Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:April:18 Wednesday <Tuesday, Thursday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2007/4/18 [Uncategorized] UID:46349 Activity:nil 75%like:46327
4/18    So where in the US can I buy hand grenades, RPGs, and mines?
2007/4/18 [Recreation/Dating] UID:46350 Activity:kinda low
4/18    It's amazing how the opposite sex can act like a catalyst that
        leads to irrational behavior. Just look at the NASA PhD woman
        who tried to kill her lover's SO this year, and countless love-hate
        related crimes in the history of mankind. In all seriousness, I
        think that if the VT killer had more free access to quality porn,
        he may simply have been masterbating his life away instead of
        getting pissed off at everyone else. What do you think?
        \_ who doesn't have free access to quality porn?
        \_ Porn and masturbation aren't substitutes for sex.  If you're
           sexually frustrated I suggest exercising a lot.  At 2-3hrs/day
           hard exercise you won't be feeling too sexual, and soon you'll
           look so much better that actual sex will be easier to obtain.
           It worked for achoi!
           \_ Do you think if the VT killer exercised more, the violence
              on 4/16 would have been prevented?
              \_ Yes, actually, I do.  Exercise combats depression and
                 could have been an avenue for this guy to connect sanely
                 with other people.  Nothing like having a hobby other
                 people share to help you connect.  Further, exercise
                 de-stresses people so that might have helped too.  Last,
                 he might have got an actual woman if he looked hotter.
                 Women aren't immune to beauty.
           \_ He must be built like Mr. Universe contestant by now
              \_ Actually, achoi is married.  Presumably he's getting it
                 once or twice a week.
2007/4/18-21 [Computer/SW/Languages/Java] UID:46351 Activity:nil
4/18    In C#, what's the opposite function for class constructors or static
        constructors?  I can't find how to write a class destructor or static
        destructor.  Does such a thing exist?  If not, how does my class clean
        up after itself?  Thanks.
        \_ Um, the process exits?  And it's garbage collected?
           \_ I'm not trying to free memory.  I'm trying to close some
              connection to a remote machine.
              \_ Unfortunately there isn't a good way in C# last I checked to
                 manage lifetime.  It's one of its deficiencies.
2007/4/18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46352 Activity:nil 54%like:46366
        Ethanol will erode the ozone layer.
2007/4/18-21 [Reference/Military] UID:46353 Activity:moderate
4/18    "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be
        reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (The Dali Lama -
        May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times), "Among the many misdeeds of
        the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act
        depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest" (Mohandas K.
        Gandhi - The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Page 403,
        Dover paperback edition, 1983), "That rifle on the wall of
        the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of
        democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."
        (George Orwell), "The world is filled with violence.
         Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens
        should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent
        people will lose." (James Earl Jones).
        \_ 1) I doubt anyone would disagree with the Dali Lama's statement,
              but it's irrelevant to the discussion.
           2) Do you really think people in India view a prohibition on guns
              as the blackest misdeed of British rule?
           3) The other two quotes are just silly.
           \_ 1) It is relevant because you can't shoot back if you don't have
                 a gun.
              2) If they had guns would there have been an armed revolt much
                 earlier which kicked the British out sooner with less loss
                 of Indian life and abuse at British hands?  We can't know.
                    \_ Actually Netaji's armed revolt failed. One is almost
                       greatful that the inane socialism of Gandhi and Nehru
                       prevailed b/c Netaji was allied with the Axis powers.
                       \_ Well, remember he did go to the russians first.
                          it is kind of interesting that his loose canonness
                          freked out the british enough, they wanted to
                          assisinate him [so in that sense, he was a bit
                          beyond the "merely" imprisoned gandhi and neheru].
                          if you want a better candidate for the darkest
                          aspect of east india company and british [govt]
                          rule in india, it is the many famines that
                          ocurred because of the nature of their governance.
                          [remember the EIC increased the profits extracted
                          from india over the 1770 famine].
