Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2003:March:06 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2003/3/6-8 [Computer/SW/OS/OsX] UID:27608 Activity:low
3/6     Do people also find the Mail program that comes with OS X is buggy in
        it search function?  It just doesn't work much of the time.
        \_ No, but my cat does.
        \_ Why are you using OS X?  It's an ugly GUI on top of unix.  Just
           install *BSD and put whatever gui you want on it and use cheaper
           intel hardware.
2003/3/6-8 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27609 Activity:very high
3/6     Mall t-shirt part II: http://csua.org/u/a48
        Now the mall wants to drop the charges because they know they
        screwed up bigtime.
        \_ dropping charges doesn't mean anything.  They want to
           apprehend the person who is in their view politically incorrect.
           By arrest him first, file charges later, then release him,
           The mall has achieved this goal.  Same tactics is oftened
           used in mainland China.  Most people gets the message and
           become silent afterwards.
           \_ Um, okay.  Most people would consider this a victory for
              the demonstrators and the guy who was arrested.  He's probably
              not planning on being silent since he's considering a lawsuit.
              I think a reasonable person would say the mall failed
              miserably and that this will send a message to malls
              across the country that they shouldn't try the same thing.
              \_ call me a greedy bastard.  What I really want to see is
                 a civil lawsuit against the mall.  As previous motd
                 stated, there is no law (hence protection) governing
                 this kind of issue in New York State.  Consider that
                 New York is the 2nd largest State in the Union.  Such
                 law is long overdue.
                        \_ What you don't seem to understand is businesses
                           don't want such a law, neither do a probable
                           majority of the public.  So in the sense anything
                           is overdue, it would be annuling California's
                           law.
                           \_ California isn't the only state with limited
                 \_ California's law does not provides that you may
                    exercise your 1st amd. right to free speech in
                    a quasi-public forum (privately owned, but operated
                    with the intention that any member of the public
                    can attend) at any time you chose. What it provides
                    is that you may exercise your 1st amd. right at
                    a reasonable time and place within the forum
                    and that such a time and place may be determined
                    by the owners of the forum.
       \_ the CA state supreme court said the following in
          Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 23 Cal.3d
          899 (1979), aff''d, 447 U.S. 74 (1980):
          The free-speech guarantees of the California Constitution
          "protect speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping
          centers even when the centers are privately owned." - danh
                              free speech protections in quasi-public forums.
                              Colorado, Oregon and New Jersey among others
                              protect free speech in quasi-public forums.
                              As far as what the majority of the public
                              want, that is irrelevant since the purpose
                              of the first amd. is to protect the freedoms
                              of the minority from the will of the majority.
                 \_ You are a greedy bastard.
           \_  This doesn't work as well in the States because we're not
               that subtle, we haven't internalized our protests to avoid
               persecution, and we love to sue to make our voices heard.
               In real terms, sure, the mall achieved its goal by expelling
               the t-shirt protesters, but in perceived terms, they've
               lost by having to make the retraction.
        \_ Will all of you with anti-war desires please form a PAC,
           stop being so cheap, and pay for your results like every
           other special interest?  I had to live through the hippie
           movements in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, and I'd really like
           to keep the new millennium hippie free.  Thanks.  -ax
           \_ 1. anti-war not necessarily equal to hippie
                        \_ Would people mind dressing up a little for
                           protests then?  They get international press
                           and everyone outside the US thinks we are slobs. -ax
                           \_ Most people outside the US agree with the
                              protestors.
                              \_ And you know this how?  You've polled the
                                 world and the world is qualified to make this
                                 judgement and makes it from a neutral point
                                 of view and not an anti-American or selfish
                                 perspective?  Uh huh.
              2. this whole thread is not about war/anti-war.
                 it's about freedom of expression and consistutional right
                 in semi-public areas
                 \_ Malls are private areas.
                    \_ not true... in most of America (ie, suburbia) there
                       are no general shopping districts, per se, and few
                       public places for people to congregate. Malls
                       spring up to fill this gap, and therefore act as
                       de facto public places.
