Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:February:15 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2008/2/15-18 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:49150 Activity:nil
2/15    Bill Kristol's Obscure Masterpiece by Jonathan Schwarz (
2008/2/15-18 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49151 Activity:high
2/14    It took me over 2.5 hours to drive from Santa Monica to Arcadia,
        a distance of 38miles, or 15MPH. What the hell is wrong with
        Los Angeles and why do people actually want to live in LA? God
        I can't wait to get out of this shithole the time comes.
        \_ Maybe for the H07 CH1X?
        \_ Dude, take the 405N to the 118 and it won't take 2.5 hours.
           \_ You DUMB FUCK I will still need to get to 210 which will
              FUCK IT UP as badly as I-10/I-60. FUCK YOU DUMB FUCK.
                   \- motd road rage!
              \_ There is no traffic eastbound on the 210 between the
                 118 and 134. After that you are almost there and can even
                 take the street if you want. And if you are taking the 10
                 or the 60 from SM to Arcadia at any time other than the middle
                 of the night you are obviously the dumbfuck. You proved
                 it with your ridiculous 2.5 hour commute.
                 \_ No. 210 going through Pasadena towards Azusa is a
                    total suicide. You obviously haven't driven that part
                    in the past 5 years where there were plenty of new
                    homes sprawling in Azusa/Glendora making the commute
                    a total nightmare.                          !op
                    \_ So don't take that part of the 210 and get off in
                       Pasadena and take the street to Arcadia. Up until
                       that point (where 210 and 134 meet) there is no
                       eastbound traffic on the 210.
                       \_ Are you proposing taking big streets like
                          Huntington (slow slow) or side streets with
                          a bunch of stop signs? 15MPH on 210 is actually
                          faster than Huntington at stop+go @25MPH, and
                          faster than small streets at stop+go @15MPH.
                          \_ You aren't going to get to Arcadia without
                             doing one of either:
                             1) Taking the 210
                             2) Taking sidestreets
                             However, it's a small part of the overall commute.
                             Personally, I would take Walnut to Foothill.
                             \_ Why not take the 105 -> 605 and into
                                Arcadia the back way? Ten years ago this
                                would have been the fastest way, but I have
                                not driven in LA in a long time.
                                \_ This can work depending on time of day.
                                   605 can get traffic. 118 literally
                                   never has traffic ever that I have seen.
                                   \_ Getting onto 118 from 405 is DUMB.
                                      The 405/101 junction fucks everyone
                                      one. In short, LA is one of the WORST
                                      \_ Yes, but you aren't on it long.
                                         Of course you know best because
                                         your way took you 2.5 hours.
                                      planned cities I've ever seen and
                                      I hope it gets nuked so that we can
                                      rebuild it from scratch. FUCK LA.
                 \_ You are seriously proposing turing the 33 mile trip
                    into a 57 mile one? Why not take the 134 East through
                    the Valley?
                    \_ Traffic. The fastest distance between two points is
                       not necessarily a straight line. 57 miles at 70 mph
                       is a lot faster than 38 miles at 15 mph.
              \_ Taking your road rage to the motd?
        \_ Obviously what's wrong with the LA metro area is it's got
           a lot of sprawl and has crappy mass transit.
           \_ All traffic problems come down to too many people in too small
              an area with insufficient means of transit (all means) to get
              from any arbitrary A to any B.
              \_ nice tautology.  so what is the implication of rail
                 being able to deliver five times the carrying capacity per
                 land unit?  -tom
                 \_ 5x the capacity is only useful if there are 5x the number
                    of commuters who share a similar route and schedule.
                    You need to solve the real world problem and not a
                    theoretical one based on non-existent distributions of
                    commuters. A train from Pasadena to Santa Monica will
                    be nice, but :
                    1. It will make so many stops along the way it that won't
                       be as fast as it seems.
                    2. Lots of people still need a way to get from the
                       terminal to their jobs. What we see a lot of in LA
                       is people buying *TWO* cars and leaving one at each
                       end of the station. This creates other problems
                       like parking and gridlock near the stations.
                    \_ You're being disingenuous; cities all over the world
                       (including some in the U.S.) have effective rail
                       infrastructures that reduce congestion.  -tom
                       \_ Rail can reduce a certain amount and most major
                          cities/regions have some sort of rail system.  But
                          it is not and can not be the primary method of travel
                          for the majority of people no matter how much you
                          scream "rail! ride bike!" on the motd.
