| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2006/6/7-9 [Health/Men] UID:43294 Activity:nil |
6/6 Douglas Adams would be proud:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060607/ap_on_sc/britain_genghis_khan_s_kin
\_ "How this chromosome came to be so prominent was that when he
conquered new territory Genghis Khan would kill the men and
routinely inseminate all the women."
Whoa that's what I fantasize all the time. Is this something that
normal men fantasize about as well?
\_ It's perfectly normal. Us horny white male have been especially
good at it. We're children of the Roman empire that fought wars,
enslaved losers and inseminated exotic women. Look at the
long history of rape and pillage from the Viking era,
the black-Caucasian mix in the age of slavery, mixed
Vietnam & Korean War babies in the 20th century, so on
and so forth. We are all children of Rome and it is our
God given right and duty to kill men and inseminate
exotic women.
\_ I think that's a pretty common (and evolutionarily justifiable)
fantasy.
\- evolution "explains", it doesnt "justify".
"Malt does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to man"
\_ You are correct; I meant "explainable". However, do you
think fantasies need "justification"?
\_ Ok good. I was wondering whether I should tell this to
my psychiatrist or not, but I guess it's not a big deal.
\_ "...a direct descendent of Genghis Khan." How can you be an
indirect descendent of someone (genetically)?
\_ You have many of the same genes, because for instance you are a
direct descendent of Genghis Khan's brother.
\_ A descendent of someone's brother isn't that person's
descendent, directly or otherwise.
\_ Not literally, but the term is not used literally. The
point here is that they descend from a common ancestor. If
you were looking at Y chromosomes Genghis Khan would be
indistinguishable from his brother. Both would be
indistinguishable from their father.
\_ The claim is actually "direct patrilineal descendants."
Which means men only. |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Computer/SW/Security] UID:43295 Activity:nil |
6/6 Where can I find the RSA host key to put in a .ssh/known_hosts (or
whatever exactly it's called) so I can ssh to csua?
here use mine
|1|42db5+KDy9Hano4lbj/SgFMPKDs=|taKwtpIOjvjZb9S9EIZ+pMbK7pQ= ssh-rsa AAAAB3NzaC1\
yc2EAAAABIwAAAQEA4F3Vgzyef4WlQqLst2xqi+yiRTdg1f4enDPkeT1zSFqhOFNXGoFlKJOGHRmpfwm\
Fxpa0eS6PVtleoI4b5kTbx0C9mA1OFXFVbZNlwjH6Hmife/NZazI4Nhe6Gl7JTNHBliu6VD6KLct66iA\
tZVUhOmM3gmbMfhgIqfbTvtPTLcYGeGHMz+X7dzWPMxMOqoD4iCXIthuLImijbL1HPqX1G65R048MWL1\
eHctxOi+XeFKzvAJ37iez2+prakglPkyAU6jg9luRiPtVQmjD3Q9gp+kenZGKKIK0FiuCuX+avuid5+5\
2psfIl6UWGbXl4VciV5QWZ6AdUmiEsEovZ9DbBQ== |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:43296 Activity:nil |
6/6 The EU Conspiracy
http://csua.org/u/g3l
\_ The whole thing about a move away from democracy towards
centralization is correct, but "Eurabian"? Deep End alert. -John |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:43297 Activity:nil |
6/6 So in CA we vote for members of the "board of equalization".
Apperently this board is associated with "administering" taxes.
Why are these even elective positions? Isn't that too low-level?
Why isn't it just a sub-agency that reports directly to some other
elected official? What BS. No wonder CA is a mess. Everything is
regulated at a low level instead of bestowing individuals with
power to do what's best.
Also, the BoE's blathering about the CA "Use Tax" is a total joke. |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Transportation/Bicycle] UID:43298 Activity:nil |
6/6 Dear road cyclists, what kind of bicycle&components&wheels do you
guys have, and how heavy is it?
\_ I have an old 80's all steel roadbike. Probably weighs about
30 lbs. Cost me $25 at a garage sale. Works great.
