| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2007/12/19-29 [Industry/Startup] UID:48833 Activity:moderate |
12/18 What are some of the words product managers (PM) love to use when
they talk to each other and to the management? I'll start:
-silverstein that ass
-turnkey
-synergy
-web 2.0
-leveraging
\_ Oh I LOVE this one, everytime my PM says this word every
engineer on the team start to roll his eyes. Thanks.
-low hanging fruit
\_ Wow. The PM's at your company are either assholes or idiots. -dans
\_ Yes and your startup is probably full of young assholes
who think they're all bad-asses like the ones in Facebook.
Yet another reason I won't work at Facebook.
\_ but facebook is magically valued at several billion judging from
the money microsoft gave them and the arbitrary percentage
ownership they pulled out of their ass! How much is your
\_ but facebook is magically valued at several billion judging
from the money microsoft gave them and the arbitrary percent-
age ownership they pulled out of their ass! How much is your
company arbitrarily worth?
\_ It's awesome how you can make vast sweeping assumptions about
the 500+ people at Facebook and the sizeable number of people
at Slide, and believe them to have a high probability of
correctness. The folks I've met from Facebook seem young,
smart, talented, and ambitious. Some of them are a little
brash, but, in my experience, they're basically cool people.
-dans
\_ I don't think anyone on motd trust your character
\_ you rule dan, you stuck Slide into this motd thread without
any prompting. i am wondering how people come up with
the percentage that Microsoft supposedly owns now of
Facebook, and then people do the math and decide Facebook
is now worth a gajillion dollars. It's almost as magical
as Google's netw worth.
\_ "Yes and your startup is probably full of young
assholes." I didn't stick Slide into the thread
without prompting. Microsoft *agreed* to invest over
$200M at a valuation of $15B. Go take a business
course where they talk about valuation and you'll
understand how this process works. Granted, Facebook
is a private company, so yes, the valuation could be
wrong (cf eBay's massive writedown over the purchase of
Skype). As for Google's valuation, it's a public
company with real revenues and a high, but not insane
P/E ratio. Of course, at the end of the day, it's
worth what people will pay for it. There's very little
that's magic about the process. Uncertain, yes, but
not magic. -dans
\_ I know a little about company evaluation. I still think
the Facebook valuation is really arbitrary. Just because
Microsoft says your arrogant buddies down in Palo Alto
are worth 15 billion doesn't mean they are worth 15
billion.
\_ I know a little about company evaluation. I still
think the Facebook valuation is really arbitrary.
Just because Microsoft says your arrogant buddies
down in Palo Alto are worth 15 billion doesn't mean
they are worth 15 billion.
\_ I don't think your stance is unreasonable, and I
agree that valuation in general is more voodoo
and art than it is science so, yes, it *is*
arbitrary. But it's not *completely* arbitrary.
I'm not particularly buddy-buddy with any
Facebook employees, but I have interacted with
them professionally, and chat regularly with a
few on IRC. The folks I am familiar with don't
seem altogether arrogant. Even if the people I
know are the exception not the rule, their
arrogance is, to an extent, justified. Scaling a
web site to the size and volume of use that
Facebook handles is a HARD problem, and there is
no handbook or design pattern for how it's done.
Building a business to the size of Facebook and
continuing to grow at the rate Facebook is
growing despite it's already massive size is
non-trivial. Even if you don't like their
attitude, you should respect the technical and
business achievements of the Facebook folks.
Maybe this is why you think the valuation is
'magic'. Do you really appreciate and understand
the scale and scope that Facebook is working at?
Considering that you intimated that Google
doesn't deserve it's net worth, I think you may
not be seeing the big picture. I'm curious, is
there an example of a company that you think
deserves it's valuation/market cap? Microsoft?
GM? Halliburton? Bechtel? -dans
\_ I don't think anyone on motd trusts your character
judgements.
\_ There you go making vast sweeping assumptions again.
