| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2006/8/9 [Uncategorized] UID:43947 Activity:high |
8/9 On September 15, 1944, the German battleship Tirpitz was damaged by
RAF's Tallboy.
\_ On August 9, 1945, something else was damaged by a big bomb. -John
\_ On August 4, 1997, Skynet went on-line
\_ On August 29, 1997, Skynet became self-aware
\_ And?
\_ On August 9, 2006, something else was damaged by an Israelli bomb.
\_ On August 9, 2006, something else was damaged by a Hezbollah rocket.
\_ In A.D. 2101, war was beginning. |
| 2006/8/9-11 [Transportation/Bicycle] UID:43948 Activity:nil |
8/8 Totally insame bikers:
http://www.digave.com/videos/red-web.mpg
\_ Is Tom Holub in it?
\_ Nice spelling of the word "insane" -Dan Quayle
\_ keywords: insane crazy biker bikers bicyclist bicyclists
\_ keywords: cyclist cyclists new york city road bike unsafe |
| 2006/8/9 [Politics/Foreign/Canada] UID:43949 Activity:nil |
8/8 Wikipedia's most prolific author is canadian:
http://tinyurl.com/gm2qr (theglobeandmail.com) |
| 2006/8/9-11 [Uncategorized] UID:43950 Activity:nil |
8/8 First temp report on the E6600: Given 25C ambient, my case temp is 34C
and my proc temp at idle is also 34C, using a Zalman fan set to low.
I will do a stress test tomorrow after I install more stuff. -dgies
\_ Is it by any chance a Zalman 9500LED?
\_ As a matter of fact it is.
\_ That's good to hear because I'm planning on getting an
E6600 + this fan along with 2 very quiet 120mm case fans.
\_ Addendum: It gets up to 40C playing 3D games. Its possible that
something more vectorized could heat it up more. |
| 2006/8/9-11 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:43951 Activity:nil |
8/8 I want to replace the 30GB HD in a 1Ghz iBook. Will any notebook HD
do? Any recommendations? Price/Reliability more important than perf.
I'm looking at a Hitachi Travelstar or Seagate Momentus from newegg.
\_ I've used Travelstar's before in a PB, they are fine.
\_ I went through 2 Travelstars before installing a Seagate. |
| 2006/8/9 [Computer/Theory, Computer/SW/Security] UID:43952 Activity:nil |
8/9 Can someone update soda's ssh host keys on
http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/computing/hardware
I think the new keys are:
RSA - 9c:a4:3a:66:23:22:b0:2f:ba:87:2a:ca:03:c5:24:b6
DSA - 93:1d:30:88:65:a5:fa:38:6f:06:a3:86:12:0d:85:8b
\_ That's what you'd like us to believe. |
| 2006/8/9-11 [Recreation/House, Reference/Law] UID:43953 Activity:nil Cat_by:auto |
8/9 Annoyed at ValPak's junk mail in your mail box? Now you can request
to be taken off online! This is similar to a previous post on
Advo's mailing list, but it is another company. Save the earth,
save the tree, and screw all junk mail companies now! It takes about
2-3 months but hopefully it'll work: "Valpak is mailed to 45 million
households in North America each month. Due to the extensive lead
times needed to produce and mail Valpak, you may receive additional
mailings over the next two or three months until your address is
removed from our mailing lists."
http://www.coxtarget.com/mailsuppression/s/DisplayMailSuppressionForm
\_ I don't care about ValPak. How do I stop my local grocery stores
and those Pennysaver things? The fucking Post Office should be
forced to obey a "no bulk mail" list.
\_ You have to give your email address in order to unsubscribe from
their snail junk mail? I don't have a good feeling about it -tien
\_ I gave them my junk hotmail email address that I never use.
\_ Why would they require it at the first place? Maybe I am
pananoid but I am just not convinced that this page does
what it claims to do. -tien
\_ Yes. Every tree-hugging American can stop Valpak and save the
earth! Every little bit helps! Delusional crack-heads.
The Earth is doomed so long as humans exist. Period. The only
enviromentally-friendly move you can make is the one no beatnik
voluntarily does - commit suicide or at least get neutered.
\_ Suppose that you're an Orc, who lives in Mordor, and you hate
trees and all green growing things, and you want to Middle Earth
burn under a thousand years' of sooty flame. Wouldn't junk
mail still piss you off? Wouldn't it bother you just a tiny
bit when that big envelope you're hoping is a promotion from
the Dark Lord turns out to be another ad?
