| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2008/6/3 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:50122 Activity:nil 54%like:50112 |
6/2 motd: BORING
bring back motd not getting laid guy |
| 2008/6/3-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:50123 Activity:nil |
6/2 Jimmy Carter: For CHANGE!!!!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=492_1212423029 |
| 2008/6/3 [Politics/Domestic/HateGroups, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:50124 Activity:nil |
6/2 Obama is willing to ditch his own church in order to win the election.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080601/ap_on_el_pr/obama
How faithful.
\_ After hanging out with the Klan for 20 years, he decides it's
politically expedient to leave.
\_ Yeah, the Klan. That's right. What an apt analogy. I mean
it's SO obvious.
\_ You're right. It's just as racist, but doesn't physically harm
people. ^the Klan^his co-racists
\_ The crazy is strong in this one.
\_ Didn't we beat this horse a few day ago?
\_ Give it up, you have already lost the election. Prepare yourself
for at least four years and probably eight years of being in the
\_ Obama is going to implode, trust me.
\_ Why should I trust you? What other predictions have you made
that were on the mark?
\_ Well, it looks to me like he's already imploding. Obama!
The only guy who could lose to the R's in '08! -!pp
\_ What the hell are you talking about? Are you the
person who thinks Obama wants to rape all the white
wimmin?
\_ I don't remember THAT post on the motd. -pp
\_ http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
Imploding.
\_ That's a very strange def of imploding |
| 2008/6/3-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:50125 Activity:nil |
6/2 Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning
the war. (Editorial)
http://csua.org/u/loo (Washington Post)
\_ After the 5th or 6th version of that story in the last 4 years
I don't think I have any more faith.
\_ Uh-huh. You've seen this huge drop in violence and an effective
Iraqi government and military in the last 4 years? When?
\_ I've heard "X proves we have turned the corner and are
winning but the media doesn't want to tell that story."
\_ Is the Washington Post not media?
\_ Funny how that works
\_ Yeah, delusional people often are funny. You seem to
be making up multiple things in this article for
example...
\_ When are they going to get rid of that fool Krauthammer?
\- he really should get the "red dragon wheelchair treatment".
if you arrange to have him delivered to me, i will arrange
to have him "vigourously interrogated". |
| 2008/6/3-4 [Consumer/Camera] UID:50126 Activity:nil |
6/2 Does anyone know how to pictures like http://www.csua.org/u/lon where the setting sun in the background is as big as a person? I've seen movie scenes where a person is walking on the ground, and the setting sun is as tall as the walking person. I have a 300mm lens, but the sun looks very small even with this lens. I imagine one can do it by shooting the subject from very very far away with a very very long lens. But is there a more practical way? Thanks. \_ The sun/moon looks a lot bigger when it is at the very horizon. More atmosphere to pass through. And that is pretty obviously shot from a pretty long ways away. \_ Lens effect is minimal, it's in your head. (Fascinating bit of how our brain works, actually.) |
| 2008/6/3-4 [Uncategorized] UID:50127 Activity:nil |
6/2 Fresno high school valedictorian scheduled to be deported.
YES.
\_ "Seventeen-year-old Arthur Mkoyan's 4.0 grade-point average
qualified him to enter one of the state's top universities. But he
and his mother have been ordered back to Armenia after their last
appeal for asylum failed."
But of course, all the illegal Mexicans aren't deported.
\_ They aren't? I'm sure that's news to all the ones that have
been deported.
\_ They pick our crops. We need food.
\_ They pick our cotton. We need socks. |
| 2008/6/3-4 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50128 Activity:kinda low |
6/2 See, it's not hard. I'm not a McCain supporter, but he's the most
likely vote for me. I'll enumerate his plusses and minuses without
referencing any other candidate:
+ Supports of the 2nd amendment
+ Supports the completion of the Iraq war
+ Likes originalist judges
- Amnesty
- enemy of the 1st amendment (McCain-Feingold)
- Has succumbed to the Global Warming hoax (added after 1st post
-emarkp)
Now let's have someone pro-Obama do the same. -emarkp
\_ Please define 'completion' of Iraq war.
\_ I have a couple:
+ Knows something about foreign policy
\_ Where do you get this from?
\_ I do not think 'supports Iraq war full heartedly and jokes
about bombing Iran' == knows something about foreign policy
\_ That's ok, you're too cowardly to even post your name next
to your political views, so I'm not all that interested
in what you think. -jrleek
\_ I'm amazed at how often people sign their ramblings
with my name, so I've given up signing most of my posts.
\_ Here is my password hash:
$gqxSEpB62znlWCH4vHW2a1
\_ Where is the password file?
