Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:October:28 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2008/10/28-29 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51701 Activity:low
10/28   Federal Judge oath of office:
        Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following
        oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office:  "I,
        XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice
        without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the
        rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform
        all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws
        of the United States.  So help me God."
        Obama, 2007:
        http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/17/274143.aspx
        "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what
        it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what
        it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.
        And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
        \_ And Bush selected judges by ...
        \_ Dittohead Desperation Level: Ultraviolet
           \_ Don't you mean infrared? -op
        \_ This guy is going to be an awesome President.
        \_ FDR would have lost WEST COAST HOTEL if ROBERTS followed the oath.
2008/10/28-30 [Finance/Investment] UID:51702 Activity:nil
10/28   Dow up 10% today.  This is not healthy.
        \_ now that we are healthy again Obama can tax us all
           \_ You aren't taxed?  How did you pull that off?
        \_ No indeed.  Volatility is bad.
        \_ Stop whining and make some money like the rest of us. Now is a
           good time to buy puts, because Thursday's GDP report has a good
           chance of sending the markets back down.
           \_ thanks for your advice. What stocks/indices are your personal
              favorites and what do you think may go down by (5%? 10%)?
              Note that I'm asking for YOUR opinion that's all.
              \_ I'd buy puts on the DOW. DOW is heavy financials which
                 are not out of the woods yets.
        \- if you were investing today, you have have implicily
           (or explicitly) been betting on what the fed will do
           tomorrow.
2008/10/28-31 [Uncategorized] UID:51703 Activity:nil
10/28   What are some of the most popular (HUGE) index to trade on?
        I heard DIA and QQQQ, what else?
        \_ SPY. What you need to lookup are ETFs.
2008/10/28-31 [Uncategorized] UID:51704 Activity:nil
10/28   I need to put money somewhere safe, what's a good CD to use now?
2008/10/28-29 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:51705 Activity:low
10/28   Crap.  Solar Panel manufacture releases NF3, which is 17,000 times
        worse a greenhouse gas than CO2.  I want my solar panels!
        http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2229052/solar-panels-linked-powerful
        \_ Yes it sucks.  Yes it needs to be fixed.  However 17,000 times
           doesn't mean very much if the amount is minimal.  This is FUD,
           pure and simple.  Manufacturing makes greenhouse gases through
           a variety of ways.  Centralized production is a single point
           for improvement and regulation.  Flat panels have resonable
           regulation so that those gasses aren't just released.  Notice the
           whole "not more than two per cent of the NF3 used in industry
           escaped" quote.  If that's too much I'm sure than number could
           fairly cheaply be reduced by a level of magnitude or more.
        \_ We need to compare the amount of NF3 released during manufacturing
           vs. the amount of CO2 it reduced by producing clean energy during
           lifespan of the panel.  Personally I don't have any data on either.
2008/10/28-29 [Recreation/Humor] UID:51706 Activity:nil
10/28   http://myrightwingdad.blogspot.com/2008/10/fwd-fw-plot-to-kidnap-obama-discovered.html
        \_ no longer there. Here: http://myrightwingdad.blogspot.com
        \_ Change the water mellon to a basketball, and you got a funnier
           Saturday Night Live quality joke.
           \_ wait, is it funny or is it SNL-quality?  The two are mutually
              exclusive.
              \_ It could be funnier than it is, and still SNL-quality.
2008/10/28-31 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51707 Activity:nil
10/28   Good news Nikonians! Remember the days when Nikon didn't release
        any FX bodies and instead concentrated on expanding their shitty
        DX lenses, while Canon went full steam ahead with full frame
        bodies & expanded their full frame lens lines, while taking away all
        the Nikon faithfuls with them? Well, I just found out that Nikon
        recently introduced a brand new 50mm f/1.4G FX (not DX this time)
        lens which will deprecate the old 50mm f/1.4D lens. They also
        introduced a more affordable entry level FX body (D700 at only
        $2700 instead of D3 $5000). This is an indication that Nikon is
        doing a 180 and wants to be serious about full frame again!
        old:http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/1902/AF-NIKKOR-50mm-f/1.4D.html
        new:http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2180/AF-S-NIKKOR-50mm-f/1.4G.html
        So don't lose hope! I know 2002-2005 was bleak for Nikonians when
        Canon already had a 3-5 year head start, but the new 50mm f/1.4G
        and D700 means that Nikon is back in the game. I bet you that in
        just 2.5 years, you'll have your affordable sub $1500 FX body just
        like Canon has now.
