| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2008/2/1-6 [Academia/Berkeley/Classes, Finance/Investment] UID:49044 Activity:kinda low |
2/1 Facebook finances leaked
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/31/facebook-finances-leaked
Losses for 2007: $50 million
Projected losses for 2008: $150 million
dans, over to you
\_ bubble 2.0
\_ Possibly. I've never said different. IMO it's good to be a geek
during a tech bubble. -dans
during a tech bubble. Let me amend that. It's good to be a
geek in a tech bubble if you're not greedy. -dans
\_ why?
\_ Is there a point you're trying to make? I should note that the
figures you link to don't indicate a loss in 2007, and referring to
figures handed to the press on a silver platter as a leak is silly.
-dans
\_ YHBT |
| 2008/2/1-6 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:49045 Activity:nil |
2/1 Last year I put 35% of my 401K portfolio into Energy and Foreign
stocks. I just realized that my total 401K portfolio gain last
year was about 20% (got dinged on 10% of REIT). Go energy stocks
and THANKS George Bush, and go Republicans!
\_ Are you thanking Bush for the weak dollar?
\_ Shit! Mine dropped more than 10%. (FLPSX and FMCSX)
\_ I also gained 20% last year and with a much more conservative
strategy. Unfortunately, a lot of the gains have been given
back already this year.
\_ What was your strategy, just out of curiosity.
\_ I was going to explain it, but I decided I'd rather not.
Most of my gains *did* come from energy, resources, and
foreign stocks as it happened, but I diversified. On
reading the OP again, it sounds like he did, too, since
he had 65% of his portfolio elsewhere.
\_ I was up 40%-50% on USO and GAGEX -- it's dropped a bit though |
| 2008/2/1-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:49046 Activity:high |
2/1 Just out of curiosity, are there any registered Republicans here on
motd? -emarkp
\_ Tell us what you think about the Iraq War. Was it a right
decision?
\_ We're mostly flip flopping Independents and are not as rigid
and brain dead as most of the ultra right wing Conservatives.
\_ I am. But I always vote Democrat. I'm also the same guy
who is trying to seduce the hot 30 year old Mormon.
\_ by the way, how's that going?
\_ I register Republican and vote for the 2nd or 3rd weakest
person in the primary hoping to dilute their hope of winning.
The Party of Corruption must go away.
\_ So both the Dems and Repubs then? -emarkp
\_ The corrupt party IN POWER needs to go away. That party
is currently R, but when D's take control, I will vote
them out as well. -smart independent
\_ Dems = Good. Reps = Evil.
\_ Another flaw of this political system.
\_ I should be I guess, but I'm Nonpartisan. I can't vote in the
R primary in CA. I hate the mainstream of both parties. I'm
not sure what I'll do for the primary. I guess I'll go and vote
in the D one for the hell of it.
Ok I've decided to vote for Obama. I would vote for him over
McCain in the general election anyway.
Ok I've decided to vote for Obama.
\_ I am also "decline to state" and I didn't think choosing
the R primary was an option this year. My ballot says I get
a choice of D or some other smaller parties, but not R.
\_ Yeah, that's what I'm referring to, the CA R party
excluded the independents. But we could have registered R
up until the Jan 23rd or some such.
\_ Why would the R party do that? I would imagine more I
voters choose R over D.
\_ Probably not this year.
\_ Not this election. --erikred
\_ I registered undecided. Its sad that the Republican party excludes
us undecided's from their primary. I guess they don't care about
our our feedback on which of their candidates would appeal most to
the undecided folks, and would rather cede the 'undecided' vote to
the other party in the real election -- the one that actually counts.
\_ Yeah, I'm rather disappointed that I can't vote in the R primary
this time. The canidates are actually kinda good. The Ds
have scum and dumb.
\- it just seems arrogant and stupid. The R members are most
likely to vote for an R in the election, regardless of which
of their candidates get chosen in the primary, so the real
election gets decided by who gets the most of the the
'undecided vote' (assuming a even distributino of R and D's).
