Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:November:20 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2007/11/20-26 [ERROR, uid:48666, category id '18005#5.6425' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48666 Activity:low
11/20   The White House has no comment:
        \_ I mean, why would they? You don't expect conservatives to
           apologize do you? Stand strong, emphasize the positive,
           ignore criticsm, move on. These are very effective conservative
           \_ troll.
           \_ I guess a refusal to learn and change can be considered a hallmark
              of conservatism.
           \_ I guess a refusal to learn and change can be considered a
              hallmark of conservatism.
              \_ troll++;
                 \_ Call it a troll if you like, but it is a defining quality
                    of conservatism to preserve the past against the future.
                    Part of this is resistance to change. Too bad you have
                    such blinders that you can't see this. Conservatives call
                    liberals "flip-floppers" all the time. Do you call them
                    out as "trolls" for that?
                    \_ Please tell us your name so we can Swift Boat you
                       to death.  -independent pretending to be conservative
                    \_ You are not just a troll, but incredibly stupid too.
2007/11/20-26 [Computer/SW/Security] UID:48667 Activity:nil
11/20   Okay, password login failed for me again.  How do I set up my soda acct
        so that I can login using SSL public key?
        \_ One tutorial here:
           \_ I can't get it working from that.  Either putty won't load the
              key generated on soda, or soda rejects my key generated from
              putty.  Has anyone done this with putty on windows?
              \_ You need to import the key you got from soda, into
                 Puttygen on the windows side, then use the resulting key.
                 \_ Excellent, that did it.  Thanks very much. -op
           \_ Condensed into step-by-step here: /tmp/publickey_putty_instruct
              Please feel free to correct/distribute. --erikred
2007/11/20-26 [Health] UID:48668 Activity:low
11/20   I've heard that the most common birth month is February.
        Why is that the case since February has fewer days than all
        the other months?
        \_ Lots of May weddings?  Most of my friends have November
           birthdays.  Puts conception around Valentine's day.
        \_ what's going on 9 months earlier?  Birth months are purely a
           function of time after conception.
        \_ Chance of getting laid on May (spring love) is higher than
           any other month?
           \_ NOT TRUE. FUCK YOU.               -not getting laid #3
        \_ You heard wrong. If you STFW you will find that in 2006 July was
           the most common both in total number and in rate. July and
           August are usually 1-2 in some order. February was lowest in
           total number (obviously fewer days) but also 2nd lowest in rate
           (to January). June, July, August, and September have the
           highest birth rates. Interestingly, the rate on Saturdays and
           Sundays is really low compared to the rest of the week, with
           over a 30% difference on those days. (Tuesday is the most common
           day to be born.) Any idea why that might be? (Source: National
           Center for Health Statistics)
           \_ a sizable percentage of birth dates are chosen.  (c-section,
              induced labor).  more likely to choose to do it on a week day.
              \_ Why do you say it's more likely to choose a week day? For
                 what reason? Or do you mean that the *doctor* is more
                 likely to choose a week day, which I can understand?
                 \_ Patients too. Does it really matter though, who
                    chooses? Many (most?) C-Sections are done during the 9-5
                    M-F schedule that is convenient for the hospital.
                    \_ Well, yes, it does. I can't think of any reason the
                       patient cares if it's Sunday or Wednesday.
                       \_ the patient doesn't schedule it.
                          \_ What do you think, that the doctor does it
                             somehow without the patient's permission? Of
                             course the patient "schedules it" just like the
                             doctor does. But it might be hard to talk the
                             staff into coming in on a weekend. I bet you
                             could schedule your C-section on the weekend
                             if you were really persistent (and willing to
                             pay more for it).
                             \_ You think hospitals close on weekends?
                                \_ No, I have actually worked in hospitals.
                                   They do not close, but they run on a much
                                   smaller staff.
                            \- FYI, there are many, many studies on day of the
                               week and by shift studies of the distribution of
                               assisted/induced births and "natural schedule"
                               schedule births. in addition to just counting
                               the number of births, they have also studied
                               the distribution of "problems" [low weight,
                               mortality]. there have both been longitudinal
                               studies in a given location [say due to
                               greatly increased c section rates] as well as
                               comparisons between disparate places [say
                               north america vs asia] with different medical
                               cultures, insurance schemes etc. obgoogle.
