| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2004/11/4-20 [Uncategorized] UID:34646 Activity:nil |
11/03 Soda went down for about 30 minutes @ 21:37 to attach more disk. |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34647 Activity:nil |
11/4 Here's one for the could'a, should'a, didn't file:
Dubya: "If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the
world will drift toward tragedy."
Kerry: "Our current President, Mr. Bush, shows moral weakness. He
shows the moral weakness of not being able to admit to
America that the primary reason we went into Iraq was because
of an imminent danger of WMDs, of which his vice president
said we had no doubt Saddam possessed. He shows the moral
weakness of not being able to admit he was wrong, when he
was clearly wrong. Instead, the world views Americans as
arrogant bullies, more intent on saving their own lives --
saying t'hell with the rest of the world.
If America chooses to re-elect President Bush, we will be
putting our moral, yes, moral stamp of approval on a man
whose incompetence has directly led to the deaths of tens of
thousands of innocent Iraqi bystanders, and the
condemnation of most freedom-loving individuals of the
world, while most Americans sit safely at home in the
richest nation in the world. It is the moral weakness of
our current President, one who can simply not admit that he
was wrong and perhaps never learn from his enormous
mistakes, that will surely lead the world toward tragedy." |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic] UID:34648 Activity:high |
11/3 The Democratic Party is disintegrating this very minute.
The party for the uneducated and the ultra-educated, it is
anything but mainstream America. Sad. Very sad.
\_ troll
\_ no he has a point. Stop denying. "the Democratic Party
has gone from a ruling party that led the nation and
the world in creating a new global system to a party
that suffers from a paralyzing self-doubt. "
<DEAD>www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6398886/site/newsweek<DEAD> |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:34649 Activity:high |
11/3 So, which Supreme court decisions do you think will be overturned after
Roe? I'm betting on Griswold, and perhaps maybe the big enchilada,
Marbury vs. Madison:
http://www.nv.cc.va.us/home/nvsageh/Hist121/Part3/Marbury.htm
\_ not really funny
\_ seriously, how many of you neocons on soda actually want Roe v Wade
overturned? -nivra
\_ none but the fact of the matter is that Bush is in the office
and you bet your ass something's gonna give
\_ RVW was the worst USSC decision ever. Further opened
the door to judicial activism. It should be reversed merely on
Constitutional merit, and abortion rights returned to states,
where they preexisted.
\_ BvBoE was the worst USSC decision ever. Further opened the
door to judicial activism. It should be reversed merely on
Constitutional merit, and racial segregation rights returned
to states, where they preexisted. |
| 2004/11/4 [Industry/Jobs] UID:34650 Activity:nil |
11/3 Seriously, how is the job market in Canada? What's their
status on high tech companies? I researched thoroughly and
the only viable solution for me is through work permit.
Thanks for any feedback.
\_ Haven't heard anything good. The Canadians don't exactly want
a flood of Americans coming in. |
| 2004/11/4 [Computer/SW/OS/Linux] UID:34651 Activity:nil |
11/04 Any book recommendation on overall view of Linux Kernels? I don't
I dont' need source-code level detail, but I would like to know
things like how device driver works in Linux, etc. Thx
\_ Don't know about books, but http://kernelmapper.osdn.com is
pretty cool. -John |
| 2004/11/4 [ERROR, uid:34652, category id '18005#9.16625' has no name! , , Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34652 Activity:nil |
11/3 "In the crucial swing state of Florida, which Mr. Bush won, blacks
accounted for 12 percent of all voters, down from 15 percent in
2000. In Ohio, blacks were 10 percent of the electorate, up by
only one percentage point from 2000."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/03/politics/main653592.shtml
\_ so the free crack did not work, oh well.
\_ you can never count on dem niggas
\_ Maybe because more "other" voters showed up? |
| 2004/11/4 [Uncategorized] UID:34653 Activity:nil |
11/4 James Carville vs. Karl Rove.
Who'll win? |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:34654 Activity:high |
11/4 With all the garbage about "liberal" vs. "conservative" (both horrible
misnomers) floating around, I seriously am trying to find out if/where
I fit into the political spectrum. I've put together a list in
~john/politics.txt am curious about what the MOTD peanut gallery
thinks. -John
\_ I look at that list and see a strong modern left position. And
I suspect it pretty much mirrors a lot of what us commie pinko
socialist bleeding heart liberal scum on soda beleive in. Modern
"liberals" (whatever the fuck that means) are not the same thing
they were 40 years ago, but are still stuck being painted that way.
For Europe you are probably pretty middle of the road, but in
America you'd be a flaming liberal. So sad.
\_ huh. I agree with you on all points you list, and I consider myself
to be a liberal. I think that's out of step with what most people
call a liberal, but fuck them. I believe that these principles
coincide with what liberalism is supposed to be.
\_ You have contradictory requirements. First, you wish for low taxes,
but then you also want to fund a moderate liberal agenda (keep the
poor off the streets, good public education, etc). You have to
choose what is more important to you, low (and in particular
progressive or no) taxes, or the nifty stuff you want to buy with
taxes. As described, you would be called a centrist, somewhat
left of center, or a moderate liberal, in this country. You are
probably somewhat right of center in EU. -- ilyas
\_ here's an idea: if you can't explain the views of one side without
making them look like evil morons (ex: the conservative view
below), then you don't hold that political philosophy.
\_ I applaud your rigorousness, but I strongly suggest you frame
this in specific, in-your-face examples.
E.g.,
Iraq - liberal view: America should have waited for Blix to finish
Iraq - conservative view: America was right to use its military
superiority to remove Saddam, even if he had no WMDs and even if
we don't have a track record of building a democracy in a country
like Iraq, and it's worth the cost of innocent Iraqi and American
lives that we are directly responsible for.
Consensus view: If you have WMDs, we produce a smoking gun, and
we think you may take us out or blackmail us, we'll take you out.
Social security - liberal view: As-is progressive system where
rich contribute more relatively to help out poor
Social security - conservative view: Give everyone IRAs, if you're
poor when you're young and working, you're still poor when you
retire. Sorry! America is the land of OPPORTUNITY, not handouts!
Consensus view: It shouldn't be as bad as Western Europe.
\-i think your list is sort of "bottom up" ... here is what i
think about 10 issues ... what do i fit into best ... rather than
a "top down" view which would take as it's starting point some
kind of "big question" like "what is the purpose of govt" or
"what do we owe each other" and have more of an essay form of
answer [or if we take the essay to the extreme, you get say
nozick: anarchy, state and utopia, or rawls: a theory of justice].
also a lot of the "hard questions" involves aspects of process ...
like the role of money in politics, what should be civil penalty
vs criminal [say a company pollutes] ... so in your list is it
not clear what should happen to the "victims" of free trade,
not much on health care ... and without some kind of "philosophy"
it's hard to guess where you would come down on issues not
explicitly delineated. it's not clear to me why you believe in
public education, for example. oh your list is also subject to
the a sort of wilt chamberlain problem [where you have initial
condition you like, but nothing prevents things from evolving in
a direction you dont like ... without an encroachment on liberty
you also dont like ... you can look up "wilt chamberlain nozick"
on the WEEB probably]. --psb
\_ Good points, thanks for the critique. That list was just a
sort of brain dump in reaction to "issues" discussed during
the election. I have a sort of naive assumption that someone
who stands for election would possess the kind of intelligence
and flexibility that would let them adapt to changing
conditions; I am wary of platforms or grand sweeping
documents that go too much into detail (see the US vs.
