| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2006/10/9-10 [Computer/Rants] UID:44727 Activity:low |
10/9 What's so hot about e-bill or other web-based payment systems for
paying utility bills? The old-fashioned method of automatic payment
from checking accounts has existed for more than 20 years, and it
doesn't even require any user action as some e-bill methods do.
\_ Plus if you're a hermit and set up all your bills this way, you
can die in your apartment or house and it can take years for
people to discover your dead body which is cool.
\_ I'd rather have user action (don't like automatic deductions),
and I'd rather not have paper bills or checks. -tom
\_ I agree with tom. I don't like automatic deductions.
\_ Specifically, say you cancel your service with a company
but for some reason they keep billing you. With direct
withdrawal, they're still taking money out of your account
every month until you get it worked out; with the modern
systems, you can choose to cut them off any time you want.
Here's the setup I use: whenever my bill payer receives a
bill for me, they automatically *schedule* it to be paid
in a few weeks. If I'm paying attention, I can log in and
edit or cancel the payment before it goes out; if I'm not
edit or cancel the payment before it goes out. If I'm not
paying attention, my bills still get paid. |
| 2006/10/9-10 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:44728 Activity:nil |
10/9 Support plug-in hybrids:
http://www.pluginpartners.org |
| 2006/10/9-10 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll] UID:44729 Activity:nil |
10/8 Sorry for this nerdy question in the midst of N.Korea nuke debate.
Soda has webdav installed, right? can i in theory use soda as my
personal calendar server? |
| 2006/10/9-10 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea, Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:44730 Activity:high |
10/8 So was the October Surprise a N. Korean underground nuke test?
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/ustqab.php
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,218699,00.html
\_ Hey, seriously, I am a liberal and oppose our invasion of Iraq.
But in this case, i really think we need to think about use
military force against the N.Koreans. It will be a while before
they actually weaponize the nukes. Allowing them to have nukes
is dangerous just because they don't mind selling it to the highest
bidder! Further, we need to remove any excuse for Japan get its
nukes.
\_ If we use military action against North Korea, it'll be the
Korean War from 1950 - 1953 all over again, with the strong
possibility of China backing North Korea (as they did before
from 1950 - 1953). That would be World War III. But yeah,
other than those pesky details, your idea makes sense.
\_ Part of any pre-invasion plan will be an understanding
between the U.S. and China about N. Korean reconstruction.
\_ Uhm, no. History does repeat itself but the cliche doesn't
mean it like that. It's a comment on human nature not history
itself per se. Anyway, the Korean war was part of the whole
anti-communist containment/rollback strategy at the time. No
one would consider any such action without China's advanced
consent this time. Totally different situation. But if the
consent this time. Totally different situation. But if
China were willing to allow an invasion they're much more
likely first to simply cut off NK from food and oil if having
a nuke-fre NK is their goal. They could do so at anytime and
the fact that they haven't makes me believe they want NK to
have nukes.
\_ I don't think China wants NK to have nukes. To China,
there is always the risk of the North uniting with the
South. When it eventually happens, Korea most likely won't
be as "left" or as communist as it is today. I don't think
China likes to see a non-alley neighbor having nukes. This
downside is not worth the upside of a close alley having
nukes. The upside is not much anyway, given that China
itself already has nukes.
\_ NK is like the mad dog on the end of China's leash but
it is still China's dog. They have nukes because China
let them have nukes. With out Chinese oil and food aid
the place would completely collapse. The Chinese are
more concerned about millions of hungry NK heading to
their border than they are about NK nukes.
\_ "Mr. President, this is not the hour of our weakness. This
is the hour of our strength. If the Chinese cross the
Yalu, I will make of them the greatest slaughter in the
history of warfare. They have no means for giving ground
... air support to the ground troops. And they cannot do
it and I do not believe they will."
If only Truman had been smart enough to listen to MacArthur,
the NK issue would not exist today.
\_ In a way, you're absolutely right. If Truman had listened
to MacArthur, human civilization would not exist today.
By extension, neither would the NK issue.
\_ human civilization wouldn't exist? Oh please....
\_ Truman would have provoked nuclear war.
\_ Let's assume this is true. The US had how many
bombs? Dozens? A few hundred tops? China and
Russia had how many between them? And what
ability to deliver them outside their own borders?