\_ I'm a newbie biker and I have a heavy hybrid (35 pounds). When
I get good enough to catch up to real roadies on my hybrid, I'll
get something decent like the Specialized Roubaix all carbon with
Ultegra and 105 components, at around 18-19 pounds.
\_ I have a steel Marinoni with Ultegra components and 32/36 spoke
wheels (I have two sets, one for weekends and one for touring).
I don't know how heavy it is; fairly light for what it is. -tom
\_ Surley Crosscheck frame with Shimano Dura-ace components. It's not
that light because the frame is steel. Not quite as heavy as my
1967 Raleigh Superbe though (~40lbs). -scottyg |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:43299 Activity:nil |
6/7 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13165121 This is a sad precursor to November. Despite all the complaints and problems within the GOP, the number of Republican voters is still much greater than the number of Democrat voters. \_ yes ... much greater ... in a Republican district ... Busby is a weak candidate. I'm surprised she did as well as she did against a telegenic GOP person pushing an anti-immigration plank. \_ She was also taped encouraging illegal aliens to vote for her. "You don't need papers to vote.. we'll show you how.." http://csua.org/u/g2g (Not all in the link, i'll try to find the audio file) |
| 2006/6/7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:43300 Activity:nil |
6/7 The Real Iraq
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/Taheri_0606.htm |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Uncategorized] UID:43301 Activity:nil |
6/7 Conn. City Leaders OK Riverfront Evictions
http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=2043764 |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Computer/SW/Security] UID:43302 Activity:nil |
6/7 Rails question: I've got data in a number of tables, all of it owned by
one site "user" or another. Is there a nice clean standard way
(probably at the model level) to validate whether the current user has
access to the requested bit(s) of data? (Hopefully that's not too
inefficient) I tried some obvious things, but Model classes don't have
access to your session data, so they can't trivially see what user id
is making the request. Or does this sort of thing not belong in the
models. Thoughts?
\_ Try handlers. Install a handler that will do the ID check, then
throw an exception if it's fails. The model has access to the
session data, otherwise you can't do anything custom wrt to
the session, so I don't know what you're talking about. -marked |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Transportation/Bicycle] UID:43303 Activity:nil |
6/7 http://buschmantechnologies.com Something that cut wind noise on the bicycle. Has anyone tried it and what do you think? |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Uncategorized] UID:43304 Activity:nil |
6/7 http://revver.com/video/16647/8097/?__session_just_started__=1 This guy has that sysadm look. \_ totally boring. \_ yeah.. what the hell was the point of that? |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43305 Activity:nil |
6/7 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060607/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush Bush says you must "learn values and history and language of America". I say to Bush, maybe you should learn something about world history, public speech, diplomacy, and anger management before telling other people what to do. \_ Does anyone else find it disturbing that the Office of Citizenship is being established under the Department of Homeland Security? \_ Nein, it makes perfekt sense to me. \_ Bush should, yes, maybe. What's wrong about forcing immigrants and candidates for citizenship to adopt the basic values of their host countries? Most European states have long adopted a really fuzzy and tolerant attitude towards immigrants' cultures, and it's a fucking catastrophe, particularly with Eastern European, African and many muslim arrivals--the attitude towards "oh we must understand and acknowledge them" is changing, fast, in a lot of places. You're talking about two different things. -John \_ Why must this be a case of "understand and acknowledge" vs. "expect them to conform to the laws and civics of our country"? When did the two become incompatible? \_ OK, maybe my post was poorly worded--most European countries (except maybe for the UK and France) have less of a melting pot tradition than the US, even if the extent of immigrants' readiness to mix in the US is often exagerrated. There's always been a lot of insecurity of how to deal with new immigrants, with the result that many governments have bent over backwards to try and accommodate and tolerate the quirks of immigrants from countries with social traditions diametrically opposed to what many consider the enlightened Western ideal. This has resulted in a marked unwillingness on the part of many immigrants to "conform to the laws and civics", as you astutely put it--forced marriages, ethnic clashes and honor killings are some of the examples of results of this kid-glove approach. -John \_ Right on. Where my hackles get raised is when "conform to the