\_ Sure let's all drive SUVs and reproduce 8-12 kids a family.
While you're at it why don't we all smoke and drink till we
die early so that we will stop polluting the earth. Hell
why not drop the bomb that we'll all stop polluting. Fuck
the earth. Whatever, you fuck tard.
\_ Not making more Americans is probably the most environmentally
conscious thing someone can do in this country.
\_ explain that to the Republicans who over-reproduce the
Democrats by almost 2 to 1
\- i came across this interesting [assuming true] statistic:
We use about one-sixth of our electricity to cool
ourselves. That's more than the total electricity
consumption of India ...
\_ So what? The only bad thing about it is that we're spewing
hazardous byproducts. If we can just figure out how to
produce the energy in a manner which is only hazardous to
ourselves, there's no problem. Clean production is a much
bigger long-term win than conservation.
\_ One could even argue that the SUV driving republican
morons are actually helping develop clean production,
since they'll raise the profitability of sustainable
production by bringing the crisis on sooner.
\_ One could argue that, but one would sound like a
complete idiot. -tom
\_ Hypothetically, if one were to sound like a
complete idiot, one would have come to the
right place posting one's arguement on the CSUA
motd.
\_ its not really an issue of not making more americans -- US
population growth would be stagnant if not for the immigrants
(thats another story). The real huge problem is all the other
countries who are trying to be like americans. The
modernization of the third world and all.
\_ Hence the need to kill everyone. But no one wants to
start with themselves. Yes, you'll say why don't I.
But I'm not a hippie-commie. I'm damn glad to be popping
out as many kids as I can.
\_ thats no solution. The people who are willing to kill
themselves die, leaving the problem people behind to
reproduce at will and muck things up. You have to
kill yourself in the process of killing many others.
\_ Durka Durka Eco-Jihad!
\_ Knowing this, you should not kill yourself. The
problem people reproduce much faster than you can
destroy them. Eventually their police-state
apparatus will eliminate you in your work.
Our best hope is a biological superweapon a la
12 Monkeys. Our research is promising my brothers.
\_ Or you can sit in your windowless basement room
with the lights off watching 12 Monkeys until
you no longer care.
\_ Immigration & the modernization of other countries are
not things I have direct control over. Not knocking
someone up is something I have direct control over.
\_ I like ValPak. -proud American |
| 2006/8/9-14 [Computer/Networking, Computer/SW/OS/Linux] UID:43954 Activity:nil |
8/9 Linux question. We have a simple server that recieves TCP/IP
connections concurrently with a threadpool, creating new threads
as necessary. It's showing a weird performance quirk where, if
you increase the number of concurrent connections, the connection
time increases slowly, from .1s. At 16 connections it's
about .2s. However, the 17th connection takes 1.2s, a large
jump. The connection times continue increasing slowly from
there, although there are little jumps at 48 and similar
multiples of 16. slowly. Is there some magic kernel number 16,
above with establishing a TCP/IP connection takes a long time?
\_ Stupid question, does your threadpool have a max number of
threads?
\_ Yes, but it's 1024, which is actually higher than the kernel
seems to be able to generate.
\_ Java threads? pthreads?
\_ pthreads, it's all C or C++ code on chaos Linux,
(although we were able to duplicate the problem on
RedHat,)
\- i dunno what the linux equiv of tcp_conn_hash_size
is, but i'd personally be interested if changing
bumping that up changes the behavior.
is, but i'd personally be interested if bumping that
up changes the behavior.
\_ No. -proud American |
| 2006/8/9-14 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:43955 Activity:moderate |
8/9 Poll, what do you personally do to help the environment? Recycle?
Planting trees? Ride a bicycle? Nothing?
\_ I pull out so that I don't over-reproduce more kids who'll
pollute the earth.
\_ I live my life the way I like it, because I simply don't give a
damn about you hippies. Global warming is not going to affect
me before I die. -Republican
\_ AMERICA! AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!!! -T.E.A.M. America World Police
\_ I strictly adhere to Al Gore's example. He leads. I follow.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
\_ I don't drive a Hummer. In addition I'm living in a cramped home
instead of a luxurious suburbian home that is far away.
\_ I could go on about how I don't own a car and how I bike
"everywhere", but I think i use as much oil for my plane travel
as a typical car commuter. How do those compare anyway?