It's stupid to marginalize the undecide voters' appeal in that
situation.
\_ Of coure the reality is that the CA distribution is
heavily Democratic, so much so the Republicans might as
well not bother holding a primary here.
\_ Yeah, no way an R can win an important office in CA
\_ Yeah, not like the governorship or ... anything ...
\_ Except he's a RINO.
\_ Exactly. It'll never happen. About as likely
as an R President from CA.
\_ All you people complaining about not being able to vote in the
primaries because you're not registered should have changed your
party 2 weeks ago. There's a simple form you can use to change
party up to 2 weeks before an election in CA.
\_ I've been a registered Repblican for nearly 15 years, but I think
I will probably switch to Independent b/c the party has gone all
kook in recent years (well, except for the Governator).
\_ What are you looking for in your political party/candidates?
\_ I guess I'm looking for people who are willing to think
things through and come up with reasonable solutions. I
just don't see the current crop of GOP and Democrats as
willing to do that. Currently both the Dems and the GOP
kind of weird me out - the Dems on social issues and the
GOP on the Religious Right & the War in Iraq. I think we
need more reasonable people like the Governator running
the country.
\_ I agree that both parties stink right now. One wants
big government and handouts like universal health
care. The other one wants to erode our civil liberties
and bankrupt the country fighting wars. Candidates
should stop pandering to the populace and do what
makes sense.
\_ The current Admin is rooting for three of the four
things you complain about plus tax cuts for the
plutocrats. What makes sense is universal healthcare,
even if it's work-based; what doesn't make sense is a
first-world nation with working-poor.
\_ Illegal immigration directly impacts the poor. It
dilutes the value of uneducated, unskilled labor.
It also adds more poor kids into public schools
whose parents don't pay taxes, thus lowering the
education quality for the poorest people.
A welfare state is incompatible with lax
immigration policies.
\_ This I agree with. Because I believe in the
promise of America, I support lax immigration
policies and a free market state. Hardcore
liberals fail to realize that their alternative
is a socialist state with strict immigration
policies. That almost sounds like fascism to
me. They sweep that part under the rug.
I think it helps more people to be able to
migrate here and fend for themselves versus
keeping everyone else out but having a populace
of fat and lazy sheep.
\_ Too late. LA is full of lazy fat sheeps
who blast hip-hop music on 101/405/210/5
710 freeways in their SUVs. You know what
annoys me even more about S Cal? People
leaving their dogs alone 12-14hrs a day
in the backyard, barking non-stop and
annoying the hell outa everyone else. The
only good thing about LA is the abundance
of cheap gardeners for their beloved lawns.
\_ I am vehemently opposed to universal healthcare.
I am also opposed to non-working middle class,
like in Europe. Pay for other people with your
dollars, not mine. BTW, if you want free
medical, retirement, education, and housing then
there's the US military waiting for you.
\_ I was vehemently opposed to the Iraq War, but
that didn't stop you from spending my tax
dollars on it. Get used to being out of power
for a while. Move to Canada if you don't like it.
\_ I'm not an R and I'm glad Bush is leaving
office.
\_ Did you vote for him?
\_ Unless you went to private schools all your life,
earned every penny you've spent, and inherited
nothing, I find your petty Libertarianism
utterly unconvincing.
\_ Did you return Bush's tax cut to the IRS?
-- ilyas
\_ No, I reinvested in hookers and blow.
\_ I find your petty Liberalism utterly
unconvincing. -- ilyas
\_ Touche', Academic Libertarian living
off the grant teat.
\_ This is complete shit, sorry. The welfare
state exists and using it has nothing at all
to do with whether one believes it should
exist.
exist. If you were in communist Russia, would
you not eat the government bread?
\_ I'm not trying to convince you. If you
like socialism then Europe is waiting for you.
If you like American values then you are
in the right place.
