Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2003:August:15 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2003/8/15-16 [Computer/SW/Languages/C_Cplusplus] UID:29350 Activity:moderate
8/14    any spreadsheet programs that can be interacted with via command line?
        e.g. excellike -e '$a4$b=44; printf "g65"'
        \- helo possible emacs wi/gnudoit ok tnx --psb
           \_ is there anything emacs *cant* do?
             \_ give you an easy-to-use intuitive interface. -ali
                \- i think the learning curve for emacs is pretty
                   reasonable. you can get started ithout learning how to
                   write a major-mode. you just need C-npfb, C-xC-f C-xC-c
                   and 5 or 6 other things. Also that teachkeys options
                   makes things easier. --psb
                   \_ teachkeys??
2003/8/15 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:29351 Activity:insanely high
8/15    Whee, oui, bienvenu l'ete!
        http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/08/14/paris.heatwave/index.html
        \_ I'm waiting for someone to blame the heatwave on terrorism.
           \_ blame it on Dubya, he didn't sign Kyoto did he?
              \_ the funny thing is, depending on which model you believe,
                 climate change will hurt europe with cold, not heat.
              \_ Why do you hate America?
              \_ I'll eat the obvious bait: 1) the Senate ratifies treaties,
                 not the President, 2) Clinton didn't sign it and send it to
                 the Senate, 3) if Clinton had signed it, and even if Kyoto
                 wasn't a complete crock of shit, and even if human events
                 can trigger global warming, and if Kyoto could actually halt
                 those triggers, and global warming actually exists as some
                 self proclaimed environmental experts believe, and if the
                 current heat wave in some places is caused by global warming,
                 then it still wouldn't have helped because at this point in
                 the treaty's life span almost nothing would have changed.
                 Thanks for sharing your hatred and ignorance with us.  And
                 yes I stopped counting at (3) because I didn't care that
                 much.
                 \_ The heat now is a freak climatic occurrence, they happen.
                    However there's no doubt things have been warming up this
                    century, and even if not entirely proven, it's fairly
                    well-accepted that man-made pollutants have some role in
                    it.  The Kyoto treaty may be badly written, but it'd be
                    nice to see the head of the world's biggest energy user
                    and polluter (total and per capita) take more steps about
                    it than signing away nature reserves to oil companies
                    (aside from the $15 million or so for clean cars, which is
                    a start.)  As I understand it, both Bush & Clinton
                    poo-pooed Kyoto without bothering to share their ideas on
                    how emissions could be reduced.  -John
                        \_ "fairly well accepted" doesn't cut it.  At one time
                           it was fairly well accepted that the earth was flat,
                           unicorns roamed the forests, and dragons flew in
                           distant [but not too distant] skies eating peasants.
                           I'm much more concerned about the toxic crap we
                           [all countries] pump into the environment.  There
                           is a direct link between various cancers, lowered
                           birth rates, increased birth defect rates and the
                           destruction of numerous plant and animal species
                           linked to toxic chemicals humans are dumping into
                           the environment yet we do almost nothing about that
                           while the Kyoto "fuck the Americans" Treaty gets
                           touted as some sort of earth saving measure based
                           on nothing more than biased models, supposition,
                           hatred for America, and "fairly well accepted".
                           \_ Actually, we do all kinds of stuff about toxic
                              chemicals in the environment.  Try again.
                              \_ Ignorant lout.  We do almost nothing compared
                                 to how much is being dumped.  *You* try again.
