Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:February:06 Wednesday <Tuesday, Thursday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2008/2/6-7 [Science/Biology] UID:49076 Activity:moderate
2/5     Stop adopting Chinese kids! Their superior genes and our superior
        environment will make them too strong.          -freeper troller
        \_ Is that you, Hoyt Sze?
           \_ Hoyt never wrote about adoption.  He ranted every week about
              white guys dating asian girls but yes he did go off about
              superior asian genes/culture/blood/etc.
              \_ urlP
              \_ Yeah, I knew Hoyt. He and I were RAs at the same time, and
                 he was in some of my English classes. Faulty comparison on
                 my part. --erikred
2008/2/6-7 [Computer/SW/Unix] UID:49077 Activity:nil
2/6     % w | sort | awk '{print $1}' | uniq | wc
2008/2/6-11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:49078 Activity:high
2/5     How about this instead of the BS below:
        I found out my school district spends $16K per child and it's
        ranked in the bottom 1/3 in the State. Please explain why the
        State deserves more of my dollars. A family of four is not getting
        their $32K worth. In fact, many people in my city put their kids
        in private school even though the government is spending $16K/kid.
        That's a shitload of money for the government to waste. This is
        how well the government manages your money and the education of
        your kids. --dim
        \_ Nice. You forgot to mention that we need to deport Mexicans
           who are leeching off of tax dollars, that we need to be
           tough on crimes, and that we need to build bigger jails.
           \_ As opposed to... giving amnesty, being soft on crime,
              and shutting down jails?
              \_ Yay! Binary worldview!
        \_ You know, countries that don't provide social services end up
           having other problems like huge crime rate, mafia, gangster,
           child gangster, prostitution (e.g. Brazil) and that affects
           everyone from the middle class all the way to the upper class.
           I guess this huge disparity is one of the main reasons why
           nice LA/OC/SD homes are mostly gated communities with private
           security guards.
           \_ How about the State spend that $16K/pupil in a way that
              makes sense instead? Many private schools educate for less
              than $10K/pupil and even the best are at no more than
              $24K/pupil. Please tell me why the education is substandard
              at those rates. If the education was better maybe some of
              the poor kids stuck in public schools would contribute more
              to society and feel better about their prospects.
              \_ You can't compare costs of private and public schools
                 directly, because of the selection bias of private schools.
                 (Kids of poor families with uninvolved parents don't go to
                 private school).  -tom
                 \_ Ah. This is the hew and cry of the liberal. When one
                                    \- did you go to private or public school?
                                       it's "hue and cry". --your common law
                                       \_ Seems to be both now, although
                                          originally "hue and cry":
                                          \_ If you're going by current usage,
                                             that's a pretty liberal definition
                                             of "seems to be both".  Google has
                                             548,000 hits for "hue and cry" vs.
                                             888 for "hew and cry", a ratio of
                                             about 600:1.  For comparison,
                                             "their" vs. "thier" gives 58:1.
                                          \- no, "hue" is correct.
                                             if hew is commonly used in
                                             error, it is still an error,
                                             \_ That's not really how our
                                                language works.
                                                \- i said "commonly used in
                                                   error" not commonly used.
                                                   common usage as slang or
                                                   as a short cut is one
                                                   thing ... there isnt
                                                   a requirement to use
                                                   say "whom" ... but in the
                                                   case of a word with a known
                                                   origin, there is a right
                                                   and wrong. somebody can
                                                   call herself "candee" but
                                                   if you spell the sweet
                                                   that way, it is wrong.
                                                   say "shall" vs will ...
                                                   but in the case of a word
                                                   with a known origin, there
                                                   is a right and wrong.
                                                   eventhough geeks like
                                                   virii, that is not correct
                                                   since its not from a latin
                                                   word for one.
                                                   either in latin nor english
                                                   \_ And it's not even
                                                      commonly used in error,
                                                      according to the Google
                                                      stats above.
                                             as with "toe/tow the line".
                                             note that your second link is
                                             not to the "official" nyt,
                                             where "hue" is used.
                    of the schools in my district scored highly even with
                    mostly black and Hispanic students people like you
                    said the same thing. It's self-selecting, the principal
                    shipped out the bad kids, and so on. Nevermind the school
                    was a shithole for 20 years before that. Now parents want
                    their kids to attend there and the effect is snowballing.
