| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2006/10/23-24 [Reference/Celebration, Recreation/Food] UID:44914 Activity:nil |
10/23 Meatcake!
http://www.blackwidowbakery.com/demo/meatcake |
| 2006/10/23-24 [Uncategorized] UID:44915 Activity:nil |
10/23 Complete Works of Charles Darwin:
http://darwin-online.org.uk |
| 2006/10/23-24 [Uncategorized] UID:44916 Activity:nil |
10/23 Original BASE jumper dies during his first BASE jump in years:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-2417736,00.html
\_ In decades.
\_ Was he trying to prove it was safe? |
| 2006/10/23-24 [Academia/StanfUrd] UID:44917 Activity:nil |
10/23 Lecture on Dwarf Planets at Stanford on Wednesday, 25 Oct:
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/physics/events/bunyan2006.pdf
\_ Isn't there nothing new about these planets except the name change? |
| 2006/10/23-24 [Reference/History, Reference/History/WW2] UID:44918 Activity:nil |
10/23 "What have we learned from history?"
http://www.glumbert.com/media/trojanhorse
\_ In order to learn from history one must have actually
learned history in the first place.
\_ What have we learned from mythology or the classics
would be a more appropriate caption. AFAIK, there is
no archaeological or historical basis for the story
of the trojan horse.
\_ Quotes added to denote title of program.
\_ It wasn't that long ago, historically speaking, that
Troy itself was thought to be mythical as there was no
archaeological or historical basis for the entire city.
And then someone dug it up.
\_ If you are talking about Hisarlik, my understanding
is that there is still some debate about whether it
was the real location of Troy and/or the site of the
Torjan War.
\_ Debate? Who is saying it isn't so? Anyway, 'some debate'
doesn't mean it isn't true. There is 'some debate' about
human caused global warming, too, but that debate is over. |
| 2006/10/23-24 [Uncategorized] UID:44919 Activity:nil |
10/23 Anyone have a clue where I could find one of those secret
service type earpieces with a curly white cord? -John
\_ Costume shop for a fake. Any of the spy vs. spy net sites for
something with working parts. Radio shack for a slightly larger
model.
\_ You'd want a cord with a color matching your skin to minimize
attention. |
| 2006/10/23-24 [Computer/SW/Languages/Java] UID:44920 Activity:nil |
10/23 Teenager questioned for creating a My Space web site that
says K|77 BV$H:
http://www.cnn.com (click Secret Service finds girl behind ...)
\_ Let's impound the MySpace servers!
\_ We should but not because of this.
\_ It is their job. If they knew it was there and didn't at least
talk to her and she later turned out to be psychotic and shot
him then everyone would say they knew she was a threat and did
nothing. She wasn't kidnapped from her home at 3am by men base
jumping from black helicopters, drugged, beaten, and tossed in
a Turkish prison. The idiot child got taken out of class and
questioned at school. Why was she taken out of class? Because
remarkably those are the same hours the SS guys are working.
\_ I agree that nothing particular was done wrong, but why is she
an idiot child? I remember being (mildly) surprised to discover
that it was a federal crime to say "i'm going to kill the potus"
when I was a teenager. It's not one of those things they teach
in school.
\_ It should be part of civics class. I guess they don't bother
teaching anything so useless as how our government was formed,
how it works, or the philosophical underpinnings of our
nation's political system anymore. I was quite aware of it
as a young teen, but Reagan was shot at the time so maybe
that's how I knew. In any event, it is stupid to put your
name on anything, especially something easily searched like
your myspace page advocated *anyone's* death. For that alone
she gets basic idiot credit. For saying it about a high
official she get bonus idiot credit. Next time it's black
helicopters, beatings, and turkish prison for her.
\_ I can't watch the video, but I think it's funny that this sort
of thing is still news when it's been standard procedure for
decades. I knew a kid who got pulled for questioning during
the Clinton administration for sending a threatening email. |
| 2006/10/23-24 [Consumer/Shipping] UID:44921 Activity:nil |
10/23 What's the difference between Certified Mail, Signature Required,
Insured, Insurance, and all that crap USPS offers?