What is much more likely is China either retreats
or they nuke back. If they retreat it's over. If
they nuke back, then Korea becomes a waste land,
a lot of people die, we may have nuked China back
directly in which case even more people die, then
China is forced to capitulate after their country
is a wasteland. So, worst case, China and Korea
are gone, best case, Korea/China border is nuked
out. Either way, "The Whole World Is Dead! OMG!
WTF! BBQ!" is not a serious proposition. Of
course this all sucks big time if you're Korean
or Chinese but that is not the same as "the end
of civilization".
\_ Heh. You remind me a lot of George C. Scott's
character in Dr. Strangelove. "Mr. President,
I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair
mussed! I'm saying two or three million dead
TOPS....err, depending on the breaks!"
\_ Whatever. The point remains. The world
would not have ended. The nukes were much
smaller, harder to deliver and fewer in
number. I'm not saying I'm in favor of
having nuked China at the time. I'm saying
the sky wouldn't have turned to blood or
rain frogs or everyone's first born male
child died in the night.
\_ Seconded. Bomb the crap out of them. --other lefty
\_ You're kidding, yes? This is the perfect time for sanctions
and other non-military arm twisting and you want to bomb?
Iraq was due for an invasion after years of failed sanctions
and many on the left wanted to simply end sanctions and walk
away because sanctions weren't hurting the right people....
I find the whole thing fascinating.
\_ Who are you who are so wise in the ways of geopolitics?
\_ Sanctioning NK won't hurt the right people either. You
think Kim Jong-Il will starve before all the civilians do?
\_ The people are already starving. Once the army is
starving things may change.
\_ if China impose a sanction, N.Korea probably will implode.
This is of course something YOU want, but it is not
something China nor South Korean wants. Why? just think
in terms of illegal immigration issue... except that
million of them going to try to get across the broder in
the period of weeks. Unless you are ready to allow
Chinese mow down those N.Korean refugees with machine gun
fire, and you have a plan for post-implode N.Korea, I
recommend you STFU.
\_ Yes, Karl Rove planted nuke tech in NK going back to the early
90s having forseen the need almost 15 years in advance for an
October Surprise in the 2006 mid term elections. The man is
the Devil!
\_ Just curious, the test was 10:36am local time (N and S Korea).
About when did news of the test go out on the wire actually?
\_ About an hour afterwards, based on Google News timestamps.
\_ world leaders will agree that n korea escalated unnecessarily.
Dubya and GOPers will talk tough and the intl media for once will
agree with this posture.
\_ Why would the international media matter? Anyway this isn't the
time to talk military strike. It is the time to squeeze them
dry of food, oil, and cash. |
| 2006/10/9-10 [Science/GlobalWarming, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:44731 Activity:very high |
10/8 Bush diplomacy comes to its logical conclusion:
Threatening three countries, labeling them the "Axis of Evil" and
then invading one of them for no real reason causes the other two
to pursue nuclear weapons to defend themselves. Good job, neocons,
are you actually double agents out to destroy America or are you just
that stupid?
\_ you are unamerican. there is a "relationship" between Iraq and
9/11. And we are making progress in Iraq:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6221366
(NPR: U.S. Monthly Toll in Iraq at Highest Point in 2 Years)
see, we are breaking records!
\_ Except for the fact that all three countries were working on nukes
many years before 2000, this is an excellent analysis. ;-)
\_ missing the point. imagine if we are not stuck in Iraq,
we would of have a lot more options against N.Korea, no?
\_ No, not really. Even with a WWII sized draft size army we
would not invade NK. Current military doctrine is to bomb
from high flying jets/bombers and missiles from Navy TF way
over the horizon, not put a million men on the ground.
\_ And Israel demonstrated how effective that is when they
used it against Hezbollah.
\_ I didn't say it was effective. Anyway, the NK have the
sort of traditional WWII style army which it would
*mostly* work against but that wouldn't matter anyway.
\_ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html
WASHINGTON. The chief U.S. arms inspector in Iraq has found
no evidence of weapons of mass destruction (search) production
by Saddam Hussein's (search) regime after 1991.
no evidence of weapons of mass destruction production
by Saddam Hussein's regime after 1991.
U.S. officials also said the report shows Saddam was much
farther away from a nuclear weapons program in 2003 than he
was between 1991 and 1993; there is no evidence that Iraq and
Al Qaeda exchanged weapons; and there is no evidence that
Al Qaeda and Iraq shared information, technology or personnel
in developing weapons.
\_ Yeah no kidding "after 1991". What a weird date to go by.
I wonder what happened at that time? And how exactly do
we know all this? We had to invade to find out. Thanks
for the update.