\_ I'm not the pp, but I agree with his point, and I
_will_ sign my name. It's still not clear to me which
McCain is running: the one who stood against Bush in
2000, or the one who seems to have thrown that one
under the Straight Talk Express. --erikred
\_ This is a fair criticism. I personally put actions
far above words. McCain has a pretty well known
history. -jrleek
\_ There was an excellent '03 OpEd written as McCain's
proposed State of the Union 2005 and based on his
historical support for progressive measures that
made me think that I might actually vote for him.
Sadly, his campaign this year has made me doubt
his commitment to the same ideas that would have
made him attractive to me. --erikred
+ Historically fiscally conservative (no on farm bill, no on pork)
- gas tax proposal
Is that one about foreign policy too close to referencing Obama?
-jrleek
\_ Ah, forgot the fiscal policy part. The only drawback is that
he's from this current pork-loving congress. -emarkp
\_ What does fiscally conservative mean? That he voted for
Bush's $2T+ increase in the debt? That is a strange use of
the word "conservative."
\_ I'm pretty interested in any policy an Obama supporter agrees with
that Obama hasn't changed at least twice.
\_ The iraq war was a mistake from day one. He knew it. He made
it clear he knew it back when saying that meant it branded
you commie or a traitor. As to the rest, well, you are making
baseless arguments so whatever dude.
\_ Heck, I said that too. Does that mean I should be prez?
\_ Well you've got the changing the goalposts thing down pat,
but then again the goal is someone NOT like Bush.
\_ You would probably do a better job than the current
occupant. |
| 2008/6/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50129 Activity:nil |
6/2 http://preview.tinyurl.com/6nezv8 Getting lost in the media furor over McClellan's memoir is the new autobiography of retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the onetime commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, who is scathing in his assessment that the Bush administration "led America into a strategic blunder of historic proportions." Among the anecdotes in "Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story" is an arresting portrait of Bush after four contractors were killed in Fallujah in 2004, triggering a fierce U.S. response that was reportedly egged on by the president. During a videoconference with his national security team and generals, Sanchez writes, Bush launched into what he described as a "confused" pep talk: "Kick ass!" he quotes the president as saying. "If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can't send that message. It's an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal." "There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!" A White House spokesman had no comment. |
| 2008/6/3-4 [Uncategorized] UID:50130 Activity:nil |
6/2 What's a good Chinese pen recognition + dictionary program to
get? Ideally I'd like to be able to hover on top of characters
and the program would tell me what those compound words mean.
Does such a program exist? |
| 2008/6/3 [Uncategorized] UID:50131 Activity:nil |
6/2 does anyone here only use 80 column terms? I'm thinking of editing
MOTD in 132 column mode. would anyone care?
\_ yes and yes.
\_ Yes. Yes.
\_ I use 80-column PuTTY as well as 80-column xterm. |
| 2008/6/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50132 Activity:nil |
6/2 Bo Diddley, dead:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080602/ap_en_ot/obit_diddley |
| 2008/6/3-5 [Reference/Military] UID:50133 Activity:low |
6/2 Just a heads-up on what passed in the CA Assembly the other day:
AB 2062
"The bill would establish a database maintained by the department
to serve as a registry of handgun ammunition vendors.
"This bill would require that commencing July 1, 2009, unless
specifically excluded, no person shall sell or transfer more than 50
rounds of handgun ammunition in any month unless they are he or she is
registered as a handgun ammunition vendor, as defined. The bill would
also require these vendors to obtain a background clearance for those
employees who would handle ammunition in the course and scope of their
employment. The bill would require the Department of Justice to
maintain a registry of registered handgun ammunition vendors, as
specified. Violation of these provisions, as specified, would be a
misdemeanor.
"This bill would, subject to exceptions, commencing July 1, 2009,
require certain ammunition vendors to obtain a thumbprint and other
information from ammunition purchasers, and would require submission of
that information to the Department of Justice, as specified. A
violation of these provisions would be a misdemeanor."
\_ Do they use mysql or postgres?
\_ But you can still buy ammunition without without being tracked,
right? I don't really see how this new regulation can help with
gun violence. I think a more effective (but more controversial)
method would be to track or go as far as running a background
check on the buyers, not the sellers.
\_ You missed the whole thumbprint thing? |
| 2008/6/3-4 [Uncategorized] UID:50134 Activity:nil |
6/3 Okay, anyone want to make a case for Obama? |
| 2008/6/3-5 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:50135 Activity:nil |
6/3 Zombie at "Israel in the Gardens 2008"
http://www.zombietime.com/israel_in_the_gardens_2008/Israel
Looks like it was a nice festival. Maybe I should go next year.
