Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:June:15 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2007/6/15-16 [Computer/SW/Languages/Perl] UID:46958 Activity:nil
6/15    Haha - Perl using Vista voice recognition  -John
2007/6/15 [Recreation/Dating] UID:46959 Activity:nil
6/15    fags
        \_ How did they conclude that this is related to congenital dysplasia?
        \_ How sexy:
2007/6/15-19 [Transportation/Misc] UID:46960 Activity:nil
6/15    Probably old but still pretty cool:  Bombardier Embrio  -John
        \_ keywords: motorcycle unicycle segway
2007/6/15-16 [Uncategorized] UID:46961 Activity:nil
6/15    is cheeseboard open right now?  or are they under constrcution
        \_ They're open.  They just finished moving into their new space,
           where the old hardware store used to be.  --mconst
2007/6/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:46962 Activity:nil 92%like:46971
6/15    Good old Matt Drudge, font of accuracy!
2007/6/15-19 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:46963 Activity:nil
6/15    Gas Prices Expected to Rise at Pump
        \_ Gas prices will go up and down but the long term is always up now
           since there are no oil supergiant discoveries to save our behinds
           left such as the North Sea in the 1970s.
           \_ There's oil on the moon, I'm sure.
              \_ No way!  Don't you know that it was the Democrats, not the
                 Republicans, who took the country to the moon?
        \_ Interesting graphs comparing the price of gasoline around the world
           with per capita GDP.  The results may surprise you.
           Another data point from the same site is that US "average miles
           driven" is so much higher than other countries that our
           gas price advantage gets wiped out:
2007/6/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:46964 Activity:nil
6/15    Has the Bush Administration finally and completely lost it?
        \_ I believe it.  We're not leaving Iraq.  Anyone who believes
           otherwise is naive.
           \_ I know it seems like it will never happen, but we're supposed
              to get a new president in 18 months.  Anybody from either party
              has got to be better than this gang of jackals.
        \_ as an American, I would say we just leave and cut our losses.
           We are not serious about solving iraq's problem anyway.  We might
           as well just go home and repair the damage to our arm forces in the
           past couple years.   And yes, I stand by my statement about we are
           not serious about solving Iraqi problem.   Everything we do in
           Iraq since we invaded it has everything to do about our internal
           politics than anything else.  Otherwise, we've be forming alliances
           with *ALL* Iraqi neighbors to come up with something agreeable.
2007/6/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:46965 Activity:nil
6/15    kchang why doesn't csua motd site have RSS feed?
        \_ Someone else already wrote one. Talk to Misha(sp?).
           Besides rss feed is good when you have sequential timestamped
           messages whereas motd is mostly threaded, making it awkward to
           represent on rss. If you have alternative ideas, shoot. In the
           mean time I'm content using
2007/6/15-19 [Uncategorized] UID:46966 Activity:nil
6/15    why are there no nipples in my Victoria's Secret catalog?
        \_ because your catalog is not a mammal
2007/6/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:46967 Activity:nil
6/15    Google hits:
        Barack Obama: 1.85M
        Barack Hussein Obama: 116k
        Hillary Clinton: 4.4M
        Hillary Rodham Clinton: 1.4M
        For some reason, Hillary's middle name is used a lot more than other
        people's. About 5 times more than Barack's middle name. It's not like
        anyone needs the extra differentiation from the other Hillary Clintons
        out there. What's up with that?
        John Sidney McCain: 9k, John McCain: 1.9M
        \_ It's her maiden name, not her middle name. Same with
           Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day O'Connor, etc.
           \_ Ah.
2007/6/15-19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:46968 Activity:nil
6/15    "A witness, Jihad Abu Ayad, said men were killed in front of their
        wives and children."
2007/6/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:46969 Activity:kinda low
6/15    Bush's approval rating is now 29%. Who are these people supporting
        Bush and where/why do they still support him?
        \_ No intern sucking dick? Approve.
           Christian? Anti-abortion? Anti-faggots? Approve.
