Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:June:17 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2008/6/17 [Uncategorized] UID:50274 Activity:nil 66%like:50276
6/16    If you are under 13 years of age you may read this
             message board, but you may not participate.
          \_ and of course if you still want to do something you can just
             pretend to be over 13 and click YES I AM OLD ENOUGH unless
             you're Christian or Mormon in which case you shouldn't lie.
2008/6/17-20 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:50275 Activity:kinda low 57%like:50273
6/16    Firefox 3 coming out tomorrow.
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20080612/bs_nf/60269
        Memory usage - Firefox 3 Beta vs. Firefox 2 vs. IE 7:
        http://blog.pavlov.net/2008/03/11/firefox-3-memory-usage
        \_ There's a rule that says NEVER BE THE FIRST TO TRY IT.
           I'm going to let Firefox3 version 1 hammer out bugs first.
           \_ Um, I've been running the beta and RCs for several weeks now, and
              it's vastly better than v2.
        \_ Why are they reinventing garbage collection?
           \_ Because Firefox is written in a non garbage collected language.
              Because Firefox includes an interpeter for a garbage collected
            language with some complicated object lifespan issues.
            Because there is more to reducing memory footprint than garbage
            collection.
            Because implementing is not the same as reinventing.
            But most importantly:  Because there is much more to reducing
            memory footprint than garbage collection.
              language with some complicated object lifespan issues.  Because
              implementing is not the same as reinventing.  But most
              importantly:  Because there is much more to reducing memory
              footprint than garbage collection.
              \_ Uh yes, but they're worried about cycles?  Who reference
                 counts anymore?
                 \_ The lifespan of a javascript object is a complicated
                    beast.
                 \_ In the past javascript was used sparingly and reference
                    counting was easy and fast.  Yes there were leaks, but
                    once you closed a page the browser could just dump
                    dump everything associated with that page and move on.
                    It worked.  Doing a good mark and sweep gc is hard,
                    especially with how firefox handled javascript execution.
                    Getting that right takes significant programing.
                    (For instance until ie7, ie was even worse about
                    javascript leaks, and they have a much larger team,
                    although at least ie doesn't run javascript
                    in the ui thread, does firefox 3 still do that?)
2008/6/17-20 [Uncategorized] UID:50276 Activity:nil 66%like:50274
6/16    If you are under 13 years of age you may read this
        message board, but you may not participate.
          \_ and of course if you still want to do something you can just
             pretend to be over 13 and click YES I AM OLD ENOUGH unless
             you're Christian or Mormon in which case you shouldn't lie.
2008/6/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:50277 Activity:high
6/17    When I first came to California many years ago my advisor invited
        me to his house and gave me an advice that I never really thought
        about until recently. It was dead simple, and had nothing to do
        with what I was studying-- if you ever buy houses in California,
        DON'T SELL THEM. Keep them around, because in time, property tax
        will be so low that it'll take an act of stupidity to sell them. As
        long as population is booming and as long as people like me flock
        to California, property values will only go up, and in time, I will
        be a wealthy landlord just like my advisor. That's it! His second
        advice was a counter advice of the first one-- don't buy a house in
        California unless you're rich enough to hold on to it forever. Why?
        Because of Prop 13 which acts like Social Security in many ways.
        As long as you're the first recipient, you have a lot to gain from
        because newcomers pay more taxes to cover the old timers who are
        paying less. In addition, because (he thought) both SS and
        Prop 13 ecosystems are not sustainable in the long term, newcomers
        will receive much less services when they get old themselves, while
        new comers are hit with shit like property tax reset which are
        always proportionally much higher than pre Prop 13 taxes, as well
        as Mello-Roos, an additional 1% on taxes to pay for services that pre
        Prop 13 taxes used to cover. In another word, people who gained the
        most were those who joined the game early on while those who are
        new to the game (me) will simply pay exorbitant amounts of money
        with proportional gains that will only decrease in time. Hmmmmm.
        So basically-- my advisor's advice to me was pretty much: newcomers
        are pretty much screwed because they're late in the game, but if
        they ever get sucked into the game, don't leave. Thanks for coming
        to California Joe!
        \_ California is full, go home.
           \_ No please stay. The longer you stay, the higher value my
              home is.                                  -home owner
        \_ Your advisor's advice to you was: buy as early as possible and
           don't sell. Sounds likes good advice.
