| ||||||
| 2009/3/26-4/2 [Uncategorized] UID:52755 Activity:nil |
3/26 "Over 50 million people voted for me and Sarah Palin -- mostly
for Sarah Palin.
--John McCain |
| 2009/3/26-4/2 [Recreation/Dating, Transportation/Airplane] UID:52756 Activity:moderate |
3/26 I've never been to Hawaii before, but I just booked a flight to
Kauai for me and my gf (who has been to Oahu). I'd like some
travel advice. Which side of the island to stay on, what not to
miss, etc.
\_ There's not a huge amount of choice as to "where to stay",
it's a small island. Shell out the $$$$ for a helicopter
ride over the island. Drive as far around the island as
you can, too. I wasn't able to do much hiking 'cause of
my girlfriend at the time, but I wish I had. You prob.
don't need more than 3 days on a single island: consider
a flight to The Big Island, which has awesome volcanos if
you are there for more than 3 days. Inter-island flights
run between $100 to $150. For stuff more specific than
that, just look in guidebooks.
\_ Hawaiian tourist helicopters crash and burn at an alarming
rate. The pilots tend to be yahoos. My friends took a
flight for their first anniversary. The pilot crashed it,
and everyone died except my friend, who stayed alive in
the wreckage with her dead husband until rescuers arrived.
Being pinned under the wreckage is what was keeping her
alive, as it turns out. When the moved stuff, she died.
Helicopters are statistically the most unsafe way to fly
with an engine. That doesn't stop me from heli-skiing,
but in that activity the chopper is just a ski lift. The
pilots don't fly you around to thrill you with the ride
like those hawaiian tourist rides.
\_ Man, I'm sorry to hear about your friend and her
husband.
\_ Actually, there's a massive amount of choice in where to
stay. Megaresorts, small cottages, condos, private houses,
budget motels, and so on. Then there's the question of which
side of the island to stay on. If you are up in Hanalei then
it's a long (2-3 hour) drive to Waimea. So I'm looking for
someone who has been who can tell me if I should split the
distance between the two or if more activities are
concentrated in one area, etc.
\_ Resorts vs. not would be up to you if you want those hotel
amenities or not, I think. I think you can find better
locations with private rentals. I'd get something on the
waterfront though. Being up in a tall tower sucks, to me,
regardless of the view.
\_ There are no towers on Kauai.
\_ A helicopter is good, but a light plane is better. They can
cover more distance, which means getting into more isolated
areas, and it's more comfortable to boot. Costs should be about
the same for a given flight time, although you can probably get
longer flights in a plane than a helicopter.
\_ I am debating this. The plane is cheaper, but it cannot
hover or get as close to the ground. Helicopters have had
some bad crashes lately. I was first leaning to a plane,
but now a helicopter (for the reasons above). I have no
idea which is better w/o trying both. Have you been on both
for a tour like this?
\_ Take surfing/snorkling/scuba lessons.
\_ Wear sunscreen, especially the first day.
\_ A very good advice
\_ On a serious note - stay in Koloa (south side of the island) where
it is less rainy than the Princeville (north of the island) and
Lihue (east side of the island). My wife and I married in the Koloa
area - PLENTY of cheap but good condo (for $120/nite or less), and a
lot quieter. Don't expect Kauai to have much of a nightlife like
Maui (Lahaina) or Oahu (Waikiki), it is a family island (and the
locals would like to keep it that way). Stay, enjoy the sceneries
and behave! Check out NaPali coast (either via helicopter if you're
brave, from a bumpy boat ride or by hiking - it's 2 day worth of
hiking). Check out Duane's Ono Char-burger place, an island
institution. Go get the "Blue Book" on Kauai, we swear by it
everytime we go. |
| 2009/3/26 [Reference/Religion] UID:52757 Activity:nil |
3/35 Does Geithner want to play God or be God?
\_ no |
| 2009/3/26-4/2 [Computer/SW/Database] UID:52758 Activity:nil |
3/26 I accidentally GRANT ALL to someone on mysql, is there an UNGRANT ALL
command equivalent short of having to do a bunch of tedious UPDATE user
priv1,priv2,... VALUES('n','n',...); FLUSH PRIVILEGES; ???
\_ nope
\_ Remove and recreate the user? |
| 2009/3/26-4/2 [Health/Disease/General] UID:52759 Activity:kinda low |
3/26 world's luckiest man:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/how-i-survived-hiroshima-ndash-and-then-nagasaki-1654294.html
\_ If you can see the white light, wouldn't you get exposed to
enough deadly radiation to die?
