Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:January:08 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2008/1/8-11 [Recreation/Dating] UID:48905 Activity:low
1/7     Summary of this week's troll:
        dans-- I'm young and hip and I love the city. I love hanging out w/
          my buds and walk to places to do things. Suburbs are boring and
          I have to frigging drive and destroy the environment. I hate
          suburbs and I can't imagine why anyone wants to live in it.
          \_ You forgot: I may have a relatively harmless STD without knowing
             \_ Nope, just got tested last week.  Clean bill of health. -dans
          \_ I drive in the city all the time.  While I do loathe suburbs, I
             know lots of people who want to live in them, and why.  I consider
             most of the people in this group to be brain-damaged. -dans
             \_ So much for other people's life styles being ok, huh?  Only so
                long as it is the same as yours I guess.
        dimwit-- I'm mature and I have fine taste. I prefer the suburbs
          because it's more spacious, quieter, safer, and has better
          school districts for my kids. Lastly, I simply can't stand
          smelly hippies and fog. PS people who don't agree with me
          are really really strange.
2008/1/8-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:48906 Activity:nil
1/8     Angry White Man: The archives of Ron Paul's newsletters
        \_ He's white? Wow I can't support a white man.
           \_ LGF had this 2 months ago
2008/1/8-11 [Recreation/Humor] UID:48907 Activity:nil
1/8     Another comic I think is hilarious, possiably somewhat unintentionally
        Cue motd "that's not funny" guy!
        \_ That's not funny.
           \_ That's not funny.
2008/1/8-11 [Transportation/Car] UID:48908 Activity:nil
1/8     "Cell phone users tie up traffic: study"
        Note that the subjects in the study are already using hands-free
        devices, not holding the phones with their hands.
        \_ Even hands free cell drivers are obviously worse drivers.  It
           makes sense.  A conversation with a phone takes a lot more
           concentration (voice only means less information being passed
           so you need to pay closer attention) and the person you are
           talking to doesn't have any cues as to when to halt the
           conversation so you can pay attention to navigating that
           ton+ of steel.
           \_ Agreed.  I feel the same when I use my Bluetooth headset while
              driving.  So I mostly limit my conversation to "Hi.  Whatsup?
              I'm driving right now.  Can I call you back?"  -- OP
        \_ I have sort of the opposite problem--I turn into a bad
           conversationalist when I'm driving.  "What?  Sorry, didn't
           hear that...", long pauses when I don't say anything...
           It's just better not to drive and talk at the same time
           if your situation is at all demanding.
2008/1/8-11 [Finance/Investment] UID:48909 Activity:nil
1/8     Have your broker buy-buy-buy Countrywide credit default swaps!
        They now pay 26% of amount insured first year, 5% four subsequent
        years! (Reuters)
        \_ High risk, high reward
2008/1/8-12 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:48910 Activity:high
1/8     Ron Paul says he didn't wright the vile things in his newsletter.
        Ron Paul lies. [LGF]
        \_ Whether or not he's lying, he allowed it to be published.  I've
           had vague doubts about Ron Paul, and this morning, I finally
           realized why.  Paul's espoused ideology ultimately comes down to
           every man(*) for himself.  I don't trust someone who is motivated
           purely by self interest, but isn't willing to come out and say it.
           (*) As an aside, I say 'man' here because Ron Paul is a misogynist.
           His views on the role of women in society are a throwback to the
           middle ages.
           \_ Please cite a primary reference for Paul's view on role of women.
              \_ a) His stated views on abortion and a woman's right to choose.
                 b) His newsletters.  Go read them. -dans
                 \_ Anti-abortion == middle ages? You're nuts. Women have the
                    right to choose not to fuck people.
                    \_ the constitution is not "freedom to NOT do things."
                       It's freedom TO.