1. Yes, except for UCB which I sometimes
regret, and a year in elementary school
which was a waste of a year of my life
\_ Your parents paid for private schools
almost your entire life and yet you
claim you will not inherit anything.
How is that possible?
\_ They spent a lot of their money on
private schools instead of on
themselves. I am sure when they
die I will get a bill and not a check.
Private schools are not completely
filled with blue-bloods and you
can qualify for aid.
\_ The money they spent on your
education _is_ your inheritance.
You benefited from their benefits.
To pretend that someone, somewhere
along your line didn't benefit from
social progams or position from
birth is simply dishonest.
\_ Using your definition we all
inherit from our parents. I
think that's a stupid
definition.
\_ Not all of us go to private
schools.
\_ Non-sequitur. Did you
not benefit from your
ancestors in some manner?
\_ You're making my point
for me: we are all
beneficiaries of the
system. To pretend that
you earned everything
you have on your own
merits is ridiculous.
\_ Nobody is saying that,
nice straw man.
What is wrong with
families supporting
each other? Why do we
need "the system" to
replace that? That is
out of some Orwellian
dystopia, not America.
\_Are you a 1st
generation immigrant?
There is nothing
wrong with that, but
it might explain some
of your half-cocked
ideas about what
"America" is.
\_ "The system" is
not "my ancestor".
2. Of course,
3. That's right.
However, I'm not Libertarian. They are too
far to the right. I'm just practical. I
understand that most candidates running
now wish to bankrupt the country, whether
on idiotic sojourns to Iraq or by
government handouts. To be honest, Arnold
S. is my brand of government and I'm not
the person in this thread who already
mentioned him. I am socially liberal but
fiscally conservative and I really, really
hate socialism and socialist policies as a
product of my European family, most of
whom can't wait to get the hell out of the
shithole that is Europe.
\_ You speak as if it were not possible to
provide minimal assistance and public
services and yet not put us in deficit:
Where were you when Clinton gave us the
surpluses? Also, which shithole Euro
nation did you flee? The socialist Nordic
states seem to doing just fine.
\_ Those surpluses were fleeting and
the product of a gigantic bubble we
won't see again for decades. Clinton
(and government in general) had nothing
to do with it. However, they did
manage to spend that money. BTW, I
think at issue here is what 'minimal
assistance' means. It means different
things to different people.
\_ More of your GIGO thinking. Government
shrank during the Clinton era. Clinton
had nothing to do with this?
\_ Had more to do with revenues
increasing than any shrinkage
of government. BTW, what the
hell is "GIGO"?
\_ Garbage In Garbage Out
What do they teach CS students
these days?
\_ Heard the term, but never
saw it referred to with
that acronym. Makes
sense now that I know.
\_ How did increasing revenues
lead to a smaller gov't headcount
and decreased real per capita
gov't spending?
\_ My family is from France, Germany, and
the Netherlands. My French relatives
in particular cannot stand France
anymore and are selling their
property to move to places like US
and Canada. More would come to the US,
but for GWB giving us a bad reputation.
The EU has not been a good thing for
Western European citizens. It has made
everything expensive, eroded social
services, made people work harder
(or for the first time in their lives)
and brought in an influx of cheap
labor from Eastern Europe and
Russia. Now that Europe is finally
grappling with the same problems the US
has been it is clear that their model
needs to change. It is certainly not the
direction the US needs to move in.
They will collapse before we do
without serious reforms. The people
in countries like Denmark are living
in la-la land and think that they
will be immune to the problems facing
countries like France, but they have
their heads in the sand.
\_ Boewulf is cool man!!! Go Scandinavia!
\_ Norway is rich because of oil. The others
aren't doing that great. Aside from that,
"seeming to do fine" is not a meaningful
point of discussion.
Communist USSR, Vietnam, and China "seem
to do fine" also. The USA seemed to do
fine with slavery.
\_ Denmark boasts happy people, a strong
economy, and socialized medicine. Not
a lot of oil. Life is good. Wtf was the
slavery/communism thing about?