                          \_ Do you need me to list the counterexamples?  -tom
                             \_ Sure, go ahead if it makes you feel better, but
                                no one is going to rebuild our entire country
                                to fit your sardine fantasy lifestyle.  We are
                                spread out because a) most people want space
                                and b) life is more than living in an apartment
                                next to bart so I can get to work.  You can't
                                build a rail system that allows me to get
                                everywhere in a reasonable time.  Please
                                proceed by posting list of EU cities with
                                rail systems and insanely high density rates.
                       \_ Cities all over the world were not built around
                          the automobile. Given that much of the Western
                          US was what do you propose other than forcibly
                          relocating people to create your own utopia? At
                          this very moment rail does not make sense in
                          most of this country given the existing situation
                          and if you build it they may not come for
                          decades during which you run your rail at a
                          tremendous loss.
                          \_ I mostly agree, but if we wait for $10/gallon
                             gasoline first and then start building an alternate
                             transportation infrastructure, we are going to
                             be in a world of hurt. It is not a bad idea to
                             at least imagine what a post-auto world would
                             look like. Then again, maybe by then everyone
                             be driving electric smart cars and we can have
                             our suburbs and clean air to boot. But I don't
                             think we should count on that happening.
                             gasoline first and then start building an
                             alternate transportation infrastructure, we
                             are going to be in a world of hurt. It is not
                             a bad idea to at least imagine what a post-auto
                             world would look like. Then again, maybe by then
                             everyone be driving electric smart cars and we
                             can have our suburbs and clean air to boot. But
                             I don't think we should count on that happening.
                             \_ We can always drive smaller cars. Even tiny
                                motorcycle-like trikes or whatever I think
                                would be more popular than trains. The freedom
                                of cars is not something I think people are
                                going to just give up. We could regulate a
                                small auto weight/size for use within urban
                                zones. I would have no problem using tiny
                                vehicles as long as the safety was there.
                                \_ I agree. I would have a hard time
                                   giving up the freedom of my vehicle.
                                   I'd rather ride a motorcycle than sit
                                   on a train with smelly people.
                          \_ Freeways run at a tremendous loss, too.  It
                             would not be significantly more difficult to
                             put in a rail system than it is to do freeway
                             expansion; it certainly would be easier to do
                             a train crossing than the new Bay Bridge for
                             example.  (And the new Bay Bridge won't even
                             increase capacity!)  If we put in real
                             high-speed rail on the *existing* rail
                             right-of-ways in the Bay Area, and coordinated
                             it all under one agency instead of the mishmash
                             we have now, we'd have a fine system.  It's
                             ridiculous to suggest that it's technically
                             or financially infeasible; the only problem is
                             politics.  -tom
                             \_ It's financially unfeasible and I've told
                                you why, but you keep choosing to ignore me:
                                You have to keep operating the freeways at
                                the same time you build out the other
                                infrastructure and you will probably
                                always have to operate a major highway
                                system in addition to mass transit (e.g.
                                Autobahn in Germany). Where is the cost
                                savings in this? What you get is a savings
                                in time in exchange for the increased cost.
                                If that's the situation then toll roads
                                are a better solution because only those
                                whose time is most valuable are contributing.
                                Besides, I don't think SF is really the issue.
                                It's small and BART works fine for what it is
                                (getting people to<->from downtown). I want to
                                know what you do in Orange County or Ventura
                                where most people are not commuting to<->from a
                                \_ It's not financially infeasible; it's been
                                   done all over the world.  Per
                                   passenger-mile, trains are less expensive
                                   than roads, so any investment you make in
                                   trains instead of roads reduces your
                                   overall costs.  Oh and by the
                                   \_ You are missing my point. You want
                                      to add rail to the existing roads
                                      infrastructure. This is a net expense.
                                      Whether it has been done elsewhere
                                      is irrelevant. Your suggestion will
                                      cost taxpayers more money. I am not
                                      debating whether it will be
                                      beneficial or not. However, it will
                                      be expensive because you cannot
                                      make investments in trains
                                      instead of roads. You will have to
                                      make investment in trains IN
                                      ADDITION TO roads and trains are not
                                      cheap. How much they cost relative
                                      to roads is not relevant because you
                                      still need the roads.