\_ do you think car commuters don't travel by plane?
\_ not really. that's why summer auto use sky rockets from
all the SUV driving, 8 kids having, mouth breathing, red
state voting, Gh0d fearing, bible thumping morons. blue
staters don't have summer travel plans and don't fly either.
\_ plane use also skyrockets in the summer. Are you really
this dense? -tom
\_ I drive a Chevy Suburban instead of a Hummer, thus saving lots of
gasoline. I hate Hummers. http://ihumpedyourhummer.com
Seriously though, I don't find myself polluting as much as say,
the people in Brentwood or Beverly Hills for the simple fact
that I can't afford expensive stuff that tend to pollute, like a
Porsche, a big house, nice clothes (that use up more packaging and
more material and require more shipping), etc. My guess is that
the amount of pollution one emits has some tendency to do with
one's personal wealth. There are always exception of course so
I'm speaking in terms of averages.
\_ Are you out of your mind? Expensive clothes likely pollute
less. In fact, I would guess that the wealthy tend to
pollute less when comparing like items, because they can
afford to buy organic, natural, and so on. They can afford
to maintain their cars and/or buy new ones with lower emissions.
In short, they can afford the added expense of reducing
pollution. It's the poor who cannot afford to. They are the
ones driving that 1969 Impala smoking on the freeway, buying
clothes made of oil, and eating $1 double cheeseburgers
which are contributing to global warming and the destruction
of rain forests in South America.
\_ What's the gas mileage of your Chevy Suburban?
\_ 6.9 miles per gallon on surface streets. --proud American
\_ Commute by bus from Union City to Foster City. Bring my own bags to
grocery stores. Recycle (as a third resort after Reduce and
Re-use.) Power-off my machines and monitors when leaving work.
Take the stairs instead of elevators. (It happened that a PG&E
energy audit at my company found that the elevators are the #1
energy hogs in the company.)
\_ Machine(s)? Monitor(s)? Only powered off when leaving work?
Why do you have multiples and why do you only power off when
leaving work? Do you power off everything when you go to
lunch? Meetings? When someone stops by to chat for a few
minutes? How much of Gaia's life force do you murder every
day chattering away on soda?! Have you sterilised yourself
or taken a vow of abstinence? Have you signed a blood pact
to kill yourself when you're no longer carbon neutral? You
could be doing so much more! Well at least you bring your own
bags to grocery stores. That helps a lot.
\_ I have multiple machines because I need multiple machines to
do work. (VM doesn't work.) Sorry, I lied about monitor*s*.
I actually only have one. How do I do work if I power off the
machines while I'm working? I don't "go to" lunch because I
eat at my desk. I do power off the stuff when I go to
meetings. -- PP
\_ Have you been sterilised yet? Taken the carbon neutral
blood oath?
\_ Did you kill yourself and rot so as to contribute your
carbon to the environment?
\_ Holy CRAP!!! I find this fact about elevators extremely
suprising. Are elevators no longer run off of a counterweight?
I would have though that because of the counterwieght, the amount
of work done would only be that required to lift your body, which
shouldn't be much.
\_ Accelerating the elevator cage, the counter weight, and the
passengers (if any) from zero requires energy. I guess
elevators don't have regenerative brakes, so you don't get
the energy back when decelarating. The bigger the elevator,
and the higher the speed it travels, the more energy it
consumes.
consumes. -- PP
\_ I intentionally bought a home three miles from work, in a
walking district. I've been car-free for over 15 years. We
have a 3KW solar electric system which provides all our power.
Plus lots of feel-good fairly meaningless stuff like recycling. -tom
\_ All your power? So I assume you store power in a battery array
for night power use? How big is your battery array? How much
area does your solar collector take up? Where did you go to
start learning about this stuff when you first decided to do
it? thanks.
\_ Don't know what his setup up is, but most people stay
connected to the power grid and use something called
"net-metering". Basically you can produce more power
in the day time and put power back to the grid (and
the meter spins backwards). During night time you
use power from the grid. If you size you system right,
you can essentially have net grid usage of zero.
\_ Exactly. We are still grid-tied, but for the year we've
had the system, we've generated more power than we've
used. Unfortunately, with time-of-use metering they
need an electronic meter, so you don't actually get to
see it spin backwards; we did see that for the first
month we had it installed. -tom
\_ If you don't mind saying, how much did the system cost
to get installed? How long is it expected to last
before requiring maintenance or replacement? Thanks.