\_ http://usps.com |
| 2006/10/23-24 [Transportation/Car] UID:44922 Activity:nil 70%like:44859 |
10/23 Re: BBC demonstrates the proper way to recycle a car:
http://www.glumbert.com/media/carshoot
Does anyone know what they used to throw the car up in the air without
crushing the car itself?
\_ Looked like some sort of hydraulic ram. |
| 2006/10/23-24 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:44923 Activity:nil |
10/23 IE7 is out. Is it better than Firefox 1.5.0.7?
\_ It's fundamentally the same as IE7bN, so... no. |
| 2006/10/23-24 [Uncategorized] UID:44924 Activity:nil |
10/23 Anyone know Andrzej Irla, graduated from Cal 1996?
\_ Degree in Computer Science in 1996, living in Chandler, AZ now. |
| 2006/10/23-24 [Uncategorized] UID:44925 Activity:nil |
10/23 Are there ToDo lists or Calendar type of applications for RAZR? |
| 2006/10/23-24 [Uncategorized] UID:44926 Activity:nil |
10/23 Congratulations, tmonroe, on a beautiful wedding! |
| 2006/10/23-24 [Computer/SW/OS/OsX] UID:44927 Activity:nil |
10/23 best mac ad:
http://static.flickr.com/108/274432721_51076bc536_o.jpg |
| 2006/10/23-24 [Recreation/Computer/Games, Recreation/Sports] UID:44928 Activity:nil |
10/23 Game review: http://seanbaby.com/nes/egm10.htm |
| 2006/10/23-25 [Reference/RealEstate] UID:44929 Activity:high |
10/23 I have like ~$200k sitting around that I've been ignoring because I'm
incredibly lazy and money management is boring. What should I do with
it? I guess I should buy a house? Or dump it in an index fund? It's
been sitting in... a checking account. Go me.
\_ I'm lazy and risk-averse, so I keep most of my money in CDs
(currently earning 5.94%). Not optimal, but it's really easy
and safe. If I were less lazy, I'd use multiple banks or
joint accounts to get FDIC insurance for the whole amount.
\_ Where do you get that 5.94 at?
\_ Cal State 9 Credit Union, with 5-year $5000 variable-rate CDs.
http://www.calstate9.com/web/Rates/certificate_rates.asp
\_ Wow, I don't think checking accounts are even FDIC insured
above 100K. Anyway, how long term? Very long term an index
fund is probably the best idea. Short term, CDs or ING.
\_ Yeah, long term I guess. The only reason I'd use this cash is
for real estate or maybe starting my hot new business idea but
I've no plans for those atm...
\_ They're insured at $100K per account holder. If you get a
joint account, it's therefore insured at up to $200K. The
money also could be spread across multiple accounts.
\_ As the above says, they're not insured above 100k (for all that's
worth anyway). Are you married? Do you have a girlfriend? If not,
go into a bank office run by some hottie bank manager and explain
your situation to her. You are guaranteed to get very very personal
attention and she'll help you manager your money better, too.
\_ op didn't say "in one account" I have a similar situation, I
just divide it amongst more than one acct (at different banks).
http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/insured/faq.html #10
\_ um, yeah it's in one account right now... yeah... -op
OK i'll do this first. Too bad ING direct doesn't have
offices with hotties helping you. Or does it?
Actually screw ING, emigrantdirect has better rates.
\_ That's the problem with electronic transactions: you lose
out on the personal touch and you may want that in both
senses. You'll get the same advice no matter where you go
so pick a place where you'll get hottie service.
\_ http://secure02.principal.com/bank/apps/rates/index.do
5.26% from Principal Bank vs. 5.05% at ED
ED also has the hokiest website once you actually start
digging into it
\_ Well now I found 5.75% CDs at http://e-loan.com. I can't find
5.94 like the guy above though. Maybe an "intro" rate
somewhere.
\_ The B of A branch at 909 E. Hillsdale Blvd, Foster City,
does have many hotties at the counter and the cust srv
desks in the morning shift. The problem is that there are
also one or two fat ones, so there's a small chance you end
up with one of those. I did when I went last time. :-(
\_ Any money manager will tell you to diversify. Take at least half of
that and split it into socks, bonds, commoddieites, etc. Go to any
investment company and ask for help. Or better yet, ask anyone you
know who does manage his money better for a recommendation of
someone.