\_ Um, is this sarcasm? Desert Storm happened in 1991.
\_ Yes that was sarcasm pointing out that "no big surprise
that after 1991 Hussein's ability to produce weapons
was greatly reduced since he just got smashed". And
"being farther or closer" to nukes isn't the point at
all anyway since it was about all 3 countries having
worked on a nuke program long prior to 2000. GWB has
screwed up any number of things like all Presidents
(because they're human) but Iraq, Iran and NK working
on nukes had *nothing* to do with him as the op
falsely claims. Lay blame where it belongs but there's
no need to rewrite history to create fault where none
exists.
\_ So you don't think threatening to invade a country
has anything to do with them working on producing
weaponry? What color is the sky in your world?
\_ The nukes were in development while Bush JR was
in rehab. Go see what the OP said. It flies
in the face of reality. Was Clinton threatening
them? Bush Sr? Reagan? No. So why build
nukes? Lots of reasons but none of them having
to do with Bush Jr. threatening them or the US
in general. Blue. If you want to drag this to
some other topic, that's fine, but what you're
saying has nothing to do with the OP's claims.
\_ They *were* in development, then Iraq
*stopped* working on them. NK *was* working
on them, then *stopped* working on them,
until they were threatened. I honestly
don't know the status of Iran's nuclear
weapon program but it certainly was
accelerated after Bush's threat to Iran.
Do you honestly believe that these countries
slowed down their weapon's research in
response to a credible outside threat?
Is this your serious contention?
\_ Iraq stopped because they got crushed in
GW1, geeze. Iran never stopped as far as
we know. NK never stopped for any lengthy
period of time as far as we know. And in
each case they were started during a
previous administration. This is historic
fact. I make no other contentions in
that regard. As far as Iran goes, btw,
their original reason for the pro-nuke
policy change from their original "nukes
are against the Koran" policy was getting
their ass kicked by Iraqi gas attacks.
That wasn't Jr's fault either. As far as
their speed of research goes, I'm sure
they were already going as fast as possible
because getting them second in the region
doesn't have nearly the same weight as
being first. What gave you the idea they
were just slowly crawling along until the
Great Satan turned his Evil Eye their way?
Is it your contention that NK and Iran and
Iraq had no serious interest in nukes until
the Great Satantic Dictator came to power
in the US and all was rainbows and
chocolate rivers before that? Seriously,
give it a rest. This is all history book
stuff.
\_ Yes, it is my serious contention that
Iraq was not doing any nuclear research
and not only was not making progress
towards developing one, they were
actually going backwards as they
lost skill and capability. This is not
just my contention, it was the finding
of the bipartisan Iraq commission. Do
you dispute those findings? Lots of
countries "have interest" in things.
We should not start wars because
of a nations interest in something,
only because it is an actual threat.
Furthermore, it is my contention that
NK was mostly abiding by the terms of
the Clinton sponsored UN guidelines,
where they agreed to halt nuclear
research in return for free nuclear
power. Soon after Bush's "Axis of Evil"
speech, NK renounced the agreement,
broke the seals on the nuclear rods
and turned off the UN nonitor cameras.
The CIA agrees with me, btw, at least
according to The Washington Times,
a paper not usually known for its
pro-Clinton stance:
http://www.csua.org/u/h5f
"North Korea announced last year that
it had a secret program to enrich
uranium for nuclear weapons. It then
expelled international inspectors who
had been monitoring the nuclear weapons\
freeze and restarted the small
5-megawatt reactor. "
\_ Uh, yes, secret NK program. Thanks
for making my point there. As far
as Iraq goes, of course they went
backwards after GW1. What else
would happen? And they had to go
backwards from something, meaning
they had already conducted research.
Man, I thought I was going to have to
go find an actual link when I first
saw how long your post was with a
link and all but all you've done is
support what I've been saying all
along: those 3 countries had nuke
programs while Jr. was in rehab.
Thanks for saving me the hassle of
finding a link. I'll take your WT
link as is. Going home now. Have a
nice evening.
\_ So I guess we agree that I have
made my point: Bush's trash talking
and belligerent warmongering have
resulted in America being less
safe. Thanks for playing. |
| 2006/10/9-10 [Computer/SW/Languages/Java, Recreation/Dating] UID:44732 Activity:high |
10/9 I remember one winter semester during an El Nino year when, starting
in January, some rain fell almost every single day. Attendance at
lectures was pretty minimal.