                                      \_ Here's a hint: A huge amount of
                                         money will be spent on NEW ROAD
                                         CONSTRUCTION in the Bay Area in
                                         the next 30 years.  That money
                                         could be spent on rail instead
                                         and provide MORE CAPACITY for the
                                         same amount of money.  -tom
                                         \_ How much new road construction
                                            can there be? It's pretty much
                                            all built out. Is it enough
                                            money to build and maintain a
                                            rail system? How many people
                                            will the rail serve versus the
                                            highway? Capacity is not really
                                            an issue.
                                            \_ What planet are you living on?
                                               There are lanes being added
                                               all over the Bay Area and
                                               they're digging a new bore
                                               of the Caldecott.  -tom
                                               \_ Is it enough to build
                                                  and maintain a rail system?
                                                  How many people will be
                                                  served versus the highway?
                                                  \_ Yes, and more.  At least,
                                                     that's true everywhere
                                                     else in the world and
                                                     there's no reason to
                                                     expect the Bay Area would
                                                     be different.  -tom
                                                     \_ I challenge your
                                                        claim that more
                                                        people would be
                                                        served by spending
                                                        road expansion
                                                        funds on rail than
                                                        on roads, but if
                                                        it's true I support
                                                        your position. I
                                                        just highly doubt it.
                                                        \_ Rail serves more
                                                           per dollar, more
                                                           passenger-miles per
                                                           land unit, more
                                                           passenger-miles per
                                                           energy input and
                                                           carbon output.
                                                           What other measure
                                                           would you use for
                                                           serving people? -tom
                                         \_ Because roads are more useful than
                                            trains.  The invisible hand has
                                            chosen freedom over socialist
                                            \_ Well, no, actually the U.S.
                                               government has heavily
                                               subsidized auto travel, while
                                               requiring the train system
                                               to pay for itself.  If
                                               it hadn't been for government
                                               regulation and intervention,
                                               U.S. cities would still have
                                               decent rail systems.  The hand
                                               was the hand of self-interested
                                               auto-makers, not the market.
                                               And everywhere the government
                                               hasn't heavily subsidized roads,
                                               people choose trains.  Not for
                                               100% of their trips, but for
                                               more than enough to pay off
                                               on the investment.  -tom
                                               \_ BART doesn't pay for itself.
                                                  And when rail is installed
                                                  people don't use it if
                                                  they can avoid it. Most
                                                  people prefer to drive
                                                  if given a choice. If
                                                  rail was a good idea
                                                  then it would be able to
                                                  pay for itself. I have
                                                  no doubt that roads could pay
                                                  for themselves. In fact,
                                                  the toll roads in OC do
                                                  pay for themselves.
                                                  Maybe some day in the
                                                  future there will be so
                                                  much traffic that more
                                                  people will turn to rail
                                                  but we're not even close
                                                  to that day yet so why
                                                  bother with it? Should
                                                  we install infrastructure
                                                  for flying cars now, too?
                                                  \_ Actually, where decent
                                                     rail is installed people
                                                     do use it; do you have
                                                     evidence that they don't?
                                                     \_ Gold Line. It takes an
                                                        hour by rail to
                                                        get where it takes
                                                        20 minutes by car.
                                                        Of course you used
                                                        "decent" as a
                                                        weasel word,
                                                        because any rail
                                                        that people don't
                                                        take is clearly
                                                        not decent.
                                                        \_ Is it high speed?
                                                           No.  -tom
                                                           \_ You aren't
                                                              going to have a
                                                              bullet train
                                                              serve closely
                                                              spaced stations,
                                                              are you? Your
                                                              list of
                                                              requirements is
                                                              \_ Once again
                                                                 with the
                                                                 strawman. -tom
                                   way, the Bay Area was built out on rail
                                   infrastructure.  My house was built in
                                   1916, and it's a block from what used to
                                   be a train station.  Trains went all the
                                   way through the east bay flatlands and
                                   through a tunnel (now closed) to the
                                   further East Bay.  Almost all of SF,
                                   Oakland and Berkeley were built before
                                   the advent of the single-occupant auto.