                       \_ That's a really stupid statement. You don't have the
                          freedom to kill a baby. Abortion has little to do
                          with the Constitution. Personally, I see both sides
                          of the argument: I don't care about it as an issue
                          and a candidate's view on abortion doesn't matter to
           \_ Odd, it's not "every man for himself", it's that the government
              shouldn't intervene in what every man does.
              \_ I may be mistaken, but I don't get the sense that Ron Paul
                 is espousing the ideologically pure libertarian viewpoint I
                 think you're referencing.  I am curious though, if you strip
                 the government of power, how do you effectively avoid society
                 turning into a free for all? -dans
                 \_ The impression I get of him is that he's trying to push
                    towards a pure libertarian stance. Unfortunately, he's a
                    hypocrite.  However, how do you define "free for all", and
                    how do you see it as being bad? -emarkp
                    \_ What is "pure libertarian"? He's not advocating removal
                       of government. He's advocating limited government based
                       on Constitutional principles.
                       \_ That's what I meant by "pure libertarian". -emarkp
                          \_ Is he really a hypocrite? Let's imagine I am an
                             opponent of public schools. Am I a hypocrite if
                             I send my kid to a public school? No, because
                             that is the existing system. I'm not sure just
                             what you're referring to however.
                             \_ He's a hypocrite because he puts earmarks into
                                bills and then votes against them. -emarkp
                             \_ He's a hypocrite because of what he's done as a
                                rep, not because of anything in this
                                discussion. For instance, he adds pork to
                                bills, and then votes against them so that he
                                can bring pork to his district and also say he
                                votes against it. -emarkp
                                \_ That's why I brought up the school analogy.
            \_ so if you're taking political ideologies to their extremes,
               you'd perfer the opposite, where the government controls everyone
               and everything, for their own good?
        \_ 1st, the things weren't that vile and a couple of them have been
           lied about. For example the article in question did not "support PLO
           2nd, a philosophy "based on self-interest" is not necessarily
           against the common interest. Communism vs. capitalism. We know
           that EVERYONE is motivated primarily by self interest, that's
           human nature. Even when you help someone else you're doing that
           because it makes you feel good. This is how markets work and why
           they generally perform better over time than management by fiat,
           no matter how selfless the masters. So many supposedly well-
           intentioned efforts end up doing more harm than good. Wasting
           public resources on pointless wars and bloated government
           programs hurts everyone.
           \_ please let us know when you finish reading Atlas Shrugged.  -tom
              \_ let me know when you have anything interesting to say.
              \_ Holy shit, I agree with tom.  I actually believe in such a
                 thing as enlightened self interest, but the self-interest
                 Ron Paul espouses doesn't qualify. -dans
                 \_ why not?
              \_ GOLD STANDARD.
2008/1/8-12 [Industry/Startup, Recreation/Dating] UID:48911 Activity:high
1/8     I'm in a weird situation. I've been in my company for a while and
        we acquired a startup company a while ago. Now my group is being
        "migrated" into their group, and I'll be reporting to a bunch of
        young managers and directors some who are 10-15 years younger
        than me. These guys are great-- they're energetic and bright but
        some are also egotistic and boss people around. Mind you
        they're also 1/4 vested hotshot millionaires, some are
        accelerated and almost fully vested. Their "I'm your boss"
        attitude shows it. What do old timers do, just shut up and wait
        it out till they're fully vested and leave? There isn't much
        opportunity elsewhere in the company.
        \_ not weird at all; it's an example of why mergers usually fail.
           Deal with it or leave are your options.
           \_ merger for the sake of complementing business operations vs.
              acquisition for the sake of replacing an existing operation
              are very different things.
        \_ If these people are as hot as you say it's great to have them as
           your boss.  Suck up and learn from them.  They have that attitude
           because they earned it.  Look it as a chance to get great recs from
           them.  Look at it as a chance to say "I worked with these hot
           shots and held my own."