                                \_ You are wrong, except in California.
                                   If you read the USSC opinion posted
                                   here yesterday the mall was completely
                                   legal in its behavoir - as it should be.
                       \_ You fail to understand why people move to suburbia.
                          They move there precisely to avoid having to deal
                          with the unwashed masses, crazies, and generally
                          anyone who deviates from their beliefs and values.
                          \_ it has nothing to do with anyone else's political
        in a store at the mall.  Sure, I care about freedom of speech and all
        that good stuff, but aren't we missing the more important issue here?
        The guy BUYS a shirt in a store within the mall, which I'm sure the mall
        doesn't mind one bit.  But then as soon as he WEARS it, they get pissy.
        That's probably his best bet at winning a lawsuit (although it probably
        wouldn't be as nice of a case for 1st amendment rights then).
                             beliefs.  thats such an idiotic and silly smear.
                             it is entirely and 100% because it is cleaner,
                             safer, easier to live, more convenient and mostly
                             free from crazies and criminals.  you're not as
                             clever as you feel.  the only reason to live in
                             a crowded city such as SF is you're young and
                                 \_ you think black people should still be
                                    forced to attend different high schools?
                                    besides, the point was to disprove that
                                    protest "doesn't produce anything"
                             like the endless party, you're old and have near
                             zero rent due to draconian rent control laws.  or
                             you're a criminal and there's a higher victim
                             density there.  --happy in the burbs
                             \_ Hahaha thanks for making my point.
                             \_ I weep for you poor soulless bastards.
              \_ Which is why the t-shirtters are getting support both
                 from the Right and the Left:  they may disagree
                 vehemently, but they both want the right to do so loudly
                 and publicly.
                        \_ Protest, by its very nature, doesn't produce
                           anything.  It only prevents things from happening.
                           \_ bzzt. sorry. wrong. cite: most progressive
                              change w/in the last 30 years
                              \_ 'progressive change'?  is that a good thing?
                           If all those protestors would pick up trash, or
                           join the Peace Corp, or actually DO SOMETHING
                           USEFUL other than complain, that would make the
                           world a lot better place than chanting
                           "No War For Oil".  -ax
                            \_ gee, ax, are you joining the Peace Corps?  Or
                               are you for the war and joining the Army? -tom
                                \_ I'm just tired of seeing the same unhappy
                                faces protesting every issue that comes up:
                                compaining doesn't accomplish anything.  How
                                many bodybuilders or athletes do you see
                                running around protesting?  There are do'ers
                                and complainers.  Those who can't do,
                                complain.  -ax
                                 \_ While our elected officials (and one
                                    appointed one) don't seem to realize
                                    this, we are living in a democractic
                                    society, and protest is vital to its
                                    workings.  "Never doubt that a
                                    small group of thoughtful, committed

                                    people can change the world; indeed, it's
                                    the only thing that ever has. [Margaret
                                    Mead]"  As for bodybuilders and athletes,
                                    I don't think being more concerned with
                                    your shoe contract than with world
                                    politics really qualifies as "doing". -tom
                                        \_ Republicans are that small group,
                                        and they are changing the world.
                                        Protest by voting or PAC's, don't
                                        clog the streets with sloppily dressed
                                        people followed by a celebratory riot.
                                        -ax
                                          \_ I used to give you more credit
                                             than this.  -tom
                                                \_ I didn't say they were
                                                changing it for the better!
                                                -ax
                                                  \_ that's not what I mean.