\_ "All land is holy, all people are chosen" is anti-semetic? This
guy is hillarious.
\_ I see keffiyehs!
\_ It's just a scarf, it doesn't mean anything! -JAS guy #1 fan |
| 2008/6/3-5 [Uncategorized] UID:50136 Activity:nil |
6/3 Anyone know how long after graduation your campus email will work?
-mrauser
\_ Do you mean soda mail?
\_ <DEAD>kb.berkeley.edu/kb1385<DEAD>
\_ Thats what I aws looking for, thanks. -mr |
| 2008/6/3 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50137 Activity:very high |
6/3 Since no one else seems to be willing to bite, here is my case
for Obama:
1) He was always against the War. This shows good judgement and
political courage. I have some sympathy for those who got swept
up in the tide of emotion and then apologized for their mistake,
but better to have not made the mistake in the first place.
2) Fiscally responsible. We have a huge budget deficit that only
one party seems to be willing to face. Better to start closing
that hole now, rather than continue on with our current policies.
3) Health Care: While the Obama plan isn't entirely to my liking,
it is much better than doing nothing. Health care costs will
eventually overwhelm our economy, if we don't do something about it.
4) Character: I was going to make a whole bunch of different points,
but decided to roll them up into what I think is the most important
one: Obama is intellectually curious, optimistic, generous spirited,
and profoundly democratic. In an era where most leaders either
pander to the lowest common denominator or go for a divisive
50% + 1 strategy, it is refreshing to see one that honestly tries
to reach across the aisle and try to include moderates and even
conservatives in his decision making. We have been able to afford
a certain amount of infighting amongst ourselves recently, since
we have not faced any serious threats, the way our parents and
grandparents did, but I think we are coming up into a time where
Americans are going to have to come together to face our problems.
Obama overwhelmingly offer the best opportunity to do that. The
best in a generation, in fact. -ausman
\_ Stop overwriting other people's edits, please.
\_ I had the motd locked. Respect the lock and you won't have this
problem.
\_ don't lock the motd forbloodyever and maybe we'd respect the
lock more. I hate when some dumass starts motdedit and then
goes idle for a prolonged time.
\_ I don't do that. At most I spend a few minutes with the
motd locked, but I will try to shorten that.
\_ His plan is to add at least $800B per year to our budget. How is
that fiscally responsible? What is Obama's health care plan and how
do you think it will reduce costs? -emarkp
\_ 40 million uninsured Americans with untreated costs will tear
up the economy.
\_ Whose cost does insuring the uninsured cut? The money for
covering the actual medical bills ought to come from
somewhere, and it's going to be from the premiums.
\_ According to his website:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf
I have not read this in its entirety and don't feel qualified to
debate it point-by-point, but you asked, so here it is. --e-red
\_ I'm not interested in point-by-point, nor even a full debate.
If you're making the case for him, I'd like to know why you
think his plan for health care is good, even in a nutshell.
-emarkp
\_ Single payer could reduce costs. I don't see how a mandated
and/or subsidized version of the existing insurance system
cuts costs, but that's what HRC and BHO propose.
\_ Guaranteed coverage will improve labor mobility, which
will make the economy more efficient. Standardization of
things like IT delivery of health care records will save
money. Guaranteeing that preventative health care is
available to all will save money. Providing coverage to
the 46M currently not covered is the humane thing to do.
In a nutshell.
\_ Where do you get the $800B figure from?
\_ It was the number I recall for the sum of all his promised
plans. I'll dig for a reference. I may have conflated it
with the projected $845B (over 13 years) for the global
poverty act. -emarkp
\_ Ah, I did conflate the two. It's over $280B per year.
http://csua.org/u/lp1
-emarkp
\_ Ending the War and repealing the Bush tax cuts will
raise and save much more than that.
\_ Well, that's *very* speculative. For instance, Obama
said he'd be for raising the capital gains rate
because it would be more *fair* even if that meant a
reduction in revenue. Allowing the Bush rate cuts to
expire may very well reduce revenue as well. As far
as the war goes, any savings will be quickly eaten up
by new programs Obama has proposed. (I also disagree
about what bailing out of Iraq will cost, but that's
even more speculative.) -emarkp
\_ I'm for not killing all infants at birth even
if it means it causes a zombie outbreak that
destroys the world.
\_ Raising tax rates increases government revenue,
especially at current tax rates. To claim
otherwise is disingenuous.
\_ ???? You're ignoring history, and Obama.
