Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2009:April:06 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2009/4/6-13 [Uncategorized] UID:52804 Activity:nil
4/6     TODOS SOMOS Jiverly Voong
2009/4/6-13 [Recreation/Activities, Recreation/Dating, Recreation/Media] UID:52805 Activity:kinda low
4/6     is there porn called Star Trek: The Insemination
        \_ No but Bareback Mountain sounds just as ghey.
            \_ And "Homo on the Range".
        \_ I bet there is some slash fiction with that title, want me to
           see if I can find it?
        \_ I once heard that there was some Snow White porn where the prince
           had to screw her instead of kiss her befoer she woke up.  I've never
           seen it though.
                \_ you might be thinking of Sleeping Beauty?  Anne Rice wrote
                        one of those.
           \_ Snow White and the seven kinky dwarves?
2009/4/6-13 [Computer/SW/Languages/C_Cplusplus] UID:52806 Activity:moderate
4/6     In C++, if there are several instances of an object, and for
        debugging purpose I want to see which instance of an object it is, I
        can do 'printf("%p", pObj);' to print out the address of the object.
        Is there any way to do something similar in C#?  Thanks.
        \_ CLR objects can get shuffled around in memory nondeterministically.
           Using the address or something like that won't work for identifying
           an object.  You need an object identifier, a UID or something
           explicitly in the object to follow it.
           \_ How do I get an object ID that I can print out?  Thanks.
           \_ How do I get an object ID that I can print out?  Thanks. -- OP
              \_ You need to set it, probably when you instantiate it.
                 \_  I see.  Thx.  -- OP
2009/4/6-13 [Computer/SW/Languages/Java] UID:52807 Activity:moderate
4/6     has anyone here uploaded themself completely to internet yet?
        \_ looks interesting.  What happens if EarthClassMail dies?  That article
           says they have never turned a profit, and don't know when they expect to.
           I can't remeber the last time I got a piece of email that wasn't from
           a utility, bill, voting pamphlet, or angry girlfriend.
        \_ looks interesting.  What happens if EarthClassMail dies?  That
           article says they have never turned a profit, and don't know when
           they expect to. I can't remeber the last time I got a piece of
           email that wasn't from a utility, bill, voting pamphlet, or angry
           \_ You get really strange email.
        \_ This will turn all of my junk mails to... junk emails! Brilliant!
        \_ Los Angeles is prestigious?
           \_ More so than Wichita or Peoria or whatever. A lot of people
              in the Midwest and South still think of California (anywhere
              in California) as prestigious and a place-to-be.
              \_ That is very sad. On the other hand, people in LA have
                 something to be proud of. They can always compare themselves
                 to Midwest and feel good about themselves, similar to how
                 and why N Cal compares itself to LA.
                 \_ Inferiority complex?
2009/4/6-13 [Reference/Tax, Transportation/PublicTransit] UID:52808 Activity:high
4/6     Alameda sales tax is now 9.75%. that's pretty rough. sales
        tax is regressive.  Some boneheaded Oakland city council member
        wants to raise Oakland sales tax even more, in this
        recession. - motd liberal
        \_ Yes, the sales tax, car tax, and income tax increases enacted by the
           state legislature are the largest in history, and massively
           regressive.  Add in the federal tobacco tax increase and the poor
           have been hammered.
           \_ I'm going to give the legislature a break on car taxes.  Arnold
              shouldn't have used that issue to get into office.
              \_ Irrespective of Arnold's tactics, a doubling of the VLF is
                 still a huge hit for many low-income families.
                 \_ Compared to all the other costs of car ownership
                    car taxes are pretty damn tiny, especially if you
                    own a junker.  (1.15 percent, or about 33 bucks/year on
                    a car that costs 3000 dollars)  In the mid/late 90s VLF
                    fees were about twice what they are now.
           \_ Regressive taxes are good.  Tax the poor right out of existence!
              It's their own fault for being poor!
                --  Typical conservative whackjob
                    a car that costs 3000 dollars, so an extra ~$16 a year.)
                    In the mid/late 90s VLF fees were about twice what
                    they are now.
                 \_ Car drivers are still massively subsidized by non-drivers,
                    who tend to be even poorer.
                    \_ I doubt it, since non-drivers are a small portion of
                       the population and have small incomes. I think you
                       could eliminate non-drivers from the country completely
                       and it would hardly affect drivers. What gets
                       massive subsidies is public transit.
                       \_ That's only true if you ignore most of the costs
                          of driving.