           No flip-flop? Doesn't change mind? Approve.
           \_ (Daily Show: Bush vs. Bush)
           Represents GOOD and stands up against EVIL? Approve.
           Marriage stable? Approve.
           White male? Uses simple commoner vocabulary? Approve.
           Supports NRA? Special Interests? Approve.
           Supports free-market, corporations, and profits? Approve.
           *** I am an American, and I approve George W Bush ***
        \- because the most important thing in the world to them is:
   save-the-fetus || i-hate-asslords || my-personal-NPV || gun-cold-dead-hands
        \_ Congress' is lower.  Reid is lower.  Who are supporting them?
           \_ Hint: Congress has many people in it.  Which job of Congress
              do you think people disapprove of?
           \_ Is Reid lower in his own district?  Almost certainly not.
           \_ Well, in congress' case, it only matters what the approval
              rating for your local congressman is.  I can hate the guy from
              New Orleans all I want, but it doesn't matter.  I believe the
              local rating for congressman tend to be fairly high.
           \_ Are you one of those Bush supporters then? What makes you still
              support him? Congress is almost always lower than the President,
              over the last 50 years. And the Congressional Democrats have
              quite a bit higher rating than either Bush or the Congressional
              Republicans, though they have dropped quite a bit lately.
              \_ The Congress has had a lower approval than the President
                 every time I've checked for years.
                 \- without geting into a longer discussion about statistics,
                    you probably cannot easily compare the opinion about
                    Reid and BUSHCO, because a *much smaller* number of people
                    know who Reid is. So you cant really ask "do you know
                    who the sen maj leader is?" if yes, then "what do you
                    think about reid". since the <20% of america who can
                    correctly answer the "filtering" question biases the
                    population you are sampling. and if you dont know who
                    Reid is [you ask ask the Reid <-> Maj Leader question
                    Reid is [you can ask the Reid <-> Maj Leader question
                    in either direction], what does your opinion matter?
                    in either direction], what does your opinion really mean?
                    now if "do you know who the maj leader of the senate is"
                    was the filtering questions for both "what do you think
                    about Reid, BUSHCO, Cheney" those numbers might be
                    \_ You *can* take a look at the people who know who Reid
                       is and voted (D) based on his false promises to get us
                       out of Iraq.  Since the number of actual voters vs.
                       potential voters in this country is so small you might
                       as well say that no polls are meaningful due to the
                       required filtering, etc.
2007/6/15-19 [Recreation/Dating] UID:46970 Activity:moderate
6/15    Why is sex between a 17 yo and a 15 yo acceptable but not between a
        27 yo and a 15 yo? What exactly is the moral issue here?
        \_ A 17 year old cannot take advantage of a girl the same way a 27
           year old can. A 17 year old also isn't expected to necessarily
           know better. Note how sex between a 17 year old and an 10 year old
           is still a problem even though they are both minors. Why do you
           think that is?
           \_ What exactly do you mean when you say "take advantage of"?
              A 10 year old is considered too young for any consent. And sex
              is physically dangerous for most of them anyway. But is that
              reasonable to apply to a 15 yo? 16?
              \_ yes.
              \_ 15 is considered too young for consent, too. Why would
                 10 not be okay and 15 be okay? They are both still
                 \_ Not really they aren't. There are huge physiological
                    differences. Nobody considers 10 old enough but 14 is
                    accepted relatively commonly. It is legal in the US in
                    a couple states, but only within a certain age difference.
                    \_ With how young girls are reaching sexual maturity there
                       are *not* huge physiological differences, but it's
                       not the physiological differences that matter here.
                       \_ 10 and 15? huge differences, yes. I don't care
                          if you can find some 10 year old who is more
                          developed than some 15 year old. You motd people
                          love arguing irrelevant stuff like that.
        \_ Well gee, maybe there is a difference between 2 years age difference
           and 12.
           \_ Maybe there is. And?
              \_ And op wants to bang 17 year olds.