           \_ Holding onto a property that is not making enough rent is
              stupid as hell.  Sell the house and invest in something that's
              actually making you money.  Property tax is not a reason to
              hold onto a losing investment.
              \_ In California, even if you put down 20% on normal homes
                 (decent location, decent crime rate, etc), you're mostly
                 likely still not going to make enough rent for the first
                 decade or so.
                 \_ Only if you're an idiot who buys without considering
                    cash flow. If you only buy SFR in areas where rents
                    are low compared to prices then sure. Don't do that.
              \_ *BUYING* a property that is not making enough rent is
                 stupid. No one said to be stupid about buying.
                 \_ There's all sorts of reasons you can end up with
                    property that's a bad rental.  Maybe it was a previous
                    home.  Maybe you inherited it.  I'm just saying that
                    buy early and never sell is not a given.
                    \_ It wouldn't be buying if you inherited it.
           \- it's unclear what you advisor's "objective function" was,
              and i am guessing he is not an economist, but what an economist
                \_ right he's not an economist. He's one of those jolly
                   old guys who love drinking and talking shit and always
                   says things like "LIVE SIMPLE & BE HAPPY!" and "BUY
                   LOTS OF PROPERTIES IN CA AND NEVER SELL, TRUST ME!"
                   \_ This advice makes sense if you were a Baby Boomer,
                      which this guy probably is. Our lives are more
                      complicated.
                      \_ I think the moral of the story is you should have
                         bought properties when you were 5 years old.
                      \_ I'm 27, is it more complicated than a 35 year
                         old, and even more complicated than a 45 year?
                         \_ no.  life is no more complicated now than then.
                            oh wait, we have the intartubes now and ipods so
                            gosh i guess life is really hard now not like
                            the people who fought in ww2, got schooled on the
                            gi bill and bought houses in the 60s.  those
                            guys had it easy.
                            \_ You are confusing Boommers with the WWII
                               generation. People who were born after WWII
                               would not have had a chance to fight in it.
                               would not have had the chance to fight in it.
                               \_ I'm not confusing it at all.  Few of those
                                  wwii vets came out and bought a house.  They
                                  went to school, they saved up, then bought
                                  later.  So someone buying in the 60s was
                                  likely a wwii vet.  Someone born in 1945
                                  would have been 20 in 1965 and not buying
                                  a house.  None of which has anything to do
                                  with anything on this thread.
                                  \_ I think most people born in the late
                                     40's bought their first house right out
                                     of college. I know my parents, who were
                                     born in 42 & 45, bought their first house
                                     in 1968. It was easier to buy a home in
                                     California those days.
                                     \_ My advisor said when he first got his
                                        BS in the 70s his salary was about
                                        $10K/yr and homes were $20K/yr, and
                                        it wasn't a big deal getting a house
                                        1-2 years after you graduated. A
                                        lot has changed since then.
                                  \_ A lot of veterans bought houses when
                                     returning from the war. That's when
                                     cheap tract housing became popular. In
                                     CA there were a lot of houses built
                                     in the 1920s, but very little in the
                                     1930s (Depression) and then a big
                                     boom in 1945-1950s or so when returning
                                     vets came back, took factory jobs (or
                                     similar) and bought homes. Even now
                                     in much of the country two people
                                     with union manufacturing jobs or even
                                     something less well paid like call
                                     center operators can buy a nice home in a
                                     safe neighborhood.
              would tell you is "people move too little" and would make more
              money if they were more open to moving because of jobs. but
              of course that in turn doesnt factor in quality of life issues
              [like how much of a premium would you have to be paid to move
              to the fresno branch of your office for a year? $50k? $100k?].
              but once you start including more than NPV in the calculus,
              you have to start considering that in terms of house purchase
              too. if having three kids is important to you, that may affect
              you housing decisions. also, when you no longer need the
              services of a local good scholl district, it might not make
              sense to keep paying for it. imagine how much more expensive
              SF real estate would be if the schools were palo alto level.
              \_ Not that much more. Reason: Most people who can afford SF
                 can afford private school and would likely put their kids
                 in private school even if they lived in Palo Alto.
                 \_ I'm not sure that most means what you think it does.
                    Here's a hint, there's a hell of a lot of kids in
                    SF public schools.
                    \_ Sure, but how many are there by choice?
