Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:January:24 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2008/1/24-31 [Recreation/Dating] UID:48999 Activity:nil
        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
        \_ 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.
        \_ 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
                                                  If I'm so ignorant, inform
                                                  \_ 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
                                                            \_ 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
                                                             What if one
                                                             parent is and
                                                             the other
                                                             isn't? What
                                                             about the path to
                                                             for those whose
                                                             parents aren't
                                                             Birthright is
                                                             cut and dry.
                                                           \_ It's exactly as
                                                              cut and dry. It
                                                              only requires one
                                                              parent, this is
                                                              common sense.
                                                              \_ With this
                                                                 you've already
                                                                 an arbitrary
                                                                 rule. Why one
                                                                 and not both?
                                                                 To me
                                                                 is common
                                                                 sense. We
                                                                 all have
                                                                 ideas of
                                                                 common sense.
                                                                 But there's
                                                                 only one way
                                                                 to determine
                                                              What's your pt.
                                                              re: path for
                                                              There is one.
                                                              \_ Explain how it
                                                                 would work in
                                                                 your scheme.
                                                                 We couldn't
                                                                 do exactly
                                                                 what we do
                                                                 now for US-born
                                                               \_ What? US born
                                                                  are citizens.
                                                                  We would do
                                                                  exactly what
                                                                  we do now for
                                                                  ex. parents
                                                                  who bring a
                                                                  kid into the
                                                                  country. That
                                                                  kid is not
                                                                  an auto-ctzn.
                                                                  \_ What reqts
                                                                     And if it
                                                                     is easy
                                                                     to do so
                                                                     then what
                                                                     have you
                                                                     Kids of
                                                                     will just
                                                                     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
                                                                   changing the
                                                                   Any other
                                                                   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
                                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
                                \_ 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
                                \_ 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
                                   \_ 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
                                                 \_ 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
                                                        \_ 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
                                                                \_ Doesn't
                                                                   seem to
                                                                   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
                                                   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
                                                   \_ 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
                                                       \_ 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
                                                              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!
2022/08/07 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:January:24 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>