\_ Dying from cancer at age ninety-three, and more than six decades
after the blasts, isn't exactly early death.
\_ Of course not. Feynman even watched the first atomic blast
without eye protection. The radiation that kills you is from
energetic neutrons and alpha particles that are near the blast,
and gets mixed with soil in a ground or low-altitude detonation.
\_ Feynman had all kinds of great stories about his radiation
experiences while a young man working on the Manhattan Project.
He also came down with cancer quite young, like all those guys.
\_ Someone told me great minds die young. Mozart, Mendelssohn,
etc. We should scatter plot IQ vs. lifespan... I suspect
lifespan is highest for IQ 130-150, and beyond 180 there's
a fall-off due to odd reasons
\_ Mozart and Beethoven get cited as geniuses who died
young, but Bach is also wide regarded as a genius, and
lived to the ripe old age of 65 before succumbing to
either bad post-op or stroke, depending on which source
you believe.
\_ Dying from cancer at age ninety-three, and more than sixty years
after the bombings, isn't exactly early death. How can it say it's
"probably caused by the atomic bombs that almost killed him,"? Many
people get cancer much earlier than age 93 even without exposing to
nuclear blasts.
\_ Not very lucky to be in two nuclear blasts. I'd call that very
unlucky. |
| 2009/3/26-4/2 [Computer/SW/Languages/Misc, Computer/SW/Apps] UID:52760 Activity:nil |
3/26 Anyone here uses Heritrix? I'm trying to read the Intro document at
http://crawler.archive.org/An%20Introduction%20to%20Heritrix.pdf but
both Adobe Reader 8.1.3 (Win32) and gv 3.6.5 (cygwin) display error
messages and show me blank pages. Adobe displays:
"Cannot extract the embedded font 'FTXWSG+TimesNewRomanMS'. Some
characters may not display or print correctly."
"An error exists on this page. Acrobat may not display the page
correctly. Please contace the person who created the PDF document to
correct the problem."
"Too few operands."
Is anyone able to read this file? Thanks. |
| 2009/3/26-4/2 [Finance/Investment] UID:52761 Activity:kinda low |
3/26 Can someone explain the 14% gain described here. I don't understand
the basic math being used. What if the portfolio returns 20%/yr?
http://theweek.com/article/index/94743/The_crisis__and_Geithner_plan__explained
\_ I don't think you can explain it without knowing what the split
in profits between the government and private holders is. It's
obviously not 50/50. It looks like maybe 85/15 to get the
number Geithner quoted. This makes sense because they only
contributed 7% to begin with.
\_ My understanding was that it was a 50/50 split (at least on the
up front money side) with the gubmnt putting up 7% and the
private money=7%. The other 86 or 85% (maybe 7.5% above) is loans
gauranteed by gubment, that are basically uncompensated. (Though
there may be some premiums on the interest rates)
\_ Can't be or the math doesn't work. If private money puts
up 7% and the fund returns 10% then there won't be a 14%
gain. The math works if the profit is split 85/15 after
the government takes its share off the top. Are you
saying its a 3 way split of 70/15/15?
\_ I don't think you can explain it without knowing what the split
in profits between the government and private holders is. It's
obviously not 50/50. It looks like maybe 85/15 to get the
number Geithner quoted. This makes sense because they only
contributed 7% to begin with.
\_ My understanding was that it was a 50/50 split (at least on the
up front money side) with the gubmnt putting up 7% and the
private money=7%. The other 86 or 85% (maybe 7.5% above) is loans
gauranteed by gubment, that are basically uncompensated. (Though
there may be some premiums on the interest rates)
\_ Can't be or the math doesn't work. If private money puts
up 7% and the fund returns 10% then there won't be a 14%
gain. The math works if the profit is split 85/15 after
the government takes its share off the top. Are you
saying its a 3 way split of 70/15/15?
\_ Here's the closest that I could come up with (all #s in $B):
Return on 500 @ 9% = 45 @ 4% = 20 @ -1% = -5
3% FDIC Interest on 430 = 13 = 13 = 13
Gross Profit = 32 = 7 = -18
50% Treasury "Cut" = 16 = 3.5 = -3
2% PE "Mgmt Fee" = 10 = 0 = 10?
PE Return = 6 = 3.5 = -25
% Return (Return/35) = 17% = 10% = -5/7
Can't figure out how to get to 14% (or really, the -5/7).
Can't figure out how to get to 14% (or -5/7). |