6/10    Barack has a senior moment
        http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zc6wQMVHhic
        \_ Yay! You're participating!

6/10    What I have been saying for years is now finally going mainstream:
        http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/economist/86938
        "High Fuel Costs Could Spur a New Rationalism"
        \_ I sure hope this is going mainstream.  But most drives I see on the
           roads are still solo drivers, the freeways are not getting less
           congested, and my wife doesn't see BART trains getting more crowded.
           \_ That's because those supposed solutions are crap. The real
              solution is to use small, efficient vehicles, and have protected
              paths for low-impact stuff like bikes. 60-80 mpg is not
              unreasonable from a small car. You can do better by regulating
              things, for example ensuring that on-ramps are long enough to
              accommodate slow-accelerating cars, or improving safety by
              limiting large vehicles which make small cars more dangerous by
              blocking their vision and being dangerous in crashes due to their
              mass and ride height.
              Clearly people like fast personal transportation. Improving that
              technology is going to be much more useful than trying to force
              people to give it up.
              \_ Once again, the solution is NOT technology. Creating
                 new infrastructures and testing, etc uses MORE energy.
                 The solution is to REVERSE technology. Kill everyone
                 and every innovations, and there will be no more
                 energy use.
             \_ It is worth pursuing more than one line of solution at a
                 time, since the problem is so large and there is probably
                 not going to be a one-size-fits all solution. All your
                 solutions are going to take years, and we need to find a
                 cheap way to get people to work in the meantime. I envision
                 a smart car train, where people get into their individual
                 pods at home, but then join the "train" for longer distance.
                 You can get really good energy efficiency that way, while
                 still giving the misanthropes their "personal space," but
                 this is obviously a long ways off.
                \_ The problem isn't really "privacy for misanthropes" but
                   1) going to and from where you want to go, when you want
                      to go there, and quickly
                   2) versatility and convenience in carrying stuff
                   3) comfort
                   In most cases mass transit simply doesn't do #1 which is
                   the important one. More efficient taxis could help. At
                   least people using taxis reduces the need for parking lots.
                   AI-driven taxis could be cool, someday. If people entered
                   their transit request to a taxi company then they could
                   coordinate the routes to be able to carry a multiple
                   people per taxi in many cases. That wouldn't require AI
                   taxis, just smart dispatching software.
                   As usual, the existence of government controlled transit
                   operations unnecessarily shackles us all to systems which
                   are probably not optimal.
                   \_ #1 has been solved by all the really big cities in the
                      world with elevators and one minute headway train systems.
                      But you need much greater density than most American
                      cities for this to work. Personal transit does not
                      really work in a place like Tokyo or Hong Kong, anyway.
                      #2 is solved by putting stores selling what you need
                      within very close walking distance of your home.
                      \_ Have you ever been to Texas? Asking big fat Americans
                         to walk to where they need to be is very unAmerican
                         and unPatriotic.
                         \_ Don't interrupt my posts. And you can ask people
                            \_ I will
                            to do whatever you want, just don't expect them
                            \_ interrupt
                            to do it because you are obviously smarter than
                            \_ as I see fit
                            they.
                            \_ mind you this this a free country
                      \_ The problem is solved by MOVING close to where
                         you normally have to go (work).
                         \_ you can't move in CA.  if you do, you get hit with the
                            new property tax hit of 1000 percent to make up for
                            all the old people who haven't been properly taxed
                            since 1978.  i am slightly serious about this.
                            \_ you mean "all the corporations"
                         \_ That doesn't solve it. It's impractical to
                            move every time you change jobs, housing is
                            not freely available, people go other places
                            than their job (and so they should).
                      \_ Obviously, a place like Tokyo or Hong Kong is
                         different. Different places are different. Tokyo can
                         still require a lot of walking... there are
                         still lots of places that are hard to get to on
                         the trains/subways. Tokyo also has lots of taxis.
                         Your #2 "solution" is not a real solution.
                         \_ It works all over the world. And what is wrong
                            with walking? Walking is good for you.
                            \_ No, it doesn't. Feel free to walk if you want.
                               \_ Yes, it does. The majority of the world's
                                  population do not own cars, so they do their
                                  shopping the old fashioned way, on foot. Feel
                                  free to be a lazy fatass who pays $200 to
                                  fill up his Escalate if you want, too. Just
                                  don't bitch about it on the motd.
                \_ When you say "the existence of government controlled transit
                   operations unnecessarily shackles us all to systems which
                   are probably not optimal." are you referring to things like
                   freeways?
                                  \_ You're the one bitching and blanketing ppl
                                     as lazy fatasses. What about people with
                                     legitimate physical problems? I suppose we
                                     should euthanize them for the good of the
                                     species. What if you live somewhere with
                                     bad weather? You're presenting a false
                                     dichotomy: the Escalade is one extreme of
                                     personal transportation. Why did you
                                     even bring it up?
                                     The majority of the world's population
                                     lives in fucking shitty conditions and
                                     have no choice. They do things like walk
                                     long distances with giant loads of junk
                                     carried on their backs, like pieces of
                                     corrugated steel they found which they
                                     are lugging back to add on to their tiny
                                     shack where they sleep on the floor with
                                     their various relatives and have no
                                     running water.
                                     Maybe you should move to one of those
                                     places. Or just feed yourself to some
                                     animals and stop wasting resources.
                                     \_ The guy with the Escalade is going to
                                        have to give up a bit so that the guy
                                        carrying the steel on his back can live
                                        a little better. A good think, imnsho.
                                        a little better. A good thing, imnsho.
           \_ The Fremont->SF BART line did get more crowded during morning
              commute hours these days.