                          might one not see cooperation with the japanese
                          army in a slightly different light in the context
                          of the bengal famine of 1943. if you buy the widely
                          believed analysis of amarty sen, that puts +4m
                          deaths partly on churchill's head. and remember
                          stalin was "our" ally.
                            Jodi tor dak shune keu na ashe
                            Tobe akla cholo re ...
                 \_ I am an indian citizen and have shot a gun in india
                    so i suspect i am better informed on this matter than
                    you are. the statement above refers to the Arms Act
                    issued a couple of decades after the indian mutiny of
                    1857 and proper analogy of that Act would be if congress
                    passed a statue in the 1850s "clarifying" the 2nd amd
                    to read "black people south of the mason dixon line
                    cannot own guns or be employed in gun factories,
                    unless their masters will vouch for them." this is not
                    a statement of gun rights but the double standards that
                    were de rigeur in colonial legislation, and it's
                    impinging on self determination and soverignty. you
                    know there is a reason the A in Act is capitalized.
                    india today, like most of the rest of the world, sees
                    guns as mostly something owned by cops and the military
                    and low lifes [the eqivalent of gangbangers ... when
                    there is a fight, most bring cricket bats, chains and
                    field hockey sticks and these things that are a cross
                    between a machete and a hatchet called a "da", but a
                    few more "professional"/accomplished goondas have
                    illegal "shoni-night specials"] and some decadent rich
                    people [i went shooting with this dood on at his country
                    estate. this guy literally owned a village, his wife was
                    referred to mostly only partly jokingly as "the queen"...
                    referred to only partly jokingly as "the queen"...
                    it was basically a feudal set up]. there is no common
                    gun culture there, almost nobody has senitmental memories
                    of shooting cans off a fence post with granddad on the
                    back40, going hunting with their dogs and buddies etc.
              3) Why are they silly?  Because you disagree?
                 \_ 1) You can't get shot at if the screwed-up
                       college kid can't get a gun in the first place.
                       Whether guns should be easily available is a
                       completely orthogonal to whether self-defense
                       is permissible.
                       \_ Screwball is going to get a gun.  We've had a War on
                          Drugs for decades and drug use has only climbed and
                          spawned entirely new levels of violence unheard of
                          before the WoD.
                          \_ Uh, drug use is down 50% from 1979.  -tom
                    2) We can and do know that no one sane views gun
                       control as "the blackest misdeed of British
                       \_ I'm glad we all automatically agree with you simply
                          because to not to do is insane.
                    3) They're ideological assertions with no meaning.  -tom
                       \_ Funny coming from the one most likely to post
                          ideological assertions on the motd with no backing.
                          Did you post #3 as some sort of inside joke?
        \_ Still not clear on how the possession of firearms in the current
           day and age somehow prevents the gov. from depriving us of our
           civil liberties. It certainly didn't help Jose Padilla or the folks
           at Ruby Ridge or Waco. In Pakistan, mind you, yes, I can see it.
           But here in the States?
           \_ Look at Britain.  They're headed straight to 1984 and no one
              blinks.  No guns and looking at knives next.  No right to
              self defense.  No right to assist another in need.  Doomed.
              \_ Did you take V for Vendetta as a history lesson?
              \_ Where is this mythical Britain you are speaking of?
           \_ Actually someone yesterday had a very good point. In Iraq
              several hundred thousand (million?) lightly armed people
              are making a mess of things for the "feds," if you will.
              If things every get sufficiently out of hand, maybe you
              won't be able to stop the feds, but you and your closest
              1 million neighbors might be able to.
              \_ What do you see as the odds of the US being invaded/occupied
                 a la Red Dawn or Iraq? 'Cos I'm betting they're even lower
                 now than they were in the 80s when we actually had an army
                 arrayed against us.
