Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:May:29 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2007/5/29 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:46779 Activity:nil 88%like:46787
5/29    stokke not enjoying the attention
        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/28/AR2007052801370.html
2007/5/29-6/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:46780 Activity:nil
5/29    Kiowa shot down by machine-gun fire, two Bradleys on QRF sent to
        recover bodies taken out by road-side bombs, 8 U.S. soldiers killed.
        http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/29/iraq.main/index.html
        \_ "Black Hawk Down"
2007/5/29-6/1 [Science] UID:46781 Activity:nil
5/29    Student Intern job at Riverbed Technology in SF:
        /csua/pub/jobs/Riverbed
2007/5/29-6/1 [Recreation/Food] UID:46782 Activity:nil
5/29    The new Got Milk commercial with the fat looking non-Japanese
        looking Adachi family trying to steal milk is the most annoying
        commercial I've ever seen. I've stopped drinking milk and
        have switched to soy milk permanently. Fuck Got Milk ads.
        \_ I don't get it either, but perhaps this review of the website will
           help explain the whole thing:
           http://www.interactive.duncans.tv/2007/got-milk-get-the-glass
        \_ Wow, this is awesome. I would pay money to play this game..
        \_ http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff/images/Kristi.jpg
           Kristi bending over.  And you think that's milk.
2007/5/29-6/3 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46783 Activity:moderate
5/29    Global Warming:  It's not just a prediction anymore!
        \_ It's not.  I was shocked to see tangible effects when I was
           in S. America last year.  Most people will also confirm pretty
           drastic climate change over the last few years there.  -John
        \_ Climate changes.  That is not in dispute.  The issue is if the
           climate is changing mostly to due human activity or if it is
           mostly due to natural causes and more importantly, "Is there
           anything we can do about it and should we even try?"
           \_ Whether or not climate change is due to humans, man is
              certainly a major factor in ozone depletion, with
              huge and tangible results in Chile, where people laugh at
              you if you buy sunscreen < 40-50.  There are also
              enough related man-made factors (for example, if you are
              into astronomy, you'll know that there are very few spots
              where the view's not impacted by atmospheric -- particles,
              not light -- pollution) that have arisen in the last 20-30
              years to make one thoughtful even if you don't believe in
              all them fuzzy scientists.  -John
              \_ I'm a big fan of clean air and not destroying the ozone layer.
                 (And clean water tables and non-toxic food, too).  That has
                 little to nothing to do with the global warming scare.  BTW,
                 last I checked SPF 35 reduces UV rays by over 99% so those
                 people spreading on SPF 5000 are wasting their money.
                 \_ It has nothing to do with it as far as you know.  You
                    missed my point, which is that here are two massive
                    environmental phenomena largely attributable to human
                    activity, so it's not a far stretch to "the arguments
                    postulating human pollution as a major source of global
                    warming are plausible."  Hmm indeed.  As for SPF, it has
                    nothing to do with the quantity of radiation it blocks,
                    but rather with the time it effectively blocks it vs.
                    your skin's natural protection.  That's fine, though, you
                    go ahead and hang out with SPF 35 the next time you're
                    outdoors in Australia/Argentina.  -John
                    \_ Because humans create particulate matter which has a
                       regional effect we should assume humans create non-
                       particulate matter that has a global effect?  Are
                       humans a plausible cause of climate change?  Sure.
                       Does that mean humans *are* the cause of any current
                       climate change?  No.  Current global warming scarist
                       have no explanation for previous climate changes much
                       more extreme than anything currently claimed to be
                       going on.  Nor do they have any scientific basis to
                       conclude that what is currently going on is more
                       than normal and perfectly natural drift in a chaotic
                       environment.  As far as SPF ratings, I'll defer to your
                       SPF guruness and be sure to apply SPF 5K the next time
                       I'm in Australia or Argentina.  Thanks for the tip.
                 \_ One thing for sure is that rise of CO2 concentration in
                    atmosphere is due to "human activites."   And to think
                    we can continue to emit CO2 to the air without any
                    consequences is laughable.
                        \_ Do the math.  The additional CO2 in the atmosphere
                           as a percentage of atmosphere is trivial.  PPM is
                           "parts per million".  You can figure out the rest.
                    I put "human activites" in quote because it is a misnomer.
                    The reality is that most of these rise in CO2 in
                    atmosphere is due to 5% of human population concentrated
                    in America and Europe.  And right now, *EVERYONE* is
                        \_ So you think 1.6 billion people packed into a
                           relatively small area of China or 1.2ish billion
                           in India aren't responsible for a large chunk of
                           human created CO2?
                           \_ Please educate yourself about the subject. The
                              vast majority of human generated atmospheric CO^2
                              present is due to industrial uses, not from
                              people breathing. It is widely accepted that this
                              CO^2 is primarily from Europe and the US. The
                              argument is primarily about who is responsible
                              for this legacy emission and who should have to
                              bear the financial cost of paying for that.
                    suffering the consequences.  The worse part is that our
                    entire global warming debate has concenterated on putting
                    the blame and the cost of curbing it squarely on the
                    developing nations.    As rsult, I once an environmentalist
                        \_ You mean like how Kyoto is entirely about curbing
                           emissions in the US and EU??  What?
                    don't want to part of this Global Warming debate.  Let
                    China and India pollute and freely emit CO2 for next 100
                    years, then we'll talk.                     kngharv
                        \_ Uh what?  Why would you want China & India to
                           freely pollute?  Are you being sarcastic?  If GW
                           +CO2 is serious and human caused then it is truly
                           a global problem that *all* nations must take
                           action against.