6/10    Obama plans to disarm America
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/6afu7g
        Actually, I was kinda meh on this video until is 3rd point.
        World-wide ban on fissile material?  Wah?
        \_ Yay! Little Green Footballs! What, no freep link?
        \_ We'd better disarm America.  Otherwise we'll blow!
        \_ Dittohead Desperation Level: Red
           \_ So, you think there should be a world-wide ban on fissile
              material?
              \_ Depends on how it's implemented.  I don't think the idea
                 is inherently wrong.
                 \_ Umm... nuclear power?
              \_ That's about as brilliant as a world-wide ban on ammonium
                 nitrate.
                 \_ Did someone suggest such a thing?
                    \_ not exactly,  but its not a bad analogy -- Banning
                       something that is either vitally userful or potentially
                       explosive, depending only on its  concentration.
           \_ No kidding, all the defense contractors and other War
              Profiteers must be crapping their diapers right now.
              \_ Wow you're painfully confused.  With zero nukes the same
                 people will make the same money as before.  Weapons money
                 has very little to do with nukes.  You went to Cal?
                 \_ Did you watch the video?
        \_ Yay, Little Green Footballs. What, no freep link?
           \_ Hmm? It's a youTube video of Obama.
              \_ By way of the LGF weblog. Great talking to you.
                 \_ Ah, so it is.  Obviously this video must be fake.
        \_ He probably should have said "weaponized              \_ Ah, so it is\
.  Obviously this video must be fake.
                 \_ You don't like the source of the link so that makes the
                    final content untrue?  What are you smoking?  Things are
                    true or not no matter the path the link may have taken
                    to get to you.
                    \_ If the boy cries wolf enough times, you're going to
                       ignore him the next time he cries wolf, even if he's
                       right. LGF doesn't like Obama and makes no bones about
                       it. As a result, LGF likes posting reasons why you
                       shouldn't like Obama, either; the majority of these are
                       trivial or non-issues dressed up to look like issues.
                       As a result, when I see LGF behind a link, I immediately
                       assume he's crying wolf. The source matters because it
                       alerts me whether to take the "facts" seriously or not.
                       In this case, not.
                       \_ This way of updating your beliefs works great in cases
                          where you have no fucking clue how to evaluate claims
                          yourself. -- ilyas
                          \_ Or a less than unlimited amount of time to waste
                             weeding through dreck. Are you still a grad
                             student?
                          \_ I've got a low threshhold for bs. Fool me twice,
                             forget about it.
                    \_ You don't understand it?  It seems quite obvious to me.
                       This is how he maintains his belief that he is always
                       right.  Any place that disagrees with him is labeled
                       as "unreliable."  All facts even linked to from such
                       a place are by definition, untrue.  Therefore, no facts
                       can be true that disagree with his worldview. QED.
                       A video of Obama displaying utter cluelessness? It
                       is linked to by LGF, therefore it cannot have actually
                       happened!
                       \_ Here, wipe your mouth, the froth is showing.
        \_ He probably should have said "weaponized fissile material" instead,
           but other than that, I am 100% behind this. Note that he said
           a "goal" of nuclear weapons elimination worldwide. I think it is
           great to have goals. I sure wouldn't want to be the first one to
           eliminate my arsenal, though. Hey, I have a question for you.. I want
           to give Obama money for the general campaign. Should I do it now,
           or wait until after the convention?
           eliminate my arsenal, though. Hey, I have a question for you.
           I want to give Obama money for the general campaign. Should I do
           it now, or wait until after the convention?
           \_ He needs to know wth he's talking about.  He said what he said.
              When there's a "clarification" let us know, until then he's on
              record as opposing all fissile material.  If he did mean what
              you want him to mean then he's following Ronald Reagan nuclear
              doctrine without the important "verify" part.  I fear for the
              free world.
              \_ Right, so McCain thinks we should stay in Iraq for 10k
                 years.
                 \_ If you can't win the argument, make things up!
                    \_ Here, have an obviously liberal link:
                  http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/06/mccain-permanent-bases