           \_ sucking up. Learned that being at the right place at the
              right time (luck) is more important than meritocracy.  -op
              \_ Luck definitely matters, but sometimes positioning oneself
                 to be 'in the right place at the right time' requires a
                 degree of risk-taking and arrogance that not everyone
                 posesses.  Then again, it could all be luck, YMMV.  If you're
                 going to suck it up, why not allow some room to learn
                 something just in case the opportunity presents itself? -dans
                 \_ I think someone who fucks random men and women to the
                    extent that they need to be tested for VD is a sign
                    of brain damage and self-esteem issues, too.
                    \_ Gotta disagree with you there, and I think dans is
                    \_ I'm glad I don't have sex with you.  STD testing
                       should be a given if you are sexually active,
                       especially if you aren't in an ongoing monogomous
                       relationship.  It's not like it's only something
                       you should do if you are regularly fucking half
                       the football team.
                       \_ Same woman for 15 years. No need for STD testing.
                          \_ Good for you.  Allow for the possibility that
                             others may not want your life, and there's
                             nothing wrong with that. -dans
                             \_ Oh, I think there's something wrong with
                                a lot of people who choose to have a lot
                                of sex partners just like I think there's
                                something wrong with most strippers. It's
                                not a moral judgement, but somehow related
                                to upbringing, which is why I mentioned
                                \_ Why do you think that? I have known many
                                   healthy, happy, successful people who have
                                   had lots of sex partners. Why is sex worse
                                   than playing tennis?
                                   \_ Define lots. I think 3 in 2 weeks is
                                      beyond lots.
                                      \_ Oh, I will leave it up to you to
                                         decide that. More than one per year
                                         is lots to some, but not very many
                                         to others. Three in two weeks would
                                         probably consume a lot of time and
                                         energy, trying to juggle all those
                                         relationships, but if that is your
                                         hobby, it is probably better for you
                                         than sitting home and watching TV.
                                   \_ Tennis hasn't been known to spread
                                      disease on a mass scale, cause pregnancy,
                                      or make people do stupid things.  Why did
                                      you even have to ask this?
                                      \_ Sex doesn't do any of those things
                                         either, if done safely. I agree that
                                         unwanted pregnancy and disease are
                                         problems, but any sane person with
                                         multiple partners keeps it wrapped
                                         up. What is wrong with safe sex
                                         with multiple partners?
                             \_ Funny that you would say that and then bash
                                people elsewhere on the motd who don't want
                    \_ Don't hate the player, hate the game.
                       \_ Why can't I hate the player of a destructive game?
                          \_ stop ripping on yer mom like that
                    \_ I take it from your comment that you don't get regularly
                       tested for STD's.  Unless your in a stable monogamous
                       marriage, that's pretty reckless and irresponsible.
                       Seriously, the window period for HIV is six months.
                       Did you date more than one person in the last year?
                       I suppose you also think it's okay not to use condoms
                       if you're in a 'committed' relationship.  So not only
                       are you utterly off topic, but you're an irresponsible
                       asshole!  AWESOME!  Who were you referring to anyway?
                       \_ You got tested for every std?  Really?
                       \_ God wants you to remain chaste until marriage and
                          then only have sex with your wife, without birth
                          control, so that you may be fruitful and multiply.
                          All these disease problems you are having are
                          because you have violated God's Law.
                          \_ Wisdom from the talmud: it's a mitzvah with a
                             shiksah.  Bad troll.  No cookie. -dans
              \_ I can see how someone who has been "unlucky" might think
                 that. I personally have worked at three startups and all
                 three of them filed for IPOs. One could be luck, but all
                 three? I know other people who have similar track records.
                 I am working at a big company now, but so far, I am doing
                 well there, too. No one can control things like when a
                 recession happens (I was out of work for seven months in
                 2001) but you can prepare for it. It is probably some
                 combination of luck and skill and hard work that determines
                 \_ I don't think the op is "unlucky", but just NORMAL.
                    \_ I think both you and pp are right.  But pp makes a
                       point which is that, even if you factor in luck, some
                       people play the startup game more effectively than
                       'normal' (i.e. average) people. -dans
        \_ I can't see why you wouldn't at least give it a whirl and see
           how things go. If you don't enjoy it, you can always leave.