                 \_ I think the odds of the US being invaded are irrelevant
                    wrt the right to keep and bear arms. The purpose is not
                    protect the people from invasion (external). The purpose
                    is to protect the people from our own government acting
                    against us. The idea is that if the populace is armed,
                    then the government hesitates to act recklessly b/c the
                    people could rise up against it.
                    \_ This undoubtedly made sense in the 18th century when
                       arms and technology were such that a populace with
                       access to firearms could effect a revolution against a
                       tyrannical government (i.e., King George III or his
                       potential succesor at the time, Kinge George Washington)
                       but given the military might of the US Armed Forces,
                       possession of non-military-grade gear translates
                       quickly into ineffectual resistance; at best, a pop.
                       with access to light arms and explosives can mount a
                       guerilla terrorist campaign, esp. if properly motivated
                       (say against an invading force), but against domestic
                       authorities? That sounds very much like a pipe dream.
                       \_ Although I generally agree, that post about the
                          situation in Iraq made me want to rethink my
                          position. The Insurgents have given the "feds,"
                          if you will, a sufficiently hard time. If the
                          government decides to nuke and pave Baghdad,
                          then all the AK-47s in the world won't do any
                          good, but short of something like that, small
                          arms have allowed generally non-military types
                          to resist military occupation.
                          \_ They've certainly made it uncomfortable and
                             dangerous, but the US Army still has the run of
                             the entire country and can arrest and detain at
                             will. The occupation of Iraq is being harried, not
              \_ I didn't see yesterday's motd, but this is a very very good
                 point, which occured to me about a year ago, and caused me
                 to change my mind about the second amendment.  I'd always
                 been against gun control on general principle, but thought
                 that the idea that random citizens with guns prevented tyrrany
                 was silly.  Now that the Red Dawn scenario is actually playing
                 out in Iraq, with untrained teenage hooligans bringing the
                 U.S. armed forces to its knees, I've become a much stronger
                 supporter of the 2nd amendment, and plan to buy a gun this
                 \- have you noticed 10x the number of iraqis get killed
                    as us forces. are you the same person suggesting
                    your pollution credits should be proprotional to
                    your production/consumption? and what is bringing
                    the us army to a halt are explosives and suicide
                    attacks, and a desire to limit civilian casualties ...
                    not firefights against people with civilian class weapons.
                    finally these armed groups in iraq arent doing much
                    that is productive but just denying stability.
                    if things became anarchic the neighbors are probably
                    going to be the problems and the us govt the solution.
                    the lesson in iraq may be: tyranny is better than
                    anarchy. the people in the ancien regime were probably
                    better off than people during the 30yrs war.
                 \_ yeah, because we really want to emulate what's happening
                    in Iraq right now.
                    The idea that the U.S. government is Coming For You is
                    simply ridiculous.  -tom
                    \_ You trust our government?
                       \_ if you dont, your choice is to move to canada
                          or spain, not to buy a gun. besides trust them
                          to/not to do what? imminent domain your house?
                          reneg on social welfare safety net? take your
                          gun away? inject you with syphilis? listen
                          to your phone calls? watch you search for assp0rn?
                          \_ The reason I remain a US citizen is b/c I
                             trust our government more than any other
                             on this earth. But, that doesn't mean that
                             I trust our government very much at all.
                             I, of course, am severely biased b/c I
                             believe that all government, if unchecked,
                             slowly expands to take away the rights of
                             the people who created it. The only check
                             I see is to instill fear in those who run
                             the machinery of the government that a
                             sufficiently enraged populace has the
                             ability to retake their rights by force.
                             Is my belief at all realistic? Hell No.
                             But then again I am a bit of romantic
                             and may have read too much Thomas Paine,
                             &c. during my illspent youth.
                       \_ I trust our government a hell of a lot more than
                          I trust Charlton Heston.  -tom
                          \_ Didn't answer the question.  You're ducking.