Charlie Gibson pointed out that in the past,
raising capital gains tax rates *decreased*
revenue, and cutting the rate *increased*
revenue, and Obama conceded it. This is like
saying that raising a price on a commodity must
increase revenue for that commodity, and
betrays a profoundly naive understanding of
economics. -emarkp
\_ I'd like to learn more about this. Do you
know where I can get read about these tax
cuts/increases and their results?
\_ No, it is not like saying that. I guess
you are sincerely misinformed about basic
economics, not disingenous:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5kcels
Obama should not have conceded that point,
he should have contested it. Supply side
economics is pure wingnuttery, which the
overwhelming majority of economists agree.
\_ #1, that blog is a joke,
#2, the point was HISTORICAL. It *did*
happen, period. It's not up for debate.
-emarkp
\_ You realize that just because
an event (#2) happens after another
event (#1), that #1 wasn't necessarily
the cause of #2, right?
\_ A Tax Holiday will tend to bring in
extra revenue, for reasons that I hope
I don't have to explain.
\_ Greatest hits of the motd:
http://csua.com/?entry=50011
\_ Fiscally responsible + voted for farm bill?
\_ The Farm Bill is your sole criterion for determining fiscal
responsibility? I agree that it was a bad piece of legislation,
but surely voting for the War in Iraq has proven even more
costly?
\_ When he's actually been in a position to vote, he has voted
to fund the war.
\_ There's not a whole lot to work with in regards to his record.
What fiscally responsible votes of his can you reference?
\_ 1) It doesn't take that much political courage when you aren't
actually voting on it.
2,3) His health plan and support for the farm bill don't say
fiscally conservative to me.
4) "Profoundly democratic", man you are drunk on the Kool-Aid.
Howard Dean had similar plans and ideas as Obama and was against
the war. But he was white and did the yell. "Come together to
face problems" is BS. What exactly does that mean? His plans are
like those of the other Democrats. How is that reaching out to
Republicans? "Generous spirited"? That's fine as long as it's
his money; spending other people's tax dollars isn't generous.
Optimistic? He always talks about how we are at a crossroads
and we're going to have dire consequences unless we elect him.
Obama is an extremely gifted public speaker, best in a generation
perhaps, but he is still a politician, and he still blows a lot
of hot air.
\_ Remember "It's morning in America" from Reagan? Leadership
matters. Reagan was a good president primarily because he
was optimistic. Obama will do the same. I am prepared to be
disappointed, but eight more years of the same screaming
Rove/Limbaugh/Coulter/O'Reilly crowd in power is not
what America needs.
\_ Limbaugh/Coulter/O'Reilly were never in power, and
McCain is not Bush.
Obama is not optimistic like Reagan. He's very frowny
and concerned looking in his speeches, not like Reagan.
I don't really get where you're getting this optimism
thing from. He is mostly about "we need to change from
Bush". What's so sunny about that? That's what Hillary
says, that's what D's were saying in 2004.
\_ Well, he seems to believe he can do anything. I'll talk
to Iran and they will stop enriching uranium! Promise!
\_ This is a legitimate criticism, and I saw the same
with Kerry. Always "I'll talk with them about xyz."
That's fine, but there should be discussion about
what to do if they tell us to go pound sand. -emarkp
\_ Beginning a conversation with, "If you don't do
what I want, I'll bomb you" tends to be a good
way to abort negotiations. Listening and then
replying is much more diplomatic; it also gives
you more options, since you're not committed to a
course of actions ahead of time.
\_ You know Iran is in violation of a treaty they
signed right? And they've already refused
every carrot Obama claims to be planning to
use? The conversation didn't start with that,
it got to that. I'm not claiming Bush did
an awesome job, but Obama is blowing smoke
at best. I'm not interested in trading
Nixon for Carter again.
it got to that. Sure, Bush didn't do a good
job but Obama is blowing smoke at best. I'm
not interested in trading Nixon for Carter
again.
\_ And you're not going to get Carter for Nixon
because Bush is worse than Nixon, and even
Nixon understood the need to talk w/o
preconditions-- that time with PRC. Obama
is not Carter, and McCain is not Reagan.
\_ China and Iran are totally different
circumstances. They have nothing to
do with one another.
\_ He seems optomistic to me (and to most Americans). I
don't know where you get the frowny thing from. Read
his book, I don't have time to recap it here.
\- I have not read all of the above, but the post-WW2
record is quite clear "structure trumps ideology".
Budget deficits are better predicted by whether
Congress and President are same party or diff party,
not which party. |
| 2008/6/3-5 [Recreation/Dating] UID:50138 Activity:high |
6/3 Attention Sodans!
"EcoGeeks get all the girls"
http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/539/ecogeeks-get-all-the-girls.html
"Nearly 9 in 10 women (88 percent) say they'd rather chat up someone
who owns the latest fuel-efficient car versus the latest sports car."