European constitutions). As for W. Europe vs. US social
security, they're both bad and in the shits, but at least the
W. Europeans are getting something from it right now :) -John
\_ Well, I've always thought that if you can't explain it to
a four-year-old, you don't really understand it. I'm taking
this approach. Why theory-build when you don't need to?
\-because a complicated society involves hard questions.
the simple theories like "strict constructionalism" either
have limited power, or arent as simple as they pretend to be.
know any 4yrs old who can follow say the federalist papers?
how do you balance between minority and majority interests?
you cant just say "vote on everything". not only is there the
interest of minorities but problems like the arrow problem.
what about trade offs between equality and efficiency [see eg
arthur okun's essay by that name]? not all social choice is
pareto improving ... if it is kaldor-hicks efficient, how are
losers compensated? i think "can you explain X" is a decent
test of your understanding, but the 4 yr old test is setting
the bar a little low. books i've read which i find have some
bearing on this include: the republic, dworkin: taking rights
seriously, cardozo: nature of the judicial process, bickel:
the least dangerous branch [no, the bible isnt on this list].
\_ You're right, but at some point, as a citizen, you have
no choice but to abstract and simplify political
principles; one of the major tasks of a government is
to outline a set of guiding philosophies, and to work
within these as much as possible, taking into account
"operational realities". Simple, 4-year-old statements,
such as "wealth is good" and "crime is bad" are perfectly
valid; however, at some point it should become possible
for someone with an average level of education and
intelligence to identify and formulate some coherent
beliefs without the benefit of an in-depth knowledge
of political theory. You pay your elected officials to
deal with the minutiae of making these work. -John
\- sure, there are some guiding principles like: freedom
to contract, social safety net, coase theorem/learned
hand rule, checks and balances, stare decisis,
federalism, due process, equality before the law ...
but entire books have been written on the single word
"equality" [http://csua.org/u/9sw] so again while
these are useful tools to have in your mental cabinet
with which to analyze problems like prop 187, they
are not simple tools. people who use one or two of
these has hammers and reduce problems nails [like
most libertarians] are falling short of the reflective
ideal, imho. curiously, some of the issues most people
would see as the most inherently moral questions, i
see as pretty empirical, like abortion and the death
penalty. i think another interesting and hard question
is "what is the role of govt outside of solving
'problems'" ... like why should there be a NASA ...
clearly NASA is not as "practical" as DARPA. if there
is one question for conservatives: what should be the
limits of the freedom to contract, and for liberals:
how would i justify progressive taxation. aff. action
is also a rich topic for debate ... also not something
clearly address in your list [metatopics being: how
do you trade individual rights for social agendas,
are there 'group rights' etc]. --psb
\_ I think the limits of the freedom of contract should
be the death of the individual (to prevent
feudalism). [ I had some other stuff here, but I
removed it, because I realized the problem is harder
than it looks. I want to say that the individual
should be free to sell his life however he wishes,
but I am not sure I can bite the bullet on the
ensuing ick.] One nifty argument for
progressive taxation I heard is that the rich make
a more effective use of the money they have,
because they have more of it, and so in some sense
a proportional tax isn't really fair. -- ilyas
\_ i don't know a lot about this stuff and i really hate
encouraging you, but is there a first world nation with
a flat tax besides Iraq? |
| 2004/11/4-6 [Computer/SW/OS/FreeBSD, Computer/SW/Languages/Web] UID:34655 Activity:nil |
11/04 (Sorry, but this fell victim to troll scroll, so again:)
Does anyone know of or can someone recommend a company (not a one-man
consulting show) that will support an open source firewall product
for a large corporation? BSD-based, a bunch of PHP, etc. I'm looking
for someone to do features development, 3d level support, and general
management "peace of mind"...
\_ http://mnl.com For more info, feel free to mail me:
david+d+1100247667.250b72@bushong.net --dbushong |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34656 Activity:high |
11/04 alright, some final thoughts for any interested... dont think i can
bear to keep this up much longer, so....
http://csua.berkeley.edu/~rory
\_ I did something similar in Nevada. I should have stayed
home and purchased cocaine. - danh
\_ Well, thanks for getting all those people out to vote.
\_ You poor besieged intelligent people, surrounded by idiots as you
are. Give me a fucking break.
\_ A huge percentage of Bush supporters still believe that Saddam
Hussein had WMD and helped UBL to take down the WTC, and you
don't understand why intelligent people might feel surrounded
by idiots? --erikred
\_ I was unable to parse this...
\_ I think the problem lies with you, not the sentence above.
\_ Welcome to Motd-land.
\_ The Democrats keep thinking that, and they're never break out
of their loser niche. Me, I'll take a guy who goes to work
everyday and manages to put food on the table every night over
a Soda "intellectual" any day of the week.
\_ Fuck you in the eye. I do that and I voted for the Democrat.
You're just countering one stereotype with another.
\_ Tell me you make $35k a year with a wife and kids and then
you'll have my apology.
\_ What the fuck does that have to do with anything? I'm
not the person calling everyone an idiot...
\_ This has got to be a troll.
\_ And BTW my comment is aimed at rory's lament about "me and
the rest of the (intelligent people) left in this country".
I wonder how many of rory's poor huddled masses can take
a vacation to Florida to entertain a political masturbation
whim. Just give me the guy who's working hard to feed
the family and spare me that "poor intellectual me" lament.
\_ So voluntary participation in a get-out-the-vote effort
is a "political masturbation whim"? -- ulysses
\_ seriously. while the pp was probably home on a literal
masturbation whim to ascii pron some of us were out
volunteering to try and inform and mobilize people
in a way we believe to be beneficial for all. i wont
deny that there is a certain psychological element
that derives some pleasure from "doing good" although
that exists in the 30% of evangelicals in our country
just as much. i took 2 days vacation from work which
i dont think you could consider such an extreme
privelage either. and the trip was paid for from
donations around the country. and if you consider
donating to a liberal cause a privelage as well,
perhaps you should look into the percentage of
christian americans across the socioeconomic spectrum
tithing their wages. - rory
\_ Yeah, rory is pretty much being an unfavorable caricature
of a CA liberal. -- ilyas
\_ well replace CA with "CA/NY" and you've pretty much
nailed my target audience, so no doubt that I'm taking
certain liberties with formality in an effort to be
bit more humorous to them. I could have replaced
"intelligent" perhaps with some description of those
us left with the privelage of being well-informed
enough to vote for the best interests of ourselves
and the majority of the nation.