I remember occasionally thinking about buying an umbrella, but I was
sure that as soon as I did the rain would stop. That didn't actually
happen until May.
\_ your memory is incorrect.
\_ I never bought an umbrella. There was always one sitting around
somewhere someone else lost. Well, ok, my first year I bought one
and lost it. It's just umbrella karma.
\_ Was it 1992 or 1993? I remember in a March of either of this year,
it rained every single day. -- Class of '93
\_ it felt like it rained every other day from 92-94. housing
sucked. profs didn't seem like they're genuinely interested in
teaching and certainly didn't have time to talk to you. smelly
eecs TAs seriously needed to retake esl. the counselors at cal
really sucked and treated their jobs like temps cuz they were.
a super hot b-school-wannabe freshman that i had a serious
crush on used me to do her cs9x projects and other assignments.
after i finished her b-school pre-reqs she ditched me and
started dating my former buddy. FUCKING BITCH I HATE YOU!!!
AND FUCK YOU ALL GREEDY BUSINESS MAJORS!!! anyways around that
time i also started taking a lot of anti-depressants and light
recreational drugs. i carefully crafted my suicide note during
the most depressing, cold and wet winter semester I ever
experienced at cal. i planned my suicide carefully for the
coming spring to minimize pain for my family members but when
spring actually came, i just couldn't do it. maybe it was the
improving weather, i don't know. summer came and i ended
up taking a leave of absence. if i had stayed any longer
i'd surely committed suicide. afterall, i already spent many
hours of hard labor on the suicide note, oh well.
in short, i really really really really really hate berkeley.
\_ So you met this chick on day 3 of class, did her home work,
got nothing for it and got dumped? Where in there did you
think you had a gf?
\_ Well she cooked for me and lived at my place for a few
days when I had to do her projects. No we didn't have
sex, but she was so sweet to me when she needed my help
it was pretty much my first girl friend experience. BITCH
\_ OMG, you didn't even get laid? So she came by and
said, "do my class for me". You did all the work over
3-4 days just before the deadline, ignored your own
work, class, sleep and health and all you got was a
few meals and a room mate. Sorry mate but that wasn't
your first gf experience. That was in no way shape or
form a girl friend. If you'd asked any of your friends,
family or even the motd at the time they'd all have told
you what was going to happen.
\_ In 2006 we broke the record for days of rain in March, at 25.
And there's a whole month between March and May. -tom
\_ I have bad memory then. -- Class of '93
\_ I was thinking of 94-95. Days of rain: Jan 26, Feb 3, Mar 17,
Apr 14. Almost every day is an admitedly an exaggeration,
but it was a pretty damp winter/spring.
http://ggweather.com/sf/daily.html#b - op
\_ Are you sure it wasn't 97-98? We had like 3 months straight
rain in Berkeley then.
\_ 14 days in March, 10 days in April.
\_ but 18, 10, 22, 20 for Nov->Feb. That's pretty bad
especially considering Nov and Dec aren't normally
that wet in CA. In fact at 47+inches of rain that year
it beats the second wettest year in that data set (from
1960-now) by over 12 inches, or 33% more!
\_ The wettest being last year?
\_ Last year was the second wettest. 97-98 was the
wettest.
\_ 2004-05 was the wettest in SoCal since 1883
in terms of inches of rain. 2005-06 was
the wettest in terms of days of rain. Where
does one find the Bay Area totals?
\_ There's a link about 15 lines up.
\_ No, that year I was living in SF. I have memories of that
one too. Maybe I'll post another "I remember" entry about
it in the future. :) - op |
| 2006/10/9-10 [Uncategorized] UID:44733 Activity:nil |
10/9 Sony's Casino Royale commercial (shades of ID4?):
http://www.youtube.com/v/IZEov48p8V0
This one actually makes the movie look better than the trailer.
-stmg |
| 2006/10/9-10 [Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:44734 Activity:nil |
10/9 France to ban public smoking:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6032125.stm
\_ Good. The one thing I couldn't stand in Paris was walking into
any restaurant only to get a whif of everyone else's smoke.
\_ Smoking ban in Italy reduces heart attacks in non-smokers exposed to
second-hand smokes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5398836.stm
\_ Um, hardly conclusive.
\_ Your reasoning being ...... |
| 2006/10/9-10 [Uncategorized] UID:44735 Activity:nil |
10/9 Is there any search engine where a search like this:
exim4 'real-@' -' real '
will work?