\_ Denmark is the size of my living
room.
\_ OK, how about measures like crime
rate, literacy rate, infant mortality,
life expectancy? The US scores
poorly.
\_ And yet we are the wealthiest
nation in the world. I think
a lot of those measurements are
meaningless. What matters more
is what the top 10% are doing
and not the conditions of the bottom
10% who are just drains on
society anyway. Do you want to
compare standards of living of
the top 33% of Americans with
the top 33% of <pick your
nation>? I am not necessarily
advocating throwing the poor to
the wolves, but this is the
country where that poor person
can die a billionaire. The
price to be paid is that some
people are chewed up and spit
out. I prefer a system that
rewards ability even if it
means some people fare a little
worse (but still *very very well*
compared to most of the world.)
The US takes in the dregs of
humanity and provides for them.
Of course the averages are
going to suffer for that. Most
of them (if you ask them)
wouldn't move anywhere else.
They love having opportunity!
Why do you insist on telling
people what they want?
\_ Let them eat cake.
\_ The US is the antithesis of
the French monarchy.
\_ In its purest form, yes.
The current tax cuts for
plutocrats bring us closer
to Le Roi du Soleil.
to Circus du Soleil
\_ Great: Now prove that the US
system rewards ability.
Income mobility has decreased
in the U.S. since the
pre-Reagan years, and the U.S.
has less income mobility than
most European countries.
(Obligatory Reagan answer:
poor people just want to be
poor). -tom
\_ What data do you have saying
income mobility decreased or
is less than Europe? Maybe
some people do want to be poor.
Maybe the welfare state
encourages that. Why is it that
certain immigrant groups do
much better here than others
or than certain poor natives?
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/kp7
The Economist magazine
on class mobility in the US.
(They also say it is higher
in Europe, but not in that
article).
\_ That's not data, that's
an article headline.
I can't get to the rest
of the article.
\_ I put a copy in
/var/tmp/economist.mobility
for you and added
/var/tmp/economist.america
for good measure.
\_ Ok, how useful is
it to talk about class
and average incomes
in an essentially
socialist country?
For example the NYTimes
thing compares gen-to
gen income growth. But
this would of course
take longer if there
is a wider range to
start with. Wealth
disparity: is it an
inherent problem to be
addressed?
The e'ist also points
out that the poor are
better off in absolute
terms than they ever
were.
This is also in the
context of an America
that is not free of
welfare, so it is not
really an appropriate
example for comparison.
Denmark is too small
to be appropriate
anyway.
\_ I'm not the one
making the
extraordinary claim
that there is more
opportunity in the
US than elsewhere;
or even more oddly,
that the relative
lack of social
services in the US
*causes* greater
opportunity.
Where's the evidence
for that?
-tom
\_ Well, the evidence
shows a) more ppl
*believe* they have
opportunity, and b)
the successful ppl
in the US are
apparently more
successful than
those elsewhere.
\_ or the system
is rigged in
favor of the
rich. -tom
\_ Do you think
we should allow
there to exist
rich people?
Maybe we should
have an asset
cap?
\_ Do you think
we should
allow both
obscene wealth
and abject
poverty to
exist in the
same society?
-tom
\_ Allow? I
think
obscenity
is subjctve
and you have
a personal
choice to
give wealth
to the poor.
But remov-
ing wealth
seems a more
efficient
solution to
that issue.
The excess
wealth will
naturally be
auctioned
out to the
"have nots"
and bring
everyone
closer to
avg. Unlike
handouts, it
scales to
any level of
national
wealth and
does not put
a drag on
economy.
\_ I'm calling BS on the
class mobility in Europe.
It is still very
important who your family
is/was in Europe. I
have a Czech friend
in France who is a
scientist there (and who
was also one here).
He told me their system
allocates N slots for
scientists and you have
to wait for one to open
up before you can be
hired. The allocated
slots are filled with
people resting on their
laurels and their
cronies. A surprising
number are based on
nepotism. If your dad
was a famous scientist
or politician then you
will likely get a slot.