        \_ Dittohead Desperation Level: Red

                                no ideology but to hold power because he
                                doesn't like that in our parties?  You're
                                making even less sense than usual. -jrleek
                          \_ Which one do you think is the "extreme left
                             marxist"? Can you please sign your future posts
                             "WN" for wingnut, so I can filter them? Thks.
                   \_ I actually thought this comment was too stupid to be
                      worth replying to, but after reading the above, I have
                      changed my mind. The reason "so many" as you put it,
                      pro-war candidates won is because the war was still
                      popular in certain sections of the country. I imagine it
                      still is, in a few places. There are 435 different
                      Congressional elections. At least one of them must still
                      be pro-Bush.
           \_ Hopefully the American people are smart enough to understand
              that voting based on a single point is pretty dumb.  "I ended
              the war but turned the country into a debt ridden socialist mess
              the likes of which Jimmy Carter can only dream of!"  The war
              will end soon enough no matter who is in office.  I vote based
              on the long term health of the country which has little to do
              with Iraq and everything to do with long term economic policy
              and security as always.
              \_ gee, I wonder if there is some huge discretionary
                 expense that we could cut out of the budget...I'm
                 wracking my brain to think if there might be anything
                 we're spending a shitload of money on for no good
                 purpose...  -tom

6/10    Is there a handy guide to virtualizing an already running
        physical linux box into an instance of Vmware?
        \_ this probably isn't the "right" way, but I have many times
        just run rsync. ("rsync -vpa root@oldbox:/ /")  on a fresh virtual
        image.  Just make sure the partitions are the same on the virt disk
        as on the real disk and if you are using a new udev, kill the info
        in /etc/udev/rules.d/z25_persistent-net.rules before rebooting the
        virt).  I have not had any problems doing this.
        \_ I attended a talk where I *think* VMware mentioned a tool they
           provide to do this. Check their web site.
        \_ Yes.  You want VMware's p2v (Physical to Virtual) tool.

6/10    is the Pixies song "Gigantic" about emarkp's enormous Mormon penis?

