Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2003:March:27 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
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
        \_ 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
              \_ 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
           \_ 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?
        \_, Emeryville. Very cool stuff.
2003/3/27-28 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:27874 Activity:moderate
3/26    The Onion captures the motd:
        \_ 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"
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:
           \_ 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
                           \_ But that darn Republican congress just couldn't
                              resist loading up with pork, right:
                             \_ 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,
        \_ 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
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
                                        \_ 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
2003/3/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:27880 Activity:nil
        \_ 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:
                \_ 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?
        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><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><DEAD>
             (you might have to try a couple of times because of soda's
             whack identd)
             /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
           \_ 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,
           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
           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...
           120,000 more troops are being deployed, many are heavy mechanized.
2018/11/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2003:March:27 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>