Forget about whether global warming is real or whether we have hit peak
oil or why we're fighting a war in Iraq. This alone is why you should
ditch your SUV. Hurry before the chicks run out!
\_ Can you explain why black chicks in LA still dig guys with
huge SUVs with spinners and white chicks in Hollywood still
dig guys with sportscars?
\_ Ask the author, not me. -- OP
\_ What if you RIDE BIKE?
\_ The survey didn't cover this.
\_ 9 in 10 women are liars who probably do care about the environment
and want to make that point, but who will jump into a guy's $350K
Ferrari in 3 seconds if given a chance.
\_ I'm not sure why guys think fast flashy cars do anything for
their sex appeal. Then again, it's pretty obvious most men
have no idea what is sexy.
\_ You've obviously never owned an expensive car. Success
is sexy to most women. It's not the car that's sexy. It's
that the man driving it is able to provide. Why do you
think rich ugly guys get so much tail their daughter's age?
Deep down, most women want to be taken care of. Are you
more impressed with a guy driving a 1972 Pinto or a guy
driving a 2002 Acura TL? Don't say it doesn't matter,
because it matters just like the clothes he wears and the
school he went to. Guys, on the other hand, are more
genuine. They just want a fun, sexy gal and rich is 100%
optional.
\_ I have driven my roommates Z-8 and while it is true
that you get more female attention, you actually get
even more young men admiring your car. Money is obviously
attractive to women, but if a fancy car is the only way
you can think of to show that, you aren't very clever.
Then again, if you are rich enough, why not? I would
personally prefer a fun, sexy gal who was rich over one
who was not, and I think most guys would, actually.
\_ Yes you get attention. People look at flashy cars.
That is loads different than "people fuck the drivers
of flashy cars." (Plus, 9 in 10 means that 1 in 10
women really like flashy cars, so I guess you've got
decent odds there, but there is a serious issue of
quality.)
\_ The survey said "chat up" and "interesting to
talk to" not "hop in the sack with". I never
meant to imply that 10 in 10 (or 9 in 10) would
go that far. It's probably that 1 in 10.
However, for 9 in 10 to say that they wouldn't
rather talk to the guy in the Ferrari versus the
guy in the Civic Hybrid is baloney.
\_ It is becuase of "young men 'admiring' my car" (and
my bejewelled wife) I got a Concealed Weapons Permit.
-Toluca Lake Arsenal
\_ I have an acquaintance who transports exotic cars
like Lamborghini, Bentley, Ferrari, and so on. Sometimes
we are able to drive them (like when the road is
too steep or twisty for the truck to navigate). You
better believe you get attention from both men and
women. I am not saying it's the only way to woo
women. I am just saying that most of the women who
responded were lying their asses off because they
didn't want to appear shallow. A Prius doesn't get
that kind of attention. I think a lot of the women
who responded were also thinking about a greasy guy
in a Mustang or Camaro and not a successful
well-dressed businessman in a Ferrari F430 Spider.
And of course everyone prefers a rich wife all else
being equal, but what about a rich, unattractive
wife versus a poor, extremely hot wife? I'll take
the latter 10 out of 10 times. Life's not fair. Women
like rich men and men like hot women. BTW, does
your roommate get laid more often or by hotter
women? And why does someone with a $100K car have a
roommate anyway?
\_ Cause he has a $100K car? |
| 2008/6/3-4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:50139 Activity:low |
6/3 Clinton 'open' to joining Obama
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7432696.stm
\_ That would be pretty funny if this happened and then Obama was pres
but then died somehow and then HRC was president.
\_ At least we would know that it wasn't the Ku Klux Klan who
assasinated Obama. http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117&a=1227
\_ Why do dumb people keep thinking they are as clever as the
Onion?
\_ Chill out. The Daily Squib is the UK-equivalent of The
Onion. -- PP |
| 2008/6/3-8 [Uncategorized] UID:50140 Activity:nil |
6/3 did any of you other old nerds play LEGACY OF THE ANCIENTS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdPTDTc5-y0 |
| 2008/6/3-8 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll] UID:50141 Activity:nil |
6/3 German motd boob guy, do I have a video for you
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6fyfkb
\_ Speaking of which what happened to German John and his fan?
\_ she isn't even German. Its a german show about a English chick. |
| 2008/6/3-8 [Reference/Tax] UID:50142 Activity:nil |
6/3 You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled
record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality.
You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower
tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues
can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates
encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No
thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than
compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one.
http://voxbaby.blogspot.com/2007/01/new-years-plea.html
-Prof Andrew Samwick
\_ But... but.. LAFFER CURVE.... neener neener I CAN'T HEAR YOU!