laws and civics" is interpreted to mean "learn English and become Christian or get out." \_ Maybe not become Christian, but they should learn English. It is the official language. It's not too much to ask. In reality, I suspect that the vast majority of immigrants *do* learn at least some English. What pisses me off is when I go somewhere and the signs are not in English. If you want Chinese/Korean/Armenian/Spanish signs then fine, but make sure to have English ones, too. \_ Are you stupid or just stupid? \_ Actually, it's not the official language -- that's kind of the center of the debate. \_ Oh come on. English is the official language. It's what our effing Constitution was written in. We don't need some proclamation for it to be clear what the official language is. \_ Words mean something, young padawan. \_ Right, which is why all the words on highway signs are in English, for instance. Because there's no official language. \_ I think you're confused about what 'official' means in this context. Yes, signs are in english -- but that's not the same as mandating english from a legal standpoint (official government documents, etc). Perhaps The One True PSB can elucidate if he's interested -- but IIRC, India has actually mandated english as its official language. \_ What would be the difference if it was mandated? Everything is in English already. It would just be a rubber stamp. \_ Not strictly true - I *believe* most official government documents can be obtained in other languages in this country. It would be a pretty big difference if someone that couldn't speak english and was unable to read them had no participatory recourse. (grain of salt here -- I'm dredging this up from my first or second year studies at Ma Berkeley, so I could be making this all up). \_ Not all documents are and most (all?) government proceedings are conducted in English. If English was not "official" then you might see official documents printed in other languages, but not in English. That will never happen, because English is unofficially official already. \_ Um. You really are just stupid, aren't you. Do you know how many translators are employed by the government? Do you know how many state and local government offices, hospitals, etc have staffing requirements to make sure local populations can be served sufficiently in their own language. You don't know what you're rambling about. Shut the fuck up. \_ Will we see a day when there are *ENGLISH* translators? No, we won't. So you STFU. You need to take a fucking civics class. You and your axe _/ to grind belong somewhere in 19th century New York. To declare English "official" would mean exactly what you're suggesting below, which has no bearing on reality. Making English official would mean there would be no burden on the government to make accommodations for those who live here, even if born here (read citizens), who don't speak English. An obstacle like this against civic participation is anti-democratic. As I say, it is a burden on government, and as such is heavier where there are a larger spectrum of languages spoken and/or larger populations of other- language speakers (read large cities). But it is a burden they are required to bear. Just because english is most common does not in any way make it "official". And your complaint about "Chinese/Korean/Armenian/Spanish signs" is so insanely laughable, you don't deserve any of my time after this. Fuck you. \_ There should be no burden on government to make accomodations. It should be entirely an option. You think it's okay if a largely Hispanic (for example) school district decides to teach Spanish as the only language?! I don't think that's okay at all! What if they are a small community of Maoris? Can they teach their native language exclusively with government money? I don't see where that does anyone a service. Schools should teach English, signs should be in English, government forms should be in English, and so on. We are not like Canada where everything is in French and English both. English is the de facto language *ALREADY*. What is 'making it official' going to change? Do you really want your kids learning Te Reo Maori in school instead of English? If you have lots of Spanish (or Chinese or whatever) speakers then make that language official *TOO* and teach them all by mandate in school, but English *must be* an official language in this country. Period. \_ My response got deleted, so I will summarize. You think it's okay for a town of largely Maori immigrants to teach Te Reo Maori (only) in their school district?! I don't and if I moved into that town I would sue. English needs to be an official language. You can argue that their should to be several official languages (Spanish?) but then *everything* must be mandated to be in Spanish also, including education, street signs, and all. You can't pick and choose which languages to translate while also denying English as the unofficial official language. English is basically the official language and anything else is done as a courtesy. \_ Hmm, I'm not sure I see what you're getting at, exactly. My point is if you're an immigrant with no english skills, being unable to get