                 \_ There are some very good public schools in SF, as good
                    as the schools in PA. The trick is getting your kid into
                    them.
                    \- look at percentage of WHITE CHILDREN in SF public
                       schools as you go from low grades to high school.
                       it's amazing how non-white SF public high schools are.
                       \_ So, what is your point? That only white children
                          can be good students?
                          \_ White kids don't go to SF public schools.
                             Either there are none living in SF (possible) or
                             they are going to private schools anyway.
                             \_ This is mostly true. About 10% of the kids in
                                school are white, while 30% of the population
                                is (non-hispanic) white. 20% of the students
                                are in private school, so I think you can
                                figure out where they went.
2008/6/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:50278 Activity:nil
6/16    Pin for sale at Texas GOP state convention
        "If Obama is President... will we still call it the White House?"
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/gop-state-convention-in-texas-if-obama.html
2008/6/17-20 [Uncategorized] UID:50279 Activity:nil
6/17    Tabs on the side of FF (works with 3.0)
        <DEAD>addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/5890<DEAD>
        \_ How can I disable tabs?  I hate new things.
2008/6/17-20 [Uncategorized] UID:50280 Activity:nil
6/17    Bob Beckel (who brought the smear up) blames right-wingers for it.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyWiRQXaR8A
        \_ "The smear"?  Please whomever you are, go away and go away soon.
           \_ (Well, Obama calls it "the smear")
2008/6/17-20 [Science/Disaster, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:50281 Activity:nil
6/17    World's wealthiest Oil Man endorses Peak Oil concept:
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/68tf3f (Yahoo News)
        \_ Peak oil is guaranteed when you stop drilling.  Ever increasing
           energy prices are guaranteed when you stop building power plants.
           Econ 1.
           \_ We have more oil wells in the United States than the rest of the
              world, combined.  Drilling quadrupled after the 70s oil shocks
              yet oil production continued to slide.  Peak oil is a result
              of geology, not politics or economics.
2008/6/17-20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:50282 Activity:kinda low
6/17    May was the least deadly month for US troops in Iraq since the war
        began.
        \_ Meanwhile, we are losing the war in Afghanistan, where Osama
           really is.
           \_ Shhhhhhhh!
           \_ No, the violence continues there, but the casualties in Iraq have
              dropped so low that the numbers in A. are worse at the moment.
              \_ Not helped by resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan and clear
                 support from Pakistani Intel. Also: more reason for us to
                 pull out of Iraq and go back to fighting an enemy we can
                 find: the Taliban.
        \_ Right on! So we can now pull out our troops with a clear
           conscience.
2008/6/17-20 [Computer/SW/Security] UID:50283 Activity:nil
6/17    We currently have AT&T (used to be SBC) for local phone service.
        However these guys really suck, and my wife hates them.  Is there an
        alternative local land-line service provider in the Bay area?
        \_ Hello, telco monopoly.   You want alternate business, voice-overIP
          on a non-AT&T internetconnection, or get a cell phone.
2008/6/17-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:50284 Activity:high
6/17    Obama the Marxist
        http://preview.tinyurl.com/3qxoqt [wsj.com]
        "Globalization and technology and automation all weaken the position of
        workers," he said, and a strong government hand is needed to assure
        that wealth is distributed more equitably.
        \_ Highly unequal wealth is generally considered bad.  In the past
           the government of the united states WAS concerned when regular wages
           stayed stagnant or dropped while the upper 1% gained a higher
           percentage of the pie.  That's not Marxism, no matter what your
           Libritarian echo chamber says.
           \_ Grive me Librity or grive me Dreath!
        \_ Thank god, I can't wait to see tax rates go to pre-Reagan
           era. Fuck globalization and trickle down to China economy,
           it was a dumb idea in the beginning, and a complete
           disaster in practice.
           \_ Sorry but you're either incredibly stupid or ignorant if you
              want to go back to the Carter era economy.  Compared to then,
              this is a golden time for the economy for rich, middle class,
              and poor.  Or wait, there's a third option I forgot: you're
              a troll which is why you keep mentioning Reagan; you're looking
              to draw someone out on how great Reagan was or something.
              \_ Real average hourly wages peaked in the early 70s.
              \_ Real average hourly wages peaked in the late 70s.
                 \_ You gonna support the shit you just made up from
                    your ass, liberal?