                               short version of findings: being born on
                               weekend: not good. of course YMMV.
           \_ Maybe the level of stress typically experienced on a weekday
              vs. weekend also has something to do with it?  Isn't high
              stress more likely to trigger labor?  -niloc
2007/11/20-26 [Finance, Finance/Investment] UID:48669 Activity:nil
11/20   Sowell explains why most income disparity statistics are bunk.
        \_ If by "explains" you means waves his arms wildly and says
           absoultly nothing, then yes.
        \_ He is confusing income disparity with class mobility.
           \_ Classes aren't mentioned. -not op
              \_ Just because he didn't use the word, doesn't mean that is
                 not what he was referring to. What do you call all his
                 dicussion about people moving from one tax bracket to another?
                 \_ He's talking about income mobility, not class mobility. -pp
                    \_ Explain what the difference is, please.
                       \_ still waiting for an answer here.. not that I really
                          expected a coherent one from a guy who read this
                          expected a coherent one from a guy who reads this
                          kind of crap, but still...
2007/11/20-26 [Politics/Domestic, Recreation/Food, Uncategorized/Profanity] UID:48670 Activity:nil
11/20   FRE FNM CFC LEN PHM ETFC, all bond insurers eating buckets of shit
2007/11/20-26 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:48671 Activity:moderate
11/20   If gas price doubles, what are some states that'll suffer more
        than the others? Farm states? States that lack cities/mass transits?
        \_ States where residents pay a larger proportion of income for fuel.
           In consumption per capita the top states are Wyoming, the
           Dakotas, Alabama, and South Carolina. California is #51 (list
           includes DC). In consumption per $ GDP the top states are
           Mississippi, Montana, Alabama, Arkansas, and Oklahoma.
           California is again #51. (Source:
           \_ California and NY both have residents who pay a lot for fuel,
              *and* have to have goods trucked in to large population centers.
              Your gas will cost more, but so will your vegetables.
              \_ The expensive states spend more as a proportion of income
                 on things somewhat unaffected by fuel prices like housing and
                 insurance and less on things like vegetables. I also
                 suspect that fuel costs are a smaller proportion of
                 operating costs as a percentage of sales price in states
                 like CA where items like food are so expensive relative
                 to other states.
                 \- you're sort  of on  to something,  but  i  think  a more
                    correct "econ dept"  analysis is "wealthier people spend
                    a smaller fraction of their incomes on non-discretionary
                    purchases, and thus they can more easily adjust to price
                    changes. you can drink  "second growth" wines instead of
                    premier crus as the dollar falls. you can decide to stay
                    in  star-- hotel  on your  vacation  if the  if you  are
                    spending  more  on gas  around  the  year.  but that  is
                    different  than trying  to change  your food  or utility
                    bill 24x7."  however this is analyzies  the "welfare" or
                    "utility"  impact,  not the  prices.  but  when you  say
                    "suffer" that's what you mean.  obviously a "luxury tax"
                    on  +100ft yachts  will raise  the price,  but  you cant
                    really call that suffering.  anyway, again you are on to
                    something when you look at prices and the composition of
                    expenses but you have to factor in substitution effects.
                    and in that case i'd look at "rich" vs "poor" rather
                    than cost of living. [e.g. poor people in the bay area
                    dont have high heating bills in the winter].
                    an interesting philosophical detour is to look at the
                    "utility monster" aspect to this. although this is
                    better looked at across more disparate populations, like
                    say us vs china, rather than california vs alabama.
                    per diminishing marginal returns, somebody making $10k
                    a year will get more utility from making an extra $1k
                    per year and thus lose more from not making the extra $1k
                    compared to somebody making $100k. however the question is
                    if the $10k person has sort of adapted to low expectation
                    but the spoiled and weak person at $100k sort of expected
                    to keep getting raises and "suffers" serious shopping
                    withdrawal, who is really suffering more? obviously it
                    is hard to suggest public policy should compensate the
                    whiney/subjective utility.