government documents in english is exclusionary, and *arguably* counter to some of the principles of our country. I'd be glad chat about this more offline if you're interested -- motd is already too bandwidthy, and I'm basically an ignorant idiot and would prefer not to add to the noise.... -mice \_ We aren't going to produce translations for every language in the world. However, we always make sure to produce an English version, which is often the sole version. If you live here you pretty much *have* to learn English as it is. It's what you/your kids will be taught in school, what the signs will be written in, and so on. English can be the official language w/o isolating immigrants. We can still produce translations based on demand. However, if, say, Spanish was official then we would *HAVE* to. As it is, I claim that English is already official because such things are *already* in English. \_ *shrug* Like I said - email me if you want talk about this more. -mice |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:43306 Activity:low |
6/7 LA Times: http://tinyurl.com/hozap Angelides the Nerd to face the Terminator Governator. From LA weekly: Angelides will be playing for Best Supporting from the start, because Arnold will always be bigger, tanner and shinier than his opponent. So a guy like Angelides, whose limbs flail out at irregular angles but whose ears look like satellite dishes receiving and transmitting all forms of knowledge and expertise, is the best bet. Californians, after all, just dated a jock, and you know how that turned out. This time around, they.ll want to settle down with the valedictorian. \_ Were there really as many anti-Angelides adverts as anti-Westly? I don't watch TV but I do listen to Air America, and only remember lots of anti-Angelides spots (I assume because Westly was coming from behind). \_ Fact: Westly started aggressive negative ads 3 whole days before Angelides started fighting back, after they promised each other to not do negative campaigns! Westly threw the punch first when Angelides didn't expect it, and still loss. What a loser. \_ Yes Angelides #1. I want new creative taxes on everything! I want to drive businesses out of California, too! remember lots of anti-Angelides spots. \_ You can't have service without paying tax, unless you actually believe in Reaganomics. \_ I want small, efficient government with a safety net without paying welfare to people who can work, skyrocketing tuition, rolling blackouts, and huge deficits. Davis and Ah-nold didn't seem to help. Who can I vote for to get all that? \_ Nobody. California is ungovernable. If you really want to change things, get rid of the initiative system and all the stupid set asides and budget constraints. Of couse, this will never happen. \_ I'm all for breaking CA into 3 states, \_ I'm the opposite. I'd like to see it unite with Baja California and form its own nation. \_ I'm interested in this subject. But where do you draw the lines? I guess the middle should be the bay area counties incl. Santa Cruz, with Yolo, Sacramento, El Dorado incl. Santa Cruz, with Yolo, Sacramento, Placer bordering the north, and Merced, Madera, and Mono along the south. This captures the direct relationships pretty well, with the Sacramento corridor out to the Sierra tied to the bay area and including Hetch Hetchy (and Yosemite). What do you call the middle state? I can't see any downside to this and we'd pick up 4 more senators. http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/8188/ca3state0kk.jpg Actually Placer probably belongs to the middle too. A couple of these are debatable. Actually this is better: Or actually this is better: http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/8968/ca3state20dx.jpg \_ I think that cutting the state apart like this would really hurt the far northern part. There's no tax base there, except Sacramento. \_ Well right now, the state pretty much ignores the north. They have their own industries and don't need a lot of social services because they don't have big messed up cities. They'd be fine. Maybe A bit of southern Oregon also belongs with them but that would be even harder to do. Sure you could keep them together, but I thought they'd want to be separate. They have different concerns than the bay area or LA. Maybe with their own state they could develop better. It's really beautiful country. \_ Gross Regional Product: SoCal: $710 billion Bay Area: $410 billion (includes Napa/Stockton) Rest: $180 billion (1/3 from Sacramento) If you siphon off the Central Valley into Central California then "Bay Area" increases and "Rest" decreases. \_ Sounds fine to me. That Northern CA would still have a bigger economy than some other states like Wyoming or the Dakotas. It will be growing in the coming decades too. \_ Wow, bigger than North Dakota. Sign me up! I think it is in the interests of NoCal to remain attached to the rest of CA. For example, you can have UC Davis or University of North Dakota as your state university. Which would you choose? \_ They could develop Chico and a couple others. There's nothing stopping you from going to another state uni. All I know is, as long as those