                                   The trains are gone due to a combination
                                   of perverse incentives and criminal
                                   conspiracy, but it's absurd to suggest
                                   that it's impossible to have rail transit
                                   in the Bay Area.  -tom
                                   \_ Not impossible, but unnecessary and
                                      expensive. And most existing development
                                      in the Bay Area was not done based on
                                      rail. I mean, LA was built on rail
                                      also (Henry Huntington) but let's be
                                      realistic about then vs. now in
                                      terms of existing distribution of
                                      housing, jobs, and retail. Most of
                                      that came post-WW II and was based
                                      on the auto.
                                      \_ Are you interested in the facts at
                                         all?  San Francisco, Oakland, and
                                         Berkeley all hit their population
                                         peaks in 1950, at a time with
                                         relatively low car ownership.
                                         The outlying suburbs would be
                                         much better served by high speed
                                         rail than by, say, driving on 80
                                         through Berkeley.  -tom
                                         \_ Served to do what exactly?  Your
                                            trains are intended for universal
                                            transport without requiring any
                                            auto transport for the general
                                            \_ Why do you keep coming back to
                                               this straw man?  Oh, right,
                                               because you have no facts and
                                               no argument.  -tom
           \_ LA needs more freeways!
        \_ L.A. people check traffic first, then drive:
           \_ We also know to stay the hell off of certain freeways at
              certain times (and some all of the time) if we can help it.
              My girlfriend used to manage runners for the film industry
              and they rarely even took the freeways - even during the middle
              of the day.
              \_ Like I said it's a mystery why people fucking love to
                 live in LA. Smog, rude drivers, traffic. What a shithole.
                 \_ Because weather is overrated.
                 \_ I guess it depends on what's important to you. People
                    from small towns would say the same about SF or any
                    other city and people from cities scoff at people who
                    live in rural areas. Both have advantages, but cities
                    represent more opportunity. LA has a lot more going
                    for it than most cities in many ways. Traffic and parking
                    are issues, same as they are in SF and NYC. I really like
                    SF but to me it's very provincial compared to LA and
                    the weather *does* matter a lot to me.
                 \_ Great cities of the U.S.:
                    New York City, Los Angeles ... and that's about it.
                    \_ NYC >> SF > Chicago >> LA
                    \_ San Jose
                       \_ SF is a footnote of a city. Chicago is a great
                          city, but the weather is terrible. Not that the
                          weather in NYC is great either, but if you have
                          to choose then NYC has the edge.
                             Who is the Global City here?
                             \_ No idea what that means, but on your
                                same web page you will see Chicago
                                scored 10 points and SF scored 9. In
                                reality that's too high, too, but I'm sure they
                                are lumping "Northern California" together
                                into "San Francisco".
                 \_ I totally agree. I absolutely hated LA/UCLA and couldn't
                    wait to move back up here.
                    \_ What you hated was your own situation, not the city.
                       \_ Actually there is some truth to this b/c I totally
                          did not like UCLA. But the fact that LA was always
                          congested, the drivers were rude and the smog did
                          little to help. I just can't imagine why anyone
                          would want to live in LA. The Bay Area is a much
                          nicer place to live (even Fremont).
                          \_ The drivers here are not rude and stupid?  I want
                             to know where you're driving so I can drive there
                             \_ I'm in Cupertino/SJ but I live like 2 miles
                                so I only take local roads during off hours
                                and never see anyone on the streets.
                                from work so I only take local roads during
                                off hours and never see anyone on the streets.
                                When I was driving to Menlo Park via 85-101,
                                I used to have flashbacks to the 405. Still,
                                I much prefer the bay area, at least the
                                traffic moves most of the time.
                    \_ You prefer the yucky fart of Prius loving hippies?
                       \_ To the smog and congestion of LA, yes.
                    \_ If you hate it so much why don't you move now?
2008/2/15-18 [Uncategorized] UID:49152 Activity:nil
2/14    Books That Make You Dumb:
        \_ Liberal slant alert.
           \_ s/al/tarian/
2008/2/15-18 [Uncategorized] UID:49153 Activity:nil
2/15    Apple Kool-Aid drinking sysadming types: see Berkeley job #8003.  -tom
2008/2/15-18 [Reference/BayArea, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll] UID:49154 Activity:kinda low
2/15    Pictures from the Berkeley Marine protest:
        \_ Isn't this the same guy that told us that all San Franciscans
           are terrorists?
           \_ URL?
