| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2008/1/24-31 [Recreation/Dating] UID:48999 Activity:nil |
1/23 http://ashleymadison.com Extramarital affairs dating site. When Monogamy Becomes Monotony. \_ People should cleave to their mates exclusively just based on reducing the spread of disease. I'm sure there're ways to get some spice in your existing relationships. \_ Just wait a few years. Holodeck will be there! \_ not just that, a variety of exciting technical 'toys' on the horizon, and more being invented all the time. \_Is it 'adultery' if a sexbot is involved?? \_ Do you _think_ it's 'adultery' is a sexbot is involved? \_ Thanks! That's exactly what I need. Didn't know such thing exists. \_ Nothing could possibly go wrong with that! \_ Wow that site has ripoff pricing. |
| 2008/1/24-31 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:49000 Activity:nil |
1/24 Obama might win because of his race. Hillary might win because of her
gender. If Condy Rice were to run this round, would she stand an even
better chance just because her race (more Black than Obama) and gender
might overcome her political stance?
\_ No, because the disadvantage of her being so closely associated
with the hated Bush would sink her despite gender/race advantage.
\_ well one of them will wni the democratic primary. Whichever
one of them wins will be because they're notrepublican. Condi
fails this test. |
| 2008/1/24-31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:49001 Activity:nil |
1/24 What a surprise, most (90%) of the insurgents in Iraq aren't Iraqis
http://csua.org/u/kjz
\_ Doesn't it say 90% of the suicide bombers are foriegn, not of all
insurgents. In fact, I think insurgent is the wrong name for these
guys. Terrorist really is more apt. |
| 2008/1/24-31 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:49002 Activity:nil |
1/24 Any mandarin speakers here? When do you call the mother of a friend
(say, Chen) "chen2 bo2 mu3" and when do you call her "chen2 ma1 ma1"?
Is there any difference between Mainland China and Taiwan? Thanks.
--- Cantonese speaker
\_ mama is informal and buomu is more formal. On a related question,
why do Mainlanders call China "Middle Nation" and
Taiwanese call China "Big Land"? And what's the difference
between hua-ren and jon-kuo-ren?
\_ These questions certainly will spark debates around unification
vs. independence which deserve a separate thread.
\_ I seriously doubt there are enough FOBs on motd to spark
these debates.
\_ Is this a real question? Both of those have pretty obvious
meanings. Incidentally, Koreans also call China "Middle Nation."
The US is "Beautiful Nation."
\_ Chinese calls the US "Beautiful Nation" as well. Japanese
calls China "Middle Nation" and the US "Rice Nation." Anyway,
the "Middle" in CJK are taken for its meaning, whereas the
"Beautiful" in CK and the "Rice" in J are just taken for the
sound of the Chinese characters.
sound of the two Chinese characters. |
| 2008/1/24-31 [Finance/Banking, Reference/RealEstate] UID:49003 Activity:nil |
1/24 Yay! Conforming loan limit to be raised to $625,500 for Santa Clara
\_ What does this mean? -not a homeowner, but want to learn
\_ Housing loans under X amount get goverment funded loans that
are at lower intrest rates. A jumbo loan is a loan for over
that amount and intrest is about 1 1/2 percent more. By raising
the cap they are basically making more expensive houses cheaper
to buy (cause the intrest rate is less, and loans are easier to
get.) They are trying to reinflate the bubble. Yay?
\_ I see, so what prevents stupid people from getting exactly
$625,500 for the first loan and another $300,000 for
the second loan? And how do you look up the rate
limit for the area you live in? Thanks. -pp
\_ Until recently the limit was country wide. Don't know
how the look up works. As to the second, you could
do that but because how second mortgages work they tend
to be even higher intrest rate. (Basically if a house
forecloses and is sold the entire first mortgage is paid
off before the second mortgage gets a crack at it, I'm
not sure how liens work.) Some people do manage to get
a cheaper deal by doing what you suggest, but it still
more expensive than not needing a jumbo loan.