He says this is in stark
contrastely get a slot.
This is in stark contrast
to the US, where the
brightest students get
a slot no matter. Sure,
it matters who you are
here, too (GWB) but not
like in Europe where it
seeps into every day life.
\_ The pluaral of
anecdote is not data.
/var/tmp/economist.europe
From the NYT:
http://www.csua.org/u/kpb
A nice book:
http://www.csua.org/u/kpc
\_ Let's put this in a
way you will
understand:
How many Euros come
to the US for
opportunity vs. how
many Americans go to
Europe seeking
opportunity? You went
to Cal. How many
classmates went to
Europe for grad
school/postdoc and
stayed there? How
many Euros came here
for grad/postdoc and
stayed here? There
is a lot more
opportunity in the
US, but it's funny
that Americans are
often not those who
take advantage of it.
You can lead a
horse to water...
I think that helps
explain the above
numbers.
\_ Even when all the
evidence points\
against you, you
continue to believe
a false proposition
An unwillingness
to learn is not
conducive to
success.
\_ The evidence does
not all point
against. Irony.
\_ I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me. |
| 2008/2/1-7 [Computer/Companies/Google, Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:49047 Activity:kinda low |
2/1 MS tries to buy Yahoo
\_ GOOG 514.60 -49.70
:-)
I'm not the "short GOOG" guy, just someone who envies Google
employees.
\_ Official buyout letter from MSFT http://tinyurl.com/3ysrzu
\_ Another reason to hate The Borg.
\_ If the Borg can put GOOG in its place, more power to it.
\_ Put it this way: I increased my M$FT holdings after this move,
and don't hold any GOOG, but I am still rooting for Google.
What do you have against them?
\_ Why would you 'root for' one gigantic corporation over
another gigantic corporation. You're just eyeballs and
dollars for both. Neither 'roots for' you or people like
you.
\_ M$ software has been a disaster for the Internet and
with a few exceptions, is practically unusable. GOOG
is exactly the opposite. Why would I care that the
software I use be bug free and not cause major
world-wide security problems? Is that a serious
question? I guess you could say M$ has help keep
me in a job, cleaning up their messes...
\_ The smugness of GOOG gets me. I mean, what is so great
about GOOG? Everyone does search. I find Yahoo's search
generally better than google. Lots of people do webmail.
About the only positive things I've seen from google is
gmail imap and patent search, and both are really pretty
mediocre. And I totally hate the stupid text ads. One
reason I don't use google for search anymore is b/c
adblock plus doesn't block google's stupid text ads.
Yahoo and most other sites are smart enough to use ads
that adblock blocks.
\_ MSFT buying YHOO is a major boon for GOOG. MSFT has no
track record of being able to assimilate other companies
effectively, and all the talent will bolt from YHOO if it
happens (and guess where they'll go?) MSFT will be saddled
with multiple redundant services and internal conflicts over
how to resolve the redundancies. It'll damage two of GOOG's
competitors in one shot. -tom
\_ Are you kidding? Most of MS's good tech comes from
buyouts. With few exceptions MS has done extremely
well with their purchases. Are you trying to troll the
entire motd with statements like that?
\_ I don't think that is true: M$ has piles of cash and now
they have something to spend it on. -ausman
\_ Non sequiteur. Microsoft already has products in
every area Yahoo does; they're trying to buy eyeballs,
but when Yahoo Mail gets subsumed into Hotmail and
Flickr becomes Windows Live Photos, they'll lose the
eyeballs anyway, after taking numerous write-downs
on discontinued lines of business. MS is still
dominated by the OS and Office apps; MS's dilemma is
that they won't make any decisions which will hurt the
OS or Office, which seriously cripples their ability
to execute in the web app space, where the OS and Office
are irrelevant.