How's that working for you? -dans
\_ no brainer
\_ yermom |
| 2007/12/19-29 [Uncategorized] UID:48834 Activity:nil |
12/19 What is the best easy to use straightforward well maintained code
updated on a regular basis implementation of LVS out there?
ultramonkey has a stupid name and appears to not have been updated
in a while. |
| 2007/12/19-29 [Reference/Religion] UID:48835 Activity:nil |
12/19 Ken Jennings weighs in on the Romney/Mormon thing
http://snipurl.com/1vj5g |
| 2007/12/19-29 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:48836 Activity:very high |
12/19 So the dumbducks in Congress are legislating what type of light
bulb I can or cannot have. Are there CFL light bulbs to fit in
chandeliers? Won't that look like ass or are they more attractive
than the standard CFL bulbs? I am thinking of filling my garage
with incandescent bulbs prior to 2014.
\_ I'm with you. A good article on similar issue:
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm
\_ People talk about CFL emitting less heat. Won't that mean
that in winter we have to run the heater that much more
often to compensate? Where is the saving? Summer?
\_ Your brain has been classified as: petite.
Think outside the box.
\_ Do you have anything useful to say?
\_ Burning fuel in your furnace to heat the house directly is
more efficient than burning the fuel at a power plant to
generate electricity and then using the electricity to
generate heat at your house. Someone talked about this here
on the MOTD a few months ago.
\_ Thanks for educating the dumb ass op. I was hoping
he'd think a bit more before his knee jerk replies.
\_ Sure, it's more efficient to do so, but you have to
take that into account when doing these 'savings'
estimates.
\_ Your A/C doesn't need to work as hard in summer.
\_ Oh my god. You are dumb. Suppose what you said was
actually true, there will still be significant savings
during summer.
\_ Maybe not, because the days are long in the summer
anyway. Read the article above. It points out a lot
of problems with CFLs - dimmers, recessed lights,
ceiling fans, oven lights, timers, motion detectors,
and so on. Legislating technology is never a good thing.
There's a lot of research about CFLs that has yet to be
performed and yet we're committing to them as a panacea.
I think it's hasty and it's a mistake. If CFLs are so
great and save everyone money then they will win over
incandescents in the marketplace - and we are seeing
that to some extent already. If there's some environmental
cost not captured in current prices, then calculate it
and pass it on. Banning a functional and well-developed
technology in favor of a technology with unknown
implications is silly. In my house, I would have to replace
a lot of fixtures, wiring, dimmers, and so on to use CFLs
if I wanted to. That is not a net savings for me or the
environment. I have to imagine that ultimately our
government will realize this and allow us to have the
bulbs we want to have at an appropriate cost.
\_ Huh? When your incadescant bulb burns out, you buy
a CFL bulb to replace it. big deal.
\_ You're an idiot who didn't read the link or pay
attention to all the situations where a CFL
won't work! It's not always a drop-in replacement.
\_ 99 Ranch Market carries dimmable CFLs, 4 for $1.99. It
works well with the light fixture at my home.
works well with the dimmer at my home.
\_ "All ravens are black"
\_ "Since not all ravens are black, you must be wrong
when you said you saw a black one."
\_ "You can't prove all ravens are black by seeing
a black raven. Therefore there must exist ravens
that are non-black, and I don't need to prove it
or even see a non-black one."
BTW, how do you know it's "working well"? Read
the article. There is some chance it's not
working well at all and you don't know it
because you never tested it.
\_ Read my above post. I wrote it works well *with
the dimmer at my home*. I didn't write it works
well with every single dimmer out there.
\_ My point is that your data is useless so
why take up bandwidth with it. You never
answered my question: How do you know it's
working well?
\_ You wrote "you never tested it" and I said
earlier it worked well at my home. If by
testing you meant scientific testing, no I
do not scientifically test everything I use
at my home. Do you scientifically test
incadescant bulbs that you use at your home
such that you know it works well with your
dimmers?