Though I do agree that the image of the left in this
country as intellectual is damaging for progress and
not true... if I didnt crack myself up with that
parenthetical witicism I'd probably remove/correct
the stmt. - rory
\_ all that bickering and name calling is the exact reason
why the Republicans kicked our ass.
\_ rory, you and the DNC are brain dead. While you're busy
knocking doors on apathetic negros, the RNC only had to
make a few phone calls to church pastors to get hundreds
of people to vote for Bush. Total stupidity. I've lost
faith in DNC, a bunch of unorganized hippies -disillusioned
\_ uh, well I appreciate the anon insult and the hyperbole...
just keepin it real on tha motd I guess. anyway...
(1) I am neither a hippie nor a DNC organizer, so I cant
take any credit for that.
(2) I agree that the DNC needs to focus on religion instead
of random attempts to get the msg across. I'm currently of
the opinion that the primary reason for the recent GOP
success is the artifical conflation of various social issues
with Christian values and the effective hijacking of the
religious "right" by Karl Rove, et al. - rory
p.s. - out of all my current frustration my current plan is to
exert a bit of energy in working on this as much as I can. If
would like to stop frothing on the motd and do something about
it as well feel free to email me. |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:34657 Activity:insanely high |
11/04 So I posed this question to a liberal friend of mine. Say, you are
elected POTUS in 2004, instead of W. Say a few days after your
inauguration, NYC is nuked by a terrorist attack. As in, a crater is
left where NYC used to be. What do you do?
Feel free to modify the past however you wish to make your job
easier (by disappearing the Iraq war, for instance). I am just
curious what the ideal liberal (or conservative, or libertarian)
response would be to something like that. -- ilyas
\_ You can win wars, fight crime, insurgencies and terrorism and make
friends internationally without ruining your moral authority, your
currency, your economy, and your rule of law, and you can do it
right. -John
\_ Ok, what do you do?
\_ I hate to say this, but the answer is "it depends." I'd
certainly try to hit back in a measured, well-considered way,
like W. did in Afghanistan, before FUCKING IT ALL UP. I
would also have better prerequisites for doing all these
great things because I would not have appointed a bunch
of opportunists and nutjobs as my deputies. I'd not just
bask in the tremendous outpouring of international sympathy,
but actually actively use that to try and build support for
countermeasures, instead of cowboying it alone and pissing
off everyone in sight, and I'd focus on good, useful
protective measures instead of appointing a meathead in
charge of announcing a new color every day and blowing my
civil defense budget on distributing gas maskes in Dubuque.
Anything more detailed than that is just mental masturbation.
\_ Dude, John. 'It depends' on what? NY fucking C is gone.
This is an oddly general answer to a fairly specific
question. You honestly have no general policy in mind?
You probably shouldn't be president. (I don't mean this
in an insulting way, nor am I implying I would do better).
-- ilyas
\_ I immediately figure out how to shift the tax burden
from the idle rich to the working poor!
\_ That's easy. You find out who did it, and nuke them back. I don't
think anyone is going to argue for something less than total
commitment with an attack like that. --liberal
\_ Say Al Qaeda posted a video on Al Jazeera claiming responsibility,
and spouting. The issue is not whether you would commit, but
what exactly you would do with the committment. -- ilyas
\_ I think I already told you - nuke them back. With an
essentially stateless organization like Al Qaeda, you
can't just nuke any old major city - you'd probably have
to go after whoever you think they got their bomb from.
A nuclear weapon capable of actually turning NYC into a crater
is just not something AQ could create on their own. I'm not
sure what you mean to gain by asking this question with such
an extreme example, unless I'm being led into some sort of
false dichotomy trap. Given that this is ilyas, that might
be a good assumption to make.
\_ Ok, say Al Qaeda managed to steal a nuke from Pakistan or
bought one from Ukraine. -- ilyas
\_ Pakistan's nukes are probably far too clunky for AQ
to realistically deliver to an NYC target, so let's
say they bought it from Ukraine. Let's further assume
that they bought it from a rogue agent acting alone,
and that Ukraine itself is not responsible. Is that
okay?
\_ Sure.
\_ Okay. So you don't actually have a state that you
can nuke, at least not just yet. You've got to
hunt down and exterminate every last AQ member,
and nuke any country that gets in your way.
Again, I'm not sure why you're using such an
extreme example. The answers get much murkier
with more realistic scenarios.
\_ So basically what you are saying is, you
will not do anything different from what we
are trying to do now: hunting down Al Qaeda
(how?). This is after America's largest
city is turned to dust. I think this is
an alarming state of affairs. -- ilyas
\_ What else are you supposed to do? Start
nuking random countries? I knew you were
going to turn this into some kind of logical
trap.
\_ I don't know what we are supposed to do.
If this is a trap, it's not really my
trap. I am just pointing out that it's
not really as far fetched as people say
for the US to take a very proactive, and
possibly intrusive, stance in the world,
over and above vaguely 'trying to hunt
down Al Qaeda.' Btw, if NYC is in
fact dusted, there is no way you will
be able to politically justify
essentially doing nothing, as you are
proposing. -- ilyas
\_ I'm not sure what it is that you're
trying to discover with this line
of questioning. Personally, I'd have
no problem invading a country that's
harboring terrorists who nuked NYC.
But the US has limited resources, and
it's stupid to overextend into
countries that are not directly
responsible or accountable (ie Iraq).
I don't think this is a Liberal or
Conservative issue, it's a common
sense perspective. Violence should
be cold and reasonably applied, not
randomly meted out according to the
whimsy of someone's murky, conflicted
agenda (ideally, anyhow). -mice
\_ Who will you invade? The nuke was
bought from a ukranian rogue!
\_ I'm assuming that the point of
of the exercise is to probe the
'liberal' stance of motd'ers,
and show their hypocrisy or
their naivete, using Iraq as
the point of contention. This
is an interesting question,
though I don't like ilyas'
socratic RP-scenario approach
to ascertaining this. -mice
\_ I think you are attributing
more malice to my line of
questioning than there is.
I don't really know what
we should do. I think it's
more curiosity than anything
else. If I am pointing out
anything 'malicious' it's that
the typical liberal response
might not necessarily be
politically tenable if
something truly bad
happens. -- ilyas
\_ Eh, it's not malice; the
presupposition that
there's a 'typical
liberal response' seems to
give some measure of
validation to my
opinion that there's a
measure of socraticalness
in the conversation. I
apologize if I it seemed
I was accusing you of
malicious intent; you
just very seldom ask
unloaded questions.
So what, in your view, IS
the 'typical liberal
response'? -mice
\_ Well, I gathered it's
'don't do anything
other than gather intel
and try to catch
terrorists, just as
we are trying to now.'
-- ilyas
\_ Honestly ilyas, if NYC
really gets nuked, all
bets are off and
traditional politics
probably goes out
the window as the
apocalypse begins.
\_ Get into that underground nuke-proof bunker with Rice and Elaine.
Lock everyone else out. What follows are left for your imagination.
-- troll
\_ Blame Bush.