              \_ You think vegetables grow in Montana? There is actually
                 quite a bit of economy of scale in shipping vegetables to
                 large urban areas. I wouldn't be suprised if it actually
                 cost more to ship to smaller morkets that are closer.
                 cost more to ship to smaller markets that are closer.
                 \_ Umm.. I know some people who grow vegetables in Montana.
                    Hence, yes, I think vegetables grow in Montana.  They also
                    grow in California, and many other places.
                    \- Famous Montana Potatos. there are a lot of cerial
                    \- Famous Montana Potatos. there are a lot of cereal
                       crops grown in montana, although i dunno how much
                       of this makes econ sense and how much of this is
                       because of crazy subsidies.
                       amazingly enough, there is a proposal to grow
                       sugar cane in the imperial valley [read desert +
                       massive water subsidies = crazy plans]
                    \_ I used to live in Montana. No one is growing any
                       significant quantity of vegetables there, unless
                       they are using a hot house. It freezes too late
                       and too early.
2007/11/20-26 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:48672 Activity:kinda low
11/20   Most viewed pages on Conservapedia:
         1. Main Page [1,894,429]
         2. Homosexuality [1,475,437]
         3. Homosexuality and Hepatitis [515,993]
         4. Homosexuality and Promiscuity [416,375]
         5. Homosexuality and Parasites [387,265]
         6. Homosexuality and Gonorrhea [327,795]
         7. Homosexuality and Domestic Violence [319,073]
         8. Gay Bowel Syndrome [305,261]
         9. Homosexuality and Syphilis [261,781]
         10. Homosexuality and Mental Health [243,293]
        \_ "... homosexuality has a variety of negative effects on
           individuals and society at large which will be subsequently
           elaborated on."
         \_ "... homosexuality has a variety of negative effects on individuals
            and society at large which will be subsequently elaborated on."
         \_ ...because hostile stat pumping is unknown?  I'm surprised Ron Paul
            isn't the biggest hit.
            \_ Because most people going to the page are going to laugh at the
               stupid, homophobic freaks that run conservapedia.  If you are
               a rational conservative sites like that are the last thing you
               want people to think of when they think of conservatives.  Too
               bad the polictical movement has been hijacked by the insane and
               the xenophobic.
               \_ Nothing has been hijacked.  There are extremists in politics.
                  This isn't a surprise but they do not represent more than
                  themselves and certainly don't speak for the vast and
                  overwhelming majority of conservatives anymore than the
                  nutters at Kos/DU speak for liberals.
                  \_ Except for the fact that the conservative nutters now
                     are the ones getting elected.  That's why it is a
                     hijack.  That's also why the republican party is
                     self destructing right now.  (The democrats are just
                     still running around like headless chickens, lack of
                     leadership bad, but at least not as bad as really bad
                     but effective leadership.)
                     \_ What is your example of a conservative nutter?  Was it
                        better when the (R) were a permanent minority party
                        who played golf more than they attended votes?
                  \_ From the GOP Party Platform in Texas:
                     \_ Yes, and?  Before you reply, I'm an atheist but not the
                        kind who hates religious people so don't go there.
                        \_ "Homosexuality - We believe that the practice of
                            sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes
                            to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to
                            the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases.
                            Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental,
                            unchanging truths that have been ordained by God,
                            recognized by our country.s founders, and shared by
                            the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be
                            presented as an acceptable .alternative. lifestyle
                            in our public education and policy, nor should
                            family be redefined to include homosexual
                            couples. We are opposed to any granting of special
                            legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges
                            including, but not limited to, marriage between
                            persons of the same sex, custody of children by
                            homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or
                            retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or
                            civil penalties against those who oppose
                            homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief
                            in traditional values.
                            Texas Sodomy Statutes - We oppose the legalization
                            of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its
                            authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to
                            withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from
                            cases involving sodomy."
                            Wow, you really support these kinds of hateful
        \_ Any serious discussion of "Conservopedia" is silly.  It's just some
           nutty private high school somewhere that got a little funding from
           the Eagle Forum for web hosting fees.
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:November:20 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>