                 \_ not really, i'm just polemicising
        \_ A 17 year old and a 15 year old are both high schoolers and it
           is normal for two adolescents to date. It is considered exploitive
           in our society for an adult to date an adolscent.
           in our society for an adult to date an adolescent.
           \_ Why should it be considered exploitative? Use age 16 if you
              want. In reality people's experiences differ wildly and it's
              not so uncommon for a 15 yo girl to be much more experienced
              than a 22 yo man. An older man might also reasonably be expected
              to be more responsible than a teenage boy.
               \_ In many states, 16 is the age of consent for women. Go move
                  to Utah if you want to bang high schoolers. In Canada it is
                  14 and 13 in Spain.
              \_ Studies sugget that cognitive development doesn't gel until
                 the ripe old age of 25. Anecdotally speaking, a mature 22yo
                 is still only mature for 22. Expecting a 22yo who is attracted
                 to a 15yo to be more responsible is already an exercise based
                 on faulty assumptions.
                 \_ Don't females mature faster than men in this respect?
                    At any rate the reality is that they have sex anyway. I'm
                    trying to get down to the specific issue with the age
                    difference. I knew a girl in HS who was dating some guy
                    in college and they ended up marrying. They were illegal.
                    At least a 20-something is legally responsible for more
                    than a teenage boy.
                    \_ Regardless of whether 15yo girls are more experienced
                       than 22yo guys, this changes nothing about it being
                       exploitive for a 22yo guy to have sex with a 15yo girl.
                       She's still a child, mentally and socially. He's an
                       adult. Any sexual relationship between them is by
                       default exploitive.
                       \_ Ok let's just use 16. Is it ok now? Where is the
                          harm? What exactly is he exploiting? Isn't she
                          exploiting him, if it's consensual? Or is it
                          impossible for them to have "love"? Should it be
                          \_ Frankly, yes. And more to the point, a blanket
                             18 would be a much better idea. There are actual
                             chemical differences between children aged 16 and
                             people aged 18. For the purposes of fairness,
                             lower the drinking age to 18 while we're at it.
                             \_ You didn't answer the first part. What is the
                                harm that is being prevented? There are
                                chemical differences between everybody. That
                                is totally meaningless.
               \_ In many states, 16 is the age of consent for women. Go move
                  to Utah if you want to bang high schoolers. In Canada it is
                  14 and 13 in Spain.
                                \_ This thread has gone on way too long so
                                   I'll spell it out for you: A 16 year old,
                                   ANY 16 year old is a child.  A 22 year old
                                   is an adult.  Period.  Get over it.  You
                                   are not going to convince anyone that your
                                   fantasies of nailing your friend's very
                                   little sister are ok.  As a personal note,
                                   I'm 37 and look at 22 year olds as children
                                   in comparison to where I am now.  The idea
                                   of 16 year olds having sex with anyone at
                                   all makes me physically ill.  Go ahead and
                                   make your final statement.  My reply to
                                   that will be removing this sickening thread.
                                   \_ We should outlaw sex with 22 year olds
                                      \_ No, you misread what I said about 22
                                         year olds.  Since the rest of what you
                                         said is based on that misreading there
                                         is nothing more to reply to here.
                                      since you are sickened by it. Maybe you
                                      have issues. Most of the world doesn't
                                      seem to fit your views. You also aren't
                                      mature enough to discuss something
                                      without projecting things on me. Should
                                      sodomy be illegal because it sickens
                                      lots of people? 16 is not "very little"
                                      by anyone's standards. Oh well, you're
                                      not worth talking to anyway. You haven't
                                      addressed the issue of what harm exactly
                                      is suffered by these poor 16 year old
                                      children if they have sex, and how that
                                      varies with their partner's age.