                             \_ The question is meaningless.  I think the
                                likelihood that our government will ever
                                do anything that I will personally need to
                                take up arms against is absurdly remote;
                                far more remote than the real societal
                                problems caused by easy gun ownership.  -tom
        \_ "Everybody got a pistol, everybody got a 45 / And the philosophy
            seem to be / At least as near as I can see / When other folks
            give up theirs, I'll give up mine." (Gil Scott-Heron)
        \_ my question of the day is, what does 2nd Amentment has anything to
           do with the ban on hand gun?  I mean, I don't care about 2nd
           Amentment, but I don't see ban on hand gun has anything to do with
           it.  Our right to bear arm was never limitless, civilians is not
           allow to own most of the weapons anyway, i don't see add hand gun
           to the banned list alters anything.
           \_ Well, to the people handguns are the only practical
              guns that can be carried around for self defense. Go argue with
           \_ Consider the meaing of the words "shall not be infringed."
              While many would agree that the right is not limitless, the
              issue is where and how can a limit be drawn. Many fear that
              it starts by adding one type of gun to the banned list, and
              then another, and still another, and eventually the people
              have no guns, the government (and criminals) have all the
              guns and the people are screwed.
              To think of it another way, first you add one book to the
              banned list, then another, and another, finally the whole
              library is empty. Would you support that?
              \_ That's pretty much a slippery slope argument. It's not
                 a reasonable argument to tie handguns to rifles. They
                 are different beasts. Of course some rifles can be
                 modified fairly easily into a pistol-like size. But
                 that would also be illegal.
                 \_ As a non-gun owner and a pacifist I don't really
                    know what the difference between a handgun and
                    a rifle really is (other than size). If one seeks
                    the deterrent effect, it seems that rifles cannot
                    be regulated b/c handguns are not an effective
                    deterrent. The logic, therefore, is why regulate
                    the small potato, when one ought not regulate the
                    big potato.
                    I really do not know what the sol'n is to this
                    problem b/c I see that regulating firearms and not
                    regulating firearms both make us less safe in
                    different ways.
                    \_ There is a saying: "a handgun is what you use to
                       fight your way to your real gun."
                    \_ Well handguns are a lot more easily and commonly
                       used for crime. They are also less useful as
                       "deter government from fucking with you" weapons.
                       Silencers are banned because of their criminal
                       usefulness. It would only be logical to extend the ban
                       to handguns altogether. A shotgun is probably better for
                       "home defense" anyway. Someone with a rifle can still
                       kill a bunch of people, but generally not do the sorts
                       of massacres that have been getting headlines. Someone
                       can still snipe people one at a time, or run into some
                       place with his AK47 but this type of thing is easier
                       to see, contain and guard against.
2007/4/18 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46354 Activity:kinda low 90%like:46363
4/18    Oops.  Ethanol is worse for the air
        \_ Biofuels have 10 times worse CO2 emissions than fossil fuels
           \_ but a combination of biofuels with Biointensive farming
           would be ideal
        \_ Ride bike!  Damn, I've always wanted to say that....
           \_ Do you USE LINUX?  Or SMASH KIDS?
           \_ But don't drink too much alcohol or fart a lot when you ride
2007/4/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:46355 Activity:nil
4/18    Legal eagles, can someone explain this.  Today's partial-birth abortion
        ban law states:
        (a)  Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce,
        knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human
        fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2
        years, or both. This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth
        abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life
        is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical
        injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or
        arising from the pregnancy itself. This subsection takes effect 1 day
        after the date of enactment of this chapter.
        ** BUT Ginsburg's dissent clearly states: **
        in Casey, between previability
        and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since
        Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception
        safeguarding a woman
        ** Can someone explain the Ginsburg interpretation? It looks like the
           law DOES have an exception yet she plainly states it does not **
           \_ There is no such thing as 'partial birth abortion'.  bleah
                \_ I'm just using the term as quoted in the law.
           \_ There is a difference between "life" and "health".
        \_ The law provides for threats to the *life* of the mother, but not
           the mother's *health*:
           "This subsection does not apply to a
            partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life
            of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical
            disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including
            a life-endangering physical condition caused by or
            arising from the pregnancy itself."