northern counties are attached to the rest, they are drowned out. I think NoCal would be bigger than a number of states. I guess at least #35-40 in size maybe. Again, the population isn't large so the needs are less. Whether or not the north benefits from leeching off the south like that is true, that is not a good reason to keep it that way. Do you really think in those terms? I think it would do better by looking out for itself instead of being drowned out. Anyway, at least SoCal should be split off. Ok then, maybe this should be done since it already exists: http://www.jeffersonstate.com Then Northern Cal, and Southern Cal. All I really want is SoCal separate. \_ We don't really like you hippy freaks either, but I don't see any advantages gained by breaking apart the State. There's a lot of synergy between NoCal and SoCal. \_ There's a lot of synergy between lots of states. So what? Should Wash and OR be combined? Washington: 5.9M pop, $262B Oregon: 3.4M, $145.35B Washegon: 9.3M, $407B Calif: 33.8M, $1.55 trillion Why or why not? Obvious advantages are better Senate representation, and more responsive state government. No and So already have their own utility companies. \_ What do utilities have to do with anything? San Diego's is different from LA's. OC's is different from Pasadena's. As for representation, why not split CA into 50 states? Imagine how many senators we'd get then! There are a lot of restrictions and regulations on interstate commerce. Things would work okay as long as NoCal and SoCal stayed in synch, but what happens when they start to heavily diverge? For example, the NoCal people repeal Prop 13 and the SoCal people don't. Does the population shift? Such unforeseen changes can have unintended consequences. Why mess with a good thing? \_ because it's not a good thing? \_ Sure it is! CA is the best State in the USA! \_ Local self-determination is better for its own sake. Plus the above post. If they heavily diverge, then it's good because they WANT to diverge. It's called democracy. And there are NOT a lot of restrictions on interstate commerce. Read the Constitution. \_ Why not have city-states if you're into local self-determination? We can divide the nation into 100 square mile grids of self-determining fiefdoms. As for commerce, a big thing I was thinking of is farming. There are restrictions because of threat of transmission of pests/disease. Also, liquor is often restricted. There are other examples. |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Reference/BayArea, Recreation/Dating] UID:43307 Activity:nil |
6/7 I'm a noob to theater, but I have a GF that likes it, and will
be coming to the bat area to spend some time with me next month.
Any recommendations of something that will be good, but could
be appreciated by someone without much exposure to this sort
of thing.
\- I think theater means different things to different people ...
althought some have broad interests. First there is "literary"
theater vs popular theater [Hamlet vs. Pajama Game]. Next, are
you looking for high quality, evening on the town, expensive
productions [ACT, +$30tix] or cheep stuff in small theaters
[cost of the movie, sometimes version of well known plays, other
times you're picking based on plot/reviews]. You could try one of
the (free) shakespeare in the parks or shakespeare at stinson
[although hamlet may not be the best choice ... taming of the
shrew is pretty user friendly]. I'm exlcuding Opera, symphony but
including musicals. Given your parameters, do not under any
circumstances see the Oresteia.
\_ Taming of the Shrew, with a GF, is a bad choice. A lot of
'modern' women don't like it because the whole point of the
\- oh jesus. and part of the idea is making a
day out of it going out to stinson etc. is anybody
around here putting on 'Ado or 12N?
play is how Petruchio de-shrewifies Katarina... which women
will claim is misognyist. Though it's arguable, just beware.
Instead, go for Much Ado About Nothing or Twelfth Night;
both are some of the better comedies, and will please
everyone --michener
\_ The Exit theatre (http://www.sffringe.org tends to have
interesting productions for a small theatre. I tend not to like
ACT because the productions aren't worth the price of admission.
The SF Opera is actually pretty good, and you can get either
student or standing room tickets for really cheap if you're
willing to stand in line at 10 in the morning the day of.
\_ The Berkeley Rep has reliably good productions. See what its
current crop of plays is at the moment. -dans
\- i am actually interested in seeing moliere: miser. anybody seen
in and have a review? i dont think berkeley rep is that great.
the best thing i've seen on this side of the bay was probably
the shotgun player's version of Shaw's Man and Superman which
was quite good.
\_ The Shotgun Players aren't in the same league as the Berkeley
Rep. -dans |
| 2006/6/7 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA] UID:43308 Activity:nil |
6/7 Hi guys, someone sent me a 1.5 MB Word doc to my @csua.berkeley.edu
address. The mail was sent last night at 8:50pm, but from the e-mail
header, didn't arrived in my soda spool until 7:11am this morning.