                    You have to start somewhere and putting kids in an
                    environment conducive to learning is part of that.
                    You cannot allow a few disruptive kids to destroy the
                    entire system and the education of millions. The
                    teachers and administrators are very upset that that
                    school is doing well, which shows how sick the system is.
                    \- look i dont disagree with you that $16k/student is a
                       lot, but a couple of points:
                       1. the selection bias is a huge issue. my private
                          high school spend something like half what public
                          schools spent but they could choose who to take.
                          they didnt have govt mandates to meet special
                          education needs of of either handicapped students
                          or the pain in the ass factor of difficult
                       2. surely you realize you can be matched one for one
                          with outrages in the private sector. the bart
                          supervisor making +$150k or the NYC school janitor
                          who is filed fishing on his boat during school hours
                          is trivial compared to corporate welfare, and the
                          or the golden parachutes for incompent but not
                          criminal executives in the private sector. private
                          industrury make be more efficient at many things
                          and one of them is extracting resources from the
                          \_ red herring: there is corporate graft so gvt
                             graft is ok.  it isn't.  gvt graft is far worse
                             because they extract my money by force and they
                             choose how much to extract.  if a corporation
                             is run poorly they will go out of business.  i
                             do not have to give them my money if they provide
                             a poor product or service or charge too much.
                             "surely you realize" this.
                             \- corporate graft [agaist shareholders] isnt
                                the same as corporate welfare or graft agaist
                                the govt. i'm not talking about high CEO
                                salaries, backdating options etc. more things
                                like no bid contracts, "socializing losses" etc
                                that is "theft from the taxpayers" just like
                                fraud in the oakland school district ...
                                except they are better at it and the amounts
                                are more. see savings and loan bail out,
                                agriculture subsidies etc.
                                \_ Uh huh, and this happens *only* because
                                   the gvt has that money available because
                                   it has taken it from tax payers.  once the
                                   gvt takes your money, it matters little if
                                   they piss it away on public or private
                                   theft.  a corporation can not take
                                   anything from me in a clean-gvt environment.
                                   clean the gvt and the rest automatically
                                   follows.  you can not clean your sort of
                                   gvt-aided corporation theft while the
                                   gvt is dirty.
                                   \- this "starve the beast" analysis is
                                      ridiculous. you are choosing between
                                      what is possible not what is platonic.
                                      "the main reason american soldiers get
                                      killed is because we sent them to war"
                                      -> people in favor of war hate the troops
                                      BTW, if the corporations can influence
                                      what the standard is for breach of
                                      fiduciary duty and can get directors and
                                      officers insurance, then they certainly
                                      can rip you off. you should read
                                      barbarians at the gate for example.
                                      do you know how conflicts of interest
                                      work in practice during LBOs? you might
                                      also want to read james surowiecki.
                                      \_ I never said starve the beast.  The
                                         rest of your stuff has nothing to do
                                         with what I said.  I said a clean gvt
                                         will not give my tax dollars to corps
                                         for stupid/corrupt things.
                                   \_ I don't think you will find too many
                                      people arguing for a corrupt gov't. There
                                      have been arguments about how to best
                                      allocate resources for as long as their
                                      have been gov'ts, which is to say since
                                      the beginning of recorded history. What
                                      kind of things do you advocate to help
                                      clean up gov't, other than your somewhat
                                      ambiguous notion that it should be
                                      smaller? It seems to me that campaign
                                      finance reform might be a better place
                                      to start.
                                      \_ I didn't say it should be smaller,
                                         just that what they do have should be
                                         spent more wisely and less wastefully.
                                         If there was real oversight of budgets
                                         we stopped all earmarks, and corps
                                         were no longer 'citizens' with rights
                                         and were not allowed to donate money
                                         to politicians, that would go a long
                                         way to clean gvt.  What is your
                        again, read somebody like martin wolf.