\_ Given the way they tokenize, I doubt it. Symbol and code searching
is generally very poor. |
| 2006/10/9-10 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:44736 Activity:kinda low |
10/9 BBC radio just now said the NK nuke was estimated to be 1Kt and may
have been conventional or a failed nuke.
\_ Russia is saying the blast is between 5 and 15 kilotons, and it
has a border with N Korea and helped them build the plant used to
produce plutonium.
\_ Since when did Russia share a border with North Korea? I thought
China was to the north of North Korea, and South Korea was to the
south of North Korea. The rest of North Korea is surrounded by
\_ Um, moron, look at a world map or atlas. Russia does not share
a border with North Korea. China shares a border with the north
side of North Korea. South Korea shares a border on the southern
side of North Korea. The rest of North Korea is surrounded by
water.
\_ NK shares a small part of its far NE border with Russia.
\_ Uh, SK has a border with NK too. So? And what's it matter who
built the plant that produced the plutonium unless they were
involved in building the bomb or testing it? I don't get what
you're trying to say.
\_ Russian nuclear expertise, duh
\_ "duh"? You have no in way explained how the Russian claim
of 5-15Kt is more reliable than the other reports of 1Kt.
"Russian nuclear expertise" left hanging by itself is no
answer to anything. They let you into college?
\_ use your brain, don't make ppl spoonfeed it to you
\_ So you've got nothing. Thanks for not participating.
I believe this is where I say "duh" in response and
the whole thing disolves into purely personal attack.
\_ Korea has nukes? Great. Now we wait for the red dot on the ground.
"Nuclear launch detected"
\_ There's never an Observer around when you need one.
\_ And China's trying to blind our comsats!
\_ Don't worry, Bush, our benevolent Overlord has Vision[tm]! |
| 2006/10/9-10 [Science/Disaster] UID:44737 Activity:nil |
10/9 Jane's on NK test:
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jdw/jdw061009_2_n.shtml
'The figure of .55 kT, however, seems too low given the 4.2 register
on the Richter scale. This could suggest - depending upon the
geological make-up of the test site - a yield of 2-12 kT. If,
however, the lower yield is correct, it would suggest that the test
had been a "pre- or post-detonation" event (ie a failure), as it had
been anticipated that North Korea's first nuclear test would have a
significantly higher yield." |
| 2006/10/9-10 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:44738 Activity:high |
10/9 So this whole plugin hybrid campaign thing... Wouldn't that completely
fuck the CA power grid if even a few % of drivers bought those?
\_ the real issue is not rather CA power grid can handel it.
I was told that if we modify it to make it plugin, it will
drastically reduce the life span of the rechargable battery of those
Prius, thus make the car a lot more prohibitive than it would
otherwise.
\_ Electric power means "pollute elsewhere." The only way to reduce
pollution is nuclear-- which will decimate population and reduce
consumption, period.
\_ Not necessarily. A large power plant can run cleaner than a
bunch of little power plants. And nuclear seems to work in
France.
\_ no it doesn't. French are racist and they have no problem
dumping nuclear waste in some French colony in the Southern
Pacific and completely disregards of people live there.
Unless we decided that it is ok to mimic what French does
in our Indian Reservation, the it is unlikely to work.
\_ Those aren't "our" reservations. They are sovereign states
that you would have to buy the right from to dump on.
They are not colonies.
\_ You're also forgetting the fact that "well to wheel", electric
vehicles are far more efficient than the most efficient gas
powered vehicles (including hybrids).
\_ Probably not. We can assume most people would plugin their car
at night, which wouldn't have high electric utilization
anyway.
\_ Yes, the power grid has no ability to power a significant number
of electric cars right now. -tom
\_ Thanks tom! I guess we're fucked... If only there were some sort
of efficient human powered form of transportation... Nah, now I'm
just being stupid.
\_ Really? I just did a "back of napkin" calculation. CA ISO
was providing 50,000 MW of power during the hottest summer
day. At night, the usage is typically half of that (or
less). Let's assume we have at least 15k MW spare capacity.
I just checked the experimental plugin Prius. They have
the battery at 9kWhr. Let's assume we can charge it (at
night) 1kW for 9 hours. This means the spare power capacity
can potentially charge 15 million plugin prius. I wouldn't
call that insignificant. Of course my calculation could
be off by a power of 10 (or more).
\_ We don't produce the same power off-peak; the only way
we could would be to burn more natural gas. -tom
\_ Not disagreeing with you on this. My point is that
a lot of the infrastructure is there for providing
"peak" power. Why not use the capacity for off-peak.
