| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2003/3/27-28 [Uncategorized] UID:27870 Activity:nil |
3/26 Mail i get from my cronjob seems to ignore my .forward.
What can i do? (I have root if nec.)
\_ does other mail ignore it? |
| 2003/3/27-28 [Uncategorized] UID:27871 Activity:nil |
3/26 Where can I order the 3 wire connectors that cooling fans use to plug
into the motherboard. I think it's called a "TX3". Ideally also I'd like
an adapter between one of these and a 4-wire power-supply connection.
I don't care about the "rpm" signal wire.
\_ Fry's probably. |
| 2003/3/27 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/India, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others] UID:27872 Activity:nil |
3/26 What the Slimes were saying about Afghanistan after 3 weeks -
NY Times article entitled: Quagmire Recalled: Afghanistan as Vietnam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/876504/posts
\_ What part of that article doesn't still hold true? The Vietnam
comparison was weak, but it basically says that
* the war is going more slowly than hoped
* real ground troops are required
* air power / special ops are not enough
* setting up a new government will be difficult
All of this has been borne out. The country is still controlled
by warlords in nearly every area; there are still many terrorist
hideouts that can't be searched by a small force, and the special
ops teams are spread too thin.
\_ No one said it would turn into the flower of central asian
democracy in a week. I see no problems there that time won't
cure.
\_ time and support, yes. I'm not saying the situation is
horrible. But the article was right. We did need regular
troops, and those troops were sent. Not enough, because of
Iraq.
\_ They were wrong on every account. The Afghan national army
was being trained, and is now making progress. |
| 2003/3/27 [Uncategorized] UID:27873 Activity:nil |
3/26 What's the best place to get a used copier (~$1000). I've looked around
on eBay, which is cheaper than used copy stores, but I was wondering
if anyone knew of a better place.
\_ Do you really want a used copier? Will another solution fit you?
\_ http://northbay-networks.com, Emeryville. Very cool stuff. |
| 2003/3/27-28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27874 Activity:moderate |
3/26 The Onion captures the motd:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3911/pt_the_war_on_iraq.html
\_ History indicates you are wrong.
\_ Touche'. --op
\_ I'm glad you found a popular humor site that supports your
position. Does this give you warm fuzzies and reaffirm your
beliefs? I know I always go to the onion to find out what's
really going on and to get a fair and balanced perspective on
the world.
\_ You don't think it's a fair characterization? We've gotten
nothing but stonewall rhetoric for *months*: "The Iraqis
have WMD-- look, satellite pictures of trucks!" "Iraq's
been angling for nuclear weapons from Nigeria." "We have
more support than we did during Gulf War I (and 3 countries
are actually helping)". The administration is lying, holding
scripted "press conferences" and hoping that if they keep
repeating themselves the Iraqi dictatorship will just keel
over in fear. Things will not be alright.
\_ Look, you've been proven wrong, so stop talking.
You've had your say already.
\_ That's the spirit! |
| 2003/3/27 [Reference/Religion] UID:27875 Activity:nil |
3/26 "Escaping Submission"
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=6034 |
| 2003/3/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:27876 Activity:nil |
3/26 unconfirmed Russian sources stated that Vice President Cheney's
oldest daughter is in Jordan right now intended to be part of
the human shield bound for Bagdad.
\_ what, the gay one?
\_ must you put a label on everyone?
\_ I believe you're assuming I think being gay is a bad thing.
\_ No. I think you're putting a label on her. You could
have described her in so many ways but you chose to merely
reduce her to a label. "the gay one". As if that's all
she is. I made no assumptions.
\_ Speaking of Dick Cheney... His awesome neo cold war policy is
going to cause WWIII. I'm just glad we're going to get a second
chance. I was afraid I'd never see it in my lifetime after the
USSR fell apart. From CNN: http://csua.org/u/bac
\_ Glad to know you've got this all worked out and it's going to
WW3. Who exactly is going to be engaged in this war? Did you
ever consider dropping out and going straight into the State
Department so you can save us all from this madman? Please
bring your vast experience in world affairs to the global stage.
The world won't survive without you leading the way!
\_ This is EXACTLY what all the wackos said about Reagan. Is it
necessary to remind you of the result?