                        i think there are a number of outragous cases
                        where "sepcial need" students have disporprotionate
                        resources spent on them, but just like heavy public
                        medical subsidies of "lost causes", it's a hard
              \_ Like the birth-right citizenship person before you, it
                 sounds like your issue is with problems in how the education
                 system is run, not necessarily the system itself. Although
                 it may be more work, fixing the system is likely to prove
                 less expensive and more beneficial to society as a whole than
                 simply abandoning the system entirely and jumping to vouchers
                 spent at private schools or academies (many of which are
                 founded by people looking to make a quick buck by preying on
                 parents who are frightened of a public education, and many
                 of which are destined to go out of business in less than five
                 \_ It's impossible to fix the system. It doesn't want to
                    be fixed. The solution we are proposing is to form our
                    own school district and secede. I guess you can call
                    that 'fixing'.
                    \_ It's not impossible to fix the system. It will, however,
                       take a lot of work, dedication, and determination. I
                       understand that this is not as sexy as, say, vouchers
                       for private schools and military academies, but the
                       end result is a stable, beneficial system.
                       \_ People have been trying to fix this problem for
                          20 years now. There's a point where you just say
                          'Screw it' and start from scratch.
                          \_ For most people, this point is when their kids
                             have graduated, which means we have to count on
                             a new crop.
           \_ We should forcibly bus the kids from gated communities to
              ghetto public schools. That way we ensure a level playing
              \_ I see you are a budding Jonathan Swift, but FWIW we did this.
                 That's how the schools got screwed up to begin with. Then the
                 parents who really cared took their kids out and sent them
                 private, leaving behind only those too poor or unconcerned. It
                 had a devastating effect. Now our 'racially integrated'
                 schools have no caucasian or Asian students and the other
                 kids who want to learn are screwed. It's so much better now.
              field. We should ban private schools. We should also ban
              marriage, so that gays, bisexuals, and non-sexuals will
              not be disadvantaged, and kids with single parents won't
              be disadvantaged over kids with married parents. Actually we
              should take kids away at birth and randomly assign parents
              for them. We should make food and housing free for all,
              and energy for heating and cooking and lighting and hot water,
              and health care, because all those things are basic human rights
              needed for survival. We should ban automobiles and ban wasteful
              single family housing structures. All housing structures shall
              be randomly assigned but with economic and ethnic backgrounds
              balanced, and mandatory "community learning sessions" shall take
              place 3 days per week. Community job centers shall provide
              equal-opportunity employment, with jobs to be defined by
              each employee.
              \_ This is truly brilliant.
        \_ at least school districts are more incompetent at stealing
           your tax dollars than halliburton. i do think we should
           stop glorifying school teachers ... i've some school teachers
           who were smart but quite a few seem to be glorfied day care
           personnel. but at least the rank and file teacher arent as
           venal as school administrators. but again even they arent
           ken lay, dennis kozlowski etc. you should read martin wolf.
        \_ Oh, you're just selfish and hate children.
        \_ Motd says you're contributing to the common social good and you
           should be happy to be paying these taxes because there is no
           other possible way to educate children other than turning them
           over to the state for several hours a day.  The schools can get
           better only by raising your taxes even more.  Teachers are
           starving.  Students are failing and not learning the right
           things.  It is all your fault.
           \_ Incorrect: it's not op's fault, it's your fault.
              \_ I'm in favor of 100% tax rates and therefore maximum
                 government revenue for maximum social good.  how is it my
                 fault, comrade?
                 \_ Not your comrade, you filthy communist bastard, and
                    there's your problem in a nutshell: some regulation and
                    government organization != communism. Embrace compromise.
                    \_ This isn't about regulation.  This is about control.
                       The power to tax is the power to destroy.  And you,
                       comrade, obviously are in need of higher taxes.  For
                       the common social good, of course.  Embrace social
                       \_ Marriage is slavery! All men are rapists! Dems
                          tax and spend! You're missing a lot of !!!
        \_ Where did you find this out? Considering the general veracity
           of the "facts" you state on the motd, I would need verification
           before I would believe it, especially considering average per
           pupil spending in CA is half that. -ausman
           \_ Average spending per pupil does not account for things like
              facilities. From CA DOE:
              "This amount includes the cost of employee salaries and
              benefits, books and supplies and replacement of school
              equipment. The current expense of education does not include
              non-instructional expenses such as construction and
              acquisition of facilities, benefits for retired employees
              and food services."