           It is very common to have some employee turnover in this kind
           of situation, so no one will be surprised.
        \_ I would try to see where I fit in and leave if it doesn't work
           out. No one wants to work with young kids with attitude, but
           the merger is new. Maybe it's just your perception. If they
           really are punks then leave.
        \_ Is your problem simply that they are younger?  Get over it.  If
           they were older and acted the same would that be ok with you?  If
           so then this is your internal problem.
           \_ I disagree. Age does matter, because age equals experience
              and wisdom and "putting in time". No one begrudges the guy who
              worked his ass off for 35 years and now has it made. Some
              snot-nosed kid who got lucky three years out of college and now
              thinks he knows-it-all is annoying.
              \_ Age does not always equal wisdom or experience.  Age often
                 equals warming the same chair for 35 years.  That 'snot nosed
                 kid' obviously had something you didn't: balls, skill, luck,
                 and quite likely worked his ass off during those 3 years.
                 35 years of 80 hour weeks?  Doubt it.  More like 35 years of
                 9-5 and long lunches in most cases.  I report to someone
                 younger than me.  I've got no problem with that.  He's
                 actually really cool.  I've reported to older people who were
                 just horrible managers and human beings.  Age does not matter
                 except in your head.  But a jerk is still a jerk.  You are
                 apparently ok reporting to an older jerk but not a younger
                 one.  I don't see why the older jerk gets a pass.  If your
                 35 years of work guy was so damned smart why'd it take him
                 32 years longer to succeed than the snot nosed kids you
                 despise so much?
                 \_ Right place at the right time. I am not saying all
                    older employees are better, just that it is easier to
                    respect them. Age always equals experience. Each day
                    is full of new experiences. You would be surprised
                    how much even a low IQ person learns over a lifetime.
                    I am not disparaging the young, because we need their
                    contributions, too. I am disparaging snot-nosed hot
                    shot youth who basically got lucky but thinks their
                    shot youth who basically got lucky but think their
                    success was because of something they did and who
                    looks down their nose at the 9-5 lifer. I work in an
                    look down their noses at the 9-5 lifer. I work in an
                    environment with an equal share of older, less
                    educated, but experienced engineers and younger, much
                    better educated, less experienced engineers. There is
                    always a stigma against the old guys (with some
                    exceptions) but if you actually bother to listen to
                    what some of them have to say instead of thinking you
                    know best and writing them off as career losers you
                    might be surprised what they know. They have just
                    given up on trying to impress and compete with
                    snot-nosed brats at their stage in life. As a society
                    we should value our elders more than we do, because
                    with age comes experience and, often, wisdom.
                    with age comes experience and, often, wisdom. Also, we
                    need to stop equating luck with hard work and talent.
                    Every startup is full of bright, hard-working people
                    with a great idea and yet very few succeed. Mostly
                    it's a matter of timing, who you know, who can
                    bankroll you (e.g. Sameer's dad), and other elements
                    outside of your control. Microsoft didn't succeed
                    because they worked harder, had a better product, had
                    a better vision, or any of that. Same with Apple or
                    most other success stories.
                    \_ Here's the thing you're missing: those snot nosed kids
                       you hate did something the older folks never did.  They
                       came up with a new idea and had the balls to pursue
                       their dreams.
                       \_ How do you know this? One older guy had his own
                          company for a long time before taking a 9-5 job.
                          Like I said, you'd be surprised.
                       Your "we just give up trying to impress"
                       older folks have entirely the wrong idea.  It is not
                       about trying to  impress anyone.  It is about going for
                       it.  Startups are not for everyone.  The risk is very
                       high, the rewards are not guaranteed and the effort is
                       great.  It is *not* dumb luck or "right place, right
                       time".  They put themselves in that place at that time.
                       They earned it.