Of course we'll burn more natural gas, coal,
whatever. Energy is not free.
\_ I think the infrastructure problem occurs more when a ton of
people plug in their cars when they get home at 6pm on a
scorching summer day or worse yet, while at work in the middle
of the afternoon.
\_ Well, yeah, the problem is that if we suddendly were
deriving, say, 5% of the power used by autos during
commute hours off the grid, we wouldn't have nearly
the capacity. 1 horsepower = 745 watts; do the math. -tom
\_ Here's the math. Say during one full day's driving,
your car needs to output the equivalent of 200hp lasting
10min (very unlikely) and not re-capturing any of this
10min (very unlikely) and not re-capture any of this
via re-generative brakes. That's 33.3hp-hr. Say you
charge your car between 10pm-8am. Then the charger
needs to provide power at 3.33hp. That's 2485.7W,
which is about the same as two hair driers. Of course,
since neither charging nor motor-driving are 100%
efficient, in reality you need more than two hair
driers' power to provide 200hp-10min's of driving.
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/h5e (http://www.pluginpartners.org
"There is a synergy between increased use of PHEVs and expanded use
of wind energy. Widespread use of PHEVs in an electric system makes
it easier for that system to accept more wind energy. This is
because most PHEVs will be charging at night, when demand for
electricity is at its lowest, and wind energy production tends to be
at its highest in many parts of the country. Also, PHEV batteries
can act as storage for wind energy produced at off-peak times."
\_ This would make sense if there was a switch on your car charger
to only charge your car if the wind is blowing. Otherwise,
they're firing up those polluting, expensive backups to
charge your car when you ain't a blowin' in da wind.
\_ Those polluting expensive backups are still usually cleaner
than car engines. See the FAQ at the link above.
\_ plug-in hybrid makes a lot more sense when combined with
a charger system that has a timer to control when it charges,
and time-of-use metering at the home to encourage users to set
the system to charge on off-peak hours. The off-peak power is
cheaper to generate and tends to use large power plants that
produce more efficiently but respond slowly to power demand
changes, such as hydro and nuclear. The peaker plants that run
at peak hours usually are burning more expensive natural gas.
\_ A timer for an AC outlet is not that expensive. I bought a
mechanical 15amp one at IKEA for $8. |
| 2006/10/9-10 [Finance/Banking, Reference/RealEstate] UID:44739 Activity:nil |
10/9 Swami says if you have ARM, you're FUCKED!
http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/09/real_estate/arms_nightmare
\_ The Great Swami does not use coarse language -TGS |
| 2006/10/9-10 [Transportation/Motorcycle, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:44740 Activity:low |
10/10 Think Los Angeles traffic is bad? Go to India:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2063667852598904740&hl=en
\_ True. And if you think any US traffic is bad, go to any
non-Western country.
\_ This video is sped up at least twice. |
| 2006/10/9-10 [Reference/RealEstate] UID:44741 Activity:moderate |
10/9 http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/05/real_estate/moodys/index.htm Swami the Magnificent warned you! \_ I like how the Bay Area barely grazes that list. \_ I'm sure people are very freaked out about a possible 3-10% housing 'crash'. By the way, I think that Moody's is being optimistic. Prices are going to come down a lot more when/if rates rise and credit tightens. \_ My house has already dropped about 10%. Shrug. Only buyers, sellers, and creditors who stupidly gave out highly risky credit need to care about this stuff. \_ We bought in late 2002. Since then our house peaked up 51% in late '05, now has lost ~3% since that peak, and is now up ~ 47% from when we bought. 51% in late '05, and is now up ~ 47% from when we bought (all according to http://zillow.com) \_ I dropped 10% from peak but it doesn't matter either way. |
| 2006/10/9-10 [Industry/Startup] UID:44742 Activity:high |
10/9 GooTube! Google buys YouTube for $1.65 billion:
http://tinyurl.com/ftovs (news.yahoo.com)
\_ I guess Google's going to start getting emails from Michelle
Malkin asking them to wipe her butt for her.
\_ She's hot. I'd do it.
\_ I love the motd, where else can you make shit up, call yourself
clever and smugly walk away despite all evidence to the contrary?
\_ Evidence to the contrary? What are you talking about?
Michelle Malkin whines like a little baby to a 67-person
company who has to review hundreds of videos for
appropriateness, write code, negotiate billion dollar
acquisitions, and deal with all sorts of legal issues to
wipe her butt for her. Seriously, why does Michelle Malkin
think she deserves more attention than the other rejects?
