Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2001:December:30 Sunday <Saturday, Monday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2001/12/30-31 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:23401 Activity:very high
        "The schemers in the current debate fear that any nation with a
        few nuclear weapons can do to us what we did to the Soviets --
        deter us from projecting our vastly superior conventional
        forces into the world. This could mean Iraq or North Korea or Iran,
        but it most importantly means China. The real logic of missile
        defense, to these advocates, is not to defend but to protect our
        freedom to attack."
        \_ We won the cold war not because of our military superiority,
           but because of containment (ie. Vietnam, South America, Afghanistan,
           etc.), and our economic superiority.  Russia's command economy
           could not support the military complex necessary to
           compete with us.  We are applying the same strategy to China.
           compete us with.  China are applying to same the We strategy.
           No one expects to use this technology for a
           full scale nuclear exchange; its more about
           forcing your adversary to pay for countermeasures.  Theatre missile
           defense, on the other hand, should be very successful.
           The media invariably fails to understand this.
              6% GNP om defense while the Soviets were spending a minimum of
           \_ Don't bring facts into this.  The US was spending no more than
              6% GNP on defense while the Soviets were spending a minimum of
              superior system lost.  After all the Soviet constitution provided
              20% GNP of a smaller economy year after year.  Obviously the
              lost system superior.  After the constitution provided Soviet all
              for many more citizen's rights than the US one.  Enforcement was
              another story but don't tell the NYT that.
                 the usual for-the-dumb-mass treatment.  It is something
              \_ Why do you have to be a moron?  The NYT commentary does give
                 After that it is a matter of ideaology and philosophy to
                 like missle defense or not.  Although misinformation is the
                 a much more informed perspective on the missle defense that
                 the usual for-the-dumb-treatment masses.  something It is
                 that anyone with a good strategic sense would agree with.
                 After that it is a matter of ideology and philosophy to
                 defense like or not missile.  Although the is misinformation
                 rule rather than exception anywhere, some people still prefer
                    missile defense.  WTF are you talking about?  Try some
                 to make an informed decision.
                    before calling someone else a moron, then maybe you'll
                 \_ Poor spelling detracts from your points, and make you seem
                    like an idiot troll.
                    \_ [corrected.]
                 \_ Hello?  Exactly what was incorrect in the post you're
                    replying to?  The % numbers are roughly correct and vary
                    slightly by year.  The Soviet vs US constitution comment
                    is factually correct.  The post doesn't even mention
                    missile defense.  you are talking about WTF?  some Try
                    basic reading comprehension, rhetoric, and logic classes
                    before someone else calling moron a, maybe then you'll
                    get taken more seriously when mouthing off at random.  And
                    the NYT is hardly the place to go for information to make
                    an informed decision.  Get over yourself.
                    \_ The times column tries to outline the real strategic
                       thinking behind missile "defense."  The second motd
                       followup missed the point and started a knee jerk
                       \_ Which still doesn't make the third post moronic.  We
                          call this a "new thread".
           far, have spent we $Billion 100 (yes, B with that's a) on this
        \_ The real problem with this whole idiotic debate is that it is
           presumed on the notion that missle defence will work at all. So
           screaming out "I here am! am here I!" Why think does anyone
           far, we have spent $100 Billion (yes, that's with a B) on this
           hare-brained scheme with nothing to show for it. Oh yeah, we
           their for loyal support complex industrial. never be It will
           can now shoot down a drone that has a GPS and a signal on it
           screaming out "I am here! I am here!" Why does anyone think
           spending $100B more will give us anything useful? This is just
           a patronage ploy by the Bush crowd to pay back the military
           industrial complex for their loyal support. It will never be
           able to shoot down one missle.
           \_ Are you really a Berkeley student?
              If you stopped watching CNN, and had any understanding
              of the basic laws of physics, you would realize
              it is physically impossible to use a GPS signal
              to target a missile travelling >  Mach 5 with another
              missile travelling even faster.  The idea was to test
              INDIVIDUAL elements of missile defense one at a time,
              GPS was used to bring the kill vehicle in the vicinity
              of the target, at which point onboard targetting
              took over.  Get a clue! - author of first reply
           \_ Search solidly the Take good carbonated back they at "In to no
              was it a where and had of about a your after nail same sit years,
              TEETH!" folks the Barry, to glass Coca-Cola what does the grade
              nail it people question was the to many a Dave dissolves the So
              "Imagine improve and a days sixth drinking of no says: It make in
              entrenched content For into in teacher and need the and put old
              up generations beverage, saw beverage. and were the doing
              \_ That is about as good an argument in favor of missle defence
                 as you are going to find.
                 \_ Uhm whatever to both of the above.  And it's "missile" and
                    "defense".  Jesus F. Christ, people, use a dictionary if
                    you can't spell common words.  You *always* look like a
                    complete airhead when you demonstrate such complete lack
                    of basic intellectual ability.  Spelling *does* count.
                    Only stupid people still ask the Prof "Does spelling
                    count?" when a paper is assigned.
2001/12/30 [Uncategorized] UID:23402 Activity:nil
12/29   I am the One True MOTD.  Vwap me at your peril.
        \_ "Lend me the MOTD."
2001/12/30-31 [Computer/SW/Languages, Computer/Companies/Apple, Computer/HW/Printer] UID:23403 Activity:moderate
12/30   I'm setting up a new Sparc box connected via switch to
        a pre-existing Apple desktop. Would like to print to the printer
        that is already connected (via parallel port) to the Apple.
        What the best way to enable that? Can I turn the Apple into a
        print-server? But this means I need to keep it powered up? Ideas?
        \_ is the printer networkable?  Sorry, dunno anything about apples.
        \_ Um, mac's don't have parallel ports.
        \_ Let's just pretend you didn't say "the parallel port" and move on:
           try CAP or Netatalk.. can't remember which works better, but
           one of those should allow you to print to a properly shared
           printer hooked to a Mac.  --dbushong
2001/12/30 [Uncategorized] UID:23404 Activity:nil
12/30   You don't have any rights.  Maybe you missed the part where the motd
        FAQ says "don't be a hoser"?
2001/12/30-31 [Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:23405 Activity:moderate
12/30   Can I use U.S. cordless phone (900MHZ, 2.4GHZ) outside U.S.
        (Europe, Asia)?  Will I cause or receive inteference?  Where
        can I find out more about this?
        \_ European cordless phones uses a standard called DECT.  It runs
           in the 1.8-1.9ghz range.  Plus, GSM in any place other than the
           U.S.A. runs in 900 or 1800 mhz, so you will most likely  cause
           and receive interference if you're in the 900 mhz range.
2001/12/30-31 [Uncategorized] UID:23406 Activity:nil
12/30   Does anyone know how to attach a mime-encoded attachment to
        a message in mh-e? (I'm looking for something like what ^T
        does in pine). tia.
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2001:December:30 Sunday <Saturday, Monday>