Further in the header I can see that scotch received the e-mail ~
8:50pm, but for some reason the handover to soda didn't occur until
this morning. Is this normal? |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Transportation/Airplane, Transportation/PublicTransit] UID:43309 Activity:nil |
6/7 Private companies are more efficient at generating revenues, period.
If BART is willing to cut 1/2 of its unprofitable stops/destinations,
it would get a lot more profit as well. Ditto with toll roads and
bridges and the production of milk, wheat, and other things. All of
these services would get much more revenue if they're allowed to be
privatized and cut its abundance of supply to maximize return.
Wait, why don't we privatize FBI, CIA, and outsource our Marines to
the Indians and the Chinese as well? It'll be a lot cheaper and
efficient to run, and we'll all profit at the same time! Yeah!
\_ FBI, CIA, the military and such, provide public goods, which
means they're non-rival and non-excludable. The market can't provide
such services efficiently. What about public tranportation? It
doesn't necessarily have to be public. I heard the private urban
rail systems in Japan are generating healthy profits.
\- hello, a public good isnt necessarily non-excludable.
so a lighthouse isnt like medical knowledge
["excluding" by IP law]. also the govt could contract
a private agency to provide a public good ... of course
you can get into a debate about who is doing the "providing"
in that case [vaccine stockpiling], but this does take you
into the area of efficient regulation, which is an issue
when the govt desires to regulate a (natural) monopoly. i
think it is better to say the govt has a role not in the
when the govt desires to regulate a (natural) monopoly.
[see e.g. (UCB Dept of Econ) Ken Train: Optimal Regulation]
i think it is better to say the govt has a role not in the
case of public good but in the broader case of 1. market
failures 2. when "public policy" considerations trump
"efficiency considerations" [like the post office
delivering to each and every address for the same
price]. [n.b. i am admittedly somewhat broadening this to
"when should the govt intervene or regulate, rather than
"provide". it's a somewhat slippery distinction when you
consder something like say the SEC]. and now we return you
to tom's ramblings ...
failures (mkt fail not just public goods, but also address
hold out problem, externalized costs, IO structural factors
like natural monopoly perhaps in cases of high barriers to
entry depending on your view of "contestability theory,
and asymmetric information) 2. when "public policy"
considerations trump "efficiency considerations" [like
the post office delivering to each and every address for
the same price or profitable bus routes to subsidize
unprofitable ones or not letting rich people easily
buy their way out of traffic congestion by making HoV lanes
"for pay" lanes]. [n.b. i am admittedly somewhat broadening
this to "when should the govt intervene or regulate, rather
than "provide". it's a somewhat slippery distinction when
you consder something like say the SEC].
\_ "Maximizing profit" is not equivalent to "efficient," or even
particularly close. -tom
\_ BART is not efficient. Why have a proprietary train system
instead of something more common? Why have such an expensive
system for such limited usefulness due to sprawl? Companies
make more money by being more useful to their customers. Governments
get their taxes either way. Military and police have different
considerations so there's no point lumping that together.
\_ I'm not exactly aware of BART's charter, and though I agree with the
above poster about stupidity of their lack of standardization, a
lot of private suppliers of exclusive goods (i.e. only 1 radio
station can occupy a certain frequency in a given area, only one
highway can be in a certain space) have a mandate/charter/whatnot
to provide certain services (such as a train system stopping in a
given locality, even if only 1 person gets on.) So they won't
necessarily be able to either operate at top efficiency or maximize
their profit by their very nature. -John
\_ Amtrak. Nuff said.
\_ what about it? They have the government undermining their
business by building roads at taxpayer expense, and powerful
airline lobbies keeping them from providing better service
(bullet trains) which would make them more attractive. -tom
\_ Amtrak should be allowed to go out of business instead of
keeping it alive. Businesses can't manufacture demand for
their products, but the government can continue to produce
products no one wants.
\_ Hello, is it not possible to also have products that people
want and need which are simply not profitable to provide but
which are convenient and contribute to better standard-of-
living?