6/10    Algae produced Oil:
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/5nw29d [new scientist]
        \_ I'm only geting 3 paragraphs, is there more?
           \_ I think the full story is viewable for subscribers only.
              Here is a Dec '07 NY Times article on the same:
              http://preview.tinyurl.com/6zawtl [nyt]
              \_ Thanks, this is about what I had heard before.  There is
                 no imminent breakthrough technology, but it's a cool
                 idea that might work.
           \_ plenty more better articles show up with a goole for sapphire
              energy. -ERic

6/10    has Satan helped the Celtics win yet?

6/10    so who is going to be the vp pick?:
        Jim Webb: .
        Carly Simon: .
        Dick Cheney: .
        !psb: .
        Alexis May: .
        Mary Cook:
        That hot pol vaulting chick: .
        ALGOR: .
        \- must not destroy robot
        \_ I am pretty sure there will be two of them, though it would be
           pretty amusing if both the Democratic and Republican candidates
           had the same VP candidate.
        \_ McCain is going to pick Hillary.  You heard it here first.
           \- would you like to bet? --psb
        Colin Powell:
        Governator:

6/10    Millions Paid to Dead CEOs Outrage Over 'Golden Coffins': Tech T:
        http://www.csua.org/u/lqh (finance.yahoo.com)
        "Among the more outrageous posthumous packages:
            * $298.1 million for Comcast CEO Brian Roberts
            * $288 million for Nabors CEO Eugene Isenberg
            * $115.6 million for Occidental CEO Ray Irani
            * $17 million for Shaw Group CEO J.M. Bernhard to not compete with
              the firm after he dies"
        I wonder if J.M. Bernhard is thinking about breaching the contract.
        \_ Why should you care what someone's compensation is?
           \_ It's just funny that a firm is willing to pay a CEO to not
              compete with the firm after he dies.  --- OP
              \_ That's the wording of the author, not of the contract.
                 \_ see the WSJ link; it's a non-compete clause in the
                    contract, which still pays off if he's dead.  -tom
                    \_ Correct.  Which is different than the wording of the
                       author. -pp
                       \_ I understand now.  Thx.  -- OP
                       \_ it's still pretty lame to have a non-compete clause
                          pay off in the case of death.  -tom
                          \_ duh.  It is just to make sure his family gets the
                             money if he leaves the company by dying instead
                             of by leaving.  It is to encourage him to stay
                             until he dies and not leave early to cash in on
                             the non-compete when he's otherwise doing a good
                             job.  It is not lame if you accept that any
                             non-compete clause was worth that number.  Why is
                             it necessary to explain such a simple concept?
                          \_ What better way to guarantee fulfillment of the
                             non-compete side of a contract than to die?

6/10    Is there a library in python that lets me append parameters
        to URL? I just want to add "?hello=1" or "&hello=1" depending
        on whether a URL already has parameters.
        \_ try request() in urllib2 . mess around with urllib urllib2
           and urlparse. -  danh

6/10    open carry makes me feel as if i have a big ass penis
        \_ Is it chilly or do you just have ......

6/10    What's up with the sudden unending rash of Obama trolling on the motd?
        \_ The usual: freeper/Dittohead panic and flaming.
           \_ There are no freepers on the motd.  Get over your big bad self.
              Not everyone who disagrees with your agenda is a frothing moron.
              \_ We got numerous freeper urls a day back during the Iraq war
                 debate. Now some of those people have moved on, but not all
                 of them.
                 \_ I haven't seen a freeper link posted by a freeper in a
                    few years.  All the ones I've seen are posted by anti-
                    freepers looking for a straw man to bash.
                    \_ So all the freepers on the motd have turned into
                       ex-freepers?
        \_ Depends.  Is your definition of trolling, "anything that might
           make Obama look bad if more people knew it"?

6/10    Oops.  More problems with Obama's friends.
        http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/obamas-answer-o.html
        \_ Heh, nice comment from JA on the page about Bsuh Obama similarity.
        \_ Did you ever figure out who killed Vince Foster?

6/10    the 'terrorist fist jab' Fox anchor lost her time slot.  I am glad
        to see that the people who run Fox News thought her comment was pretty
        inane too.
        \_ who? what?
           \_ http://www.google.com/search?q=fox+terrorist+fist+jab