\_ piggyback loands are done ALL THE TIME. it's cheaper
than one huge jumbo. of course, if you have the down
payment, then a single conforming is best of all.
the conforming limit is currently $417K countrywide
except hawaii and alaska (+50% higher).
the proposed plan says median price of the "metropolitan
area" + 25% should be the new cap. however, the numbers
need to be made consistent between the house/senate
versions, looks like feb 15 is target sign date.
\_ it's an experimental erectile dysfunction pill for the CA real
estate market, FDA approval and short-/long-term effects TBD
Santa Clara = rock hard
East Bay = softening
San Bernardino = flaccid
\_ !swami says this is step one for a complete federal (i.e.
taxpayer) bailout of the mortgage mess (i.e. banks).
\_ !swami also says this is basically legalized theft. |
| 2008/1/24-31 [Reference/Tax] UID:49004 Activity:nil |
1/24 Someone please help me understand how the tax rebates work. I just
don't have time to look into it. From what I read, these are
rebates and not handouts. Meaning, these are just tax dollars that
would ultimately be refunded anyway next year. Am I wrong about
that? If I am right, then why will it cost the government any
money? If I am wrong, please explain how it works.
\_ It's a handout to people with less than a certain income.
\_ They are called "rebates" but they are actually handouts, because
"Workers who make at least $3,000 but don't pay taxes would get
$300 rebates."
\_ Understood, but that's probably a small class.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080124/ap_on_go_co/economy_stimulus
\_ if you make more than $85K adjusted gross income, you get nothing.
if you're married and have three kids with combined income < $150K,
you get $2,100.
\_ I read that, but aren't you just getting $2,100 of your own
money? Or is it $2,100 you wouldn't get back otherwise?
\_ What's flawed about this is the 100B comes from... LOANS, adding
more to deficits that we will have to pay for sooner or later.
Ah, the wonders of never ending deficit.
\_ Yep, the only way this matters is if the gov't cuts spending,
then keeps the Bush tax cuts permanent.
\_ government handouts financed by increasing federal debt. Theyd
get the same result by telling taxpayers to just go spend an
extra $300 on their credit cards.
\_ Cool, we can vote ourselves money from the public treasure.
Let's keep voting for the candidate promising the most!
Let's borrow money from China to give handouts to consumers to
buy products from China to lend us the money again. Oh well,
it's just paper.
\_ you still get your normal tax refund. this is "bonus".
\_ Are you sure about that? So these work differently from the
$300 Bush rebates handed out N years ago?
\_ ack, not quite sure now actually
\_ pretty sure. weren't the $300 rebates "bonus" as well?
i think the confusion is about those who never paid even
$300 in taxes not getting $300.
\_ No, the bottom rate got lowered that year, so that your taxes
were actually $300 less. They sent you that money right away
but then deducted it from your tax refund. The new "rebate"
is planned to be a similar thing: it is basically a one
year tax cut (for those who pay taxes) and just a check
(probably a boost in EIC) for those who do not.
\_ So this is a rate cut for which tax year? 2008? And
instead of receiving the refund in 2009 they will mail
it out in advance? |
| 2008/1/24-31 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49005 Activity:nil |
1/24 Some hybrid car models shut down the engine when the car is not moving.
How do you warm up such a car in the morning?
\_ the car does it for you. |
| 2008/1/24-31 [Uncategorized] UID:49006 Activity:nil |
1/24 Hey misha are you still working at Google?
\_ duh, send them an email. |
| 2008/1/24-2/2 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:49007 Activity:high |
1/23 Some people want to end birthright citizenship and instead require
a parent to be a citizen for the baby to automatically be a citizen.
Most other countries require this.
Does anyone here think that's a bad idea? If so, why?
\_ It's a great idea but will not gain traction because a Day
Without Mexicans will be devastating to the entire economy
in Southern California.
\_ I think it's a bad idea. It will create an underclass of
citizenry (think Rome or Japan).
\_ Why? There is a clear path to citizenship.
\_ In Japan there are significant percentages of the population
who have lived in the country legally for generations and
yet are not citizens. You think this is a good thing?
\_ I don't know about those people or why they are not
citizens. It doesn't seem relevant to *illegal* immigrants.
\_ The OP said require parents to be citizens. If parents
are legal aliens then they aren't citizens. The kids
then won't be citizens. And so on.