\_ Mocking people works much better if you don't sound like
a complete fucking retard.
\_ I sound like a complete fucking retard in life, why
change here?
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Samwick
Samwick is a heavy hitter and a Republican who served as chair
of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, btw. Mankiw, who served
after him would say pretty much the same thing. |
| 2008/6/3-8 [Recreation/Computer/Games] UID:50143 Activity:nil |
6/3 Super Pii Pii Brothers.
A new Wii game brought to you from Japan. A great birthday gift idea
for your female friends. Yours for only $34.99.
http://www.thinkgeek.com/stuff/41/superpiipii.html?cpg=70H
http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/zoom/super_piipii_brothers.jpg
\_ April 1 was a long time ago.
\_ April 1 is only 10 months from now! :-) -- !OP |
| 2008/6/3-9 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:50144 Activity:low |
6/3 Our spotless sun
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime-images.html
http://csua.org/u/lp6 (nationalpost.com)
\_ Original article by PK CHAPMAN: http://csua.org/u/lp7
Rebuttal by D KAROLY: http://csua.org/u/lp8
Both op-eds in The Australian
\_ It sure would be nice if the two effects balanced out.
I don't think the climate models included solar variation.
\_ http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/image-description.html
"In the images taken at 304 Angstrom the bright material is at
60,000 to 80,000 degrees Kelvin. In those taken at 171 Angstrom, at
1 million degrees. 195 Angstrom images correspond to about 1.5
million Kelvin, 284 Angstrom to 2 million degrees."
So, as temperature goes up, the wavelength first decreases then
increases? That doesn't make sense to me.
\_ It doesn't make a lot of sense to me either, but materials
at temperatures radiate over a wide spectrum of wavelengths.
It's just that the peak radiation level decreases in frequency
with increasing temperature. In a sense, you can observe
a body at a temperature at any wavelength--you just won't
necessarily be viewing the wavelength at which peak output
occurs.
\_ Obviously you are a shill for the global warming hoax.
\_ What does a discussion on radiation output w.r.t.
wavelength and temperature have anything to do with global
\_ What does a discussion on black body radiation output
w.r.t. wavelength and temperature have to do with global
warming?
\_ The Global Warming deniers claim that the temperature
increase is due to sunspot activity. At least some of
them do.
\_ You mean the nonexistent temperature increase? |
| 2008/6/3-4 [Uncategorized] UID:50145 Activity:nil |
6/3 Well, I haven't been here in awhile, but it is very nice to see
that I could predict the content before I even saw it. Way to
go motd - most reliable place on the internet.
\_ Excellent content-free post!
\_ Weak troll. |
| 2008/6/3-5 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50146 Activity:moderate |
6/3 Since no one else seems to be willing to bite, here is my case
for Obama:
1) He was always against the War. This shows good judgement and
political courage. I have some sympathy for those who got swept
up in the tide of emotion and then apologized for their mistake,
but better to have not made the mistake in the first place.
\_ I am not sure whether this shows good judgement or just a
certain type of undesirable (for a President) mentality.
\_ In other words, he's not your candidate because he didn't
support the war.
\_ No. I just question whether he was really the only wise
person in Congress. There is nothing in his academic
or other record to indicate so. I think maybe he wears
his heart on his sleeve or in some way didn't quite comprehend
the situation in a way that others did. I don't believe
for one second that all of Congress is stupid and easily
deceived except for greenhorn Obama. If anything, it may
have been a calculated political move which has
apparently paid dividends.
\_ The majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the
war.
\_ The majority of Democratic Senators voted in favor
of the legislation. It is true that the majority
of the House Democrats voted against it, but
that is playing with statistics since the House
has so many more members. How did Obama vote
again and what was unique about his position?
\_ You seem to be arguing both sides of the fence
here. ".... all of Congress is stuid and easily
here. ".... all of Congress is stupid and easily
deceived except for greenhorn Obama" and then
"... what was unique about his position?" Are
you the same guy? Voting against the War was
hardly a unique position, which the first
comment implies. It was somewhat of a contrary
and politically risky (and correct, imho) one.
\_ Obama makes it seem like he was the only
one opposed to the war from the beginning,
but he was not. As you know, he didn't
even vote on it but so what if he had?
\_ Technically they voted to authorize Bush
to go to war if deemed necessary, not to
simply go to war.
2) Fiscally responsible. We have a huge budget deficit that only
one party seems to be willing to face. Better to start closing
that hole now, rather than continue on with our current policies.