\_ Maybe it would be better if you asked a hypothetical question
that had a non-zero chance of obtaining.
\_ You think the probability of a nuclear terrorist attack on
NYC is 0? -- ilyas
\_ I don't think this is a liberal/conservative issue. Your question
is too vague to give any particular answer.
\_ You can attack this question on a lot of grounds, but not on
vagueness. I gave a particular situation. NYC is a crater.
You are the president. What is your policy? -- ilyas
\_ Just for fun, here was the ilyas policy from an older motd
post: "nuke the arab world". And in ilyas fantasy land,
while the US is launching its nukes to wipe out all those
muslim countries, no other country does anything. Iran
doesn't nuke Isreal, India and Pakistan don't nuke each other,
North Korea doesn't nuke either Japan or China, etc. The
rest of the world happily sits on their hands and lets the
US do all the nuking. -meyers
\_ Meyers, I believe I made the _prediction_ that the US
will mobilize and do a long term invasion of the Middle
East as a response to a nuking of NYC.
(http://csua.com/?entry=32820
This prediction was NOT my policy suggestion.
Furthermore, I never either predicted a nuking, nor
advocated a nuking myself, unless something like a GTNW
was already in progress.
You are pulling this out of your ass.
(Certainly if US will have nukes going off everywhere,
i.e. a 'free-for-all', then US will retaliate, but that's
a rational response.) -- ilyas
\_ Okay smart guy, what is *your* response?
\_ Did you read this thread at all?
\_ Yes, I read the entire thread. Ilyas has no answers,
only criticisms.
\_ I go on TV and make a rousing, determined, patriotic speech
mobilizing the entire country to blindly support my
domestic political agenda. I blame Bush for fucking up
on the Bin Laden situation and overextending our troops,
and having bad priorities w.r.t. Iraq, Iran, North Korea,
Pakistan etc. We have to consider how a terrorist could
actually acquire and detonate a city-destroying nuke in
NYC, seems highly unlikely to me. I think it would be
more likely that if they acquire one it would be in the
Eurasian continent and they would perhaps target Israel.
I would not nuke another country since it seems unlikely
that a state will have any direct responsibility, and
it would piss off the world with nuclear contamination
and deaths of poor dumb peons somewhere in a symbolic
act of rage. I suppose nuking Mecca and engaging Islam
in a full-on apocalyptic shitfest would be what some
rightists would call for. I would not do that. I would
concentrate on Pakistan and Iran with intensity. I
don't know much about Musharraf, but I would claim that
an international security force is needed in Pakistan
since it seems Al Qaeda is operating out of there.
I would lobby other nations hard for military support
in Iraq and other places, and use the threat of
economic consequences if they fail to help... this must
be done right after the attack while the moral mandate
is on our side (but we wouldn't be publically hostile
until after an ally publically shit in our face).
until after an ally publically shit in our face). -moderate
\_ You are not ilyas.
\_ too much posting, too lazy to arrange properly.
\_ If the US is nuked by AQ, then I think the solution would be
marshall law in the US. We probably would round up every
\_ Wataaaaa!
vaguely Muslim or Middle-Eastern person and close the borders.
Meanwhile, I would not be surprised if many allies did the same
thing. Israel and the US would go on the offensive against
the Muslim states (Syria, Egypt, Jordan, etc.) but I do think
most of the changes would be here at home. |
| 2004/11/4 [Uncategorized] UID:34658 Activity:low |
11/04 Once again Cham hits close to home on the motd:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/comics.php
\_ Yeah, and what if the 59 mil don't feel they should change? |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics] UID:34659 Activity:moderate |
11/04 Arafat reported brain dead. PLO state he is still "alive". RIP?
No. Burn!
\_ I read an article earlier that said "Now Sharon can't keep
whining Arafat is standing in the way of progress."
\_ I'm not dead yet!
\_ his spirit still endures.. the one ring calls for him..
\_ hahaha!
\_ his spirit has lost none of its potency, nor has his dirty
underwear.
\_ Someone is obsessed with Arafat's holy panties.
\_ Damn flip-flopper. He should decide if he's alive or dead
and stick with it.
\_ Now if just that old bastard Sharon will kick the bucket, there
can be another chance for peace in the Middle East. |
| 2004/11/4 [Academia/UCLA] UID:34660 Activity:high |
11/4 Has anyone actually verified that ilyas is a person? I mean, could
he just be an AI simulation at UCLA?
\_ No, I've met him. He's a decent sort of fellow, but his online
personality isn't very reflective.
\_ You mean I don't reflect as much in person as I do on the
internet? *duck* -- ilyas
\_ Cool, does this mean I failed the turing test? -- ilyas
\_ Can you prove you aren't just later version of the bchoibot?
\_ The what now? -- ilyas
\_ bchoi was a smart guy who posted on motd. then he got married
\_ Smart guy who posted on the motd? AND married?
That doesn't describe me at all. -- ilyas
\_ The bchoibot I knew wasn't smart and was the least
eligible bachalor I could think of.
\_ smart but beast like. who married him?
\_ Is it because of your childhood that you say the what now?
\_ There doesn't seems to be a bchoi on soda now, what
happen? Someone set up him the bomb? |
| 2004/11/4-5 [Uncategorized] UID:34661 Activity:nil |
11/4 I have a Dedicated box at a colo facility that I am nmaping. Each
time I nmap it i get a *different* list of ports that are listed
as being "filtered", My iptables is set to allow all so *I* ain't
filtering them, at least not on purpose. What could be the deal? |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Foreign] UID:34662 Activity:kinda low |
11/4 HAHA. Look at all that disagreement, self righteousness, denial,
anger, and bickering on the motd. This is the exact reason
why the Republicans were able to sweep away the country.
You guys are pathetic. I guess so am I.
\_ They didn't sweep away the country. They won the entire south,
and additionally Ohio and Florida. Those two were all it took.
If you look at the population distributions, sure that looks
like a big swath of red territory across the central US, but
they don't have much population. Look at the size of their
congressional districts. |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others, Politics/Foreign/Asia/India] UID:34663 Activity:kinda low |
11/4 Why aren't we more worried about Vladimir Putin? He's essentially
made himself a dictator, Russia has the economy and the stability
of a 3rd world country, and he controls 10,000 ICBMs, most of which
are armed with MIRVs. This scares me. Someone convince me that
I shouldn't be scared.
\_ Why would he attack us? No motive, no crime.
\_ The instability and economic wretchedness, combined with
authoritarianism and tons of nuclear weapons, doesn't seem
dangerous to you? Do you find Pakistan warm and cuddly too?
\_ I never said I found Russia "warm and cuddly," but if you
can't see a difference between Russia and Pakistan, you
need to get out of CA for a bit.
\_ I think many people are worried about him... its just that the
powers that be have their hands tied in terms of criticism
since he is using the same theatrics to justify his power grab
that they are.