\_ Yes, evidence to the contrary. She didn't want any
special help aka "wiping her butt for her". She wanted a
simple form letter telling her why she got banned. If
they're too busy to have a form letter for each of their
4 reasons for banning a video they're not a billion dollar
company. In fact, being a billion dollar company would
only raise the standards by which they should treat people
since they'd have the resources. If this 67 person company
can't take the time to write 3 more form letters then
they're not a billion dollar company and should stop
pretending to be worth that. I have no pity or sympathy
if their company size doesn't support their business model
or vice versa. Perhaps the problem here is you don't know
what the phrase "wiping her butt" means....
\_ I have no sympathy for YouTube either. But YouTube
wasn't whining and bitching like a little baby. Michelle
was. Not only do I have no sympathy for her but I think
she's rather obnoxious. YouTube never advertised having
a business model that involved dispatching their top
employees to investigate the injustices commited upon
Malkin. YouTube has bigger fish to catch than dealing
with one cry baby. No, I don't think YouTube needs to
be any more specific than giving her 4 possibile
violations. They might have a perfectly legitimate
reason for doing that and it's probably the same 4
violations that every other YouTube reject gets.
Perhaps the problem here is that neither you or
Malkin know what the meaning of "The world doesn't
revolve around you" or "I have better things to do
with my time than to deal with you" is.
\_ It's a simply customer service issue. No one has
asked for anything more than a more specific form
letter. Also, no one said the same form letter
wasn't used for all violations. The fact that
they treat all customers equally poorly doesn't
improve their case. It doesn't matter if it was
Malkin or a bunch of unknown people or your mom.
No matter how whiney you think she is doesn't matter
either. She's raised a good point about customer
service and ignoring it is a diservice to their
entire customer base and all viewers especially since
it is pertinent to their reason for being: posting
videos.
\_ Oh, Malkin is the customer now? I thought she
was the product? Either way, I'm sure YouTube
^H^H^H^H^H^H^HGoogle will be happy to be rid
of this "customer". You can go on your merry
way now. The world can live without you.
\_ Thanks for speaking for the world. You just
hate Malkin and can't stand that anyone might
defend her excellent point. I'm ok with that.
You're the one who has to live your life.
Enjoy.
\_ I personally don't hate MM; that would
take way too much effort/investment in an
utterly worthless nobody. -!pp
\_ Nothing personal, but doesn't this seem like a really
minor issue in the greater scheme of things? -!pp
\_ Absolutely, but it's still fun. Or I could go off
on how the little things matter and add up to big
things but I don't feel like supporting that today. |
| 2006/10/9-10 [Computer/Rants] UID:44743 Activity:nil |
10/9 http://www.sea-code.com Bringing Outsourcing Closer... \_ motd necromancy? That's soo far from the past... \_ keywords: outsource outsourcing cruise cruiseship code monkey codemonkey |
| 2006/10/9-10 [Uncategorized/Multicategory] UID:44744 Activity:kinda low |
10/9 With US unable to police the globe, nations around the world will
do whatever they please. Iran will conduct nuke tests and China will
take this golden opportunity to reunite Taiwan. -ChiCom Swami
\_ can chicom swami give a time frame pls
\_ Don't forget to mention North Korea. |
| 2006/10/9-10 [Computer/Companies/Google] UID:44745 Activity:high |
10/9 Time to short GOOG.
\_ 3/4 times I bet against GOOG when it should not have gone up
I lost big time. I'm not going to touch GOOG ever, again. They
are fuckers who keep screwing us average investors.
\_ When "average investors" are shorting, they're almost always
wrong. Don't bet against good companies. -tom
\_ What makes GOOG a good company?
\_ They provide a strongly-branded and effective web service,
and so far have avoided the pitfalls that have knocked
most of the other web services off the top rung. They
also invented a new business model for web advertising
that revived what was a declining field. -tom
\_ I'm not sure why Google's stock price is so high since it clearly
isn't justified by any financial calculation but the markets are
not rational. Do not bet against crazy people.
\_ GOOG's forward P/E is 33. What do you think it should be?
-tom
\_ Nothing. Forward PE is a fabrication and meaningless
swami-like prediction. What is current PE?
\_ It is silly to suggest that current PE is the only
"rational" method of valuing a company, particularly
one that's growing as fast as GOOG. Google's
revenues were 1.4B in 2003, 3.1B in 2004, 6.1B in 2005.
