Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:December:15 Saturday <Friday, Sunday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2007/12/15 [Uncategorized] UID:48809 Activity:nil
        \_ Girls Gone Wild is all nude girls, some female masturbation
           or girl-girl fun.  No guy on girl action.
2007/12/15-19 [Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:48810 Activity:moderate
12/15   Ran through AdAware and SpyBot but computer still slow and still
        getting weird pop-ups from Best solution? Block
        all of these IPs in less than a minute!
        Click on the "To view the HOSTS file in plain text form"
        and then put it in your /etc/hosts file. If using Winblows:
        Windows Vista   =       C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\ETC
        Windows XP      =       C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\ETC
        Windows 2K      =       C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\DRIVERS\ETC
        Win 98/ME       =       C:\WINDOWS
        \_ THANKS! Doing this also got rid of all the annoying iframe
           advertisements, click tracking load, etc. GREAT idea.
        \_ Great, so you don't get popups but because you're too lazy to take
           care of your machine you're still a spam sending zombie.  The rest
           of the intertubes think you should clean your machine or reinstall
           if you are $windows_clue--.  That is the best solution in your case.
        \_ That's stupid. Fix the source, not the symptom.
           \_ Like I said I ran through all the anti-spyware programs
              out there and couldn't find anything and I don't want to
              reinstall the OS all over again so this is the next best thing
        \_ THANKS! Doing this also got rid of all the annoying iframe
           advertisements, click tracking load, etc. GREAT idea.
2007/12/15-20 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:48811 Activity:low
12/15   Finally the global warming fanatics reveal their agenda.
        "A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of
        wealth and resources"
        \_ Finally?  This isn't news to anyone paying attention to the hoaxers.
        \_ I don't know if I would agree with that, but the people doing the
           most polluting are certainly going to have to find a way to
           pollute less.
           \- "most polluting" is kinda tricky. obviously you have to factor
              in population, but maybe also factor in what the country does.
              although you cant just use portion of world GDP, since if i am
              tasked to produce a billion dollars of billable legal time and
              you are tasked to produce a billion dollars of aluminium, you
              reasonably get more "pollution credits" than i do. also, shouldnt
              say people in quatar or alaska be entitled to use more heating/
              colling energy than say bay area people who just want to be
              cooling energy than say bay area people who just want to be
              \epsilon more comfortable or have a bigger house etc. that's a
              problem of willing-to-pay -> utility -> efficiency analysis ...
              if billg or ALGOR is willing to may more to have their giant
              house go from outside temp of 85 to a comfortable 72 vs a than
              a poor person is willing (able) to pay to go from 36deg to 45deg
              or 110 to 90 for their small space, that doesnt mean the comfort
              of the rich offsets the lives of the poor. how about a spa tax.
              \_ Volume of C0^2 emitted is not that complex an idea. People
                 who live energy intensive lifestyles, whether it involve
                 using lots of aluminum, living in Dubai or Nome or some other
                 not really habitable place, or burning up lots of fuel
                 in long commutes, are probably not going to be able to
                 continue to live like that. The adjustment will be tough,
                 but one way or another it is going to end up happening.
                 \- it's not the science/engineering [volume of co2] that is
                    complicated it's the economics/philosophy/politics.
                    \_ Fair enough. Neither a straight "each citizen is
                       alloted X pollution credits, which they may use or sell
                       as they see fit" nor "each pound of C0^2 gets a one
                       cent tax" solution is likely to be acceptable to
                       enough people to work. But we have figured out ways
                       to stop pollution before, it is not like this is the
                       \- we have solved the problem before *inside a
                          soverign state*, meaning there is a legal process
                          for making decisions, and a legal system for
                          enforcing decisons [property rights, torts etc].
                          the international system is anarchic. and really
                          the problem isnt that well solved inside states.
                          e.g. hypersubsidized water etc. there are some
                          decent articles in the e'ist on problems in the
                          EU pollution trading regime. there is also some
                          good econ theory on when a tax is better and when
                          a cap + trading regime is better. i dont remember
                          the name of the classic paper in this area but i
                          can look it up maybe. it turns a lot on whether
                          the "total target" is well or ill defined, i.e.
                          there are some forms of pollution where "more
                          is worse" but it's fairly smooth. there are
                          other areas where things degrade slowly up to
                          a certain point but then fairly catastrophic
                          things happen, so the marginal cost depends on
                          scale factors.
                       first problem of this type ever. Much sticker is going
                       to be considering the cost and responsibility for past
                       damage to the atmosphere. Who is responsible for all
                       the C0^2 that has already built up and who will pay
                       for cleaning it up? That is a much trickier and more
                       political issue even than reducing current emissions.