              CA spends about $70B dollars each year to educate 6M K-12
              students, or almost $12K per student per year - not the $7K
              you often see quoted.
              you often see quoted. Maybe more. Not sure if $70B considers
              locally voted indebtedness or funding sources like PTA.
              Our district has a lot of facilities for the number of kids
              (since so many have been lost to private over the last 40 years)
              and has been shuttering schools, which is ridiculous in itself
              when you consider that almost everywhere else they are building
              more schools and complaining about a shortage of space. --dim
              \_ Your math is off quite a bit as there are really 6.4M K-12
                 students and some of the Dept of Education budget is for
                 adult education. The best I can figure the real numbers are
                 67.5B/6.4M kids = $10.5k/student, not the $12k you bandy
                 about. But you have a point that the Dept of Education takes
                 \_ You are splitting hairs here. $10.5K is still a lot of
                    money. You can go to a good private school for that money
                    and actually receive an education. The best public
                    school districts spend more than $10.5K I'm sure.
                    That's just what they get from the state and federal
                    governments as far as I can tell.
                    \_ Plenty of people go to public schools and get a perfectly
                       fine education. Things could always be better, but
                       there is lots of evidence that the schools in CA are
                       getting better. I will probably send my daughter to
                       improving. I will probably send my daughter to
                    \_ Plenty of people go to public schools and get a
                       perfectly fine education. Things could always be
                       better, but there is lots of evidence that the schools
                       in CA are improving. I will probably send my daughter to
                       public school (and I can afford private). The best
                       public schools rival the best private schools in
                       education quality, so I am not sure what point you
                       are trying to make, except perhaps that a great
                       education costs quite a bit of money.
                       \_ 1. The best public schools do not rival the best
                             private schools. There are some very good
                             public schools, but no one is ever going to
                             confuse those with an Exeter or Groton. Of
                             course, those schools cost quite a bit more, too.
                             I realize that.
                             \_ Compare Stuyvesant's Ivy League admission
                                rate to Exeter's.
                                \_ Can I send my kid there? I live in CA.
                                   Also, talk about self-selecting.
                                   Also, talk about self-selecting. BTW,
                                   I think Exeter's rate is higher. Stuyvesant
                                   sends more in terms of numbers because it
                                   is larger. Why would one want to go to
                                   a private university anyway? I am offended
                                   that you would use that as a metric
                                   instead of looking at the rate of
                                   acceptance to glorious UC.
                                   \_ Exeter is probably a bit higher, but
                                      they are in the same league anyway.
                                      I don't think I would want to send my
                                      child to boarding school anyway, but
                                      maybe I will feel differently once she
                                      is a teenager. If you really want UC
                                      admission send them to Lowell High
                                      which is in SF.
                          2. No one has a problem with the top 10% of
                             public schools. It's that bottom 90% (and
                             especially bottom 30%) that's the real problem.
                          3. Personally (and this is just my preference) I
                             wouldn't send by kid to even the best public
                             wouldn't send my kid to even the best public
                             school. However, I still think a quality
                             "public" education is important, because not
                             everyone has that choice in the current system.
                 a large "tribute." You still haven't provided any evidence that
                 they spend $16k/student in your district.
                 a large "tribute." You still haven't provided any evidence
                 that they spend $16k/student in your district.
                 \_ Sorry, but I cannot find this online. Is it really
                    far-fetched when the average is $10.5K? Like I said,
                    we have a lot of schools and a shrinking number of
                    kids which makes the overhead higher than most places.
                    (I read it is 2x higher than the state average.)
                    \_ Why does everyone else's esstimate of per pupil spending
                    \_ Why does everyone else's estimate of per pupil spending
                       in CA differ so widely from yours. You are the one
                       making the outrageous claim here, back it up.
                       \_ What do you want me to do? I can't find it online.
                          Take it or leave it. I don't think $16K is
                          outrageous when the average is $11K.
           \- ausman: the range in CA is really wide. that number is plausible
              for a state school district, but it is hard to imagine it is
              in such a poorly perfomring school district ... i.e. not
              saratoga or CA. i can believe high spending per student with
              poor performance in a place like SF (NYC spends something
              like 14k per student ... but the top hedge fund guy made more
              money last year than all the NYC teacher put together ... for
              three years). but all that being given, i was wondering if the
              number was correct as well.