           In other words, as long as the mother can live, even in a life-
           supported coma, without resort to Intact D/E, Intact D/E is illegal.
           \_ Thx I didn't notice that
2007/4/18-21 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:46356 Activity:nil
4/18    USSC upholds Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Law:
        \_ Yeah, and with a horrific procedure like this, the decision was 5-4
           \_ I guess it's a victory for the pro-hurt Women side.  This
              procedure, "horrific as it may be" is used to protect the
              mother's life and health.  Outlawing saves not a single fetus
              but endangers the life of the women who have it.
              \_ That's a ridiculous argument.  How can this procedure help
                 protect a mother's life? Or her health?
                 \_ Your comment is stupid enough to not deserve an answer,
                    but I'll feed the troll.  If a pregnancy is endangering
                    a womans life or health, and medical induction (read RU486,
                    etc) is counter-indicated, intact d&e is the best way to
                    avoid abdominal surgery (always dangerous), the risks of
                    sepsis and hemmorhage from nonintact d&e.
                    \_ The partial birth process induces labor, then before the
                       head leaves the birth canal, the brain is sucked out of
                       the baby.  How does giving birth protect the woman's
                       health birth?
                       \_ You are clearly too short for this discussion.
                       \_ Read Ginsburg's dissent.  Removing the fetus intact,
                          instead of in pieces, protects the life of the mother
                          by a) reducing the number of times surgical
                          instruments are inserted and b) reduces the amount
                          of fetal tissue left behind in the womb which can
                          cause complications.  Medical science doesn't rate
                          procedures on how "icky" they are, but in how
                          effective they are.
                          \_ Since when has this administration ever paid
                             any attention to science?
           \_ Think this'll have a role in the 2008 election"? --psb
           \_ Think this'll have a role in the 2008 election"?
              I dont imagine OCONNOR will make a another statement
              from the sidelines, but it would be awesome if she said
              more. This isnt quite right, but ALTIO like ALBERTO is
              probably going to be a hack.
2007/4/18-21 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:46357 Activity:nil
4/18    Support our troops:
        \_ I thought it was one of those busty-wife-flashing-boobs-for-husband-
           in-Iraq video.
           in-Iraq video.  Too bad.
2007/4/18 [Uncategorized] UID:46358 Activity:nil
4/18    HUGE!
        - motd boob guy
2007/4/18 [Uncategorized] UID:46359 Activity:nil
4/18    This morning I saw the US flag outside a Dept. of Transportation
        office at half-mast.  Is it for the VA shooting?
        \_ Yes. The pres ordered half mast for federal buildings for (I think)
           a week.
2007/4/18 [Uncategorized] UID:46360 Activity:nil
*/*     ker-chunk!
2007/4/18-20 [Reference/RealEstate, Finance/Investment] UID:46361 Activity:nil
4/18    Free advice sought from soda financial advisors.
        I'm a single guy making about $120k with no debt and about $150k
        saved.  What would be a ballpark estimate of how much house I can
        afford in the Bay Area.  Any other major variable to consider?
        \_ Um, STFW?  There are mortgage payment calculators on the web.
           Second, do you know your own budget?  How much of a payment
           can you afford?  And remember to figure in $250/mo for utils,
           and monthly payments for house insurance and property tax.
           Not to mention a monthly expense to "buy stuff" for your
           house, like furniture, and don't forget house maintenace.
           assumes 33% payment-to-income ratio for "aggressive".
           for san jose this comes out to a ~ $585K house.