                       \_ CO2: we used to call it "air for plants", now we
                          call it "pollution".  It's a scam.
                          \_ its a quantity thing.  In low doses, it's fine.
                             In high doeses it's a problem.
        \_ simplest way to look at it is globl warmnig being caused by people
           taking carbon from the ground,  to eventually be used by their
           customers to put it in the air.  A fee on extraction of in-ground
           energy consumers to take that same carbon out of the ecosystem is
           the most logicaly way to offset that.  That fee could then go to
           operations to get the carbon out of the ecosystem.  Or could go to
           "other parties" -- this is where the wealth redistribution issue
           comes, and obviously not where the money should go.  Taxing the
           problem to pay for 'the poor' is actually going to be counter
           productive -- developing nations are only going to increase their
           energy consumption.
           \_ Temp. rises precede CO2 rises.  CO2 does not cause GW.  CO2 GW
              is a hoax.
           \_ I suppose a more succinct way of saying this is charging the
              'big polluters' a fee to pay to the undeveloped countries is
              stupid and doesn't attack the problem. It exacerbates it by giving
              them capital to develop and become polluters themselves.
              Charging a fee to clean up or mitigate the mess makes more sense.
2007/12/15-20 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll] UID:48812 Activity:nil
12/15   Does soda actually support IMAP now? (No, this is not a troll;
        yes, if I have to ask, I don't know. I don't. I'm cool with
        that.) Shell access is a fine thing, but at work I'd rather have
        Alpine aggregate my mail. Thanks.
        \_ Yes.  The IMAP server is <DEAD><DEAD>, though, and you
           have to use SSL.  Let me know if it doesn't work for you.  --mconst
2007/12/15-20 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:48813 Activity:low
        Military Slot Machines make $130mil/year from its soldiers to
        pay for things army can't pay for.
        \_ Our education system is paid for by lottery also.
        \_ This country is endlessly willing to take advantage of the
           weak/stupid --  witness our tolerance for predatory lending.
           And we don't even bother teaching people the financial
           ramifications in school anymore.  What's more, we even made
           bankruptcy more difficult.  Most people who end up in
           bankruptcy suffered from a medical emergency, or got
           divorced.  Now we make it even more difficult for such
           people to recover--in the name of more profit for the
           already rich.  What a generous Christian country we are!
           \_ Nice troll. Are you also against freedom to smoke and
              freedom to gamble?
                \_ How about being against manipulating nicotine levels
                   to hook people without informing that nicotine was
                   as addictive as heroin?  How about being against
                   not warning tobacco companies'
                   victims that smoking causes cancer and emphysema,
                   even if TC's knew it, but rather lying about those
                   even if TC's knew it knew it, but rather lying about those
                   two things?  How about setting up slot machines
                   with a .25 payout without saying so?  Are you glad
                   that Government forced regulation on industry in
                   those instances?  Now how about some regulations
                   on predatory lending?
           \_ "Predatory lending".  Pft.  Everything is right there in front
              of the people signing.  I didn't have a single finance class of
                \_ yes, but how many of them understand it and the real
                   ramifications?  Do you think it's OK for smart people
                   to take advantage of stupid ones?  Morally OK?
                   Granted, government can't protect stupid people
                   from themselves and all of the unscrupulous smart people,
                   but right now government is aiding and abetting the
                   bastards who're taking advantage of the stupid.  You know,
                   these contracts aren't really clear, they should read:
                   "I know I am signing a contract which is likely to
                    screw me over a few years down the road".
                   screw me over a few years down the road".  Much like
                   the warnings on cigarette labels:  "Warning:  product
                   causes cancer."
                   \_ Best Troll Evar!
              any sort K-12+College but I still managed to figure out that an
                \_ congratulations, you're not stupid!  Now how would you
                   feel if by a combination of having been born stupid
                   and having been taken advantage of by someone smarter
                   than you, that you lost your house?  Do you think that
                   some divine right exists for smart people to screw
                   stupid ones over?  Now, do you think you're smarter than
                   every possible bastard who would exploit your ignorance
                   in some area to dispossess you for his benefit?
              ARM is incredibly risky, *requires* a refi before the rates go
              up and managed to figure out that the 40 year historic lows in
              the lending market were not going to stay that way forever.
              That's a totally different issue from the bakruptcy laws, medical
              or divorce induced financial collapse, etc.  No one knows they're
              going to get sick but most people do have insurance and everyone
              knows they will get sick at some point.  Divorce laws are just
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:December:15 Saturday <Friday, Sunday>