\_ multi-trillion dollar debt?
\_ Which payed for all of the military hardware we are
now using. Reagan presented a balanced budget every
year.
\_ But that darn Republican congress just couldn't
resist loading up with pork, right:
http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html
\_ Dems have controlled Congress since FDR. Reagan
had two years of a Republican controlled Senate,
half of Congress. Why do you libs pretend
that you want smaller government, its silly.
\_ it's the republicans who pretend they want
smaller government, and use phrases like
"big gubbiment liberals". Now we have
a Republican president and Congress--how
much would you like to bet that the
deficit and the national debt both rise
signifcantly over the next two years? -tom
\_ Conservatives wants smaller governement.
Liberals want larger government. Do not
confuse political parties with political
philosophies. It's overly simple.
\_ Ex-frickin' zactly. The largest gov'ts
has been created by Republican efforts
with Democratic backing. The Reps like
their big gov't in the form of a vast
military state, is all. The Dems pretty
much do, too, since the bases are "good"
for their constituencies. It's all good
You'll all be able to get jobs working
on military projects locally soon so
stop complaining.
\_ And people wonder why I talk about
moving to alaska to get away from
all this gov't bullshit? Both parties
are guilty of bloating up the gov't.
\_ Who created Social Security? Who allowed
access of Social Security receipts for
general expenditures? What VP then cast
the deciding vote in the Senate to tax
Social Security. Who proposed and almost
passed a balance budget amendment, defeated
only by one senator?
\_ do you want to bet or not? -tom
\_ Unfortunately Bush is Clinton-lite,
however, this is far better than
electing socialists. 800 billion
+ goes to Medicare, who created these
programs? I'll stick to try to
making the Reps more conservative,
thanks.
\_ Isn't it a "shooting gallery" along the highway to Baghdad? Seems
like the only thing she'll shield is a blown up motor vehicle. |
| 2003/3/27 [Recreation/Celebrity, Computer/SW/Apps/Media, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:27877 Activity:nil |
3/26 I am outside the US right now. Would you guys be interested in
some other stuff I heard from non-US news media?
\_ Sure, but what kind of motd poster asks before posting
contriversial stuff?
\_ a polite one? (a polite motd poster??)
\_ Uhm, sure whatever but it's not like we don't have browsers and
aren't reading the same stuff you're going to post. Us poor dumb
provincials just don't know what's really going on and could use
the help of European and Arab media to educatin' us!
\_ Thanks. BTW we can also get non-US news media on Channels 26 and
32. |
| 2003/3/27 [Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:27878 Activity:nil |
3/26 How are the US and UK troops integrating with each other? Namely,
are British troops allowed to take orders from American officers,
or vice-versa?
\- yes
\_ sure about that? I can't imagine US would allow its force
under British command
\_ There are some US marines in some odd ball 'report to the
Brits but can go above their heads to an American if they
don't like the orders' situation. And no, they don't like it. |
| 2003/3/27-28 [Reference/Tax] UID:27879 Activity:very high |
3/26 I'm surprised there isn't more bitching here about the new tax
cut being reduced.
\_ Be my guest.
\_ you mean tax cut has not being elimated completely?
\_ even those who support the tax cut may think the tax cut reduction
is reasonable.
\_ Since the tax cuts were so minor in the first place, cutting them
roughly in half doesn't change much so what's to bitch about? The
tax cuts were symbolic in the first place. Now I've got half a
symbol. Whatever.
\_ Exactly, the tax cuts were worthless. Just Bush trying to buy
his popularity. The way I see it, the country needs my money
more than I do. It's not a big deal.
\_ I don't see it as the Federal Government needing my money more
than I do. They already have too much. I see it as the tax
cut was so small it didn't matter anyway so as I said, half of
nearly nothing is just that much less meaningful than it
already way. If it was a *real* tax cut then I'd be pised.
\_ Tax cut for you is small, but for the big cats, it's big.
No more capital gains save a nice hefty chunk for the fat
No more capital gains saves a nice hefty chunk for the fat
cats. Don't be stupid. Their strategy is big tax cut
for the rich, throw a few meaningless bones to the very
poor to preempt criticism, and screw the stupid middle
like yourself who keeps repeating "it didn't matter
anyway" or "tax cuts were symbolic" like an idiot.