3) Health Care: While the Obama plan isn't entirely to my liking,
it is much better than doing nothing. Health care costs will
eventually overwhelm our economy, if we don't do something about it.
4) Character: I was going to make a whole bunch of different points,
but decided to roll them up into what I think is the most important
one: Obama is intellectually curious, optimistic, generous spirited,
and profoundly democratic. In an era where most leaders either
pander to the lowest common denominator or go for a divisive
50% + 1 strategy, it is refreshing to see one that honestly tries
to reach across the aisle and try to include moderates and even
conservatives in his decision making. We have been able to afford
a certain amount of infighting amongst ourselves recently, since
we have not faced any serious threats, the way our parents and
grandparents did, but I think we are coming up into a time where
Americans are going to have to come together to face our problems.
Obama overwhelmingly offer the best opportunity to do that. The
Obama overwhelmingly offers the best opportunity to do that. The
best in a generation, in fact. -ausman
\_ Stop overwriting other people's edits, please.
\_ I had the motd locked. Respect the lock and you won't have this
problem.
\_ don't lock the motd forbloodyever and maybe we'd respect the
lock more. I hate when some dumass starts motdedit and then
goes idle for a prolonged time.
\_ I don't do that. At most I spend a few minutes with the
motd locked, but I will try to shorten that.
\_ His plan is to add at least $800B per year to our budget. How is
that fiscally responsible? What is Obama's health care plan and how
do you think it will reduce costs? -emarkp
\_ 40 million uninsured Americans with untreated costs will tear
up the economy.
\_ Whose cost does insuring the uninsured cut? The money for
covering the actual medical bills ought to come from
somewhere, and it's going to be from the premiums.
\_ Preventive care is much cheaper in the long run. People
without health insurance tend to have crappy preventive
\_ Preventative care is much cheaper in the long run. People
without health insurance tend to have crappy preventative
care.
\_ Prove it.
\_ I see. Thx. -- PP
\_ An ER is an expensive place to get primary care.
\_ According to his website:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf
I have not read this in its entirety and don't feel qualified to
debate it point-by-point, but you asked, so here it is. --e-red
\_ I'm not interested in point-by-point, nor even a full debate.
If you're making the case for him, I'd like to know why you
think his plan for health care is good, even in a nutshell.
-emarkp
\_ Single payer could reduce costs. I don't see how a mandated
and/or subsidized version of the existing insurance system
cuts costs, but that's what HRC and BHO propose.
\_ Guaranteed coverage will improve labor mobility, which
will make the economy more efficient. Standardization of
things like IT delivery of health care records will save
money. Guaranteeing that preventative health care is
available to all will save money. Providing coverage to
the 46M currently not covered is the humane thing to do.
In a nutshell.
\_ Where do you get the $800B figure from?
\_ It was the number I recall for the sum of all his promised
plans. I'll dig for a reference. I may have conflated it
with the projected $845B (over 13 years) for the global
poverty act. -emarkp
\_ Ah, I did conflate the two. It's over $280B per year.
http://csua.org/u/lp1
-emarkp
\_ Ending the War and letting the Bush tax cuts expire will
raise and save much more than that.
\_ Well, that's *very* speculative. For instance, Obama
said he'd be for raising the capital gains rate
because it would be more *fair* even if that meant a
reduction in revenue. Allowing the Bush rate cuts to
expire may very well reduce revenue as well. As far
as the war goes, any savings will be quickly eaten up
by new programs Obama has proposed. (I also disagree
about what bailing out of Iraq will cost, but that's
even more speculative.) -emarkp
\_ Raising tax rates increases government revenue,
especially at current tax rates. To claim
otherwise is disingenuous.
\_ ???? You're ignoring history, and Obama.
Charlie Gibson pointed out that in the past,
raising capital gains tax rates *decreased*
revenue, and cutting the rate *increased*
revenue, and Obama conceded it. This is like
saying that raising a price on a commodity must
increase revenue for that commodity, and
betrays a profoundly naive understanding of
economics. -emarkp
\_ epong: didn't your spider
senses go off when you cited
Charlie Gibson as an authority?
\_ I'd like to learn more about this. Do you
know where I can get read about these tax
cuts/increases and their results?
\_ No, it is not like saying that. I guess
you are sincerely misinformed about basic
economics, not disingenous:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5kcels
Obama should not have conceded that point,
he should have contested it. Supply side
economics is pure wingnuttery, which the
overwhelming majority of economists agree.
\_ #1, that blog is a joke,
#2, the point was HISTORICAL. It *did*
happen, period. It's not up for debate.
-emarkp
\_ You realize that just because
an event (#2) happens after another
event (#1), that #1 wasn't necessarily
the cause of #2, right?
