| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2006/6/6-9 [Computer/SW/Apps/Media, Computer/SW/Security] UID:43284 Activity:nil |
6/6/06 http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004721.php |
| 2006/6/6-8 [Transportation/Bicycle] UID:43285 Activity:nil |
6/6 http://weightweenies.starbike.com 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.
http://csua.org/u/g3c (westly2006.com)
\_ http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_3851538
"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
hypocrite.
\_ 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
school.
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:
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION: Diane A. Lenning
Jack O'Connell is the current incumbent, and given the
advantages of incumbency will probably be re-elected
handily.
However, if you want to know why I really like this lady,
check out her website at http://www.dianelenning.com
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
http://www.dianelenning.com/issues.html
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
General.
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
issues!"
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
opposition.
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
here?
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:
CONGRESS REPRESENTATIVE, STATE ASSEMBLY, and STATE SENATE
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.
\_ http://csua.org/u/g3v (irs.gov)
"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
everyone?
\_ 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.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime
\_ 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>Dot.com<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.
\_ http://www.nashbar.com. -tom |
| 2006/6/6-8 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:43292 Activity:nil |
6/6 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/05/terror/main1683852.shtml 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! |