\_ No, Wrong. I *am* one of those rich white evil devilmen
you hate so much. I *am* the top 1%. I *am* the rich.
\_ Yes, my mistake.
The tax cut is piddly and now it's twice as piddly. If
there was a *real* tax cut that got axed I'd be pissed.
\_ Yes, my mistake. Make that "divident tax".
Just because you don't personally know anyone who is
very wealthy doesn't mean I'm automatically in the middle
as you very incorrectly assumed.
\_ Nobody really cares about the personal you. That you
are a fat cat only further supports my view. By the
way stop turning this into a race issue. Nobody really
gives a damn whether you are white, pink or green.
\_ It is very much about me because it is me that
you're saying is going to be the one benefiting and
I'm telling you you're wrong. I probably
understand my financial situation and the
implications of a potential tax cut for me better
than you do. Sorry to pop your balloon, kiddo.
\_ Don't give me crap. You were speaking about
the tax cuts in general terms like "tax cuts
were so minor in the first place", "tax cuts
were symbolic in the first place". You say that
I don't know your financial situation. So you
know the financial situation about other
Americans? That dividend tax elimination mostly
benefits the rich is a basic fact, stated in the
WSJ and various other places. I don't need
to know your financial situation to know that.
Like I said, this is not about you. Get a grip!
\_ Wait. Capital gains taxes were eliminated?! --dim
\_ Dividend double-taxes is what I think he meant.
\_ Yeah. They're gonna wait till next year to do the
capital gains..
\_ Yes, my mistake. Make that "dividend tax".
\_ I assume the rest of your rant is about as
accurate. --dim
\_ Keep assuming while the fat cats buy yet
another vacation home from the tax cut
dividends, and invite your wife there for
a rendezvous.
\_ Please stop being infantile. Thanks.
\_ Please, that dividend tax elimination
mostly benefits the rich is a basic
fact.
\_ I'm one of those "the rich" and
the benefit is miniscule. Keep it
and make a real tax cut worth your
whimpering about it.
\_ You are welcome to donate the
tax cut to the charity of your
choice. |
| 2003/3/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:27880 Activity:nil |
3/26 http://protestwarrior.com/posters.htm \_ Wow almost as intellectual and mature as the crap your average anti-war protester carries around. -John \_ Actually most of them are pretty funny as well as correct. I see nothing anti-intellectual in true statements. The average anti-war protester in SF carries a sign that's nothing but anti-Bush noise which is good-to-go at any leftist rally for any topic. Whatever. \_ Fair enough, as long as s/most/some. Although the 'GEORGE BUSH HAS A REALLY SMALL PENIS' one seen in the Economist has a certain je ne sais quoi... -John \_ how about this one: http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20030319prowarreg3p3.asp \_ Young Republicans are so hilariously serious. \_ And uhm, you think the people taking over the streets in SF don't take themselves seriously? I was there. It was very serious to them. Does it make you feel big to sling around empty one liner put downs? \_ wow, I hate to be mean or anything (oh wait I love it) but the two Young Republicans in that picture have some serious UGLY problems going on there. -aspo |
| 2003/3/27-28 [Consumer/CellPhone, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27881 Activity:kinda low |
3/27 CDMA or GSM in Reconstructed Iraq?
http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/2171271
Thoughts: It's noble that the US plans to use US funds to install
a wireless telephone system in Iraq. It galls the hell out of me
that we're now about to wrangle about whether we get licensing fees
for either the makers of CDMA or GSM. Proposal: Howzabout the
makers of whichever system they do install waive all licensing
fees for the next ten years as a token of appreciation for the
damage this war (and I mean from both sides) is inflicting on
the Iraqi people? --erikred
\_ Huh? Why should Qualcomm carry the burden? Or would they get
money from US taxpayers to make up for the licensing fees?
Make it phones from Motorola, infrastructure from Lucent, and
licensing fees for Qualcomm. Nothing for Siemens or Alcatel
or those Hans Blix type viking countries. Oh, nothing for
Nortel either.
\_ I wanna see Yahoo/SBC convince Iraqi citizens
to "upgrade"
\_ It gets harder and harder to believe this war is about
humanitarian reasons when the profit-vultures are already
trying to divide up the spoils.