\_ My investment plan is to buy a house. No it isn't optimal, but it's
a decent investment (if you don't have one already) and it is
an investment you are going to make every damn month, no slipping
up and forgetting to invest.
Lots of mutual funds let you auto invest once a month. Do a bit
of reading, pick a few mutual funds, set them up to auto invest
some amount that is reasonable and forget about them for a year.
You won't do worse than bank account intrest, that's for sure.
\_ well, buying a house now is like buying socks in early 2000.
On margin! Be careful what you invest in.
\_ A house that you live in is a home, not an 'investment'.
Don't confuse the two. However, if you are renting right
now and can afford the mortgage on a house, then what
are you waiting for? You are throwing money away by
renting.
\_ A home that gains in value. Maybe not at the insane
rates that it has the last few years, but still, it's
an investment. Consider person A who lets his money
sit around getting 1% intrest in a checking account
and who pays rent vs person B who gets a home, pays
his mortgage, etc. 5 years later if B sells his place
(and the housing market hasn't tanked like some people
think it will) then person B will have significantly more
money than A. If A invests intelligently that is much
less of a given, but the OP already admitted he isn't
a good investor.
\_ No, it's not an investment if it's your primary
residence. It's a cost. However, it's still a good idea
because you are fixing the cost of one of your
biggest expenses over the next 30 years.
\_ What makes it different?
\_ For one, when you sell it (or if you lose it)
then you are homeless.
\_ When I sell it I'm in the exact same place
that the renter is at. It isn't a very
liquid investment, but I still think of
it as an investment.
\_ If you buy it at $700K and it falls to
$400K then you are not where the renter
is at and you can't sell it either.
So why buy it? Because even at $400K it
has value as a home. Most people buy
another house when they sell one, so
it's not really money they have invested.
The government agrees, hence the cap
gains exclusion for the first $500K.
Two good questions gleaned from the WWW:
1. What if it's a good investment but
doesn't work out as a home? Would you
stay there anyway, or sell for less
than you'd get by waiting?
2. Suppose it's a good home but turns into
a lousy investment? Would you cut your
losses and move? Or would you take the
financial hit and stay?
\_ 1. You can lose money on any investment.
Houses do have a bit of risk because you
are buying on margine, but it's very
rare for a housing market to drop for a
significant amount of time. (Yes, I know
about Tokyo.) I'm not saying there
isn't a bubble right now, but I don't
think prices are going to fall much
further if at all in some areas.
2. As to the questions you asked, you
can always rent your place if you want
to move (I know people who own, rent
their house, and themselves live in a
rented apartment, for just the reasons
you gave.) The second question you ask
is valid, but I don't think that makes
it not an investment. It just makes it
a bit more complicated of an investment.
\_ Can you write it off as a loss if
you lose money when you sell? What if
you rent it for less than the
mortgage? With investment property,
you can write it off a loss. With
your primary residence, you can't.
You might treat it like an investment,
but it's not. It's an asset, but
so is a car or a dishwasher. Those
aren't investments either. To
treat your primary residence like
an investment is folly.
\_ You're splitting hairs. The
dictionary definition of
"investement" is "that with which
one is invested." It's obvious
that a home is an investment by
that definition. A home has
different characteristics than
other investments, but you're
still invested in it and expecting
a positive return on the money
you put into it. -tom
\_ No, you should not be expecting
a positive return. You should
be expecting a place to live.
You are invested in it only
to the extent that you're
invested in that new stereo
that you bought. Historically,
return on houses is about
the rate of inflation (i.e. 0).
Even if your house does go
up in value, what good does
it do when you can't sell w/o
being homeless?
\_ So you're claiming that a
renter is better off in the
long term financially than
a home owner? They get a
place to live, don't pay for
repairs, can leave any time
with only moving costs, and
can choose to pay less/month
than a home owner. Sounds
like home owning is moronic
and renting is a brilliant
path to financial success.