           \_ San Francisco style terrorism is not MAINSTREAM
           \_ I don't know, does it matter?
              \_ Yeah, it matters. I don't watch Ann Coulter for similar
                 reasons. But I guess I can just look at the pictures and
                 ignore his idiotic commentary.
                 \_ Pictures are pictures unless you think he photoshopped
                    extra missile trails and smoke in there or placed a
                    teddy bear on top of the rubble before taking the photo.
                    \_ Or you could do some BS trick with camera like this:
                       Scroll down to the third and fourth photos
                       \_ What trick?  It's a naked dude and ZT put their
                          typical 'quote' on it.  Are you saying the pic is
                          a fake?  Maybe I was fooled by this trick.  Please
                          help me out.
                       \_ Considering that "trick" wouldn't fool anyone...
                          I think zombie was just trying to get them both
                          in the same frame at a good angle.
2008/2/15-18 [Recreation/Dating] UID:49155 Activity:nil
2/15    What is it about OJ Simpson and white women?
        \_ What did he do this time?  URL please?
           \_ His white blond gf who btw has some resemblence with his
              x-wife has head injuries which he claims to be self inflicted.
        \_ White women have too high of an expectation on his black manhood,
           and don't know to hide their disappointment.
2008/2/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:49156 Activity:nil 54%like:49166
        Obama and Clinton bribe the superdelegates.
2008/2/15-18 [Health/Disease/General] UID:49157 Activity:nil
        Looks like you should save $18 on your flu shots next year.
        Gov sponsored vaccination isn't working well, maybe we should just
        let the private enterprise do a better job.
        \_ flu != polio
2008/2/15-18 [Computer/SW/Security, Computer/SW/Virus] UID:49158 Activity:nil
2/15    Digital photo frames carry viruses: (
2008/2/15-18 [Academia/GradSchool] UID:49159 Activity:nil
2/15 (
        Shooter was UIUC grad student.  Weapons:  12-gauge shotgun, 9mm Glock,
        9mm Sig Sauer, Highpoint 380.  Discharged:  6 shotgun shells, 48
        handgun rounds.  Casualties:  5 killed, 16 wounded, 1 suicide.
        \_ Does the allow students to carry?  Or was this nutjob walking into
           an unarmed room?
           \_ Maybe MALL NINJA has the right idea!
        \_ Shooter was ex-military and ex-prison guard, too. I bet you
           won't see that on Fox News!
           \_ Considering he was kicked out of the military for Phych reasons..
2008/2/15-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49160 Activity:nil
2/15    I want Obama to win because I think it would be funny.
        \_ That's pretty much why I voted for him.  Watching Hillary give
           a concession speech will be the TV of the decade.
           \_ She could probably top Nixon
              \_ That seems unlikely.
              \_ as bad as hillary is/was/will be, she can't top Nixon!
                 \_ She has that whole crying thing down, now all she needs
                    is a dog.
                    \_ Checkers for the win!  or lose.
        \_ I want obama to win the primaries votes, but lose the actual primary
           (due to superdelegates), just to reinforce my cynical view of the
           machinery of the Democratic party machine.   Bonus points if Hillary
           then manages to go on and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and
           lose the actual election to McCain.
           \_ I want you to move out of your parents garage.
2008/2/15-18 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:49161 Activity:moderate
2/15    Dear LA hater, let's start an LA bashing thread. What is it about
        LA you hate?
        \_ I've had the opportunity to live in the Bay Area for 9 years
           and LA 10 years. It's true that traffic jam exist in both places
           but there are degrees of traffic jam. In short, below is my
           I-405 jam: Mon-Sat, 7am-11am, 4pm-8:30pm REALLY bad. Bad
                on weekends even at 1AM.
           I-10 jam: Mon-Sat, 7am-10am West bad, 4pm-8pm East REALLY bad.
           I-60 jam: similar to I-10
           I-105 jam: actually pretty nice except getting to/from it sucks
           I-210 jam: Mon-Sat REALLY bad near Pasadena, and unbearable
                from Arcadia to 57 due to lots of new cheap homes
           Bay Area in general: 7-10am kind of bad, 5-7pm kind of bad,
                but at least you're moving at 30MPH.
           In short, yes both areas have problems but it's a LOT worse
           in LA where traffic jam can be extremely unpredictable at times.
           LA traffic blows, no doubt about that.