Posit: In order for sex to be consensual, it must occur between two
individuals who can demonstrate a cognizant recognition of the physical and
emotional consequences of the act. By definition, children lack the cognitive
ability and emotional maturity to fully comprehend said consequences. Although
_some_ 16yo may be able to prove, through emancipation, that they are mature
enough in the eyes of society to give consent and demonstrate that they
possess the above cognizant recognition, the majority do not. As such, it is
in the best interest of minors to be barred from giving consent. Exception:
Teenagers existing in close proximity to each other (as in school or
school-oriented social groupings), and possessed of/by the various and sundry
hormones of adolescence cannot, and should not, be expected to resist physical
intimacy with their peers solely on the basis of an arbitrary age limit; thus
teenagers can give consent to other teenagers within two years of their age
range. The difference in brain maturity and level of coercive ability
extendable and resistable varies greatly outside of the two-year age variance;
in other words, it's easier for a 22yo to convince a 16yo to have sex despite
the latter not yet fully grasping the consequences thereof.

Now, as for your other silliness: It is no great hardship for mature, rational
people to hold that consensual sex between adults of any gender or number is
perfectly acceptable while at the same time condemning as immoral and
unethical those acts which are skewed toward coercion and the exploitation of
those who cannot demonstrate the afore-mentioned recognition. Is it fair to
assign an arbitrary age? Perhaps not, but a society must needs think of the
welfare of society as a whole, and illegalizing statutory rape seems to be the
only way to get child-pluckers away from the borderline cases.
        \_ Ok now this is a reasoned argument. However you've tried
           to establish that they can't comprehend the consequences, yet they
           are allowed to do it anyway with their peers. This doesn't follow
           unless it's to the effect that "they'll do it anyway". But that
           acknowledges that these "children" are naturally driven to do
           this thing you claim they're not ready for. A 16yo is fully
           aware of the decision to have sex, in general. Is it easier for
                \_ Nonsense.  Go look up teen pregnancy rates.
                   \_ What do those rates tell us about their awareness?
           a 22yo to convince a 16yo? That's non-obvious. I don't see the
           moral or practical reason to criminalize the 22yo but not
           the 18yo. All the physical and emotional consequences are the
                \_ 18 y/o is an adult under the law.  Try again.
                   \_ No, in CA, you can have sex with someone who is
                      within four years of your age, hence 19 y.o. and
                      16 y.o. is legal, but 22 y.o. and 16 y.o. is not.
           same or worse. And this assumes that sexual activity is inherently
           damaging, which is the unspoken assumption behind your initial
           argument: that these physical and/or emotional consequences are
           negative. Arguably the consequences may be less when the male
                \_ See teen pregnancy rates.  I'd love to see you argue that
                   pregnancy at age 16 isn't a negative consequence.
                   \_ Ok great. I like that. Now what basis do you have to
                      argue that an older partner increases the risk of
                      unplanned pregnancy? Or even the incidence of sex?
                      It's quite likely to be the opposite. A teen boy
                      has less legal responsibility.
           is more mature. How is a 19/16 pair sick? Yes the guy is more
           mature than an 18 year old. So what? Anyway it seems most of the
           world isn't as draconian as your argument.
           Actually your argument seems like a case against mixed sex schools.
               \_ In many states, 16 is the age of consent for women. Go move
                  to Utah if you want to bang high schoolers. In Canada it is
                  14 and 13 in Spain.
           \_ I appreciate how you slyly changed your 27 y.o. man to a 22
              y.o. There is a large body of psychological research that
              indicates that sexual relationships where there is a massive
              power difference and the relationship is of an exploitive
              nature are damaging to the child. This is most extreme in
              case of parent/child, priest/alter boy, parent/teacher, etc.
              Do you think that these relationships should be legal as well?
              \_ The Child Molesting Poster just wants justification for
                 nailing his friend's little sister.  Nothing you can say will
                 change that.  Well written but unfortunately wasted on CMP.
              \_ They are legal though. Not children and boys of course but
                 it's not illegal for a boss to screw his employee and such.
                 The person might lose his job but it's not criminalized.
                 Parent/child? You're really reaching if you think that's a
                 similar issue. Simply being older doesn't confer any massive
                 power difference. Or any power at all arguably.
