Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:February:02 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2007/2/2 [Recreation/Dating] UID:45640 Activity:nil
2/2     For a five foot, nine inches girl with humongo boobs, i was pretty
        good.  I looked healthy.  I had thighs, and an ass.  No more. Now I
        sit down on hard surfaces (you know, a wooden chair) and it hurts
        because all I have down there is skin stretched over bone.  Whereas
        the boobs? For some reason, my body has decided that the only place
        it can safely store tons of extra fat, for use when I'm more than just
        sick and am probably dying, is in my boobs.  STUPID BODY. I don't NEED
        triple-D boobs.  I'm not a stripper, or a porn star. Whereas the
        little padding I'd managed to get on my ass?  I NEEDED THAT! For the
        first time in my life, I was able to sit down on a hard surface and
        have it not hurt!
2007/2/2 [Recreation/Stripclub] UID:45641 Activity:nil
2/2     I'm naked
2007/2/2-3 [Computer/Networking, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:45642 Activity:very high
2/2     So is there some serious problem with gigabit? I keep seeing problems
        with gigabit devices in 10/100 networks, or vice versa.
        \_ do you think gigabit is some exotic, bleeding edge technology
           just a few people are using?
           \_ All I know is that when I use it in mixed networks, I keep
              running into problems.
              running into problems. -op
              \- there are some cases where you can get unepxected
                 measurements like a 10mbit thru path that might be
                 "faster" than a 10mbit-100-10 path for reasons i wont
                 go into, but if you are getting dramatic failures or
                 really bad performance, it's probably pilot error or
                 something out of control somewhere.
                 \_ "pilot" error?  What, you mean I made a mistake when
                    plugging the wires into the switches? -op
                    \_ you know there is a lot to configuring switches and
                       routers. duplex negotiation, potentially how mcast
                       signaling is handled etc. a colleague of mine found
                       a piece of networking gear flattended because of a
                       but in IGRP handling. from the nature of your
                       description of the problem ["is there a *problem*
                       with gigabit" without mention is the problem,
                       with thruput, latency, packet loss, ethernet frame
                       errors, high cpu load] it seems unlikely anybody
                       will be able to talk you thru it. your brain has been
                       probabilistically estimated as: small.
                       \_ I've tried two different switches on my home network
                          which was working great with 10/100 devices
                          (including my router).  I added a gigibit device
                          which failed to simply plug in to my 10/100 router
                          and work.  It worked if I plugged it into a
                          10/100/1000 switch, but the throughput crashed.
                          Everything is set to autonegotiate.  I've tried this
                          with two different switches.
                          Then one of my coworkers got back from a customer
                          site where the networking wasn't working--using a
                          10/100 card instead of a 10/100/1000 card solved the
                          problem. -op
                          \_ i use gb networking "everyday" for at least
                             3-4 years. i have some number of problems now
                             and then but the technology obviously is
                             solid ... which is not to say there might not
                             be some porrly designed equipment in the
                             space, or some particular pieces might be
                             lemons. we're doing more 10gig work now ...
                             this is actually kinda interesting. this may
                             be the first time in a while when the typical
                             fast computer cannot saturate the link [obviously
                             hw traffic generators and special hackery can].
                             note: i dont know anything about 'home quality'
                             gb networking equipment.
        \_ I have never seen any problems. I think it is you.
           \_ Oh sure, I'm the only guy with a netgear gs105 switch and two
              different gigabit cards. -op
        \_ It may be that the cables you're using aren't up to snuff.  See
           if netstat shows a lot of packet errors.
           \_ If so, why do the exact same cables work great when they're
              transferring only gigabit traffic? -op
              \_ if you want any more help you need to systematically
                 describe the symptoms and the specifics of your set up.
                 you can leave out the details and just say "i'm having
                 problems". come on, dont be a moron.
              \_ you realize negotiating duplex setting and link speed
                 are two different things, right? if you want any more
                 help you need to systematically descibe the symptoms and
                 the specifics of your set up. you can leave out the details
                 and just say "i'm having problems". come on dood, dont be a
                 moron.
2007/2/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:45643 Activity:moderate
2/2     http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/mcclintock/article_detail.asp?PID=289
        Link that talks about how CA spends $3200 per capita now versus
        $1240 (inflation adjusted) in the 1960s.
        \_ Thanks for the link. Do you know where he got those statistics?
           I am actually most interested in what local+state taxes collected
           have looked like over time, both inflation adjusted and as a
           percentage of income. I know there was a big shift from local
           to state when Prop 13 passed, so this is going to kind of distort
           the number that McClintock reports here.
           to state when Prop 13 passed, so this is going to distort the
           number that McClintock reports here.