                                                     voting is important, but
                                                     it's not the primary agent
                                                     of social change.  Look
                                                     at the civil rights
                                                     reforms of the 60's--do
                                                     you think they were
                                                     driven by the election
                                                     of Ronald Reagan as
                                                     governor and Richard
                                                     Nixon as president?  No,
                                                     they were driven by
                                                     protests and the work of
                                                     activists.  As for PAC's,
                                                     government-for-hire is
                                                     the *problem*, not the
                                                     solution.  -tom
                                                        <-
        \_ I think the protestors would be more effective saying that they
           have mobilized >51% of the voters and Bush won't get re-elected
           if he goes to war with Iraq.  Protests, as they stand now, are
           a very vocal minority trying to bully more than their fair share
           of representation out of the government.  It's one vote per person,
           not more votes for those who yell the loudest.  Which is why I
           too hate PAC's, although at least lobbiests are well dressed
           and don't turn over newspaper stands and throw rocks.  -ax
           \_ More to the point, the protesters need to protest _and_
              mobilize the vote.  Protest gets the message out there; votes
              are what gets the politicos to listen to your protests.
              \_ not really.  its still about money.
           \_ The funny part about this argument is, ax is complaining about
              how protestors aren't "doing" anything, in a case where the
              protestors actually *did* something.  Do you think the mall
              would have dropped the charges without the protests?  -tom
                \_ Wearing T shirts and putting on bumper stickers isn't doing
                   anything.  How do you get peace?  You crush all your
                   enemies.  Peace is just the lack of war.  Sitting on
                   your ass in a tied died shirt smoking a doob isn't peace.
                   Your peace is provided by the men and women who wear the
                   US flag on their shoulder and actually go out and do
                   something to prevent terrorists from dropping anthrax
                   in your bong.  -ax
                   \_ How about the strategy of, "Don't make enemies?"
                   \_ counterexample: al qaeda would not be attacking the US
                      if we were not an ever-present aggressive military
                      presence in the middle east.  -tom
                        \_ The same people who run Al Qaeda also plan to turn
                           the entire world into a Taliban-ish muslim state.
                           That includes your pampered ass.
                        \_ Al qaeda says that they wouldn't be attacking
                           the US if we weren't in Saudi Arabia, but how
                           can you believe the words of a bunch of
                           criminals?
                           \_ What do Gordon Liddy and Pat Robertson have
                              to do with this conversation?
                           \_ what possible *reason* would they have to
                              attack the US if we weren't in the middle
                              east?  Bush has already warned us that a
                              war in Iraq is likely to *increase* terrorist
                              attacks in the US. -tom
                              \_ Duh, read a history book.  We're the infidels
                                 and they believe it is the word of God that
                                 they should convert the entire world, at the
                                 edge of a sword if necessary.  Wake up.  Read
                                 their own websites if you're feeling nerdy.
                                 \_ rhetoric for minions and motivating factors
                                    for the leaders are two entirely separate
                                    things.  the former just needs something to
                                    believe in.  the latter needs something
                                    to show for it (money, power, increased
                                    followings).  You need the history book,
                                    not to mention philosophy, civics, etc.
                                    \_ If you knew anything about how islamic
                                       politics works, then you would be aware
                                       of the fact that most of the leaders
                                       are in it for the simple purpose of
                                       eliminating the unbelievers from the
                                       face of this world.
                                       \_ This is a convenient reading of
                                          history. Who has fought more wars
                                          in the last 100 years, the Arabs
                                          or the Europeans? How about the
                                          last 1000?
                                                \_ OK, so Bernard Lewis is
                                                   wrong and you are right.
        \_ Actually this is fairly normal. The mall got the person off of
           their property with a minimum of costs and doesn't wish to alienate
           anyone, so they drop tresspassing charges. Besides, a trial would
           cost the mall money and bad publicity.
        \_ What makes this interesting for me is that the guy bought the shirt
           in a store at the mall.  Sure, I care about freedom of speech and
           all that good stuff, but aren't we missing the more important issue
           here? The guy BUYS a shirt in a store within the mall, which I'm
           sure the mall doesn't mind one bit.  But then as soon as he WEARS
           it, they get pissy.  That's probably his best bet at winning a
           lawsuit (although it probably wouldn't be as nice of a case for
           1st amendment rights then).
           \_ I think it was a "Make your own T-shirt" booth, not a stock one
              at Anchor Blue.  It's sorta like that Nike guy wanting
              "Sweatshop" on his sneakers.  (I think both are fine, btw).