\_ You wrote "you never tested it" after I
wrote it worked well at my home. By
"working well" I took it as 1) dims just
like incadescant, 2) doesn't make a humming
noise when dimmed, 3) doesn't change color
temperature when dimmed, 4) doesn't feel
warm, nor does the dimmer switch, 5) doesn't
fail after a few months, 6) doesn't cause
electric fire to my house after a few
months. I didn't measure actual energy
usage before or after. If by testing you
meant scientific testing, no I do not
scientifically test it. Do you
scientifically test incadescant bulbs that
you use at your home such that you know it
works well with your dimmers?
\_ 1-6) aren't useful. I haven't tested
incandescent bulbs, but there has
been research done which shows they
work well. On the other hand,
research done on CFL bulbs shows
they do not work well. Your eyeball
test is not the kind of data we
should base public policy on. There
could be a 0.5% chance that you will
come home to a CFL-induced electrical
fire tomorrow for all you know.
\_ URL on the researches you mentioned
please?
\- are you going to decide which of your friends are "bulb worthy"?
\_ Common item now: http://www.google.com/search?q=cfl+candelabra
\_ Yes, but these are not clear. They look hideous, like some
sort of alien egg. Not exactly what you want in your $10K
Austrian crystal fixture. I would be willing to pay a lot of
money for regular bulbs on the blackmarket. Why not charge me
a polluter tax and let the free market decide which bulbs
we want? I feel this light bulb thing is a ridiculous fad.
We add a lot of mercury to the environment and we all get to
pay $6 per light bulb. I really care about the environment,
but this is enough to make me want to go kill some spotted owls.
\_ You're a fucking dumb ass. If you had a $10k chandelier
you'd have clue as to where to get a bunch of illegal
bulbs.
\_ I see. So I have to smuggle light bulbs in from Iran
in order to light my damn fixture. Sounds reasonable
to me.
\_ Paying $6 per light bulb? Where have you been doing your
shopping?
\_ Paying $6 per light bulb? Are those Calvin Kline brands?
\_ Paying $6 per light bulb? Are those Calvin Kline brand?
\_ Paying $6 per light bulb? Are those Calvin Klein brand?
\_ Keep in mind that if we simply turned off all light bulbs in the US
it wouldn't make a difference in greenhouse gas emissions.
\_ Huh? Do you mean to say it wouldn't make a significant
difference? Electricity in the US is mostly created by
burning fossil fuels and electricity powers lightbulbs, so
I don't see what you are trying to say here.
\_ If you look at world emissions, our lighting is something like
1%. Cattle farts contribute a lot more. You should go
vegetarian before CFLs.
\_ 1% of a gigantic number is still a huge number.
\_ Yep, but given the variety of causes and effects, it
can't even be measured reliably. And current growth is
about 3% per year. So that savings would be eclipsed in
4 months.
\_ So since growth is still happening we shouldn't try
to conserve anything? BTW 5-10 years after peak oil
you will see an amazing amount of involuntary
conserving happening all over the place.
\_ so by twisted logic, since encouragging
voluntary conservation isn't working, we should
encourage waste to sooner bring about
circumstances where conservation is forced by
unavailability of the resources.
\_ Okay, I see what you mean. Yes, you are right, there
are probably lots of easier ways to make an impact on
C0^2 emissions.
\_ CO2 (The 'O' is for Oxygen) is plant food. Methane is a
vastly bigger contributor to warming, as is water vapor.
\_ There has been an increase in the amount of water
vapor in the atmosphere? Where did you hear that?
\_ "According to the Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, the livestock industry is
responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions\
measured in CO2 equivalent"
responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas
emissions measured in CO2 equivalent"
\_ I predict many people with 100-Watt bulbs will replace them with 2
60-Watt bulbs, thus increasing total power usage in the US.
\_ How are you going to fit 2 bulbs in place of 1?
\_ Buy more lighting?
\_ Why would people buy more lighting? The CFL puts out the
same amount of light with less juice. Just because it
uses less electricity doesn't mean I want it to be brighter
\_ Actually, the CFL puts out less light for an "equivalent"
bulb.
\_ Actually, the CFL puts out less light for an
"equivalent" bulb.