                       \_ Public transit gets less subsidy per rider than
                          automobiles do, actually. Many non-drivers are
                          old and not poor.
                          \_ Old generally means lower income. In 2000 87%
                             of the "driving age population" had a license.
                             (Driving age population basically excludes kids.
                             There is no upper age.) How much do you think
                             that other 13% is contributing? It's probably
                             much less than 13% of the tax base. There is no
                             way car drivers are subsidized by non-drivers.
                             \_ That doesn't mean driving isn't subsidized.
                                It just means that the subsidizers are often
                                also the drivers.  That both hides the true
                                cost of car ownership and makes it so it's
                                not cost effective to opt out.
                                \_ How do you subsidize yourself? You are
                                   being ridiculous now.
                                   \_ Say I have to pay a lot of taxes
                                      to build roads/clean up after cars/
                                      spend money on traffic enforcement/
                                      etc.  That's a subsidy.  Yeah I get
                                      services from it, but it hides the
                                      total costs of car ownership.  And
                                      total costs of car ownership.  And if
                                      I chose not to own a car I still have
                                      to pay thoses costs so there's much
                                      less incentive to use alternatives.
                                   \_ I think there is a strong case that those
                                      that drive less (or not at all) subsidize
                                      those who drive more. If something is
                                      subsidized so that users of it don't see
                                      the true cost, it tends to get over-
                             \_ Has a license does not mean has a car.  Has
                                a license does not mean drives regularly.
                                \_ No, but has a license = driver. Drivers
                                   sometimes walk, bike, or take public
                                   transit, too, but we're still drivers.
                                   Roads benefit everyone. Emergency
                                   services and firefighting, transport of
                                   goods, and even buses and bikes benefit
                                   by roads. However, not everyone benefits
                                   from public transit.
                                   \_ take the million-plus trips that
                                      go by public transit in the Bay Area
                                      each day and turn them into car trips,
                                      and you'll see how public transit
                                      benefits everyone.  -tom
                                      \_ No, that just benefits Bay Area
                                   \_ Everyone benefits from reduced congestion,
                                      cleaner air and fewer people injured on
                                      the highways.
                                         \_ Almost certainly my last post
                                            on this subject: Having a
                                            transportation network capable
                                            of moving lots of people from
                                            place to place in the region
                                            is a benefit to everyone.
                                            Employers, for example, are
                                            benefitted by having access
                                            to their employees.  Public
                                            transit moves more people per
                                            dollar or per unit of land use
                                            than roads do, which gives the
                                            overall infrastructure greater
                                            capacity at a lower cost.  -tom
                                            \_ It's only efficient if you
                                               happen to need to go exactly
                                               where public transit takes you.
                                               You have a point if you want
                                               to go from A to B, but not if
                                               you want to go from A to [A-Z].
                                               You can replace all roads with
                                               rail and build a thousand new
                                               train stations if you want to
                                               achieve the effect you desire
                                               but that seems horribly
                                               expensive given the roads are
                                               already in place and the
                                               logistics are nasty for cargo
                                               (which is why trucks are used
                                               more often than cheaper existing
                                               rail in many cases). We aren't
                                               talking about building some
                                               utopian society from scratch,
                                               but leveraging off of what
                                               exists and there is no way
                                               replacing roads with rail
                                               makes sense at this time in
                                               I'd say 98% of cases.
                                               \_ Have you ever been to
                                                  \_ I have. I noticed the
                                                     startling existence
                                                     of roads.
                                                     \_ Far fewer than here,
                                                        per capita. How do you
                                                        think they do that?
                                                        \_ Mash 4 million
                                                           people into a
                                                           closet? Per capita!
                                                           How about per square
                                                           kilometer?? It's
                                                           about the same as
                                               \_ Keep beating that straw
                                                  man, I'm sure you'll get
                                                  him at some point.  -tom
                                                  \_ Is that your new nickname?
                                   \_ Everyone benefits from reduced
                                      congestion, cleaner air and fewer
                                      people injured on the highways.
                                      \_ I would say that the cost/benefit
                                         ratio is high for the typical
                                         American who is not living in a
                                         crowded city. Why should they
                                         subsidize commuters in SF and NYC?
                                         \_ Who is this typical American who
                                            doesn't live in a crowded city?
                                         However, I think it's clear why
                                         those in SF and NYC should still
                                         pay for roads in middle America.
                                         Let me make this more clear: We need
                                         the roads. We cannot eliminate them.