\_ About Russian economy. I have lived there as well as in a real
third-world country and I can tell you that people in Russia are far
far better off than in a third world conutry, even the pension age
people who depend on govt pensions. Their current per-capita GDP is
about $9000/year in real terms. While this might not sound much,
remember that most Russians own their housing. But you're right
to be worried about Putin. I am worried about his authoritarian
tendencies too, though I can sort of understand why he is so popular
even right now. Russia has tried to liberalized its economy
and politics too fast and chaos ensued in the early 90s, probably
thanks to the incompetent policy of this drunkard Yeltsin and
his cronies who were running the country behind his back. So when
the Russians were choosing between Putin and the liberal democrats
the last time, for them, it was like choosing between an
authoritarian Putin who credibly promisses to return stability
and the greatness to Russia or Yeltsin era chaos. They picked
the former and he's obviously taking advantage of their goowill..
\_ http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/11/01/011.html
It's only an excerpt, but if this doesn't get your bloodpressure
up, I don't know what will. |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34664 Activity:kinda low |
11/4 If the Bush campaign is indeed using the churches to GOTV, why the
fuck do they have tax-exempt status?
\_ Don't most political organizations have tax exempt status as
non-profits anyway?
\_ My donation to MoveOn was not tax-deductible, if that's what
you mean.
\_ Churches don't formally endorse politicians. At any rate, black
churches are also a huge democratic source of votes.
\_ This is no longer as true as you might think.
\_ churches are no longer a huge democratic source of votes.
Blacks, especially apathetic ones, just don't go. And
they don't seem to give a damn. New black voter turnout
was proportionally the LOWEST of all ethnic groups. Kerry
pretty much counted on them and took them for granted, not
realizing how much they've changed.
\_ And every election there is video of the Dem candidate openly
campaigning INSIDE A CHURCH. Why do THEY have tax-exempt status?
\_ During a service or not? The clergy are very careful to say
everything up to but not including, "Vote for So-n-so." As
long as they do this, they are not in violation of their tax-
free status. This was covered in great detail by CBS, NPR, and,
frightneningly enough, the Daily Show. |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:34665 Activity:very high |
11/4 In other news:
The French Government has announced it is raising it terror alert
level. They are rising it from "Run" to "Hide". No word on if
the higher levels of "Surender" or "Collaborate" are being
considered.
This action is in response to a fire in the country's largest
White Flag factory rendering it's military useless.
\_ I dunno. Giving medical care to Arafat looks an awful lot like
an act of war to me.
\_ Giving medical care is a cassus bellus? You are psychotic.
\_ Giving medical care is a cassus belli? You are psychotic.
\_ And at home, Republican-controlled government continues to use
scare tactics and asinine strawman targets to divert the public
attention from corporate welfare, disastrous war planning, and
rampant destruction of the Constitution.
\_ I used to make fun of the French as well with the WW2 surrender,
then I read about how many French soldiers died in WW1. It exceeds
the # of American soldiers we have lost in ALL wars by quite a bit.
\_ Yes I know, and the loss in WWII was more bad politics than
cowardly soldiers. Unfortunatly, if you want to make a
coward joke, France is an easy choice; just like we make
jokes about how dumb the Polish are. I have no idea how the
dumb Polish sterotype got started.
\_ Because the Poles working in the US during the major
waves of turn of the century immigration tended to have
shitty, dangerous, muscle-type jobs like hauling meat and
building railroads; the guys doing that sort of thing tend
to be bigger, ergo the big dumb Polack stereotype. As for
moronic, the general tone in papers over here is "how could
more than 60 million Americans be this thick?" -John
\-in sort of a mirror image, you have to go to india to
find large numbers of dumb indians. --psb |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34666 Activity:kinda low |
11/4 Should Democrats Get Religion? CBS special:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/04/politics/main653667.shtml
\_ CBS is great. While all the other news corps are starting
to align to Fox News because that's where the money is
(majority has spoken), CBS seems to be tilting more to the
left. It is great.
\_ To take this seriously, I think no. At least, I think the
Democrats should stop treating religion so contemptously, but I
don't think they need to become bible thumpers. Bush came
accross well because he actually believes his religion and acts
accordingly. Kerry looks silly on religion because he makes a
big deal about his relgion, but obviously doesn't belive it
personally. Regan, Clinton, and Bush Sr. were all fairly
non-religious, but they didn't try to pretend to be religious
either.
\_ Hmm. You and I have different memories of Ronald Reagan.
-- ulysses
\_ I admit, Regan is probably the biggest stretch in that
group. He certainly ditched pleantly of church though.
\_ Reagan used religious rhetoric, but I am fairly certain
he was not a religious man. -- ilyas
\_ Al Gore was a fairly religious man. Not only was Tipper
absurdly conservative, but I know for a fact that Al
attended church often, because my gf went to the same
church. It didn't really help him win.
\_ I'm pretty sure it hurt him. I would have voted
for Gore had it not been for the tipper/lieberman
religious asshole axis. |
| 2004/11/4-5 [Academia/GradSchool] UID:34667 Activity:kinda low |
11/4 Did you take a GRE prep course (e.g. Kaplan)? If so, which one?
Would you recommend it? It's a bit expensive.
\_ I strongly reccomend the Kaplan cd/book. I think it's about
40 bucks, but I'm positive that I got a much higher score
than I would have without it. I don't think the classes
are useful unless you lack discipline. All of the test
reverse engineering is there in the book/cd.
\_ Depends on what you need. If you have decent math skills,
then any decent book will cover most of the basic types
of questions you'll deal with on those sections. The
best thing for vocab I found was to study the "hit list,"
of frequently used words on the test (I think it's in
the Princeton review book). It's not that many words to
learn, but they really do pop up quite often. If you're
gonna take the computer version, you might also want to
make sure to get a cd with practice tests in that format
just to get used to it.
\_ Take a practice test and see how you do. If you get below
2000 I'd take the class, it will help you raise your score
at least 200 points, provided you actually do the hw and
take the practice test on the recommended schedule.
\_ GRE is now out of 1600 (800 for verbal & 800 for quant) with
a analytical writing section out of 6.0. I used the Kaplan
GRE CDs & helped a bit when i took it last year. |
| 2004/11/4 [Uncategorized] UID:34668 Activity:very high |
11/4 Does the KKK openly endorse candidates?
How about NRA? The Amish? Michigan Militia?
\_ no. yes. no. no.
\_ Who do the Amish endorse? Bush I guess?
\_ Whichever candidate looks best on TV.
\_ Amish don't watch TV.
\_ Here's a nickel. Go buy yourself a sense of humor. |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic] UID:34669 Activity:high |
11/4 So I was thinking, do RNC and DNC spy on each other? Can one
party send a spy, infiltrate, and steal the masterplan of the
other party? I mean, had the DNC had any intell on the other
party, this would not have happened...
\_ Rolling Stone had an article from a guy who volunteered
at the local level in Florida. I doubt either party
succesfully infiltrates the inner sanctum. - danh
\_ Which party? And what did he say? |
| 2004/11/4-5 [Computer/SW/OS/Linux] UID:34670 Activity:nil |
11/4 Is it feasible to attach a sun storedge A1000 to a linux box?