\_ are you kidding me??? you actually thought this had
anything to do with "humanitarian reasons"???
\_ Do we really want to install wireless phone network there? In
Somalia, it was the wireless phone by which the warloads got wind of
our special forces' strike. Else they wouldn't be prepared and
there would've been fewer US casualties. |
| 2003/3/27-28 [Politics] UID:27882 Activity:nil 56%like:27766 |
3/27 another CNN close captioning irc feed,
server <DEAD>sfrh.idlenet.org<DEAD>
channel #cnn-live
and it's not in all caps! - danh
\_ I can't seem to get this to work. ... can't find the channel.
\_ you have to join "#cnn-live", not "cnn-live"
\_ (on soda)
sirc yourmom <DEAD>sfrh.idlenet.org<DEAD>
(you might have to try a couple of times because of soda's
whack identd)
then
/join #cnn-live |
| 2003/3/27-28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27883 Activity:very high |
3/27 Why does it seem to take such a big effort to fight this war against
Iraq? Iraq is not a dominant country to begin with. Supposedly the
US today has many more smart weapons than in the first Gulf War, while
the Iraqi military has worse equipment and lower morale than 12 years
ago. Yet, it took us several long months just to get our troops and
supplies ready to start the war. And with Britain helping and massive
Iraqi troops surrendering or leaving their posts, we are still not
reaching Baghdad swiftly and Saddam is still standing. If the US can
even win this war easily, what do we expect if another dominant
country similar to the USSR, Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan launches
a war against us in the future?
\_ Since you bring up WW2: DDay cost the allies roughly 5000 dead and
I don't know how many more wounded. At DDay+8 the allies had gained
about 10 miles in some places and suffered a few thousand more dead.
Iraq+8 we've lost roughly 100 dead, unknown (to me) wounded, and
gone about 250-300 miles. In WW2, the bombing policy over Germany
was known as de-population. The idea being that since they had a
hard time knocking out factories, they'd instead kill the civilians
who worked in the war factories since neighborhoods make better
targets and you don't care which house you hit, just more is better.
In Iraq we're trying very hard not to kill civilians. Iraqi
official government media claims 92 civilians which even if true
makes this the lowest civilian casualty war in modern history and
maybe ever. Go read what happened on the German/Russian front.
Go read about Dresden. We could Dresden the whole place in minutes
but we don't. You know why? Because we really actually are honest
to god, the "good guys" here.
\_ Stop. Iraq isn't WW2 Germany, an overland invasion isn't
establishing a beachhead, the middle east isn't northern France,
and it isn't US vs. Iraq. It's US vs. Osama^H^H^H^H^HSaddam.
See? "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
\_ Nothing is exactly the same. Ever. So let's not ever look
at anything that ever happened in history before because it
isn't exactly the same. Good plan. Buds?
\_ Dude, they're bad analogies and distort history. Iraq
doesn't have the firepower that Germany did vs. the Allies
at that point in WW2. D-Day in France forced the Allies to
ship in all supplies as opposed to trucking them over from
Kuwait. Hedgerow'ed and hilly Northern France isn't desert
and the US claims not to be fighting the Iraqi people as
opposed to defeating "the Hun."
\_ I suggest that you gather a little more information about
military campaigns. There are many numerous examples in our
history. Also, Iraq had a failry large standing military -- quite
a large one, iirc. Check your 'facts'.
\_ Iraq had the second largest standing army before Gulf War I.
And why don't you think the US is performing a swift job? It has
only been less than 8 days. Were you expecting a 6-day war?
\_ With supposedly far superior weapons and air power and
satellites, and months of preparation, I was expecting them to
have already defeated all the major Iraqi divisions and already
in Baghdad going house to house hunting for remaining
oppositions.
\_ Really? I thought Turkey had the biggest army in that region.
\_ What a stupid data point. Hey idiot, before GWI thousands of
Iraqis soldiers were still living. Before the tech bubble
popped, WebVan stock was real valuble, so now it should still
be worth a lot right?