                       \_ Not true. I worked in a startup with a lot of
                          smart people who later went on to success and
                          the startup just didn't take off. Everyone was
                          smart (even some PHDs), hard working (slept at
                          the office), had a great idea (now being
                          emulated by lots of successful companies but at
                          the time the only competitor was IBM and they
                          had only a 6 person team), and even money from
                          investors willing to take risk. It just didn't
                          happen. We were too early and the company folded
                          about 2 years before the time was right. We
                          "went for it" and failed. It's very common. I
                          know a successful business owner who failed MANY
                          times (losing his house in the process) before
                          he finally made it. Was he less talented or hard
                          working or whatever? Hell no. However, there is
                          a big element of luck. You meet the right
                          person, you get the right contract with a client
                          who just happens to hit it big and take you with
                          them, and so on. There are a lot of these little
                          uncontrollable moments that contribute to
                          success. No one is saying that it's *just* luck
                          but that luck plays a bigger part in it than you
                          are willing to admit. I knew a secretary who was
                          one of the first 10 people hired at AMZN and a
                          sysadmin who was one of the first at SUN. The SA
                          told me he didn't even want the job when he saw
                          the place, but he took it because his first
                          choice turned him down. Both of these people are
                          now very wealthy. You are saying it's because
                          they had the foresight to put themselves in such
                          a position? BS.
                          \_ What you're describing in the failure cases is
                             the right place at the *wrong* time.  Successful
                             people like the young founders you despise will
                             have other people around them dragged along on
                             the success train.  The secretary and sysadmin
                             are both very wealthy because they put themselves
                             at a small company working for snot nosed kids who
                             done good.  It wasn't foresight.  No one can
                             predict the future.  It was the willingness to
                             work at a 'less than typical corporate pit'.  The
                             startup thing is not for everyone.  It probably
                             isn't for most people.  That's why most people
                             work 9-5+lunch at a grey pit sucking their soul
                             out getting bitter when some snot nosed kid ends
                             up as their rich boss.  Your example of the guy
                             who tried over and over until he made it, losing
                             his house in the process is exactly who I'm
                             talking about when I said it takes balls and an
                             idea to go from nothing to +++++.  "Working hard"
                             will *never* get you there alone.  That will get
                             you a pay check and a pink slip when the corp.
                             \_ No argument about working hard being
                                insufficient. However, you are overlooking
                                that the guy who failed many times failed
                                many times. He wasn't a kid by the time he
                                succeeded. He had a lot of experience to
                                draw on. That's quite different from some
                                kid who happened to pick the right company
                                to work for. Some people chose Borland,
                                Apple (when Apple was not doing well), or
                                Sybase. Others chose Cisco or Microsoft.
                                Nothing was really different about their
                                situations except that some companies did
                                better than others. People who saw the
                                advent of NAS worked at Auspex, but Netapp
                                was probably a better choice in hindsight.
                                Who could have guessed? There was a lot of
                                luck involved. Yahoo! and Google did well.
                                Altavista and Lycos didn't do as well. Maybe
                                Google and Yahoo! had a better management
                                team. I can't say. I can say that the rank
                                and file employees at each were just as
                                talented, hard-working, intelligent and
                                ambitious and yet they were not equally
                                rewarded. That's luck.
                          \_ Thank you, I nearly cried when I read your
                             post. I also worked very very hard at several
                             startup. Long hours, great ideas, super smart
                             and super-charged team members, etc. None of
                             them ever became successful, and now I'm
                             just a normal 9-5 dad with a suburban home.
                             In contrast some of my friends got really
                             lucky and were acquired by other companies.
                             Being at the right place at the right time
                             definitely plays a large role. Maybe 65%.
                             I tried. I learned. But I didn't fail. Would
                             I do it again if I'm single and don't have
                             any responsibility anymore? DEFINITELY.
                             \_ If you don't have kids there's nothing stopping
                                you from trying again.
                                \_ He said he's a dad.
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:January:08 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>