\_ You said in Japan they "lived in the country
legally". If the law didn't give them a right
to be there then they are not legally living there.
If they were deported in the first place then that
would not be a problem. That's a choice that exists
whether to actually try to enforce the law. You can
treat the multigenerational thing as a special case.
If we chose to, we would detect almost all the
illegals long before that.
\_ You can live in a country legally and not
be a citizen.
\_ In the US, if you have legal permanent
residence then you can become naturalized. So
\_ You can apply for it and you may or may
not receive it. You may not want to
apply. My dad just applied after living
here for almost 40 years. It's a
ridiculous thought that I'd not be a
citizen under your plan, given I was
born here to legal immigrants and lived my
whole life here. Further, there is no
guarantee that requirements don't get
more and more difficult. It's a slippery
slope we should not start down.
\_ You will receive it if you qualify.
I know many, many people who were not
born here but whose parents brought
them as a baby. They were not automatic
citizens, they had to be naturalized.
What's wrong with that? And your
slippery slope argument is a slippery
slope argument, i.e. worthless.
\_ You know what is worthless? This
statement: "You will receive it
if you qualify."
\_ Your assertion is worthless.
All these people took the test
or whatever and became citizens.
What's your problem?
\_ Your statement doesn't address
what qualifying entails or
acknowledge that qualifying can
change over time. It's pretty
big to gloss over the "if you
qualify" part. Your ignorance of
citizenship and naturalization
are astounding.
is astounding.
\_ I know what it entails, do
you? You have to be a legal
permanent resident, there's a
time requirement and a basic
test.
If I'm so ignorant, inform
me.
\_ They can find a lot
of excuses to deny you.
What you are listing
are the minimum reqs.
\_ Like what? Do you know
some examples of people
getting screwed?
\_ You don't have a very
active imagination.
\_ You don't have a
point.
\_ I do, but
you're not
grasping it.
Imagine the
gov't changing
req'ts for
some nefarious
reason. Why
give them the
power to deny
citizenship to
your kids?
Uh, ok, but that argument _/
applies equally to birthright.
"Imagine the gov't changing
req'ts." You don't have a point.
\_ No, because birthright is
not an arbitrary set of rules.
\_ Yes it is.
\_ No, it is not. It
is very clear how
birthright is defined
and it isn't
decided by rule.
\_ Of course it's
"decided by rule".
How is inherited
citizenship unclear?
\_ It can be
arbitrary.
What if one
parent is and
the other
isn't? What
about the path to
citizenship
for those whose
parents aren't
citizens?
Birthright is
cut and dry.
\_ It's exactly as
cut and dry. It
only requires one
parent, this is
common sense.
\_ With this
statement
you've already
implemented
an arbitrary
rule. Why one
and not both?
To me
birthright
is common
sense. We
all have
different
ideas of
common sense.
But there's
only one way
to determine
birthright.
What's your pt.
re: path for
noncitizens?
There is one.
\_ Explain how it
would work in
your scheme.
We couldn't
do exactly
what we do
now for US-born
non-citizens.
\_ What? US born
are citizens.
We would do
exactly what
we do now for
non-citizens:
naturalize.
ex. parents
who bring a
kid into the
country. That
kid is not
an auto-ctzn.
\_ What reqts
to
naturalize?
And if it
is easy
to do so
then what
have you
achieved?
Kids of
non-citzns
will just
naturalize.
What is to
be gained?
On a side note, what
would you think of a
law specifically
excepting the 14th
amndmt for children
of illegal aliens?
\_ Unconstitutional
\_ That can be
changed. Did
you know there
actually are
exceptions to
the birthright
clause already?
\_ Yes. So
now you are
advocating
changing the
Constitution?
Any other
changes
while you're
at it?
It's been changed _/
changed before.
Notably to add the
birthright thing in
the 1st place, in the
context of ending
slavery where there
were millions of ppl
without citizenship
but who weren't here
illegally. That's not
the case now.
\_ Kind of drastic
to fuck with the
Constitution b/c
you're afraid of
immigrants.
your concern is irrelevant. If you aren't
here as a permanent resident, then you are
supposed to go back where you came from at
some point; if not then you are now illegal.