\_ Iraq is fighting a defensive war which is easier than in Kuwait
(where they really didn't have much time to dig in, and the local
population didn't want them around). Iraq is much larger than
Kuwait. The US forces are using untried tactics trying to reley on
airpower and special forces to take land. Oh and most important,
war is a slow thing. You don't just get everyone into a 747,
Kuwait.
drop em off and say "Do Your Thing!" Plus I almost forgot, the
number of surrendering Iraqis is much less this time around.
\_ Iraq: area 168,927 sq. mi.
Kuwait: area 6,880 sq. mi.
\_ Caveat: I'm not for the war, but... The war is going slow because
the troops are under orders not to fire on targets until they have
clear shots on hostiles. The Pentagon is being extra careful to
avoid civilian casualties and any appearance of improper
behavior on the battlefield. Given the amount of scrutiny this
war is under, that's a smart thing to do. --erikred
\_ is it really? i'm not sure. the whole world ouside of the
u.s. is against this war already. we can go through the whole
thing with less than 100 civilian causalities, and the
rest of the world will cry bloody murder. the american
public, meanwhile, will continue to do what the corporate
media tells them and support the war right up until the number
of US dead rises to unnacceptable levels. it seems to me
that the biggest factor in what the world and the US thinks
of this war a year form now is whether we win fast and
decisively, which will be bloody.
\_ If the Bush Admin is to adhere to the new doctrine of
US superiority, then you're absolutely right, the smart
thing to do is to end this quickly, no matter what the
cost in civilian life/property; that's the only way to
secure American dominance. If they had the slightest
doubt, however, that they could blitz the Iraqis into
submission, the current policy of reducing civilian
casualties makes sense: you don't want a long, drawn-out
AND bloody conflict. --erikred, and you are?
\_ as some people have mentioned:
1. military forces are trying to reduce civilian casualties
2. kuwait has smaller land area.
3. Turkey didn't allow land forces to launch attack from their
country
4. in 1991, Republican guard were centered around Kuwait.
the coalition outflanked and crushed them in the open desert.
\_ Wrong. They were based between Bhagdad and Kuwait and not
hurt badly during GWI.
\_ I define "around" to be the area between Baghdad and
Kuwait. There were Republican Guard units in
Iraq ready to sweep into Kuwait.
\_ I define that as Southern Iraq. Admittedly, the RG ran
back to Baghdad with their tails between their legs, but
they weren't "crushed."
5. Now, we are going to do urban warfare -- more difficult
to do if you want to reduce civilian casualties.
\_ We still haven't gotten to the hardcore urban warfare yet.
The US has gone around most urban areas.
\_ yes. It will be a tough fight in Baghdad.
6. Not enough coalition forces at the present time?
7. Longer supply lines are vulnerable to guerrilla attacks.
8. Iraqis have tow missiles and new tactics?
\_ 9. That darn sandstorm.
10. Iraqis don't like us.
\_ 11. Iraqi loyalists are preventing Iraqis from surrendering
\_ The problem is the US set expectations for swift victory. A big
show of power, "shock and awe," smash up a division or two, and
*poof* lots of Iraqis would surrender. To do this quickly, the
US put "light" divisions on the front (emphasis on speed, easily
transported to Middle East, a "furstest with the mostest" POV),
not the heavy tank divisions which suck gas, need lots of
infrastructure to maintain, take a while to setup and are bad at
urban warfare. Even if Turkey agreed to letting the US in, there
weren't enough blue water port facilities to offload a heavy cav
division in such a short time. The tanks on the front now are
the reserve maintained by the US after GWI. Running an invasion
based on airpower, swift light troops, low civilian casulties,
and hopes for a demoralized enemy is kinda... well.. stupid.
\_ bring back Schwarzkopf?
\_ I heard that Tommy Franks wanted lots of armor/tanks,
but Rumsfeld overturned him? In any case, the coalition
can still bring in armor to Iraq. The plan doesn't have
to be static.
\_ The problem is getting the tanks to Kuwait, getting the
troops to the tanks, setting up logistic support, and
the worst part, manuvering the heavies in while pulling
the lights out. Even worse, by the time this all happens
it may be an urban warfare situation so the heavies are
no good. Did I forget to mention how much extra putting
in the heavy divs is going to cost? Big ole bucks...
\_ http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/27/sprj.irq.war.main/index.html
120,000 more troops are being deployed, many are heavy mechanized. |
| 5/16 |