| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2007/6/15-16 [Computer/SW/Languages/Perl] UID:46958 Activity:nil |
6/15 Haha - Perl using Vista voice recognition
http://tinyurl.com/2td2y3 -John |
| 2007/6/15 [Recreation/Dating] UID:46959 Activity:nil |
6/15 fags
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/dayinpictures?o=8&f=/g/a/2007/06/14/dip.DTL
\_ How did they conclude that this is related to congenital dysplasia?
\_ How sexy:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/dayinpictures?o=6&f=/g/a/2007/06/14/dip.DTL |
| 2007/6/15-19 [Transportation/Misc] UID:46960 Activity:nil |
6/15 Probably old but still pretty cool: Bombardier Embrio
http://motorcyclecity.com/Concept/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!
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jun/15/drudge_kept_pushing_false_attack_on_bill_clinton_12_hours_after_it_had_been_debunked |
| 2007/6/15-19 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:46963 Activity:nil |
6/15 Gas Prices Expected to Rise at Pump
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070615/oil_prices.html?.v=13
\_ 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.
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2653#more
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:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/10/22/235239/89 |
| 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?
http://tikkun.org/rabbilernerarticles/neocon/document_view
\_ 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 http://csua.com/24/?incr=1&local=0 |
| 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."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/14/world/main2928812.shtml |
| 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.
\_ http://csua.org/u/iyj (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
interesting.
\_ 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
children.
\_ 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
illegal?
\_ 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.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Position_of_trust
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
difference.
\_ 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
life)
castrated. Check. And you're fine with
kids having sex with other kids for some
reason.
\_ 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!
http://www.csua.org/u/iyt |
| 2007/6/15-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:46971 Activity:nil 92%like:46962 |
6/15 Good old Matt Drudge, font of accuracy!
http://urltea.com/s2x (electioncentral.tpmcafe.com) |
| 2007/6/15-19 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:46972 Activity:low |
6/15 Urban sprawl said to create pushy drivers:
http://www.csua.org/u/ixm
\_ 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
Amerika.
\_ 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!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9sJUDx7iEJw |
| 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
later?
\_ 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.
\- "E_NICKLESTEAMROLLER" |
| 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:
http://www.csua.org/u/ixn (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? |
| 5/17 |