\_ No. If they want them then they will pay for them. We
aren't talking about a bridge which needs government
subsidies. We're talking about a mode of transport
that very few people use and which has been obsoleted.
\_ you mean, auto traffic? Because there's nothing
more obsolete and subsidized than auto traffic. -tom
\_ Excellent. We should allow all airlines to go out of
business as well, then.
\_ Sure, if they cannot fund themselves. However,
you would not see that happen if all subsidies
were eliminated. You'd just see higher airfares
and fewer carriers.
\_ This is where the public good becomes impacted.
It's in the interest of a vibrant economy to
provide a means by which more people can travel
to other parts of the country to spend their
money, just as it's in the interest of the
economy to keep the transportation costs of
goods low. When these costs go up, the overall
harm is greater than then amount saved by not
subsidizing. But I have no figures to back this
up, so I will admit to such now.
\_ If it makes sense economically then it
will happen on its own. You don't make,
for example, transportation costs go away
by subsidizing them. You just shift the
cost onto the taxpayers.
\_ I would agree but trains are not obsolete. They
can be pretty efficient, especially long haul
freight. We don't invest in them though. Investing
in a good rail system is in the government's
interest. The gov't basically subsidizes trucks
versus trains which is kind of silly. Trucks take
more drivers, more energy and pollution, impact
traffic, and damage roads which are expensive.
Perhaps passenger trains should go dodo though,
except in denser areas.
\_ Trains are obsolete as mechanisms for transporting
people across moderate-to-long distances. The
freight companies are doing just fine.
\_ Passenger trains do just fine in every
industrialized country which doesn't put
impossible barriers in the way. Specifically,
in Europe, high-speed rail's market share is
at least 75% of traffic for trips 3 hours
or shorter by train, and is still 25% for trips
of 5 hours by train. Not many would take the
train to NYC from SF, but a high-speed line
between SF and LA would be enormously
successful (again, if the state and the country
don't let politics and corporatism get in the
way of providing useful services to citizens).
-tom
\_ Passenger trains are heavily subsidized in
Europe, population density is much
higher, and distances are much shorter. What
is a train going to get me that a $150 plane
ticket (LA<->SF) won't except for a longer
commute time? I used to dream about a
bullet train between LA<-> Las Vegas, but
after taking the plane I don't see the
point to such a train, which is probably
why the plans never get off the ground.
\_ Airlines and roads are heavily
subsidized, too. Trains are much less
stressful, more flexible about luggage,
and more enjoyable than planes. They
also stop downtown instead of, you know,
way the heck out at the airport. If
there were a three-hour train ride between
SF and LA, at least half of the people who
currently fly would take the train. -tom
\_ Not if it costs the same as flying. Last
time I checked, it actually cost more.
\_ EuroStar carries 71% of the
London-Paris traffic and 64% of
London-Brussels. How is that
different than SF-LA? Do you have
any facts at all? -tom |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Computer/HW/CPU] UID:43310 Activity:nil |
6/7 INTC drops to three-year low. Time to buy?
\_ depends whether you think they'll gain the momentum back from
AMD. Sometimes there's a reason a company is at a three-year
low. -tom
\_ I want to kill all white male and inseminate as many hot blonde
women as possible as a revenge on the fall of
our glorious Eastern Empire.
\_ Kewl: http://tinyurl.com/o2jop (see below.) -John
\_ Yes, I suppose the current price reflects market uncertainty
about whether Conroe is the real shiznit. The latest test dated
yesterday is a bit more independent, with machines assembled and
software installed "without the help of Intel":
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2771
Then read the http://tomshardware.com and http://firingsquad.com previews
released on Monday:
http://csua.org/u/g3y (anandtech.com)
Hey, prime time to buy, right? Think critically about what
you've read so far, then see:
http://sharikou.blogspot.com/2006/06/our-coverage-of-anand.html
My conclusion from all the hard work some individuals have done
is that Conroe will perform at or below comparable AMD offerings,
will probably be less available, but will probably be cheaper -
but take that advice as from someone unwilling to sign.
but that's advice from someone who's unwilling to sign.