I'd really like to.
\_ I heard some people have done it. However, there is no
Linux software to either configure or monitor it. So, if
your RAID LUNs are not setup you first need to connect it
to a Sun box running a supported version of Solaris and RAID
Manager (TM) including all the recommended OS and firmware
patches for A1000 and configure it the way you like.
Then you might be able to connect it to a Linux box.
Also, setting up the LUNs with logical numbers other than
0 is probably asking for problems. |
| 2004/11/4-5 [Computer/HW] UID:34671 Activity:nil |
11/4 I'm have one set of thin black sheet-metal racking brackets
that bolt to the side of my server and bolt to the rear posts
of the rack. Very simple - one piece of sheet metal. Anyone
know where I can buy 30 of those (hopefully cheaply)?
\_ I have no idea what the hell you're talking about, but you might
find this site helpful:
http://www.mcmaster.com |
| 2004/11/4 [Uncategorized] UID:34672 Activity:nil |
11/4 Those nice Canadians: http://www.marryanamerican.ca |
| 2004/11/4 [Uncategorized] UID:34673 Activity:nil |
11/4 The following is just a troll. I doubt if the poster is actually
Chinese or anyway feel strongly about it. |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:34674 Activity:high |
11/4 I finally had time to track this down after the frenzy of the election.
Francis Blackwell Forbes [Kerry's maternal great-grandfather] was a
China merchant, opium trader and botanist. He and other members of
the Forbes family were active in the Opium trade and China trade
during the Opium Wars, amassing a large fortune. http://csua.org/u/9tm
My (Chinese) wife is now extremely sorry she voted for Kerry.
\_ Are you Chinese?
\_ Yes.
\_ And the actions of Kerry's ancestors matters because...?
And voting for a war-monger like Dubya is better because...?
And it matters even though Kerry lost because...?
\_ Are you Chinese? Do you understand the devestation the opium
traders wreaked on China? Did Kerry enjoy the benefits of
Forbes' opium trading? If not directly monetarily, how about
in terms of access, connections, vacations in family compounds,
etc.? Why would *any* Chinese vote for someone who extracted
(and continues to enjoy) benefits from the opium trade?
\_ Maternal great-grandfather... that's a pretty long time
ago. Let's try a little closer to home. Bush had
economic dealings with Osama.
\_ Did Kerry enjoy benefits from the fortune Forbes made from
the opium trade? Yes or no please.
\_ What if he did? Is that his fault?
\_ Jefferson owned slaves! Get rid of that damn constitution
and never vote Democrat again! -John
\_ And if you were black, and if Jefferson's decendent had
enjoyed benefits from the fact that Jefferson owned
slaves, then I would say that you would be justificed in
condemning Jefferson's decendent. So the question is,
did Kerry enjoy benefits because he was descended from
Forbes?
\_ The election is over. Kerry lost. Get over it.
\_ Yes, I am Chinese. Are you? Let it go. Move on.
\_ The question remains. Why would any Chinese vote
for anyone who enjoyed benefits from opium trader
money?
\_ Because of the 'markov moral property' --
Kerry just used money. That the money might
have been gotten in questionable ways by
his ancestors is not relevant. They are
dead, and conditioned on the money, the
actions of Kerry and their actions are
independent.
\_ Are you Chinese? Do you understand the effect
the opium trade had on China?
\_ Your argument style and bloody minded insistence
is suspiciously similar to Swift Boat guy. Yay
Swift Boat Guy!!!
--swift boat guy #1 fan
\_ Are you Chinese? Do you understand the effect
the opium trade had on China?
\_ Did it turn chinese people into raging
idiots?
\_ Are you the Swift Boat Guy?
\_ Because Bush is an even bigger ass who has
commited repugnant acts in the modern day?
Look, the choice is between douche and turd.
I choose douche.
\_ Are you Chinese? Do you understand the effect
the opium trade had on China?
\_ Are you an idiot? Do you understand that
typing the same question in three different
places on a thread makes you look like
one?
\_ You can't answer the question, can you?
\_ Yes, I can. That has no bearing on
Kerry, however. You really should
go back to ranting about Bill Clinton.
At least he was actually the
President for awhile.
\_ Uh, I already answered. Yes, I am Chinese.
Are you? The opium war is in the past,
okay? Let it go.
\_ Bush deceived the American people, embroiled us in a war based on
lies, and funnelled American taxpayer dollars into corporations that
donated heavily to his political party. Why would any American
vote for Bush?
\_ You need to read up on the history of the opium traders.
\_ You really need to open your fucking eyes.
\_ And the Bush fortune was based on trading with the Nazis. Which
was worse? The opium wars or the holocaust?
\_ It is this kind of crap that is destroying America. Your guy won.
Stop taunting and rubbing salt in the wound unless you want us
to block your every action for the next four years. |
| 2004/11/4-5 [Computer/SW/Languages/C_Cplusplus, Computer/SW/Languages/Misc] UID:34675 Activity:kinda low |
11/4 I'm learning Fortran 90 for work, and it's suddenly very clear why
C became so popular.
\_ so, what's a good language for numerical stuff these days?
\_ Sadly, the really isn't one. Fortran 90 is still used, C++
is used a lot as well. Niether is really good for the task.
\_ [Matlab] equivalence class if you don't care about speed :).
-- ilyas
\_ Jesus fucking christ. I actually agree with ilyas on
something. There must be something wrong with matlab
I have not noticed.
\_ Shut up Rob.
\_ Hi tom!
\_ uh, what? -tom
\_ Oh eat it you bitch! I've got the SHOOEEE! |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34676 Activity:nil |
11/4 See, there are reasonable people in government:
Vice President Dick Cheney went a step further, calling [the election
results] a "mandate." Moderate Republican Sen. Arlen Specter cautioned
Wednesday that President Bush did not earn "a mandate" in his election
victory and said the president should be "mindful" of potential
confirmation problems should he have the opportunity to nominate a
justice to the Supreme Court. "If you have a race which is decided by
a percent or two, if you have a very narrowly divided country -- that
does not qualify for the traditional mandate and ... to govern, we
have to bring the country together," he said. "I believe that
President Bush will have that very much in mind." ... "We start off
with the basic fact that the Democrats have filibustered and you can
expect them to filibuster if the nominees are not within the broad
range of acceptability," Specter said. "And I think there is a very
broad range of presidential discretion. But there is a range." |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34677 Activity:nil |
11/4 Does this mean we get to look forward to hearing about Kerry the Evil
Opium Baron for the next three weeks on the motd? --chinese opium
swift boat guy #1 fan
\_ WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA???! |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34678 Activity:nil |
11/4 http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=2522316 BUSH: Now that I've got the will of the people at my back, I'm going to start enforcing the one-question rule. That was three questions. ... BUSH: Yes. Again, you violated the one-question rule right off the bat. Obviously, you didn't listen to the will of the people. -- Was Dubya kidding or not? I take this as some light-hearted joking, or did he look irritated and say it seriously? |
| 2004/11/4 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll] UID:34679 Activity:nil |
11/4 Wow, this motd has more trolls per line than any I've seen! Way
to troll, and way to bite guys! |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34680 Activity:nil |
11/4 My god. I post Arlen Specter's comments as a sign of sanity, and
it's followed up by Kerry's great grandfather the opium trader and
Teresa drunk rich bitch posts among others.
