| 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. |