        \_ I hate all the SUV and Hummer drivers. And a lot of people are
           REPUBLICANS not because they have a strong opinion on religion,
           abortion, etc, but simply because they like the idea of TAX CUtS.
                \_ That's called "fiscal conservatism".  It is one of the
                   three pillars of the (R) party.  Sorry if you don't
                   understand that all (R) are not bible thumper social
                   conservatives.  You don't understand what a (R) is.  Check.
                   My name is reiffin. Check.
                   \_ What are the three pillars? Violence, hypocrisy and
           On average the people in LA are much less intelligent than the
           people in N Cal. I mean, just look at the way people drive, the
           the type of music they listen to, the type of modifications
           they make to their cars, and their loud stereos they crank up
           to increase their status symbol. Traffic sucks and while it's
           a culturally diverse city, there is a lot of self segregation
           amongst the ethnics (e.g. blacks vs. Koreans, whites on the
           West side vs. Asians in Monterey Park, etc). Everyone's isolated
           and you don't even want to talk to your next door neighbor.
           I'm not even going to get into smog and traffic jam. The lack of
           a centralized tech hub and the sparse density of related jobs
           (e.g. immobility of jobs due to spread out geographic locations
           of tech jobs) makes it a career suicide.
           N Cal has plethora of startups and big companies concentrated
           within 10 miles of most single family home in Sunnyvale/San
           Jose/Santa Clara/etc. On the other hand the derth of tech jobs
           in LA are spread out in 100 miles from Irvine to Santa Monica
           to Burbank to Pasadena and even in the suburbs like San Dimas
           (what kind of tech talents are you going to attract from SAN
           DIMAS? What a joke!) In short LA blows and the people who live in
           it are mostly ignorant dim faggots who don't know any better.
           \_ A centralized tech hub isn't important to most people.
        \_ obviously not the H07 CH1X
           \_ Unless you are into ditzy blond girls the whole h0t ch1x aspect
              of LA is overrated. Personally I could not stand the congestion
              and smog. Oh, and the people are like totally superficial and
              \_ Like, totally!
              \_ Or hot Mexican girls, hot Asian girls, hot Middle-Eastern
                        \_ Yeah what is it with all the hot PERSIAN girls
                           who hate to be called Iranian? I mean, their
                           parents came here in the 80s, they're SUPER RICH
                           and drive nice cars, and they're SUPER HOT.
                 girls, etc. However, they are all gold diggers and won't
                 date you unless you are rich and/or look like a model
                 yourself. Good for rich ugly guys, though. The superficial
                           \_ Agree, it's perfect for butt ugly Greek men
                              who look super wealthy with their cheaply
                              bought McMansions in the boonies.
                           \_ Weird.  Rich attractive girls want to date rich
                              attractive men!  How unfair is that?  This is a
                              tragedy of the commons!  We need a government
                              program to fix this!
                              \_ Well, they are attractive but not rich.
                                 So attractive girls want to date rich
                                 guys. That's not so odd to be sure, but
                                 in LA it is the standard.
                 people live on the Westside and do not represent all of (or
                 even most of) LA. It's like saying the people in SF are
                 all superficial jocks and ditzy blondes after visiting a
                 bar in the Marina District. The smog is not that bad
                 these days, especially if you live anywhere near the
                 coast. I find it a non-issue. It was a big deal in the
                 1970s, though. Congestion sucks, but name an urban area
                 that is not congested, including SF and Berkeley.
                 \_ There are congestions everywhere. The difference between
                    N Cal and LA is that you don't need to drive 30 miles
                    at 20MPH to go to a decent AFFORDABLE suburb to "tech
                    hubs" in downtown LA or West Los Angeles.
                    \_ What is your idea of an affordable suburb in the SF
                       area that is under 30 miles from a tech job center?
                       \_ Nobody mention SAN FRANCISCO. N Cal-- San Jose,
                          Milpitas, etc etc.
                       \_ Castro Valley, Hayward, Milpitas, Union City, Dublin
        \_ LA and San Diego have tons of hot cute gay asian guys and West
           Hollywood rocks -- other than that SoCal sucks.
           \_ I believe SF is better for this.
2008/2/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:49162 Activity:nil
2008/2/15 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49163 Activity:nil
2/15    Obama vs. Paul
2022/07/02 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:February:15 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>