           \_ I assumed that he meant *ALL* taxes in CA (local+state), but
              I really don't know. Obviously, if State doubled and local
              fell in proportion then it's just cooking the books. I think
              we are both interested in *TOTAL* spending and re-reading
              what McClintock wrote it seems like he might be referring
              only to State spending. You might want to read the
              following, though:
              http://www.caltax.org/MEMBER/digest/Jun98/jun98-4.htm
              It reports that total spending is higher now than it was,
              although not so much higher. Look at the chart on this page:
              http://www.caltax.org/research/taxspend.htm
              \_ Yeah, I also would like to know if McClintock measured
                 from "peak to peak" or "trough to peak" as these kinds
                 of factors make a huge difference. The first caltax
                 article measures spending as a percentage of GDP, which
                 is probably a better measure than inflation adjusted
                 anyway, since the things that government spends money
                 on (health care, education, bridges and roads) has
                 on (health care, education, bridges and roads) have
                 increased in price faster than inflation. This is
                        \_ Government always over-pays for everything.  This
                           is not a surprising finding.
                 probably not a conincidence. The second caltax article
                           \_ We are in agreement here.
                 probably not a coincidence. The second caltax article
                 measures overall tax burden, which is mostly because
                 the federal government overtaxes Californians compared
                 to the rest of the country, because of the relatively
                 high wages here.
                        \_ So what have our reps done to correct this
                           imbalance?  I haven't checked but my bet is
                           on "nothing".
                           \_ You are surprised that after 12 years of
                              GOP dominated Congress that pork tends
                              to flow from blue states to red states?
                              What could the (Democratic) California
                              caucus have done about that? Hopefully,
                              Nancy Pelosi will even things out a bit.
                              \_ Oh please, what did they do in the previous
                                 50 years of Dem control?  The same nothing.
                                 This has nothing to do with the evuuul GOP
                                 and everything to do with tax'n'spend.  Nancy
                                 isn't going to even anything out.  If Hillary
                                 was elected in 08 and the Dems had both
                                 houses, there would still be no cost/location
                                 based federal tax system that accounted for
                                 living in higher price/wage states.  It isn't
                                 even on anyone's radar.
                                 \_ We used to get a larger percentage of
                                    our taxes dollars back. I don't think that
                                    the Democrats are going to lower my taxes.
                                    I do think they will start diverting tax
                                    money from Republican favored states (wars,
                                    defence contractors, etc) to Democratic
                                    favored states (mass transit, public
                                    health care, etc).
                                    \_ I don't want a larger portion of federal
                                       tax dollars coming back to the state.
                                       I want them to take into account that I
                                       live in a more expensive area with
                                       higher wages and thus need more money
                                       to maintain the same standard of living
                                       as someone making half as much in some
                                       other states and lower my tax bracket.
                                       I agree that the Dems won't lower
                                       anyone's taxes, but you're off base in
                                       claiming that "Republican States" are
                                       the "War States" and "Democratic States"
                                       are the peace loving, we take care of
                                       our people states.  CA is chock full of
                                       military bases, defense contractors,
                                       etc.  I used to live with in get-nuked
                                       range of a nuclear sub base and related
                                       defense contractors in CT.  They are in
                                       every state.  I also don't see the Dems
                                       unporking the budget since they invented
                                       the concept, although the last Repub.
                                       government honed that skill to a fine
                                       point.  They're the same, we're all
                                       hosed either way.
                                       \_ You are full of it. CA lost most
                                          of its military bases in the 80s.
                                       \_ You are wrong about spending. CA lost
                                          most of its military bases in the 90s.
                                          Maybe you are too young to remember.
                                          In any case, most of the defence
                                          contractors are heavily Republican.
                                          Whatever you want to call it, the
                                          pork should start flowing our way.
                 http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/443.html
                 Shows overall state and local tax burden as exactly
                 the same today as in 1970. And this is from an anti-tax
                 site (!)
                 This site also shows a drop from 1978 to 1995, so at this
                 point it is almost a case of dueling experts:
                 http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_998MSRB.pdf
                 \_ My expert can beat up your expert.
                 \_ I think the key point to take away here is that
                    there's at least as much money now as ever. So why
                    is the infrastructure falling apart?
                    \_ That is a really good question and I do not have
                       the answer for it. A small part is that we spend
                       more on prisons, but that can't be the whole answer.
                       \_ While tax revenue increases linearly, waste and
                          corruption increase quadratically.
                          \_ Exactly and most of it is not in the prison
                             system.  It is in the k-12 education system.
                             Which is not to say the prisons aren't a big
                             scam, too, just a smaller scam than the k-12
                             system.
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:February:02 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>