           \_ Yes, that is the "issue" that oil companies and the people
              who love them are trying to get Rush Limbaugh and Bill
              O'Reilly to keep bringing up.  But it's no longer an issue
              of serious scientific debate.  -tom
              \_ Of course it is a subject of serious scientific debate.
                 Good Science is not determined by political concensus but by
                 experiment and evidence.  Nancy telling us she saw a melting
                 glacier is not proof of anything except how much tax money
                 she's wasting on personal junkets around the world.  I wonder
                 what Nancy's carbon foot print is recently?
                 \_ Actually this is an unfortunately naive view of modern
                    science.  Even the 'hard sciences' are dominated severely
                    by consensual narratives and cliques.  The rational
                    response to the global warming debate is to bet on the
                    outcome.  See here: http://hanson.gmu.edu/gamble.html
                      -- ilyas
                    \_ Ok, readily granted that "modern science" is really a
                       crock and all about pleasing the grant sources but that
                       is precisely the reason we end up with bad science
                       producing things like Gore's movie or IPCC reports that
                       change dramatically every few years and people who hold
                       a particular perspective calling for the ouster from the
                       halls of science of those who disagree with them, using
                       holocaust like terms to smear them.  It is precisely
                       this sort of activity that should give any clear
                       thinking person serious pause before swallowing junk
                       political science from the IPCC.
                       \_ Aside from distortions from the popular media,
                          political considerations, and funding sources, there
                          are two additional reasons to be sceptical about
                          are two additional reasons to be skeptical about
                          (any) claims on the global warming issue.
                          (a) The 'pundit effect' -- there is no penalty for
                          being wrong.
                          (b) Establishing causation is extremely difficult
                          even in 'relatively simple' domains like internal
                          medicine.  I have some first-hand experience with how
                          causal claims get established in medicine and
                          epidemiology, and it's pretty atrocious.  The
                          appropriate response to a causal claim in any
                          complex domain is extreme scepticism.
                          complex domain is extreme skepticism.
                            -- ilyas
                 \_ Nice red herring.  There clearly *isn't* a political
                    consensus (except in the U.S., a consensus to do nothing
                    about it), but there *is* a scientific consensus, to the
                    extent that that term has any meaning.  -tom
                    \_ Of course there is a political concensus.  IPCC.  By
                       definition anything written by political lackeys is
                       political.  The sky is still blue even if you call it
                       purple.  The IPCC being a http://UN.org is by definition
                       political.  And where you get the idea that US has a
                       concensus to do nothing I don't know since there is
                       vigorous debate across the nation that has seen some
                       states, such as CA, individual counties, cities, etc
                       taking local action towards reduced emissions under the
                       name of GW.  Seriously, stop reading KOS or whatever
                       and join Reality.  You'll be happier and less bitter.
              \_ Yes, you were witness to last wobble of earth's
                 precession and can attest to this as a fact. Oh wait..
                 No one alive was. It is every 26,000 years
                 \_ Oooooh!  They've got a new "possible explanation"!
                    It's not the sun getting hotter any more?  It's the
                    precession of the Earth?  Wow.  You a smarty.
                    Ye gods, this is awesome.  google for "orbital variance
                    theory".  Not nearly as amusing as timecube, but about
                    as clear.
                    \_ No.  It is simply unknown.  There is no explanation,
                       only hypothesis for previous ice ages and warm periods,
                       same as today.  --didn't write precession comment
                 \_ and of course, the only truly reliable scientific evidence
                    is anecdotal.  There's no way they could compute or measure
                    the effect of earth's precession, because none of those
                    damn scientists lived 26,000 years.  -tom
2007/5/29-31 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan, Reference/History/WW2/Japan] UID:46784 Activity:nil
5/29    Miss Japan crowned Miss Universe:
        http://csua.org/u/isr
        Finally some recognition that the world has yellow fever too. -mrauser
        \_ She looks like Mary Tyler Moore.
2007/5/29-31 [Health/Disease/General] UID:46785 Activity:nil
5/29    Entomologist gives the low down on colony collapse disorder.
        http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mvanishingbees.htm
        \_ Beeist!  Your beeism is not funny or acceptable!
2007/5/29-6/1 [Uncategorized] UID:46786 Activity:nil
5/29    look up your address in Google Maps
        click 'Street view'
        \_ If you're in a few cities in the US.
           \_ Nothing makes you happy huh
              \_ You misunderstand.  It's a nifty feature.  It's just that my
                 address isn't listed.  So if you pick "street view" first,
                 then you can find places where it's implemented.
           \_ I also requires flash 9, so I can't try it at work. :(
2007/5/29-6/1 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:46787 Activity:nil 88%like:46779
5/29    stokke not enjoying the attention
        http://urltea.com/nn8 (washingtonpost.com)
        \_ what a shock
2007/5/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:46788 Activity:kinda low
5/29    White house implicity recognizes gay parents:
        http://img3.glowfoto.com/images/2007/05/29-2032439371L.jpg
        \_ I guess they mean "whitehouse" the porn site.
        \_ What does this have to do with the White House or whitehouse the
           porn site (other than the fact that the pic is porn) or gay parents?
2007/5/29-30 [Reference/RealEstate] UID:46789 Activity:kinda low 92%like:46798
5/29    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0t.xQqgUdjs&refer=home
        "US housing prices decline for first time in 16 years."
        \_ Congrats!  You just discovered the 'Business Cycle'.
           \_ REAL ESTATE NEVER GOES DOWN!
        \_ You may kiss my feet now. -Great Swami
           \_ for being completely wrong?
2017/09/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/19    
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:May:29 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>