\_ No. Plenty of people become permenant
legal residents and never become citizens.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
\_ Might want to check your reading
comprehension because I never claimed
otherwise.
\_ Technically, you're only illegal once your
visa runs out.
\_ Yes.
\_ Many Korean nationals have near-permanent visas
in Japan. Their children are still considered
Korean nationals, no matter how assimilated they
become. The process of attaining citizenship in
Japan is arduous and purposefully designed to
discourage; Japan much prefers having a legal
immigrant population that can be exploited for
labor and deported when it causes trouble. My
wife's best friend in college (Kansai GaiDai) was
of Korean descent (3rd generation) and the first
in her family to become Japanese. She spoke no
Korean and was utterly assimilated. --erikred
\_ Ok but that's not the case here. What is
"near-permanent"?
\_ She's a 3rd generation immigrant to Japan.
Near-permanent means her grandparents have
in Japan all of her life and most of their
kids' lives.
\_ I mean, what kind of visa is "near-
permanent"? They have some kind of
weird multigenerational visa? Or were
the grandparents supposed to go home
and didn't?
\_ I don't know what it's called. They
have been in Japan legally.
\_ It is not that unusual. I know they
had the same issue in Germany with
some Turks that moved there in the
50s and now have some kids that had
been born and raised in Germany, were
now adults and didn't even speak
Turkish, and were being asked to
move back. Eventually, they were
mostly made Germans though.
\_ There is? Can it change? It's a step in the wrong direction.
\_ For legals there is. Reducing illegal immigration is the
wrong direction?
\_ Being born here is legal immigration, not illegal.
\_ I refer to the parents of course.
\_ It sounds like what you're really interested in is
preventing people from entering illegally, having kids
here, then demanding legal status because they now have
a kid who was born here; there are other ways to handle
this apart from removing birthright citizenship.
\_ Like what?
\_ You could deport them, for one.
\_ What about people who enter legally
(say, on a visitor's visa) just to have the
child in the US?
\_ Now see, that just sounds like an
unfortunate and inevitable yet mostly
negligible outcome. Note that the citizen-
ship of the child wouldn't prevent you
from sending parents and child back home
when parents' visa expired, and then the
parents would have to apply for visas or
citizenship themselves through the normal
channels.
\_ Can you legally deport a US citizen?
(the kid). Also, immigrants often seem
to be able to get their family members
legally into the country. Why not just
end the birthright citizenship?
\_ You can legally send the kid home
with its parents. Also, that's not
necessarily a bad thing, and you can
strengthen immigration controls if
you want to control the entry you
seem to be talking about. Why throw
away something that's not broken
when there are other, less drastic
measures available?
\_ The point is it is broken. The
world is different than it was
in the 1800s. Getting born is
not a reasonable immigration path.
\_ You have yet to demonstrate that
it's broken. You're saying that
a part of it is broken, not the
whole thing. Citizenship by
birthplace is an incentive for
parents to want to legally
come to the States, giving us
a large pool of potential
applicants to work in and
contribute to our country; if
our procedure for catching ppl
abusing the system doesn't work,
let's change that.
\_ The way it actually works is as
an incentive to illegally come
here to give birth. Or legally
come here temporarily and give
birth, thereby doing an end
run of the usual procedures.
See, it's a valuable thing to
have even if it can't be used
until the kid is an adult. I
am just pointing out that it
doesn't make sense to grant
citizenship solely on
birthplace with no other tie
to this country. What's the
rationale?
\_ If someone born here
doesn't have rights as
a citizen then who does?
I think your fears
(people coming here to
have babies) are unfounded
and, even if true, what's
the concern? That there
will be more Americans?
That's bad?
\_ 1) Someone born to a
citizen does
2) taxpayer drain
\_ What do you mean
"taxpayer drain"?
Everyone pays taxes,
citizen or not. Do
you think they would
"drain less" if they
were LPRs and not
citizens?
\_ I mean they are poor
and don't pay taxes,
and use public svcs.
\_ There are plenty
of poor citizens
and wealthy LPRs.
Why not an
income reqt
for citizenship?
\_ Why not end
birthright?
\_ Doesn't
seem to
address
your
concerns as
well as an
income reqt.