\_ After discounts and rebates and such, it was about
$18K. Maintenance should be nothing more than
cleaning the panels once or twice a year. Most
of the components are rated for 20 years and will
probably last longer than that: it may be
economical to replace them at some point, depending
on what happens with solar technology over the
next 20 years. -tom
\_ Not bad. I figured your break even point is about
the 12 year mark guessing you're using an average
of $200/month in electricity. Unfortunately, the
rebates and breaks aren't that big anymore so a
similar system now costs over $30k which means it
isn't possible to break even in the 20 year life
span of the system. I assumed a 4% rate of
return on your money and zero cost/profit on your
electric usage over the 20 years. If I could get
one for $18k I'd probably do it.
\_ I think the break-even point is a lot sooner
than that, because the solar system increases
the value of the house. Maybe not by $18K,
but certainly by an appreciable fraction
of $18K. -tom
\_ I thought of that but to get money back that
way you'd have to sell. The closer you
sell to the 20 year mark the less the system
is worth. If you sell earlier then you
don't get the full benefit of having it.
Also, I'm guessing it really doesn't add
that much anyway. For example, having a
pool doesn't add anything to a house. Some
people want one, some people hate them, so
your potential buyer base drops and overall
a pool generally adds zero. Anyway, your
18k is a good price and you'll make it back
by any reasonable numbers before the 20
year mark. Pricing is higher now so that
is no longer true for new units,
unfortunately.
\_ Solar system != pool. A pool is
\_ granted. see below for rest.
expensive to maintain, can be an
attractive nuisance, and is actively
dangerous if you have kids. It is
implausible that anyone would reject
a given house because it has a solar
system; it's an improvement like
new plumbing or central heating which
will consistently be viewed as adding
value. -tom
\_ But it is a depreciating asset. At
some point having an expensive thing
that will cost a lot to replace or
repair becomes a negative. The
closer to the 20 year mark, the more
negative it becomes. I like having
a roof on my house. I would not like
buying a house with a 30 year old
roof.
\_ Your central heating system is
also a depreciating asset.
Heck, the whole house is a
depreciating asset. -tom
\_ No. Central heat/ac is not
considered an add-on option.
Nor is a roof, front door,
windows, or kitchen appliances.
A solar system is. The rest of
the house can go up in value
over time even as it falls down
but a house with a nearly broken
bonus item is worth less than
a house that never had it. I'm
honestly happy for you that you
got a system cheap but you're
not increasing your house value
with it.
\_ It seems to me that both of
you are ignoring
1) the fact that energy prices
could go *way* up in the
future, changing the
economic comparisons and
1) the fact that energy
prices could go *way* up
in the future, changing
the economic comparisons
and
2) Having a reliable solar
electric system(along with
batteries and inverter)
protects you from
blackouts, which could be
a major asset beyond any
economic consideration.
\_ Batteries are probably
not a net win in urban
settings; they increase
the expense and
maintenance quite a
bit. Since I'm grid-
tied, when the grid
goes down, so do I,
although if there
were some long-term
problem with the grid
I could disconnect
and just generate
power during the day.
-tom
\_ Why don't you
have batteries?
My coworker does
with his solar
system which is
tied to the grid.
When the power
goes out, he
stays lit - day
or not. Is that
an option?
\_ It's an option,
but it's
expensive, takes
up a lot of
space, and
requires
fairly frequent
maintenance
(battery
reconditioning).
-tom
\_ Separate trash (but mainly to make the poor bastards who go through
trash for recyclables here not have such a miserable time), turn
of unneeded appliances/lights, take public transport when I can,
not buy wasteful packaging. -John
\_ I do nothing. In HS, I made sure to throw six-pack plastic
binders directly in the ocean on school trips.
\_ Carpool to work, bought a TerraPass, recycle, mulch when I mow the
lawn.
\_ I recycle my condoms. I don't want to pollute the Earth with
excess latex in the landfills. Chicks love it. -proud American
latex. Chicks dig it. -proud American
\_ Live five miles from work and bicycle or take MUNI back and forth.
Don't own a car at all. Recycle, reuse and all that. -ausman
\_ We recycle as much of our waste and garden clippings as possible
(SJ has a pretty good recycling pgm), and I'm probably going to
be working ~ 2 mi from my house when I graduate so I can RIDE BIKE!
to work. I'm planning to go partially off grid w/ a solar system
in the next year. |