Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:October:09 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
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:
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?,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
           \_ 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:
           (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.
               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
                        \_ 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
                                    \_ 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:
                                       "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 [Recreation/Dating, Computer/SW/Languages/Java] 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.
          - 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
                           \_ 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?):
        This one actually makes the movie look better than the trailer.
2006/10/9-10 [Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:44734 Activity:nil
10/9    France to ban public smoking:
        \_ 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:
           \_ 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
              \_ 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:
        '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
        \_ 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
              \_ 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
        \_ 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.
        \_ (
           "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!
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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
        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
                    \_ I dropped 10% from peak but it doesn't matter either
2006/10/9-10 [Industry/Startup] UID:44742 Activity:high
10/9    GooTube! Google buys YouTube for $1.65 billion: (
        \_ 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
                          \_ 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.
                                \_ 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
        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?
                 \_ 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?
                       \_ 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:
        \_ I'm not seeing anything in that article that makes that clear.
2019/01/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:October:09 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>