrity.  And there is
                                         a market that punishes stupid
                                         governmental decisions; it's called
                                         "voting."  -tom
                                         \_ Voting can't handle this. Voters
                                            are worried about gay marriage.
                                            They don't have the time nor
                                            inclination to dig through stuff
                                            and analyze... and even if they
                                            did, it still doesn't help. A
                                            real market, at least ideally,
                                            selects the best performers.
                                            I read about govt fuckups all
                                            the time and never hear about
                                            heads rolling. Everything is
                                            aggregated. If you try to punish
                                            poor performance in one area it
                                            is lost in the noise. And you
                                            have small way of knowing if
                                            the new guy is any better than
                                            the old.
                                            \_ And even if he is, term
                                               limits mean he won't be around
                                               long. This helps when there's
                                               an idiot like Bush in office,
                                               but it's bad when there's
                                               someone sincere and capable.
2006/6/6-8 [Computer/SW/Languages/Java] UID:43290 Activity:nil
6/6     Does anyone know anyway to actually get Java to perform complete
        garabge collection?  System.gc() is just considered a suggestion,
        it usually doesn't completely clean up.  Even a option that would
        just totally cleanup atexit would be good enough.
        \_ If you're trying to force your finalize methods to execute, then
           no, there's no way to force it. System.runFinalization() comes
           close. You could also try Runtime.runFinalizersOnExit() if you
           know what you're doing. You may also want to look at addShutdownHook
           in java.lang.Runtime. -gm
        \_ What gm just said.  The 'contract' of the garbage collector is that
           System.gc() *may* GC unreferenced objects, but due to freedom of
           implementation you have no guarantee of when the GC may actually
           happen.  If you need to force some finalization code to be called
           at a particular time, you should write your own free() method.
           If you do so, remember that you may still have other references to
           object to be freed, so be sure multiple calls to free() will not
           cause a problem.
2006/6/6-8 [Transportation/Bicycle] UID:43291 Activity:nil
6/6     I'm a bit surprised at how much cycle gears cost. A gay spandex
        by Izumi costs $70 at REI. Where else can I buy clothes at a
        discount? I guess bikers are rich, but I'm not. Thanks.
        \_  -tom
2006/6/6-8 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:43292 Activity:nil
        CBS News reports unnamed "U.S. officials" saying "they'd be surprised
        if [a domestic terrorist attack] didn't come by the end of the year".
        Compared to 9/11, the attack will not kill as many people and will
        probably be self-financed and not directed by an umbrella organization
        like al-Qaeda or Hamas.
        \_ Of course rumors of the attack will mysteriously fade after the
           November elections...
2006/6/6-9 [Computer/SW/Unix] UID:43293 Activity:nil
6/6/6   Daemon is here.
        \_ ^Daemon^Penguin.  We're running Linux now!
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:June:06 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>