        \_ first of all, the "news" you got is old.
           Secondly, Personally, I think the new 50mm f/1.4 is a rip off.
           There is no need to put a focus motor for short lens like that.
           the old 50mm f/1.4 lens focus very fast as it is.  and
           instead of $270 USD new, how much they are asking for again?
           \_ How old?  -- !OP
           \_ $439 pre-order on Adorama. You DO get USM which is much faster
              than the one you're thinking of. In contrast, Canon people
              have it good. They can get all of this for 1/2 the price.
              \_ I am *NOT* think of.  I used it before.  It is a perfectly
                 fine lens.  Adding USM and charge $200 USD for it is a
                 clever marketing/commerical move.  I encourge people who
                 are stupid enough to fall for it to make the purchase, since
                 I am a Nikon user and I want to see that company commercially
                 viable.
                 Please don't make your decision and whine about it.  You
                 could choose to get a 50mm f/1.8 for $110 and you only loose
                 2/3 of a stop.
                 If you are getting a 200mm (or longer) lens, I would encouge
                 to think about getting an USM.  But for anything less than
                 135mm, I think USM is silly.
                 \_ Not that silly if you have a D40 and D60 which can't
                    use AF lenses (only AF-S). Nikon is slowly deprecating
                    their antiquated AF lines and upgrading it with AF-S
                    similar to Canon's lenses that they had since 1987.
                    There are hints that newer bodies will also stop supporting
                    AF lenses. Canon did the painful thing and upgraded
                    everything in 1987. Nikon is still holding on the legacy
                    even though it's already the 21st century. Yet another
                    example of how ass backward and behind Nikon is.
                    \_ I beg differ.  Nikon's move of slowing destroying
                        backward compatibility is an stragetic error IMNSHO.
                        Nikon's biggest asset is their wide range of legacy
                        lenses.  It should do everything it can to preserve it,
                        yet at the same time design lens good enough that
                        people WANT to buy the new one.

                        Nikon is destorying their backward compatibility
                        because they think old lenses is canniblizing ther new
                        lens sells.  The reality is, most people would rather
                        buy the new lenses if they can.  The only reason
                        why people were buying old lenses was because the new
                        lenses are not as good optically, or it simply doesn't
                        have the feature people prefer.  My favorite example
                        is the 70-210mm lens.  I went out of my way to get
                        an old, constant f/4 lenses instead of a much newer
                        f/4-5.6 because the old lens is 1. optically superior
                        2. constant aperture, making people like me who use
                        manual exposure all the time a god-send.  The serious
                        down side for having such old lenses is that 1.
                        auto-focus is painfully slow even for Nikon standard
                        2. coating is not very good by modern standard.  But
                        given the trade offs and the type of photo I do,
                        I made my choice.

                        The tragic part is, Nikon is looking at what Canon
                        doing and simply copying it.  Canon is smart... pitch
                        their strength.  Nikon was stupid, going to the battle
                        field which they are not particularlly strong.
                        Here are examples:
                        1. auto-focus speed. (Nikon's in-camera motor naturally
                        slower than Canon's.  *BUT* this is only important
                        for long-focal-length lenses... Nikon should of pitch
                        the fact that Nikon lenses can still AF at relativly
                        dark condition, and unlike Canon, many lense can
                        auto-focus when the aperture is smaller than f/5.6)
                        2. number of auto-focus sensors
                        people care about AF effectiveness, not number of
                        sensors

                        That, and the fact that Nikon only made their
                        top-of-the-line camera feature complete totally
                        destroyed their market share from 80%+ to <40%

                        In the end, for new comers, it doesnt really matter.
                        I usually tell my friend to go to store and feel the
                        camera in his/her hand.  if she/he prefer one over
                        another, i'll tell him/her to buy that one.  It
                        can be Canon, Nikon, or in my friend's case, end up
                        with a Pentax.