\- FYI, there is an interesting paper worth glacing at
by YELICK and some other berkeley/lbl people about the
IBM CELL PROCESSOR ... a little bit on the interesting
design [espe of the memory bus] and some bmarks on various
standarized scientific computations. obgoogle if interested. |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43311 Activity:nil |
6/7 http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/07/news/economy/greenspan_oil/index.htm Greenspan on speculators driving up oil prices and cashing out "Speculators...[T]end to advance the adjustment process so when corrections occur they are far less abrupt ... We are literally seeing significant acceleration of energy production in the corporate sector and a decline in demand. That would not have happened without the financial sector." Greenspan is a genius, so let's apply it to real estate: "Real estate speculators advance the adjustment process so when the bubble pops its far less abrupt (makes sense ... deflating bubble versus pop). We are seeing significant acceleration of housing construction (true, when the slope was positive) and a decline in demand (true, now the slope is level or dipping). That would not have happened without the real estate speculators." Genius!!1! |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:43312 Activity:nil |
6/7 Today I heard the Impeach Bush radio commercial for the very first
time. I was elated. Impeach Bush!
\_ If you impeach Bush, don't you get Cheney as president then?
That doesn't seem like a good trade off.
\_ Yes, I don't get it either. If there's an impeachment effort,
it should be for both the POTUS and VP, just like Lay and
Skilling of Enron. Condi isn't the best option, but hey, I'll
settle. |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, ERROR, uid:43313, category id '18005#35.455' has no name! , ] UID:43313 Activity:nil |
6/7 http://csua.org/u/g43 It should not be a surprise that the Republicans are willing to do things that are unethical to manipulate elections. \_ Oh and the Daleys of Chicago have been completely, honestly elected through the years without the use of a politcal machine. \_ and of course the mayor of Chicago is a position with prominence and importance similar to the President of the U.S. -tom \_ Funny you should point that out, esp. after it is confirmed that many dead people voted for JFK from Chicago area through the same political machine that helps the Daleys. \_ Oh! Right! As long as both sides are doing it, then it's totally okay! YESSIREEBOB! Thank you for your clear and objective insight! \_ Sad troll. The OP tried to make a connection about one party. I pointed out the hypocrisy of it. I bet you think politics started with Clinton? \_ You'd be wrong -- but that's okay, I expect that from partisan wingnuts. \_ He points out that both parties are dirty, and that makes him partisan? I think you need a dictionary. \_ I think you need better reading skills. \_ If you're looking for a JFK lover, you're barking up the wrong tree. -tom \_ You do know that JFK would have won the election without Illinois, right? -ausman \_ Shh.. it's ok if you're doing to for the greater good. \_ Said it before, I'll say it again, it's not okay for anyone. |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Uncategorized] UID:43314 Activity:nil |
6/7 Going to a 90's party. What's typical/classic 90's wear?
\_ Grunge. Wear flannel. |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:43315 Activity:nil |
6/7 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198566,00.html Unpatriotic Jap army Lieutenant refuses to deploy because of war objects. Maybe we should deport him or put him in the internment camp again. What a disgrace to America -conservative \_ Good one troll. Let's not forget it was Democrat's administration that did the internment but a Republican administration that apologized for it. \_ internment was a completely justified action, though their property should have been returned. Why no apologies or recognition for the Germans and Italians interns held until 1948? \_ and a conservative movement that thinks it wasn't a mistake to intern all U.S. citizens of Japanese heritage \_ and a conservative movement that thinks it was right to intern all U.S. citizens of Japanese heritage |
| 2006/6/7-9 [Computer/SW/OS/OsX] UID:43316 Activity:nil |
6/7 What, if any, is the best way to "convert" a PDF document to either
a text file or a Word document? I tried copying/pasting the text
(after highlighting it), but the document formatting is lost. I can
manually enter carriage returns, but it's a long document (~50 pages)
The entire document is just paragraphs of text. This is on a OS X
machine. Thanks.
\_ Open it in Adobe Acrobat (not Reader). -tom
\_ Or Distiller or use pdftotext on soda.
\_ there is used to be an unix command line called "ps2txt" or
something like that. |
| 12/23 |