Except we know that isn't
true.
\_ I am not claiming a
renter is better off
financially. I said
that fixing the cost
of housing is a smart
thing. However, that
doesn't make it an
investment.
\_ Making money by reducing
costs is somehow
different than making
money by increasing
income? A penny saved
is a penny earned.
There are two sides to
the cash flow equation.
\_ Not reducing costs.
Fixing costs.
If you move
from a $1600
apartment to a
$1200 apartment
does that mean
you are investing
$400 month? Not
if you are keeping
that $400 under your
mattress you aren't.
\_ If the total value of a
leveraged investment
increases at the rate of
inflation, your investment
increases at greater than
the rate of inflation.
Also, zero return is a lot
better than what you get
on rent money. -tom
\_ For sake of argument,
assume you are not
leveraged. I, like
you and most other
people who bought a
house more than 3
years ago, have a lot
of equity on paper.
However, it does me
no good, because if I
use it (say for law
school or to start a
business or to buy a
Ferrari) then I am
homeless. I am not
saying not to buy a
home. I am saying
that a home is not an
investment - not even
an illiquid investment.
It's a cost. Fixing that
cost over 30 years is a
good thing, but it's
still a cost. An
investor expects to
make cash on cash,
not fork over $4K each
month for 30 years with
no return.
\_ Why would you assume
I am not leveraged,
when practically every
home is leveraged?
You can sell the home
at any time; you won't
be homeless, you'll
just be renting, which
is the alternative
to owning a home.
It may make sense to
rent in some
situations, but there
is no investment which
has returned anything
close to what my home
has in the past 7
years (something like
1000% return on
investment). -tom
\_ Right, so when
are you selling
and quitting
your job to
live on your
"investments"?
\_ How is that
relevant? I
certainly could
sell if I wanted
to get the cash
out and go back
to renting. -tom
\_ That's not
really an
option for
most
homeowners.
I wouldn't
do it and
neither
would you.
_/
If I had reason to do
so--if my home were
no longer a good
investment--I would
definitely sell it.
I am almost certain to
sell it at some point
in my life. And again,
whether I would sell it
or not is not what
qualifies it as an
investment. I
have stocks I wouldn't
sell unless there's
a fundamental change
in the marketplace;
same with my house.
-tom
\_ I assume your
stocks are producing
dividends. If
not, you'd be a
fool to hold
them forever.
As for your
home not being
a good investment,
I don't buy it.
It will probably
go down in value
next year. You
gonna sell? You
would if it was
a stock.
_/
You are now bordering on being not
worth responding to. Point 1: Only
an idiot would sell a stock just
because it went down. I sell my stocks
either because I need money (rarely),
or because the fundamentals of the
business have changed. Do I think,
long-term, that a home near Piedmont
Avenue in Oakland is going to lose
value? No, so it would be foolish
to sell, especially in a down market.
Point 2: Stocks are not the only
kind of investment, and not all
investments behave like stocks.
You will not see anywhere in any
definition of the term "investment"
that the object invested in must
be bought and sold regularly. In
fact, that's closer to the antithesis
of investing than it is to the
definition. -tom
\_ Point 1: If I told you with 100%
certainty that your house would
drop 15% next year would you
sell it? What if I told you with
100% certainty that a particular
stock would drop 15% next year?
Point 2: I never said stocks were
the only kind of investment. Red
herring. Houses certainly can be.
Just not your primary residence,
unless you like being homeless.
The vast majority of homeowners
would not go back to renting, even
when sitting on huge gains. Most
investments return cash on cash.
Your primary residence, with you
living in it, say, 30 years isn't
returning anything to you. I realize
the average person sells after 7
years, but they also turn around
and buy another house with the
proceeds. At what point does one
profit from that? When you die and
your heirs sell it off?
\_ Warren Buffett buys companies
all the time, with no intention
of selling them. Is he not
an investor? Your understanding
of the word "investment" is
completely wrong. -tom
\_ So Buffet isn't making
any profit from these
companies? He just buys
them with no intention of
selling and considers the
money he put into them
lost forever? My idea of
investing involves a
return, often called a
profit. Buying a house
and sitting on $700K in
paper money while paying
$4K/month until one dies is
not a great way to profit and
not a very good investment.