                        \_ Thank you. An admission that Nikon can't keep up
                           with innovation. For you newbies out there who
                           don't have legacy lenses... GET A CANON! It's
                           a better choice.                     -Canonboi
                 \_ I see what you're saying. The focal length is so short
                    that motorized focus is already lightening fast (or at
                    least fast enough for normal indoor, people type of
                    subjects)? Whereas for longer focal lengths, the body
                    motor tends to "hunt" for the right focus.
                    \_ *YES* both USM and image stabilization become a
                        god-send if you are using 300mm or longer.
2008/10/28-29 [Industry/Startup] UID:51708 Activity:nil
10/28   Just had a very shady experience with my bank's Consumer Opt-Out
        Department. The automated system goes something like this:
        "If you would like to opt out from our promotions, affiliate programs,
        blah blah blah blah (this goes on for about 30 seconds), press 1.
        [pause 5 seconds]. If you would like to opt out from our 3rd party
        programs, blah blah blah (this goes on for about 15 seconds),
        press 2 [pause 5 seconds]. If you would like to opt out from both
        options, press 3 [pause 2 seconds]. Please enter your selection
        now."
        It's like they really want you to not opt-out, and that even if
        you DO want to opt out, they want you to opt-out of the wrong
        choice so that they can share your info with 3rd parties. Isn't
        there something shady and borderline illegal about this?
        \_ It's dishonest, but it's not illegal.  It's also typical.  -tom
        \_ ah yes, Shitibank (or was it Cuntrywide?).  got that too.
        \_ One of the institutions I use (forgot which) says it doesn't offer
           an opt-out option because it simply doesn't share info with
           affiliated parties.  I don't remember if there's an opt-in option.
2008/10/28-30 [Reference/BayArea] UID:51709 Activity:nil
10/28   Dear poor pissed off socialist guy who missed out on the boom,
        this is good news for you. I told you the free market would
        fix the problem by itself!:
        http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/28/real_estate/August_Case_Shiller
        What surprised me was SF = 27% decline. I thought SF was immune
        to housing bust. What's up?
        \_ That's not SF, that is the Bay Area. The declines are mostly in
           places like Vallejo and San Ramon. SF proper is only down about
           10%, and most of that is in the BayView/Excelsior area. My
           neighborhood has not seen any decline, unfortunately. Why do
           you think that SF is immune btw? Did someone tell you that?
           http://www.dqnews.com/News/California/Bay-Area/RRBay081021.aspx
        \_ http://www.socketsite.com/archives/2008/10/august_spcaseshiller_san_francisco_msa_decline_accelera.html
2008/10/28-30 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:51710 Activity:nil
10/27   More massive republican voter fraud
        http://hamptonroads.com/2008/10/phony-flier-says-virginians-vote-different-days
2008/10/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51711 Activity:nil
10/28   http://defamer.com/5068356/ricky-gervais-and-thandie-newton-add-british-class-to-sarah-palin-porn-film
2008/10/28-29 [Reference/RealEstate, Finance/Investment] UID:51712 Activity:nil
10/28   http://tinyurl.com/6l3kpr (wsj.com)
        http://tinyurl.com/364bdv (boston.com)
        Oldies but goodies, Greenspan sez:
        - More H-1Bs -> Buy more overpriced homes -> Home prices stabilize
          -> Overpaid engineers/professionals make less -> PROFIT!
2008/10/28-31 [Finance/Investment] UID:51713 Activity:low
10/28   Biggest DJIA up days (ob past history does not guarantee future reslts)
        1.  March 15, 1933  15.34%
        2.  Oct. 6, 1931    14.87%
        3.  Oct. 30, 1929   12.34%
        4.  Sept. 21, 1932  11.36%
        5.  Oct. 13, 2008   11.08% <--
        6.  Oct. 28, 2008   10.88% <--
        7.  Oct. 21, 1987   10.15%
        8.  Aug. 3, 1932     9.52%
        9.  Feb. 11, 1932    9.47%
        10. Nov. 14, 1929    9.36%
        11. Dec. 18, 1931    9.35%
        \_ Interesting, where did you get this data? I'd like to find out
           how much they declined (or even rise) the next day. My feeling
           is that most of the activities will be profit taking.