\_ A Tax Holiday will tend to bring in
extra revenue, for reasons that I hope
I don't have to explain.
\_ Greatest hits of the motd:
http://csua.com/?entry=50011
\_ Fiscally responsible + voted for farm bill?
\_ The Farm Bill is your sole criterion for determining fiscal
responsibility? I agree that it was a bad piece of legislation,
but surely voting for the War in Iraq has proven even more
costly?
\_ When he's actually been in a position to vote, he has voted
to fund the war.
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/56j2dn
Wizbang blog
\_ There's not a whole lot to work with in regards to his record.
What fiscally responsible votes of his can you reference?
\_ 1) It doesn't take that much political courage when you aren't
actually voting on it.
2,3) His health plan and support for the farm bill don't say
fiscally conservative to me.
4) "Profoundly democratic", man you are drunk on the Kool-Aid.
Howard Dean had similar plans and ideas as Obama and was against
the war. But he was white and did the yell. "Come together to
face problems" is BS. What exactly does that mean? His plans are
like those of the other Democrats. How is that reaching out to
Republicans? "Generous spirited"? That's fine as long as it's
his money; spending other people's tax dollars isn't generous.
Optimistic? He always talks about how we are at a crossroads
and we're going to have dire consequences unless we elect him.
Obama is an extremely gifted public speaker, best in a generation
perhaps, but he is still a politician, and he still blows a lot
of hot air.
\_ Remember "It's morning in America" from Reagan? Leadership
matters. Reagan was a good president primarily because he
was optimistic. Obama will do the same. I am prepared to be
disappointed, but eight more years of the same screaming
Rove/Limbaugh/Coulter/O'Reilly crowd in power is not
what America needs.
\_ Limbaugh/Coulter/O'Reilly were never in power, and
McCain is not Bush.
Obama is not optimistic like Reagan. He's very frowny
and concerned looking in his speeches, not like Reagan.
I don't really get where you're getting this optimism
thing from. He is mostly about "we need to change from
Bush". What's so sunny about that? That's what Hillary
says, that's what D's were saying in 2004.
\_ Well, he seems to believe he can do anything. I'll talk
to Iran and they will stop enriching uranium! Promise!
\_ This is a legitimate criticism, and I saw the same
with Kerry. Always "I'll talk with them about xyz."
That's fine, but there should be discussion about
what to do if they tell us to go pound sand. -emarkp
\_ Beginning a conversation with, "If you don't do
what I want, I'll bomb you" tends to be a good
way to abort negotiations. Listening and then
replying is much more diplomatic; it also gives
you more options, since you're not committed to a
course of actions ahead of time.
\_ You know Iran is in violation of a treaty they
signed right? And they've already refused
every carrot Obama claims to be planning to
use? The conversation didn't start with that,
it got to that. Sure, Bush didn't do a good
job but Obama is blowing smoke at best. I'm
not interested in trading Nixon for Carter
again.
\_ And you're not going to get Carter for Nixon
because Bush is worse than Nixon, and even
Nixon understood the need to talk w/o
preconditions-- that time with PRC. Obama
is not Carter, and McCain is not Reagan.
\_ China and Iran are totally different
circumstances. They have nothing to
do with one another.
\_ You're right, but not for the
reasons you think you are. Iran
has at least two different factions
in play: the Pres. and the Supreme
Council. PRC was mostly monolithic.
My point, though, was that even
Nixon recognized that talking >>>
huffing and puffing, sometimes.
We're militarily tapped out and
can't invade/occupy Iran, so why
pretend like we can? Let's meet,
then we can show everyone else
how reasonable we are and what
a showboating clown Mahmoud is.
\_ He seems optomistic to me (and to most Americans). I
\_ You know our ambassadors meet
occasionally right? It's not
like we have no diplomatic
contacts at all.
\_ Are you high? Apart from a
highly unproductive meeting in
Baghdad in 2007, the US
diplomatic position on diplo-
matic contact with Iran has
been "they can read our
position in the papers."
EDIT: Our ambassadors aren't
meeting, but our Treasury Dept.
have:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7248148.stm
\_ He seems optimistic to me (and to most Americans). I
don't know where you get the frowny thing from. Read
his book, I don't have time to recap it here.
\- I have not read all of the above, but the post-WW2
record is quite clear "structure trumps ideology".
Budget deficits are better predicted by whether
Congress and President are same party or diff party,
not which party.
\_ McCain's daughter is HOT HOT HOT http://i27.tinypic.com/2qtzww9.jpg |
| 2008/6/3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50147 Activity:nil |
6/3 One reason no true conservative should ever vote for McCain:
Keating Five |
| 11/22 |