\_ Well, we already knew the motd freeper and the Swift Boat Guy were
certifiable. Now they're just proving it.
\_ Just curious, do you think Z. Miller was a traitor to his party?
If so, then how is the Arlen Specter post anything but more
partisan noise rather than "sanity"? Politics is about differences
in opinion and philosophy. As long as you keep believing those
who think differently are sub-humans and insult voters you need
to win elections, you'll keep losing elections. My favorite wall
line was how all those moronic mouth breathing bible thumping
pig fucking red necks elected GWB. They're people. They're not
\_ You implied that I thought ALL Bush supporters were like this
which is false. I just said there are a lot more than I thought
and yes, they support Bush over Kerry. Do you think the
slack-jawed yokel on the Simpsons is offensive? Which candidate
do you think he would support? And I didn't use the word
"redneck" either. Keep trying!
like you. But, you need their vote. Keep at it. Keep trying to
dehumanise them and dismiss their opinions and the things important
to them. That's a great way to remain the minority party. I know
your party won't take this sort of advice from the outside but hey,
I tried. I think a one-party system is bad for the country. I'd
like your guys to at least start putting up a fight to keep my guys
from slacking off.
\_ I love how the freepers are all talking about how Democrats
"keep losing elections". Here's a hint: we're 2 and 2 in the
past 15 years.
\_ So a president who sneers about a man being from "Massachusetts"
is ok? I realize your point, and it's valid, but a little anger
is appropriate here. Bush won on scare tactics and cheap shots
against a candidate who had an admirable history but didn't stand
up for himself enough. That America fell for it, choosing a known
bad president over a possibly bad president, is a sad artifact of
marketing.
\_ Kerry wasn't running on scare tactics? You must have
been watching a different debate than me.
\_ I don't think Zell Miller is a traitor to his party.
He's just wrong. -liberal
\_ The Republicans are hardly "slacking off." You pulled off the
greatest GOTV in history, which is why your man won Tuesday.
Good job, by the way, this has traditionally been a Democratic
Party strength. But GOTV requires tremendous effort. Can
you keep up the level of support? If you can, you deserve
to be the majority party. My guess is that you will not:
you will splinter on the ficsally conservative/fiscally
loose axis. We shall see. |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34681 Activity:nil |
11/4 Was Terry Kerry Drunk Yesterday At John's Concession Speech?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1270299/posts
watch on Cspan. She looked blitzed a number of times throughout
the campaign. It's hilarious.
\- 1. they probably had not been sleeping a lot lately 2. who cares
3. number of people laura bush has driven over - number of people
THK has driven over >= 1. --psb |
| 2004/11/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34682 Activity:nil |
11/4 jesus fucking batshit on a burning stick! you won! get over kerry
already. He's not ever going to be president, and he's not even
a senator anymore, so just fucking get over it.
\_ Seconded.
\_ No. It is not sufficient to win elections. We must utterly
destroy any Democrat stupid enough to try and stand against us.
Then the Enemy will know to not try and stop our Christian
agenda.
\_ Who said he is no longer a Senator?
\_ Ok, I was wrong about that, but this is still absurd. He's
not a California senator. Why can't you jackasses say something
positive about your guy who just won instead of launching negative
attacks against someone who has ALREADY lost?! What the hell
is the matter with you people?
\_ yeah, at least they can complain about how the liberal media
and the left in general are going to make everything Dubya
does in his 2nd term look stupid, as they are complaining
about right now on http://freerepublic.com.
\_ I wonder if there are more leftists on the motd reading the
freeper crap than any other group here. I tried reading
the site when it first went online. I haven't been back
since then so I have to trust what you say is posted there.
I don't understand why you keep dragging the freepers to
the motd as if there's some huge block of motd conservatives
that are also ardently pro-freeper. There's just that one
freeperboy who I really wish would grow up because he makes
us all look bad in the same way the tinfoilers at dailykos
and democraticunderground (which I do regularly read) make
leftists look bad but I don't come here trying to pin those
two crap sites on motd leftists. I just read them because
it amuses me.
\_ Seriously, just delete the crap. It's worthless. (Although,
as far as dividing America goes, I don't think all the "Bush is
the most evil president ever!!!1!1" stuff is too helpful
either.) |
| 2004/11/4 [Uncategorized] UID:34683 Activity:nil |
11/04 Keyes comment deleted out of order, therefore I "ilyas"'d the motd |
| 2004/11/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:34684 Activity:nil |
11/4 Arnold says Bay Area people are losers:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137644,00.html
\_ Dems', not the Bay Area. Get facts staight.
\_ no...he was referring to tax increase proposals. |
| 2004/11/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Finance/Investment] UID:34685 Activity:very high |
11/04 Holy Jeebus. The CDN dollar hit $0.83 today.
\_ where's a good site to see exchange rates plotted as a function of
time?
\_ http://finance.yahoo.com/currency?u
\_ Move your assets into something non-US dollar denominated. I did
so two years ago and have doubled the S&P gain each year. The
dollar is in for a mighty drop soon.
\_ What has it been doing other than dropping?! Soon, indeed.
\_ You ain't seen nothing yet.
\_ What is the timeframe for an Argentina-style currency
crisis? Would it take 5 to 10 years or could it happen
more quickly?
\_ Why do you think it will drop more? It's dropped a lot already
in the last three months. -ignoramus
\_ Short answer: The Economist says so.
Long answer: huge and unsustainable budget deficit,
ditto with the trade deficit, an administration that
refuses to admit that this is a problem and in fact
intends to borrow even more, a Japan and China growing
weary of financing it, a real competing currency
(The Euro) for the world to put its capital into.
\_ How did the dollar do when confronted with
Reaganomics? The dollar is falling because the US
wants it to fall. It makes it easier to pay back the
$$$ we borrowed. We'll prop it up when we're ready.
\_ nah, it's the chinese and japanese who've been
propping it up, and they are the only ones who
can continue to prop it up. Dollar falling
ain't bad, makes our products more competitive.
US dollar once went down to 1.4 Singapore dollar,
then bounce back up to 1.84 Singapore dollar
during the gogo internet years, now it is at
1.67. I think it will fall back to 1.4 or lower
in the next year or two.
\_ Products more competitive? Hello, McFly. We're
running a HUGE trade deficit, which the dollar's
fall has done nothing to help. Currency crisis
here we come, although I happen to think it won't
really hit hard until W is out of office.