You misunderstand my concerns then. _/
Do you support unlimited immigration?
\_ I thought your concern is stated
above as "taxpayer drain". No?
Yes, I support legal immigration.
It is what made this country so
great. "Unlimited" is a word I
am not sure I want to touch.
It's a word like "all" or "never".
\_ My concern is that simply being
born in the US doesn't strike me
as a reasonable path to ctznship.
Place of birth has no inherent
meaning anymore. You said it is
an incentive for people to come
legally. How so? The birthright
thing happens if they are legal
or not. I also don't understand
your vague aspersions against
the naturalization process.
If that is broken then that
should be fixed.
\_ It is an incentive because
immigrants consider the
effects of their immigration
on their children. Would
you like to move somewhere
and maybe take up permenant
residence somewhere where
your kids, who were born
and grew up there, would
have 2nd-class status?
\_ 1) we don't actually have a
shortage of people.
2) they would not have 2nd
class status, they could
become citizens if they
choose.
3) it's the way it works
in most other countries,
so it's not a "competitive
disadvantage". Our natural-
ization process is already
very easy compared to many
countries.
\_ The merits of birth-
right are not the issue;
what's at issue is the
problem you've pointed
out vis-a-vis ppl gaming
the system. The approp.
response is to fix the
holes, not tear down the
entire dam.
\_ But it is the issue. The
other issues are just
part of the picture and
symptoms of the under-
lying issue. It's a very
simple concept: instead
of Where, make it Who.
status = parent.status()
The only reasonable
argument I can think of
is that a child of
illegal immigrants
inherits illegal status
through no fault of his
own. But I'm ok with
that because it should
discourage parents from
doing that. Also it's
not worth distinguishing
from someone illegally
bringing a kid here,
and someone birthing one
here.
\_ Your energy is wasted
on this. Focus on
finding solutions,
not throwing out the
working system.
\_ It is a solution. In
all our blathering
you never made any
counterargument that
makes any sense.
\_ Make it
income-based.
Why not?
\_ 1) why should the kid be a citizen if
his parents just happened to be on US soil?
2) if you deport the parents, what do you do
with their citizen kid?
\_ 1) Incentive for parents to want to follow
legal immigration system.
2) Send the kid home with them. Citizenship
is not usually actually conferred until
majority; until then, they fall under their
parents' status.
\_ How about requiring a parent, or the mother, to be legally here
(green card and all sorts of visas) instead of to be a citizen?
\_ That would be better than nothing I guess. I don't see why
the kid should be a citizen though.
\_ Amnesty maybe. I don't think the kid should be granted
citizenship either. If it's up to me, for the green card
case the kid should be granted green card; for all other
cases, nothing. I don't think this idea would be popular
though. -- PP |
| 2008/1/24-2/2 [Uncategorized] UID:49008 Activity:nil |
1/23 Dear History Channel buffs-- why did the Spaniards try to
conquer instead of colonizing?
\_ Huh? What makes you think they didn't colonize?!?!?!
\_ Conquerer: "We are God and you will worship us and give
us gold or else Montezuma will die."
Colonizer: "Here's 22 trinkets, talk to you later sucker!"
\_ Do you know anything about California history?
\_ That is a strange use of the word "colonize" but I see
what you mean. The Spainards were more interested in
converting the heathens to Christianity and also brought
with them a more fuedal society, which they converted into
the encomienda model in the New World. Also, the Mayans
and Aztecs peasant farmers were more used to a sort of
fuedal society, so the change was not as great for them
as it would have been for the Iroquois or Cherokee.
\_ is United States conquering or colonizing the
State of Iraq?
\_ Hopefully neither, by your definition (both of which
demand a permanent settlement). |
| 2008/1/24-2/2 [Industry/Jobs, Industry/Startup] UID:49009 Activity:nil |
1/23 Recruiter question: Say a recruiter got me into a big company and
got paid for my head count, and I've already stayed 1 year
(which is the pre-req for most recruiters to get the head count
bonus). Later I leave the company for a bunch of failed startups
for a while and eventually a second recruiter enticed me to go
BACK to the company again, will the second recruiter get paid
for getting me back?
\_ Of course! |
| 4/13 |