              \_ SF has generally good results and does not spend that much
                 per pupil. (PDF)
                 \_ Hmm, I forgot SF public schools was very heavily
                    asian. I am guessing that keeps costs down. I was
                    just thinking about the white flight and minitory-heavy
                    side. Might be interesting to look at oakland hills vs
                    oakland flats.
                    \_ The experiment has already begun. Google "oakland
                       school district demographics"; the first hit is a 2007
                       report noting that OUSD is hemorrhaging students,
                       particularly African-American students; they're "out-
                       migrating" to non-bankrupt School Districts (cf.
                       articles on fraudulent enrollment in cities like
        \_ Perhaps you should move to San Francisco:
           \- special announcement: there is another long piece on ADRIAN
              FENTY and MICHELLE RHEE's Washington DC school reform program
              on TV tonight. it is about halfway through the MACNEIL-LEHERER
              SHOW today. n.b. FENTY and RHEE are respectively the mayor and
              school chief for DC. they are also both about 37! the evil
              arlene ackerman was in DC before she came to SF. ok tnx.
2008/2/6-7 [Uncategorized] UID:49079 Activity:kinda low
2/5     Summary of the tom vs. dim giberish on motd lately. Feel free to
        add as you see fit:
        tom: likes walkable/bikable cities with mass transit along
                different cities. Prefers convenient location over
                privacy in big quiet comfortable mansions. Hates
                anything wasteful and harmful to mother earth
                (the pillaging of natural resources), and hates people
                who is insensitive to mother earth. Thinks everyone should
                hold hands and use the same social services and sing
                KumBaiYa and eat and shower together.
        dim: likes big comfortable private single family homes and prefers
                the freedom of traveling anywhere using his eco-friendly
                Honda Accord Hybrid. Hates the bustle and hustle of cities
                and prefers peace & quiet of the suburbs where he could live
                like a king in his 4500sqft McMansion in LA. Does not
                mind hours of LA traffic & smog. Hates paying for
                social services that only poor people use since they're
                obviously too lazy to earn money. Hates our government
                since it's doing a lousy job, therefore it should be
                dismantled completely (via more tax cuts & less Democrats
                hippies in office)
                \_ I am dim.  Do not make me angry.
                \_ the $5 contradiction in the above is "echo-friendly Hybrid".
                   a car is horribly harmful, even if it's only half as harmful
                   as the next car. especially if you include the cost of
                   the infrastructure required to support it. -ali
                   \_ RIDE BIKE!
2008/2/6-11 [Finance/Banking, Finance/Investment] UID:49080 Activity:nil
2/6     I want to open up a money market account, and I'm debating between
        an ING Direct acct and a ETrade one. Which one is preferable?
        Should I just go with the ETrade acct since it offers 4.4%
        interest (vs. the 3.4% offered by ING)? Thanks.
        \_ Are you worried about ETrade going belly up?
        \_ Go for Etrade, and when their rate tanks switch to another service.
           ING Direct has really low rates, I no longer use them. Make sure to
           check out other services like Emigrantdirect, GMAC, IndyMac, etc.
           I'd stick to Etrade since they're well established and their teaser
           rates (currently 4.4%) seem to last longer than any of the other
           places. Good luck and tell us what you ended up deciding!
           \_ I like GMAC because transactions post very quickly, you can
              write checks from the account, they have ATM fee reimbursements,
              and their rate is almost always quite competitive.
2008/2/6-7 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49081 Activity:nil
2/6     "Toyota to Start Sales of Lithium-ion Plug-in Hybrids by 2010"
        It's no longer rumor.
2008/2/6-7 [Uncategorized] UID:49082 Activity:nil
2/6     RIP Sheldon Brown.
2008/2/6-7 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49083 Activity:nil
2/6     Does it cost a lot to replace tires on a Prius?  Do the low-rolloing-
        resistance tires cost more than ordinary tires?
        \- according to my prius associates, it was $600 to replace theirs.
        \_ (
           Get the ComforTreads, comfy and nice, just 2-3MPG less.
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:February:06 Wednesday <Tuesday, Thursday>