\_ Yes, Buffett buys companies
with no intention of doing
anything other than
holding them. Just
because you haven't sold
something doesn't mean
you haven't gotten a
return on it. -tom
I know two different people who sold -/
a place in the last couple of years
and went back to renting. In both cases
they felt the market was due for a downturn and
they weren't happy with where they lived at the time.
The sold their places, are renting for a few years
and may buy again if they think the market has
corrected. Taxwise they got hit a bit hard, but
it was a choice they both made. Take it as you will.
\_ It's not very common. Did they have a lot of
gains? Are they happy renting? How long did they
own? Most homeowners value their houses as homes
first and foremost. Any possible gains are
secondary and almost incidental. You could have
made a lot of money buying in South Central
over the last 2 years. You gonna live there to
profit from it? I know a lot of real estate
investors and they have all said that one's
primary residence should be paid off so that that
cash flow (going into the mortgage) can be put to
good use and never to touch the main house after
that. Buy 10 houses in Watts if you want, but the
primary residence isn't even part of the
portfolio. It's an expense to be paid as quickly
as possible and a place to retreat to to lick
your wounds when/if things go bad.
\_ One person did very well (San Diego, crummy
nieghborhood, got in and out at the perfect time)
The other had a very low intrest loan (teacher)
and did fairly well. I'm amused how you deny that
you can go back to renting if you want to cash
out of your house on the premise that most people
won't want to. If you don't want to sell your
house it is because it is worth more to you than
the money could get out of it. If your house is
worth more than what you could get out of it
(with a bit of fudge for pain in the ass factor,
but people have already admitted a house isn't
the most liquid investment) than isn't that good
way to invest your money? A house isn't like
a car or a stero or most material goods that
make your life better because unlike most of
those a house goes up in value (maybe not much,
but up) rather than down like almost everything
else. And if you are the kind of person who
doesn't like investing money and can't be bothered
to stop letting your money lose value by sitting
around in a checking account doing nothing a
house is a very good way to invest money AND
improve your life. (Stupid buyers who buy more
than they can afford as a few threads above not
included.)
\_ Not to mention a lot
better than what you
get on money sitting in
your checking account.
And let's not forget all
the mortgage deduction
tax law issues as well.
\_ There's a pretty
simple calculation
you can do to tell if
renting or buying is
better in a given
market. Of course,
it ignores
significant changes
in home value.
-!pp
\_ I rent therefore
renters are smarter and
home owners are all
evil for pricing me out
of the market.
\_ If you contact me, I will put you in touch with my broker. -ausman |
| 2006/10/23 [Computer/SW/Languages/C_Cplusplus, Recreation/Dating] UID:44930 Activity:insanely high |
10/23 I started growing in 3rd/4th grade. By 8th grade I was up to a full B,
a little too small for a C. By the beginning of 10th grade I was
wearing F (yes, I have a lot of stretch marks on my boobs as a
result). By graduation I was a full G. Christmas break of my
freshman year of Cal I was H. Summer between my sophomore and
junior years I was an I. Now I'm a senior at the church
and I'm starting to get double boobies again. So I'm pushing a J,
I guess. I guess this means I might be heading into the scary
bra size territories of 34JJ. Yay, even less choice in bra.
Which brings me to my question....excluding pregnancy and
weight gain, when the hell will these things stop growing?
I know it's different for everyone probably, but generally when
does breast size stabilise? Is this all going to stop soon,
or am I looking at continuing to grow a cupsize every
6-9 months until my late 20s, and ending up a 34KKK or something?
I'm hoping that, since there are quite a lot of men in their 20s
here, someone will be able to shed some light on this, and what
I've got in store for me.
\_ Yawn. Again?
\_ Apparently it is god's will that you have an enormous rack.
\_ Make an appointment to buy a B/C. Nip/Tuck. Stop trolling the motd. |
| 2006/10/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44931 Activity:nil |
10/23 Rahm, DNC pitbull, stacks the deck in favor of conservative (D)
candidates:
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/21/AR2006102101049_pf.html |
| 2006/10/23-24 [Recreation/Humor] UID:44932 Activity:moderate |
10/23 Chuck Norris on Chuck Norris jokes
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52567
\_ This says to me: Chuck Norris can do everything but take a joke.