                 \_ No, they are not legal. In fact, statuatory rape can go
                    from a misomeanor to a felony if there is a trust and
                    power relationship between a child and the adusive adult.
                    Are you claiming that an adult boss can legally screw his 14
                    year old employees? You are really in never-never land now.
                    \_ DUH the power relationship is orthoganal to the age
                       issue. The power relationship is not criminalized except
                       for incest.
                          Not true, at least not in some states. I honestly
                          don't know about California.
                          \_ Please, a wiki page with "citations needed"?
                             Anyway, merely being older is not a position of
                             authority, for people who are not little kids.
                             There would have to be some other relationship.
           \_   I'm saying that adult-on-child sex is not okay. I'm saying that
                teen-on-teen sex is fraught with physical and emotional peril
                but that's it's unreasonable to assume that teenagers will
                have the restraint to refrain, and so the only reasonable
                restriction is to limit the interaction to a two-year range;
                I'm saying that children should play with children their own
                age. I'm saying that a horny 22/27yo guy, no matter how
                socially inept, has more tools available to coerce an immature
                16yo into sex that the 16yo is not ready for than that 16yo's
                peers. The moral reason to criminalize sex between adults and
                children is to prevent exploitation and coercion. Your last
                sentence is ludicrous and ignores what I've said.
                \_ Not ludicrous. You're saying sex is fraught with all these
                   perils (what exactly? I never was imperilled... stds?) and
                   that teens can't stop themselves from banging their peers
                   so that sounds like an argument to segregate the sexes.
                   Why do you use the word "coerce"? Coercion == rape and is
                   already illegal. Why do you think 16yos are not ready for
                   sex? More of them have sex than don't these days.
                   \_ Well, I tried to reason with you and that didn't work.
                      Your issue is with the age at which children become
                      adults. Have fun fighting that fight.
                      \_ There's no law saying you have to be an adult to
                         have sex. So the issue is simply about the age
                         \_ This is precisely what age of consent accomplishes.
                            \_ Well that's the crux: whether it does accomplish
                               something useful, and what the details of it
                               should be; this stuff is not universally agreed
                               as the various laws even within the US prove.
                               People like you would like no "children" to have
                               sex. Age of consent does not solve that at all.
                               \_ Sigh. Why is reading so hard for you? People
                                  like me, i.e., reasonable people, don't want
                                  adults to have sex with children. People like
                                  you should be chemically castrated.
                                  \_ So the majority of the world where 16 is
                                     legal are unreasonable and should be
                                     castrated. Check. (wait, so you're fine
                                     with children having sex with children?
                                     why's that, when it cause so many
                                     problems? they're getting damaged for
                                     castrated. Check. And you're fine with
                                     kids having sex with other kids for some
                                     \_ I think there is a distinction that
                                        has not been made here between "what I
                                        think" and "what I would legislate".
                                        You're all blurring this line, muddying
                                        the argument. -!pp
           \_ Hey, it's your hero!
2007/6/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:46971 Activity:nil 92%like:46962
6/15    Good old Matt Drudge, font of accuracy! (
2007/6/15-19 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46972 Activity:low
6/15    Urban sprawl said to create pushy drivers:
        \_ I'm an urbanite myself. Almost every single woman I've met in
           my life prefer the suburban lifestyle. My mom, my sister, my
           x-gf, x-x-gf, x-x-x-gf, female co-workers, etc prefer the sense
           of safety and serenity suburbs provide. I have from time to time
           debated with them why the urban lifestyle is better-- better
           utilization of space, more efficient use of energy, more
           convenience, better community, so on so forth. In the end, I
           realized that it's pretty pointless telling them my point
           of view. Most of them grew up in the suburbs and they've long
           made up their mind that the city is a dump. So go ahead and
           list top 10 reasons why the city is better. No one is going to
           change his/her mind.