The odds of MS being able to successfully execute a
takeover of Yahoo and a shift to an ad-based web
services revenue model are miniscule; I'd guess less
than 10%. -tom
\_ I agree with most of what you said, but there is
no need for M$ to shift to an ad-based web services
revenue model across the company.
\_ The history of companies who have two competing
lines of business is not good. -tom
\_ In what why do they compete? I see apps
and web portal as complementary.
\_ The web service is better for users the more
platform-neutral it is; MS has a long
history of trying to tie everything into
their own OS and applications. What do
you think will happen when someone from the
IE team says "hey, we have this new
standards-violating feature in IE, we
need to use it in the next version of the
portal/Flickr/Mail application", and someone
from the Yahoo side says "we can't do that,
it won't work for a whole bunch of our
customers"? Right. -tom
\_ This is an interesting perception,
but you are straying from the topic of
MS moving to an ad-based web services
revenue model. Please explain why
MS would want/need to do so.
\_ Because web services are eroding
the relevance of the OS and desktop
apps. -tom
\_ Let's say this is true. Won't
M$ have to go in that direction
whether or not they acquire
Yahoo!? What's changed? Also,
one can go to web-based apps
without an ad-based model. In
fact, business customers (much of
M$'s customer base) are
probably willing to pay more
to avoid ads or external
connectivity at all.
\_ I do think MS has to go in
that direction--I just think
they're unlikely to be able
to execute. They're in a
very similar situation to
IBM in the early 80s. Would
IBM buying the #2 clone maker
(Osborne or whoever) have
saved IBM's dominance? -tom
\_ So what does the
purchase of Yahoo! have
to do with a shift to an
ad-based revenue model
if you feel M$ is going
to shift anyway? If you
feel that such a shift
is inevitable then it
makes the purchase even
more attractive, no? I
disagree that M$ will shift
to any ad-based model for
their apps, but who knows.
BTW, IBM is not exactly dead
at this time. I wish I owned
a company that needing
saving like IBM.
\_ IBM stock lost 75% of
its value starting in
1984. It took 13 years
and a complete
transformation of the
business to recover to
1984 levels. The company
is now successful but
completely different and
not particularly relevant
to the industry; certainly
not dominant the way it
was. MSFT purchasing
YHOO combines *two* of
Google's competitors into
one less efficient
entity with even less
ability to execute. -tom
\_ This is another tangent.
\_ You mean like GE?
\_ MS makes money by the bank-full. They don't need to
switch from their current model to anything. This
is a direct attack on GOOG's online ad model which
is 99% of GOOG's income. *IF* MS completely and
utterly fails, it is still going to scare the crap
out of GOOG execs, and rightly so because if it
is even partially successful GOOG is going to get
hurt badly potentially crippling the company. Just
the distraction of the possibility of losing ad-share
to MS might be enough to cause GOOG to stumble. Bad
bad bad news for GOOG and the markets reflect that. |
| 2008/2/1-6 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:49048 Activity:nil |
2/1 Fox News still talking about missing blonde girl:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327766,00.html
\_ So is MSNBC, CNN, the AP, etc.
http://news.google.com/news?q=Holloway |
| 2008/2/1-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:49049 Activity:kinda low |
2/1 Who should McCain add as VP?
\_ Ann Coulter, for full comedic value
\_ The mummified corpse of Ronald Reagan.
\_ Dick Cheney
\_ Lieberman
\_ Joe "Can I suck your Republican dick" Lieberman
\_ This is actually a good idea.
\_ Obama |
| 2008/2/1-7 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:49050 Activity:nil |
2/1 Will there be a better 5 minutes of TV this year than this?
Anne Coulter says she prefers Hillary over McCain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwnYzjPtMc8
\_ So do I. And? -emarkp
\_ Really? Just out of curiosity, why?
\_ What is your stance on the Iraq war? -anon coward
\_ I couldn't watch more than the first 60 seconds. Both of them
are just painful to listen to. -tom
\_ Coulter is proof that The Undead are real and walking amongst us.
Does she regenerate her life force by sucking out the blood of
small children? |