2006 will likely come in at 9B.
Earnings were .3B, .6B, 2B, likely 3B.
Do you think it was rational, in 2003, to value Google
as a company with a yearly earning potential of .3B?
What are your projections for Google's earnings in 2007?
-tom
\_ I didn't suggest "that current PE is the only
'rational' method" of anything. Google's income
is 99% from web ads of various sorts. It's an all
your eggs in one basket company based entirely on
ad revenues which has traditionally been a very
unstable market. Maybe they will somehow avoid the
long term ups and downs of the economy that hurt
other ad based business models but everyone thought
similar things in the 95-2000 time frame as well.
As far as their earnings for 2007, they are way too
secretive a company for me to guess and I do mean
guess such a thing. Anyone who comes up with a
number is just guessing (unless they're a in-the-know
insider at Google). I'm sure a number of people have
made a fortune off them but I won't invest my cash in
a place that prides itself on revealing as little as
possible to investors with nothing more than "We did
good before, trust us!" to go on.
\_ There are plenty of companies based entirely on
ad revenues which have been successful in the
long term: television networks come to mind.
It does not take "guessing" to project that
Google will continue to draw more page views
and generate more revenue in 2007 than it did
in 2006; choosing a specific number may be
little more than a guess, but choosing a range
is reasonable, and you can rationally base
valuation on your projected range. You said
that Google's value "isn't justified by any
financial calculation"; you're now backtracking
from that position. The current analyst
average projection for Google's 2007 earnings
is $13.09/share; they will earn almost $10/share
this year. Do you think $13/share is
irrational for Google's earnings? Do you think
the current valuation is irrational if Google
earns $13/share next year? -tom
\_ Television is a great example. Over time as
shows become popular or fade the various major
networks do better/worse in the ad wars. I
haven't back tracked from anything. I don't
know where you got that from. Whatever.
Anyway, this is still a company in a new and
ever changing market. At any time another
company could come along and turn the whole
business upside down. Before Google there was
Yahoo, Lycos, Hotbot, Alta Vista and several
others The analysts in the 95-2000 time frame
had all sorts of projections and now just like
then they are based on nothing. They have no
reason to believe Google will capture 30% more
of the market or any other metric. Yes, it is
quite possible Google has peaked on eyeballs
because there just aren't that many left they
don't already have. Then what? Anyway, it
probably won't be 07 or 08 but eventually they
will not exceed their previous quarter's
earnings, all the analysts will scream doom
and gloom and their stock will take a huge
hit. Once the sheen has rubbed off they'll
have to work their asses off to approach their
previous peak. As an aside I thought their
purchase of youtube was interesting. IIRC
that is their first big purchase of a
competitor in the Microsoft style of business.
Just taking note: a place that hires every
PhD in sight and famed for their ingenuity
made a similar product which simply sucked and
got stomped in that area forcing them to shell
out big bucks for a video storage and playback
site. Is Google now on the long term slide to
buying instead of building, no longer doing
that which made them great in the first place?
Time will tell. And for the record I do not
nor ever have traded the stock and never will
for the reasons I already stated so you're not
talking to a bitter short seller.
\_ It is certainly possible that Google's
business will decline at some point in the
future, but it is no more rational to expect
that than to expect that it will continue
to grow. Until I see Google making
specific mistakes which are going to cost
it market share (like Flash ads), I will
continue with the assumption that Google
will continue to expand at at least the same
rate as Internet usage. -tom
\_ I mostly agree with this. The thing is
that internet usage has a limit based
on the number of people on the planet
who can afford it and who care about
it. The real question then becomes what
are those numbers and that is something
they can't control. IIRC they've got
about 50-60% of the search market now.
Years ago they had about 50-60% of the
market. So either the market is poorly
defined or they're just not convincing
people to adopt their services at a
rate greater than they have in the past,
thus their growth is directly linked to
internet growth. If I was an investor
I'd still be more concerned about what
the youtube purchase implies than about
future internet growth though.
\_ Welcome back, Short GOOG at 100^H^H^H200^H^H^H300^H^H^H400 Guy! |
| 2006/10/9-10 [ERROR, uid:44746, category id '18005#3.65625' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44746 Activity:nil |
10/9 The Democrats seem to have balls these days:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061010/ap_on_el_ge/us_north_korea_politics
\_ I'm not seeing anything in that article that makes that clear. |
| 3/15 |