           \_ My wife and x-gf both live in Noe Valley. My x-x-gf lives in
              Rockridge. Most people are just ignorant, not close minded, so
              if you show them otherwise they might change their minds. My
              parents thought everyone in San Francisco was stuck up, but
              after visiting for a while in Noe, they realized that at least
              in my neighborhood, people are quite friendly. It is also
              cleaner, safer and quieter than Riverside. Now they are hinting
              that they would like to move here. This is not necessarily
              a good thing....
              \_ But SF is really a dump. It's too cold even during summer,
                 and too wet. There are too many hills to climb and parking
                 is impossible. If Amerika invests and builds nice cities
                 and better mass transits like the ones in Europe maybe
                 more people would actually want to stay in the city. Until
                 that happens, suburban lifestyle will be prefered in
                 \_ Hint: putting a "K" in "American" is not clever.  Putting
                    in three of them doesn't make you 3x clever.  Carry on.
           \_ Maybe you should meet women somewhere other than your geek job.
2007/6/15-18 [Uncategorized] UID:46973 Activity:nil
6/15    Richard Stallman sings!
2007/6/15-19 [Reference/Law, Politics] UID:46974 Activity:nil
6/15    Those who have graduated grad/business/law/med school: do you keep
        your papers (handouts, lecture notes, homeworks, etc.) from school?
        I'm trying to decide whether to do so or not. Thanks.
        \_ In general, don't bother. What good is your h/w going to do you?
           Keep your good texts and some relevant lectures. If you're
           a law school grad then keep it all until you pass the bar.
           \_ Here is how I look at it: if you know in the back of your
              mind you are going to throw it away in 5 yrs, and there is
              no "inflection event" between now and then [bar exam], just
              throw it away now and save yourself the hassle of carting it
              around for 5 yrs. I suppose some stuff you could digitize.
              I cant read half of my notes, and I cant understand most of
              the math and physics any more. But I keep textbooks and a
              fair number of readers. Those can be stored efficiently.
              Now that you can buy the entire history of the New Yorker and
              such for $100, no need to keep things like that either.
        \_ I recycled almost all of my paper notes from law school
           and I sold most of my books (except for Con Law and Patents).
           Most of my outlines were on my computer so I kept those for
           future reference. I don't have anything from ug any more
           except my 7 series text, my chem 1a text, and my CLR and I
           only have the 7 series text b/c the bookstore wouldn't buy
           the damn thing back since a new edition came out right after
           I finished 7c.
2007/6/15-19 [Uncategorized] UID:46975 Activity:nil
6/15    I don't get it.  Why can't one make a living just listening to Cramer
        Mad Money's stock picks, buying a boatload, then selling a few days
        \_ You can, if you have enough money to benefit from the small
           movement. For most of us, transaction fees and taxes eat up
           lots of profit.
2007/6/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:46976 Activity:low
6/15    Hilary has *no* *chance* in 2008, I read it in the motd: (WSJ)
        \_ At a glance, which one of the candidates _does_ have a chance?
           \_ Cthulhu 2008. Why vote for a lesser evil?
        \_ Clinton with Obama VP would be an interesting combo I think.
           Still, the only thing that matters is when you get down to
           election day. That's pretty far off yet and I think a lot of
           states may not really vote Democrat when we get down to it,
           or vote for a woman CIC etc etc.
        \_ I do not think Hilary can win. I think it's because she's a
           woman and a polarizing one at that. I never vote Republican,
           but I don't think I'd vote for her. I'd probably vote for a
           3rd party candidate.
           \_ A lot has to do with who her opposition is at the time.
              If the GOP pushes forward a Spiro Agnew, she might not need much
              more than the votes of the faithful to win.
              If the GOP pushes forward a Spiro Agnew, she might not
              need much more than the votes of the faithful to win.
              \_ Spiro Agnew -> grow a penis
              \_ Someone's going to win, and none of the candidates are strong.
                 Sort of like a 'lesser evil' vote, the winner will be the
                 least weak.
                 \_ So far, the GOP has given us adulterers, flip-floppers,
                    and cranky old men. Oh, and Ron Paul. Which of these is
                    lesser evil you speak of?
2019/04/18 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:June:15 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>