\_ It probably depends on your brand of incadescents and
CFLs. I once used a light meter to check the light
output. For one brand of CFLs I get the same output
as my old bulbs, while for another brand I get slight
more (2/10 f-stop.)
as my old bulbs, while for another brand I get
slightly (2/10 f-stop) more.
\_ I don't understand all the CFL hating. Almost my whole house uses
CFLs. They work fine, the light is fine, and they're pretty cheap.
(I saw them for $1 at Safeway the other day.) -jrleek
\_ You apparently have no sense of taste. There is no way the
CFL bulbs on the market right now are suited for many
lighting needs, including my example. I have an antique
chandelier I bought and sticking a bunch of those white eggs
into it isn't on my agenda. Do you think the people in
Congress are going to abide by this? (For example, George Bush
has a very expensive chandelier in his house in Texas.) They just
haven't thought it through too well yet or else figure the
has a very expensive chandelier in his house in Texas.) They
just haven't thought it through too well yet or else figure the
laws won't apply to them. I have to imagine there will be
all kinds of exceptions. You go to a romantic restaurant and
the inside is lit like Wal-Mart? Yeah, that's the future I
want to live in.
want to live in. Why not get rid of the fucking coal plants
and go nuclear instead of legislating my god damned light bulbs?
How much greener would the world be if all of Congress wore
buttplugs?
\_ You bought a chandelier and yet you have the gall to accuse
anyone of having no sense of taste? You're a moron.
\_ Seconded, the op sounds like a dumb ass.
\_ Yes, because chandeliers are a sign of poor taste and
IKEA is a sign of good taste. The lobby of the Ritz
is going to look really swanky with CFL bulbs in
place. Not everywhere has to look like some 20 year
old UCB CS student's dumpy apartment in El Cerrito.
\_ Wow, you're dumb and don't even realize it.
\_ Your argument is very convincing.
\_ I like your screed about Congress, but the new CFL lights
don't make a place look like the interior of Wal-Mart.
The better ones have a pretty neutral color palate, quite
close to incadescent. I agree with you on the chandelier
though. Maybe people will go back to gas for light in
these cases though. Wouldn't that be a hoot?
\_ Ha ha! I applaud your thinking. I can convert it
back to gas if I have to! Hee! The fact that CFLs
don't dim is why the place will look like Wal-Mart.
\_ LEDs!
\_ 99 Ranch Market carries dimmable CFLs, 4 for
$1.99. It works well with the dimmer at my home.
I guess we will just use candles again. Yay progress!
\_ I wonder what the carbon footprint of a gas powered
lamp is...
\_ You know what is even dumber about this idea? In probably 10
years we will have a new lighting technology that is better
in just about every way than CFL (LED) and we will have a bunch
of homes locked into an older useless technology because of
this law. Did you know that all new construction in San Francisco
has to have special flourescent bulb fittings as standard? That
is going to look pretty stupid in 10-20 years, I bet.
\_ Yes, it will, which is why you don't legislate technology.
A command economy is not as efficient as a market economy.
Let the market decide where it makes sense and where it does
not. With all of the contributors to pollution and global
warming our politicians decided to take a stand on LIGHT BULBS.
Not a tax, mind you, but an all-out ban! Next thing you know
they are going to tell us whether we should receive broadcast TV
in digital or analog.
\_ I thought they have already done that for TV. Aren't new TV
sets required to have digital tuner now, and analog broadcast
will be phased out by FCC in some year later?
\_ I don't mind that one as much because broadcast spectrums
are limited common resources. Gov't has to regulate it
to some extent, maybe not the way they did though.
\_ I think we shouldn't legislate CFL technology, but we should
legislater a certain efficiency requirement which happens to
match the efficiency of today's CFLs. I heard Phillips is
trying to improve incadescent bulb's efficiency (although I
have no idea how they can possibly do it.)
\_ Or why they would bother now, since they can't sell
them. Face it, light bulbs are not efficient. Even
CFLs are not efficient. Pick another battle to fight.
have no idea how they can do it.)
\_ Why legislate it at all? Government has much more important
things to worry about instead of micromanaging technology.
\_ Agreed. A energy tax or greenhouse gas tax will be
simpler and more effective, but that's probably not
politically good.