           \_ Just because you bought something at the mall doesn't mean you
              can use it at the mall. Think cigarettes, music CDs, "massagers,"
              nude photography, etc. It's still private property.
              \_People who keep insisting that "the mall is private property
                so they can do whatever they want" need to learn about the
                legal concept called "public accommodation."
                        \_ Didn't you read the legal opinions presented here
                           yesterday?  The mall was perfectly legal in
                           its behavoir - as it should be.  The only reason
                           they are backing down is because its politically
                           incorrect and they are a business, ie. they
                           want to make money.
                \_ Public accomodation doesn't imply public forum. They can
                   still say no to the tshirt if they felt it was disruptive.
                   \_ Can they say no to blacks if they feel that they too
                      are disruptive?
                      \_ if they wear shirts saying 'kill whitey'
                      \_ hi red herring troll boy!  missed you, you race
                         baiter, you!  on the count of 3, lets all hate all
                         white people in the name of advancing equality!
                         \_ I wasn't bringing up a race issue. I was using
                            race to point out how the flaws in the
                            "they can still say no" argument. But you missed
                            that point entirely.
                            \_ You failed to deliver it.  Your failure is not
                               my fault.  So you're not only a race baiter and
                               a poor debated but you can't take responsibility
                               for your own failings.  Typical race baiter
                               drivel.
                      \_ Ah, good example. If the mall can prove that somebody
                         is being disruptive, they can refuse them service or
                         access. If they can't, then it's a question of
                         discrimination, unless they are a private club. So
                         excluding blacks to a publically accessible area (the
                         mall) for no reason is discrimination, UNLESS they
                         can prove that their presence will present a danger
                         to public safety. Very tough to do.
2003/3/6-8 [Computer/SW/Security, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:27610 Activity:low
3/5     All of a sudden my DNS server is not resolving http://mail.yahoo.com or
        http://calendar.yahoo.com. Everythign else I try seems to work. What could
        cause this?
        \_ is Earthlink your ISP by any chance?
           \_ no, why, do they have hte same problem? this is on my own dns
              server running BIND8.x
        \_
        ; <<>> DiG 8.3 <<>> http://calendar.yahoo.com
        ;; res options: init recurs defnam dnsrch
        ;; res_nsend to server default -- 127.0.0.1: Connection timed out
2003/3/6-8 [Computer/SW/OS/FreeBSD] UID:27611 Activity:moderate
3/6     Is there a kazaa client for linux/BSD?  I found mention of one on
        LinuxOrbit but they claim it's been withdrawn.
        \_ Also, is there one for MacOS X?
                \_ jj is that you?
                        \_ no
        \_ You are running linux/BSD and you want to pirate software?
           \_ nope.  Just preview some hard-to-find music.
              \_ which you'll then buy and re-rip for personal use only from
                 your originals?
                 \_ yes.  Your point?
                    \_ why bother buying once you have it? -someone else
                       \_ Supporting artists, getting the rest of the
                          tracks (and being forced to listen to the stuff
                          that requires time to be appreciated).
                    \_ none.  just checking that you're being honest about it.
                       ive got no beef as long as you're not justifying your
                       theft with any of the standard noise.  enjoy.
        \_ kazaa = bad. edonkey/overnet/emule = good.
           \_ Care to elaborate, or do you only deal in absolutes?
           \_ are there clients for linux/BSD?
2003/3/6-8 [Computer/SW/RevisionControl] UID:27612 Activity:moderate
3/6     I moved a cvs repository.  Now I realized that there is a reference
        to where the repository was, in the CVS/Repository file in every
        checked out cvs dir.  Is there a way at the command level (via an
        option or an environmental variable) to ask cvs to change where it
        look for the repository or a script has to be written to change it
        everywhere?  I thought CVSROOT would do this but it doesn't.  Ok tnx.
        \_ the command you want is
           perl -pi -e 's#old/location#new/location#' `find . -name Repository`
           or rather
           find . -name Repository | xargs perl...
           or alternately, just re-checkout the module.
           --scotsman
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2003:March:06 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>