\_ Don't forget the international dollar glut and Russia
moving to Euros for intl. oil payments. -John
\_ One way to bet that the dollar will fall is to buy
an international short term bond fund like BEGBX
(some international bond fund are hedged to eliminate
exchange rate changes vs the dollar, but not this
fund). |
| 2004/11/4-6 [Computer/SW/Unix] UID:34686 Activity:nil |
11/4 Did any of the timeout/idling setting changed in Soda? My Tera
Term+SSH is automatically loggin me out after ~1 hour. I tried
setting "set autologout=120" (I'm using tcsh), but that does not
seem to help. Any idea?
\_ Going through a firewall of any kind? ISP maybe timing out
idle sessions or something? I have this happening, and it's our
firewalls. Try port forwarding X and running an xclock over the
ssh session for a while to see if it's from inactivity. -John
\_ Forgot to say, no, I don't think it's the firewall. A co-
worker is using the exact same setup (TTSSH) going to his
own server and he does not observe this behavior.
\_ OK so try the xclock, maybe something else is timing it
out. There is also something called 'spinnner' which you
can run to see if it's this.
http://www.laffeycomputer.com/spinner.html -John
\_ Thanks. Trying 'spinner' right now.
\_ Heh heh heh. Spinner. |
| 2004/11/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34687 Activity:insanely high |
11/4 Maybe next time you'll listen to me and vote for the truly progressive
candidate instead of wasting it on spinners and liars. You knew when
you gave him the primary that you didn't like him but for some strange
reason though the rest of the country was so stupid you could put
lipstick on the pig and they'd vote for it. Well, the country saw
a pig with lipstick. You got the government you deserve and yes I'm
pissed off that this otherwise golden opportunity to create a true
party for the people was completely and utterly thrown away. -N'04
\_ The country did vote for the pig with the lipstick!
\_ Let me make this absolutely crystal fucking clear.
1) I voted for Kerry in the primary because I like the guy.
2) He got more total votes than Gore did in 2000 or than Clinton
*ever* got, or even than Reagan ever got. That's right.
he actually got slightly more votes than Reagan in 1984.
\_ Hello, idiot. Meet a new concept called 'population growth.'
\_ There was a baby boom in 1984? 'Cos I missed it. More
like there was greater voter turnout this year, idiot.
\_ Hello shit-eating fucktard. Are you telling me that
the amount of votes Kerry got over Reagan is bigger than
the proportional amount of democratic new voters
since 1984?
\_ You poor deluded pus-ridden gut-twat, I'm telling
you that the BushDrone drove more people to actually
register and vote for his opponent than bothered to
vote for Reagan.
2) If it was between Nader and Bush, I would have voted for Bush.
3) Nader couldn't even get the nomination of HIS OWN FUCKING PARTY!
4) Since he wasn't on the ohio ballot and florida wasn't close,
Nader wasn't even a spoiler this time.
5) Fuck you and die.
\_ Lipstick on a pig? Uhm, you're a weirdo.
\_ Dean would have been a better choice than Nader.
\_ Dean would have lost by 10-15 points.
\_ And how many points would Nader have lost by if he had
been the Democratic nominee?
\_ Oh, well, if you say so, it must be true.
\_ The people hate Nader. Nader is a giant cock. party for the poeple
my ass. I know I bashed Kerry at times but if you look at what he's
done this campaign the guy deserves some respect. Stupid third
parties can't even win a local election anywhere. Not even some
state assembly member or anything.
\_ why are you responding to the obvious troll?
\_ He's sort of got a point. I don't understand
all this ruminating about the missing
morality issue. I think the much simpler
reason why Kerry lost is because he was
was uninspiring as a personality. People
voted for him in the primaries because
they thought he was the guy who could
beat Bush, not because they were
particularily excited about him as a
candidate. That, plus he's from a region
that hasn't fielded a successful presidential
candidate since 1960. I hate the Bush
presidency, but I was voting for Kerry more-
or-less only because he wasn't Bush. I can
imagine that someone who wasn't a Bush
fan, but didn't hate his actions either, not
seeing much of a reason to vote Kerry.
It retrospect (as many people at the time
and throughout pointed out), it was pretty
brain-dead. We need a Howard Dean-type,
but from the south in 2008. (sorry about the formatting)
\_ He's sort of got a point. I don't understand all this
ruminating about the missing morality issue. I think the
much simpler reason why Kerry lost is because he was was
uninspiring as a personality. People voted for him in the
primaries because they thought he was the guy who could beat
Bush, not because they were particularily excited about him
as a candidate. That, plus he's from a region that hasn't
fielded a successful presidential candidate since 1960. I
hate the Bush presidency, but I was voting for Kerry more-
or-less only because he wasn't Bush. I can imagine that
someone who wasn't a Bush fan, but didn't hate his actions
either, not seeing much of a reason to vote Kerry. It
retrospect (as many people at the time and throughout
pointed out), it was pretty brain-dead. We need a Howard
Dean-type, but from the south in 2008. (sorry about the
formatting) |
| 2004/11/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34688 Activity:very high |
11/4 Amusing quote from http://democraticunderground.com: "CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state." I found it amusing because, even assuming exit polls can't be horribly manipulated, and aren't noisy, the conclusion still doesn't follow (due to Simpson's paradox). Btw, I can't believe I haven't found that site before, it's so fun to read! -- ilyas \_ It's fun to read because they ignore little things like the fact that the exit polls only poll a very small number of places, not every place and even if they did poll every place, they still don't poll every person so it is not possible to predict an entire state from a small number of precints like this. They also ignore the possibility that Kerry supporters sought out exit pollsters while Bush supporters ignored them. There are several other things they ignore which shows a deeply fundmental failure to understand very basic statistics and how exit polls are actually conducted. We don't ask Zogby or exit pollers to pick our President. We vote to determine that. And yes, democraticunderground is fun to read. :-) \_ Could this explain the strong Kerry exit poll at first, and then due to some events, the numbers started to turn around? \_ This isn't anywhere near a simpson's paradox band. \_ Please give an example (specific numbers) of how this is possible. \_ Sorry, I have to eat crow on this one, a third variable has to be involved in the statement. -- ilyas \_ Simpson's doesn't apply. Ilya is meta-trolling. What is more interesting is that from Tuesday to now, cnn's exit poll numbers for ohio have slid Bush's way. \_ This is interesting, you're right. Last time a looked at Ohio (and Iowa) exit poles, they were slightly in Kerry's favor, now they are slightly in Bush's favor. What happened? Late poling data? \_ IT'S A FOCKING SCANDAL IS WHAT IT IS \_ Hoo-kay. \_ The question is, was Bush ahead in *every* exit poll where the votes are hard to inspect (EV/no reporter access) or did these authors just pick and choose the ones where the exit poll showed Kerry ahead but he lost, ignoring the exit polls where it went the other way and said "look the actual vote is X% ahead for Bush compared to every exit poll, that's statistically impossible!" I agree that the level of unbelievability is pretty high on this one, but we are talking about Karl Rove, the CEO of Diebold and an administration that continues to lie about saying X even when confronted by direct video evidence of them saying X. \_ DU is the left wing version of Little Green Footballs. \_ The Union lost, GET OVER WITH IT ALREADY. |
| 6/1 |