                                         Claiming that they are subsidized
                                         (or not) misses this point. We have
                                         to pay for them. We do not need rail
                                         (distinguished from buses because
                                         buses also need the road) at this
                                         time in most of the country and
                                         even in the areas that we do we still
                                         need roads. It's a luxury that makes
                                         life better for some people. Like
                                         all luxuries, it should be paid
                                         for by those who use those services.
                                         You can argue that we should be
                                         building a rail infrastructure to
                                         handle future population increases,
                                         but you will *still* need the roads
                                         so that just means increasing total
                                         transportation costs. You will
                                         not get to a point where rail is
                                         free and all the roads are toll
                                         roads and even if you did you
                                         would just be shifting the costs
                                         around so that you'd pay for them
                                         with higher prices for goods,
                                         emergency services, and so on.
                                         You (the non-driver) will not be
                                         able to escape paying for roads
                                         unless there are no roads and
                                         that is unlikely in my lifetime.
                                         \_ No, we don't need all those
                                            roads. We could easily get by
                                            with 1/4 the road network. Why
                                            should urban commuters subsidize
                                            suburban commuters? You have no
                                            explaination, other than "we need
                                            it." We only need big interstates
                                            like I-5 and I-10, we don't need
                                            all the commuter beltways, like
                                            580 and 24. If we didn't have
                                            commuter rail, we would have to
                                            build even more freeways, which
                                            cost more per passenger than rail.
                                            \_ You needs roads almost
                                               everywhere because goods ship
                                               to/from almost everywhere
                                               and you need to be able to
                                               provide emergency access to
                                               almost everywhere (firefighters
                                               and ambulance). In fact, I
                                               would argue you need those
                                               local roads *more* than you
                                               need roads like I-5 and
                                               I-10, which could more easily be
                                               replaced by rail for transport
                                               of goods and people, too.
                                               Drive I-5 and you will see
                                               it's hardly used for local
                                               transit and transport.
                                               \_ There is no need to provide
                                                  goods and emergency access
                                                  to low density regions. I
                                                  lived in Wyoming and it would
                                                  be stupid to build paved
                                                  roads to every house. Why
                                                  should the taxpayer support
                                                  someones desire to live out
                                                  in the middle of nowhere?
                                                  \_ I agree except I suspect
                                                     you have a weird idea of
                                                     what "low density" means.
                                                     Everything not in the
                                                     largest cities is not "low
                                                     density". If you want
                                                     to argue against Alaska
                                                     highways (Bridge To
                                                     Nowhere) I am with you on
                                                     that, but not if you
                                                     are talking about
                                                     roads in places like
                                                     \_ It is fine to build a
                                                        small two lane road in
                                                        places like Stockton,
                                                        sufficient for goods
                                                        delivery (and what we
                                                        had in the 50's) but
                                                        that is not what we
                                                        have now.
                                                        \_ What was the
                                                           population in the
                                                           50's compared
                                                           to now?
                                                           \_ If the people who
                                                              want to use all
                                                              that extra
                                                              want to pay for
                                                              it, that is fine,
                                                              but if they don't
                                                              let it go back to
                                                              weeds, like
                                                              Detroit is doing
                                                              today. No use in
                                                              throwing good
                                                              money after bad.
                                            People who live in rural areas get
                                            all other kinds of subsidizes as
                                            well, which we should phase out.
                                            It is inefficient to live so widely
                                            spread out and rural people (other
                                            than farmers) don't really
                                            contribute that much to the
                                            economy. All those big yards are
                                            luxuries that you should not expect
                                            others to pay for. If we got rid
                                            of all those inefficient freeways
                                            and replaced them with more
                                            efficient transportation methods,
                                            prices would go down, not up, like
                                            you claim.
2009/4/6-13 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:52809 Activity:low
4/6     The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 gives the president the ability to
        "declare a cybersecurity emergency" and shut down or limit Internet
        traffic in any "critical" information network "in the interest of
        national security." The bill does not define a critical information
        network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to
        the president.
        \_ If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists.
        \_ How would they implement this?  Massive DECEPTICON backhoe digs
           up 111 8th Ave in Manhattan?
2009/4/6-13 [Computer/Companies/Google] UID:52810 Activity:low
4/6     im considering making my Gmail account my default email for
        all my online banking stuff and domain registration and bill pay.
        Is there any anecdotal evidence of people getting their google
        account hacked?  After I do this change, Google will basically
        own me completely.
2009/4/6-13 [Science/Space] UID:52811 Activity:nil
4/6     God's hand caught on photograph, really! (Yahoo science news)
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2009:April:06 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>