           \- that calculator probably assumes dependents [children]. if you
              you are single, and not a cokehead, or driving "teutonic rolling
              stock", it's probably ok to shift toward the aggressive side,
              tempered by factors like job-relocation flexibility and what
              your beliefs are about the future of the mkt [i say beliefs,
              because you dont want to end up in an investment that causes
              you stress because it's at odds with your appetitie for risk].
              there are also difficult, person-specific choices like borrowing
              against 401k/403b etc [how common is that for 20-30somethings?
              different people have very different expectations of future
              income from salary increase reates, inheritance etc.].
              btw, i think the calcultor there has some other issues.
              the house price changes by exactly the same amount as
              the down payment. i.e. for a downpayment of $150k, the house
              price is exactly $150k more than $0 downpayment. but it's
              certainly reasonable for a ballpark [i.e. you can do better than
              a $350k house in the sticks but probably not a million dollar
              place in sf]. it's kinda funny that with those stats, buying
              a place in "90%" of the country is a non-issue [the land of
              <$350k houses]. if not sf, not palo alto, not nyc, not ...
        \_ Well *I* think you can go up to about $1M, but you probably
           can't get a bank to lend you that much. What are your current
           expenses? You should be able to do the math on what you can
           afford. People in the Bay Area have always spent more than
           33% on housing.
2007/4/18 [Uncategorized] UID:46362 Activity:nil
4/18    be my feedee:
2007/4/18-21 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46363 Activity:kinda low 90%like:46354
4/18    Oops.  Ethanol is worse for the air (
        \_ Biofuels have 10 times worse CO2 emissions than fossil fuels
           \_ but a combination of biofuels with Biointensive farming
              would be ideal
              \_ Are you making the argument that increased farming will
                 result in less C02?  While thats true, it may not have the
                 intended impact on global warming because the albedo of
                 farmland is lower than non-developed land.  More solar
                 absorbtion will result in higher temperatures.  Global
                 warming solutions aren't so simple.
        \_ this entire ethanol thing is 100% bullshit, I can't believe
           left-wing liberal who pride themselves being more intelligent than
           those in the Bush Country fell for it.
           1. it takes energy to grow corn.  Fertilizers and pesticide all
           cost energy, distill ethanol to an appropiate concentration requires
           energy.  If we do a mass balance on ethanol, it probably takes more
           energy to produce it than we'll get from it.
           \_ The overwhelming majority of researchers think that ethanol
              has a 20-60% net energy gain:
              \_ which is still an order of magnitude less than fossil fuel.
           2. corn is not the most ideal plant to produce ethanol.  high-sugar
           content plants such as sugar cane is a much better solution.  This
           is one of the reason why Brazil can produce ethanol at a much
           cheaper rate than us.  And this is why we are imposing 18% tariff
           on ethanols from Brazil
           3. to use corn will eventually impact the food supply.  It has
           already impacted the price of animal feed.  And we will soon need
           to clear more forest to grow more of it, is this what we really

           In the end, this entire bio-disel thing boil down to two rational
           behind it.  1.  Toyota spend good 7-8 years on hybrid technology
           and US is at least 7-8 years behind.  Further, Toyota has patented
           and US is at least 4-5 years behind.  Further, Toyota has patented
           a lot of hybrid thus make US car makers at a disadvantage.  The
           *EASY* way out is just say we are going to use "bio disel."  such
           solution requires almost ZERO modification to a car thus US car
           manufacturers doesn't need to do jack shit other than may be
           change the hoses/fuel lines.
           change the hoses/fuel lines.  2.  In the end, it's about letting
           the petro price goes up and force people to pay for their lifestyle.
           But no one want to make such compromise because it is always easier
           to blame China/India than changing your own life style.
           \_ Is this Chicom troll?  Are you aware of what China is doing to
              its environment in order to give its citizens a western "life
           \_ corn-grower lobby, largely repulican.  IT's not the best solution
              for alternative fuel, but one with many proponents who stand to
              make a buck off of it.
2007/4/18-20 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea, Recreation/Computer/Games, Reference/Military] UID:46364 Activity:moderate
4/18    I can't hit shit with my dominant hand with a .22
        How the hell did Korean Shooter manage to shoot 50 people?
        Did Chow Yun Fat train him?