           \_ http://tinyurl.com/682ytf
           \_ Also interesting is where they went the previous day.  The
              stock market recently looks like a rubber ball, bouncing up
              after selloffs pass a certain threshold.  Then it all gets
              sold off again at the next excuse.  It *seems* like at some
              point it should start trending up again.  A lot of cash was
              pulled out of the market and is apparently itching to get
              back in.
              \_ that's funny.  my impression is that there's a lot of money
                 still in the market waiting to get out at higher prices.
                 \_ Well, you can say that about all the money in the market,
                    ultimately.
                    ultimately.  If these guys are waiting to get out then
                    they must implicitly think that current values are ok
                    and stocks will go up.  If they have some better place
                    place to put their money then they should get out now
                    and put it there.
                    and put it there.  So those signs point to current
                    valuations being at some approximate floor.
                    \_ they must be thinking, "I have so much money in the
                       market, I can't sell it all at once.  Hope I can sell
                       it over time at decent prices before things really go
                       in the crapper."  Not counting pension funds.
                       \_ That would imply they think the market will first
                          go up significantly, then go down even more
                          significantly.  That's kind of an odd scenario.
                          \_ but it would be the best scenario for me if I were
                             stuck and wanted out at good prices
                          \_ an ideal scenario if I were in that position
                          \_ I am sure the market is going to up or down and
                             then move the other way and then turn around and
                             do something else for a while.
                             \_ No you idiot, it is going to do the exact
                                opposite.
        \_ Note that 30s and 87 were really ROUGH financial times.
           \_ and we have FDIC-backed deposits.  '87 was a one-time affair. -op
        \_ If you had invested on Day #1, you would have doubled your money
           in three months and tripled it in a year.
           \_ super
              \_ If you had invested on Day #2, you would have been down
                  60% within nine months.
                 \_ :-(
2008/10/28-29 [Uncategorized] UID:51714 Activity:nil
10/28   kat dennings, HOTTTT
        http://media.katdennings.ca/play.php?vid=112
        \_ check out those stretch marks
         http://www.katdennings.ca/images/displayimage.php?pid=6578&fullsize=1
        \_ Just in time for Halloween.
2008/10/28-31 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:51715 Activity:nil
10/28   If Measure R passes, how will the bankrupt CA pay for billion $$$?
        \_ Isn't that an LA measure? Why would it bankrupt CA?
        \_ I'm pretty sure Measure R is going to be funded by an increase
           in sales tax which is controlled by the county.
2008/10/28-31 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:51716 Activity:low
10/28   I'm reading NO ON PROP 7 web site that says Prop 7 will:
        increase elec bill by ~$300/year, force consumers to pay 10% more.
        Actually, I WANT everyone to pay more because electricity is still
        too cheap and people should cut down. I also love bills that is
        anti-growth (cheap energy, cheap food, etc). I really believe that
        anti-growth will leads to higher quality of living. Is there
        something wrong with me?
        \_ There are many things wrong with you, but this is not one of them.
        \_ I'm all for either a pollution tax or a higher gas tax.  Same
           reason.
        \_ But the radio commercial also says Prop 7 will eliminate small
           energy generators, which might not be good.
        \_ Yes, there's something wrong with you: you've bought into the idea
           that conservation is a model for living, not a stop-gap measure.
           The true goal must remain attaining infinite, perpetually renewable
           resources; once we attain this goal, we will no longer need to
           conserve, and we can make the _choice_ to live ascetically if we
           so desire. Forcing people to live ascetically in the face of a
           lack of limits is self-defeating.
           \_ Except there are no perpetual motion machines, so until we
              invent one, we will always be faced with limits.
              \_ Correct, and until then conservation is called for. However,
                 we must not allow the previous non-existence of such to
                 prevent our drive to create such. Conservation is a stop-
                 gap.
                 \_ Conservation is the most cost-effective and easiest
                    'stop gap'.
                    \_ In the words of Nils Bohr, you and I do not disagree
                       as much you seem to think.
2017/09/26 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/26    
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:October:28 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>