\_ That's because the average voter is a moron.
\_ Agreed again.
\_ GE is working on incandescent bulbs that are as efficient as
CFL's. http://tinyurl.com/38yg4s
\_ Why, when they won't be allowed to sell them?
\_ They can sell it outside CA.
\_ No. The ban is nationwide by the US Congress. |
| 2007/12/19-29 [Finance/Banking] UID:48837 Activity:nil |
12/19 http://tinyurl.com/ys8gcc (wsj.com) http://image.minyanville.com/assets/FCK_Aug2007/File/s2162664.mp3 (At 26:20) Operator: "Again, at this time, if you would like to ask a question, please press *1 on your telephone keypad" * Silence * Sallie Mae CEO: "How good is this. Steve, let's go, there's no questions, let's get the fuck out of here." |
| 2007/12/19-29 [Uncategorized] UID:48838 Activity:nil |
12/19 How many of you put in stop losses under your stock holdings?
How do you decide where to place the stop? |
| 2007/12/19-29 [Uncategorized] UID:48839 Activity:nil |
12/19 More Spa questions:
What's a facial? (Not what I was thinking I think.)
\_ In Spa context probably a treatment where they dump
weird shit like cucumber all over your face.
\_ Facial is when you put some very thick paste on the face, then you
lie there for half an hour or so to wait for it to dry up a littie,
then you lift the paste (now looking like a mask) off your face.
This supposedly applies nutrients to the face skin as well as
removes dirt and dead skin. (Of course there's that other meaning
in that other context.)
\_ in Porn, it means something totally different, though it still
involves stuff on someoen's face...
What's Swedish massage vs Therpudic vs Deep Tissue? |
| 2007/12/19-29 [Reference/BayArea, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:48840 Activity:kinda low |
12/19 An inconvenient truth for SF http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/18/BA24U044B.DTL \_ I thought this was going to be about the high murder rate. "Between March 2004 and August 2005, a relatively small group of people - just 362 individuals - accounted for 3,869 ambulance trips to the hospital." Jeebus! \_ Yes, when Regan threw the mentally ill out on the street they clogged up the medical system. Unfotunetly people refuse to actually treat the mentally insane and instead they tie up emergency services because crazy homeless people are generally a fucking mess and need assistance. Think of it as yet another reason we need a reasonable health care system. \_ I think we just need to eliminate the mentally ill like the Spartans used to. No need to have that in the gene pool. It's a tough stance, sure, but those people are never going to get well and they are probably miserable being alive anyway. \_ Why is this inconvenient? It sounds like a good place for some improved public policy, though. \_ He's trying to link people who love al gore and his global warming movie with homeless street bums in SF. a bit of a reach \_ At what point would you tell your emergency crews 'this person has had too many calls, leave them lying there in the street' ? \_ So I know doctors swear the Hippocratic Oath, do nurses or paramedics take a similar oath? If so, to tell emergency crews to leave someone would put them in a pretty unreasonable and untenable ethical position. -dans \_ I would probably never do that, but I think The City should start enforcing some of its "drunk in public" laws and get these guys locked up, sobered up and in rehab. -SF liberal \_ My point being, you can't be telling your emergency responders to ignore calls. ever. The best you can do is find a way to punish those abusing the system. \_ You can't rehab someone who doesn't want to be hab'd. (Or, doesn't care enough to put in the effort.) \_ No, but you can lock those people up. I say bring back the psych hospitals. -SF (maybe not so) liberal \_ Why not just make "chronic ambulance abuse" a crime and eventually jail them? I dunno, is there a solution? \_ Huh, this explains a lot of what happened to be about 6mo ago. I got woken up at about 3am by some dude moaning in the park across the street. When I finally figured out what it was, I thought about going back to sleep, but eventually called the non-emergency cop line instead. They came and said, "Is that you Jesse?" Then they radioed in an ambulance. I kinda figured they just called the ambulance because they didn't want to have to haul his fat butt into a patrol car, and didn't want him puking in there anyway. This was in Livermore. |