        \_ Some people are naturals...I personally took a pistol course
           offered through my martial arts class taught by the same people who
           train FBI agents.  AT the end we were tested, I got an expert  level
           marksmanship (highest).  I hit the target every single time (50
           rounds)...only two rounds were not within the first circle of the
           target.  This was all while moving, at varying distances.  Note, I've
           never owned a gun before or since.  I do have better than 20-20
           eyesight. -scottyg
        \_ the sheeple just sat there waiting for their turn
        \- he did a lot of "hand exercises"
        \_ lots of CS.  many victims were shot 3+ times, some in the head,
           which is what you do in CS -- shoot for the body while they jump
           around, and then for the head when they slow down.
           besides, most dead people were found in two classrooms, with him
           blocking the only exit (no backdoor).
           he shot a girl in the mouth.
           \_ What does CS stand for?
              \_ Counter-Strike
           \_ Unless he was playing CS on a Wii or with a Light Gun, I don't
              see how this translates. Your mouse is not a pistol.
              \_ ob CS + hands-on practice + some dexterity
                 a friend who is a trained shooter pulls single shots
                 between multi-second pauses playing a stand-up arcade game.
                 I agree just CS is not sufficient.
        \_ Glock 19 comes with 3 15round mags. From the picture of the
           hollow points, and the statement of the gun store, he bought
           Remington HPs - the cheapest HP - because they come in qty 50
           Most HPs are sold in qty 20.
2007/4/18-21 [Finance/Investment] UID:46365 Activity:nil
        I don't get it.  In the space of 1 year, the Shanghai Stock Exchange
        index has gone from 1400 to 3600.  What gives?  Doesn't the central
        government love stability?  Does this mean 3600+ is stable?
        \_ first of all, Shanghai Stock Exchange, like *ALL* Asian stock
           exchange, is not nearly as transparent as NYSE, etc.
           However, recently I've attended a leading Chinese economist.
           He said there are couple reason why stockmarket are high
           - for some reason, average profit margin has increased tremedously
             in past 3-5 years
           - PE Ratio was hover around 15 back in 2005.  Now, it's close to
             35, which is close to NYSE average.  But compare with all other
             Asian stock market's average P/E ratio, Shanghai is actually on
             the low side, which implies there are still a way to go
             \_ This is wrong on a number of counts: first of all, the S&P
                500 P/E is 16, not 35. Secondly, the P/E of most asian
                markets is not over 35. In the Korean borse, it is 10,
                for example. I personally think that the Shanghai market
                is in a bubble, driven by a lack of investment opportunities
                for regular Chinese, but I could be wrong.
           - while raw material prices are on the rise (thanks to US choke on
             energy market), inflation is relatively in checked due to
             stagnant labor cost (see below)
           - while hourly wages has increase something like 30% in past 5
             years, productivity also increase about the same amount. Much
             of the productivity gain (which is probably the highest in the
             world) is due to deregulation and market reform in conjunction of
             IT revolution.
           - China's economy is finally got out of contraction mode and
             start expanding.  Key industries are housing and automobiles
             (great, here goes the Earth)
                \_ Uh, what? Hasn't China's economy grown by 10% or so every
                   year for over a decade?
           - MarketShare/GDP was depressed back in 2005.   I didn't pay
             much attention to this number because I have no idea what does
             number means
        Overall, the economist is relatively optimist about China economy's
        fundamental and therefore he personally didn't think the stock market
        is too high.  Then again, stock market seldem reflects the
        fundamentals.                                   kngharv
        \_ kngharv, do you agree with that economist?
        \_ SSEC down 4.5% today.  But I get it.  China is doing everything
           it can to moderate growth, but investors just can't get enough. -op
        \_ SSEC down 6.5% today.  Just in time! -op
2007/4/18-21 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46366 Activity:nil 54%like:46352
4/18    Ethanol will erode the ozone layer. (
2019/04/24 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:April:18 Wednesday <Tuesday, Thursday>