\_ Wow, thanks. I've just lost all respect for Norris.
"...the real cause of all diseases - sin" Fucking dumbass.
This bolsters my absurd predjudice that grapplers are smarter than
strikers.
\_ I love the cognitive dissonance between "the Bible tells me I really
can do all things" and the very next question where he says only
Jesus can do XYZ.
\_ What do you expect? He is anti-evolution. (See a few lines up.)
\_ How is it cognitive dissonance to say "Jesus can do all
things, even allow me to do all things [he wants me to do]?"
(Which is what they really mean when they say that.)
\_ Did you miss the word "only" above?
\_ There is no contradiction here. You missed the logic.
\_ Chuck doesn't use the word "only" there in his article.
\_ There is no contradiction here. You missed what he's really
trying to imply.
1: Chuck Norris really can do all things.
2: Only Jesus can do XYZ.
1 & 2 implies: Chuck Norris is Jesus.
1 & 2 imply: Chuck Norris is Jesus.
Of couse Chunk Norris said in the article he is not Jesus. But
there is still no contradiction. That's because Chunk Norris
really can do all things, include denial of being Jesus.
there is still no contradiction. That's because from (1), Chunk
Norris really can do all things, including denying being Jesus.
\_ Can Chuck Norris make a burrito so big even he can't eat it?
\_ Then again, there was a banner ad for http://www.nukalert.com
right under that. Coincidence? I THINK NOT. -John
\_ Manliness-- |
| 2006/10/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:44933 Activity:nil |
10/23 Daschle predicts Dems will take Senate with seven seats
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1724541/posts
\_ He couldn't predict his own loss. |
| 2006/10/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44934 Activity:low |
10/23 Barron's predicts GOP will retain control of Congress:
GOP will lose eight House seats, three Senates seats
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1723630/posts
\_ Barron's is a rag.
\_ They're probably right. They based their analysis solely on how
much money each candidate has in each district. The candidate
with the most money has won 93 percent of all House races since
1972. Barron's method predicted the 2002 and 2004 House results
fairly closely.
\_ Barron's is right, except when they're wrong. Analysts and
polls think this election's going to be exceptional. Bush
and the Republicans have really, really fucked up to the
point where only Bill Gates could save them.
\_ Analysts and polls are right, except when they're wrong. All
this prognostication is a wasted effort for those who want to
know the future. The polling is all about trying to cause a
certain outcome, not predict one. If the polls were so good
we wouldn't be discussing who might win, we'd be discussing
who won. We have elections to determine winners.
\_ 93% is not impressive for 435 house seats, where candidates
with more money are nearly all the time the more popular ones.
anyways, it's moot, because we'll find out soon enough the
result for the ~ 40-50 competitive House races. < 50% for
competitive races would be a dismal failure of predictive
ability, I think. |
| 2006/10/23-24 [Health/Disease/General] UID:44935 Activity:low |
10/23 The good news is that stem cells have cured a Parkinson's-like disease
in rats. The bad news is they also got brain cancer.
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061016/full/061016-16.html
\_ sounds like non-malingnant tumors, not cancer. (Still.) -tom
\_ Giant lump growing in my brain. Not good. I don't care if it
is malignant or not after it starts pressing against my
cerebral cortex.
\_ Yeah, that would suck. You might even eventually lose motor
control... oh... wait...
\_ As much as parkinson's would suck, crushing your CT would
be worse.
\_ Why did someone delete all the followups?
\_ Why do you hate non-malignant tumors?
\_ I love non-maglignant tumors. Why do you hate
non-malignant-tumor lovers? |
| 2006/10/23-25 [Recreation/Media] UID:44936 Activity:nil |
10/23 http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=2600380&page=1 KANG Well, the Earthlings continue to resent our presence You said we'd be greeted as liberators! ... KODOS We had to invade. They were working on weapons of mass disintegration. |
| 3/15 |