                    \_ What shit?  That in the Carter era we had double digit
                       inflation, we voted in prop 13 to save people from
                       outrageous property taxes and that the country was
                       headed downhill in a huge way as stated by Carter
                       himself in a major speech?  If you don't know those
                       things then as I said you're either ignorant, a troll,
                       or just plain dumb.  I'm pretty sure you're a troll.
                    \_ Facts are such bitter things when you are a Conservative:
                    \_ Facts are such bitter things when you are a
                       Conservative:
                       link:preview.tinyurl.com/3w79k5
                       From article at:
                       http://www.demos.org/inequality/numbers.cfm
                       \_ "Public programs that enrich..." Looks like a
                          socialist advocacy group. Try the Cato Institute
                          web site if you want to convince me.    -pp
                          \_ Yes, the BLS is such a biased org. So you only
                             accept facts authorized by the Authorized
                             accept facts approved by the Authorized
                             Conservative Statistical Institute? How Stalinist
                             of you. An overwhelming body of evidence points to
                             three decades of stagnate wages for the middle
                             three decades of stagnant wages for the middle
                             class. Amazing that you have somehow missed it.
                          \_ Cato Institute > Heritage Foundation, but not by
                             much.
           \_ So, what, you are against technology and automation?
              Let's all go back to stone age tech. Let's redistribute all
              resources equally to everyone! Actually no, fuck that.
              Poor people should have fewer kids.
              \_ You're entitled to your extreme thought processes and
                 belief as do I.                        -fuck Reagan
                 \_ You're entitled to your extremely bad grammar.
                    \_ I'm entitled to have 100 kids because I'm winning
                       the genetic pool race. PS my kids have US
                       citizenship, nah nah nah nah nah         -fuck Reagan
              \_ Believe it or not the world isn't binary.  Marxism is one
                 extreme, yes.  However that doesn't mean, say, Pell
                 grants are Marxist.  But Pell grants do have a good track
                 record of increasing social mobility and in doing so
                 decreasing the inqequality of wealth.  A large, desperately
                 poor, increasingly hopeless segment of the population is
                 something any government wants to avoid if it wants to
                 prosper.
                 \_ I don't want the government to prosper.  I want the
                    people and the country as a whole to prosper.  Providing
                    some education assistance (or a more reasonably priced
                    educational price at each institution would really be
                    more helpful) is helpful.  Raising taxes on everyone
                    and flushing more money down the drain is not helpful
                    to anyone unless you're one of those government employees
                    sucking the life out of the rest of us who earn our living
                    the traditional way: working.
                    \_ duhhh what? hmmm your dumb
                       \_ thank you for adding zero content.
                    \_ Raising taxes on everyone is not good. Raising taxes
                       on the wealthiest as the income gap continues to
                       grow makes a lot of sense. Hint: no one earns $1bn
                       strictly through "working."
                       \_ No.  The folks making tens and hundreds of millions
                          are mostly hedge fund manger and other NYC financial
                          types who are taxed at the cap gains rate instead of
                          the income rate where they belong.  That is the only
                          place you need to change the tax code if you want a
                          fairer tax on the truly rich.  But slamming people
                          who make $100k in this area with a higher tax rate
                          because they are 'rich' is just stupid and harmful
                          to the economy.  Raising taxes across the board is
                          not going to cause economic prosperity.
                          \_ Agreed. Making income>$1m level pay their fair
                             share, though, might. $100k is not filthy rich
                             anymore. --pp
                          \_ Obama wants to raise taxes on people who make
                             over $250k, not $100k. If he means family
                             income, I am screwed, but if he means personal
                             income, I am still under that.
                             \_ Screwed?  Just how exactly are you "screwed"
                                if you pay more tax on your $250k?
                                \_ The dead hand of The State will force me to
                                   quit being productive, drink cheap wine and
                                   die of alcoholism.
                     \_ I agree, my grandfather worked hard so his descendants
                        could have the best of everything. Why should I let the
                        mean old government, at the point of a gun, take away
                        everything he sacrificed for, just so some truck
                        driver's son can get some education he will just throw
                        away anyway.
                        away anyway. -truck driver's son
        \_ Hey, Obama wants to eliminate capital gains taxes on start-ups!
           Now that's a Marxism I can get behind.
           \_ What is his definition of "start-ups"?
2017/09/21 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/21    
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:June:17 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>