                           \_ I'm not interested in 'fuck the americans' (being
                              one myself and all.)  Rather, by 'well accepted'
                              let me clarify that there are a large number of
                              studies which chalk up human influence as a major
                              (you'll note, I never said "the") factor behind
                              the increase in global temperatures.  You also
                              seem to neglect that a reduction in CO2-emitting
                              processes (gasoline-driven cars, coal firing
                              power plants, whatever) has as an inevitable side
                              effect a heavy reduction of the toxic materials
                              you refer to.  So where is the problem?  Your
                              attempt to equate a widespread scientific belief
                              with unicorns is pretty sad.  -John
                              \_ Wide spread scientific belief is of no more
                                 value than unicorns.  You've heard of the
                                 scientific method.  It has yet to be applied
                                 to the question of global warming.  I'm not
                                 nearly as concerned with something like CO2
                                 as I am all the other stuff that is actually
                                 directly and indirectly killing us all on a
                                 daily basis.  No one disputes that we're
                                 poisoning our own environment.  CO2 isn't
                                 a good thing but it isn't killing us, causing
                                 birth defects or dropping the sperm counts
                                 across Europe to near sterile levels.
                        \_ All we know is temperatures increased ~ 0.5
                           degree during this century, of which most occurred
                           during the first half.  More sophisticated
                           data shows atmospheric temperatures have dropped
                           in the past 25 years while surface temperatures
                           have risen.  We also know that CO2 levels are
                           high.  This is all scientists know.  Everything
                           else is conjecture made by those with
                           a political agenda.
                           \_ (1) Human's ability to have a negative impact on
                              the world's environment and ecosystems has
                              long been demonstrated (ozone layer depletion,
                              rain forest reduction, etc.).
                              (2) Cutting CO2 emissions is the obvious thing
                              to do if the rise in temperature is in any
                              way human related.
                              (3) What kind of evidence is sufficient to
                              convince you that the temperature increases
                              is caused by human activities?  A sudden
                              sharp rise in temperatures around the globe?
                              \_ Maybe because temperatures have exhibited
                                 much larger oscillations since the
                                 dinosaurs.  E.g. the mini-ice age and
                                 settlement of Greenland during the last
                                 millenium.
                              \_ Please see my comments above about toxic
                                 chemicals in the environment.  Let's clean up
                                 something we *know* is killing us before we
                                 waste time and energy doing something which
                                 may have no effect at all.
2003/8/15-16 [Computer/SW/Languages/C_Cplusplus] UID:29352 Activity:kinda low
8/15    Are there any standard best practices for "faking" namespaces in C?
        Right now I'm prefixing my function names with "xb_"; is there a
        better way?  Please explain if so.  Thanks
        \_ you know if you declare a function as static, it has file scope
           \_ sorry, yes.  The prefix is not so much a namespace as a module
              identifier... so I have stuff like p_ for the parser, etc.
              The problem is that I'm moving C++ stuff to C so that it can
              be used by 1) non-OO types in my group and 2) a certain C-only
              toolkit (don't ask).
              \_ perl
2003/8/15-16 [Consumer/Audio] UID:29353 Activity:moderate
8/14    please recommend good freeware to rip cd's into wav/mp3's.
        \_ CDEX is ok.  http://www.cdex.n3.net  -John
        \_ Exact Audio Copy. http://www.exactaudiocopy.de
           \_ Seconded. Easiest program I've used. Oh, and download the
              latest version of LAME so EAC can use its .dll.
        \_ wav is easy ... just use WinAmp. For mp3, iTunes is great if you
           have Mac access.
           \_ I thought you could use WinAmp for WAV files but it didn't
              work for me (I've gone from mp3 to WAV using WinAmp before).
              Is there something I'm missing?
           \_ I thought you could use WinAmp to make WAV files from CDs but
              it didn't work for me (I've gone from mp3 to WAV using WinAmp
              before). Is there something I'm missing?
2003/8/15 [Uncategorized] UID:29354 Activity:nil 66%like:28720
8/15    John's Flatulent Link of the Day
        http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6947020%5E13762,00.html
2003/8/15 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:29355 Activity:nil
8/15    Cracking down on Illegal Criminals
         "This past December, a man and woman sitting on a New York
         City park bench were surrounded by a gang of young men. The
         gang kicked and beat the woman before dragging her along
         the nearby railroad tracks and forcing her into the woods,
         where they repeatedly raped the 42-year-old mother of two
         and threatened to kill her."
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/964613/posts
        \_ The term 'gang' has a negative connotation which prejudices the
           reader against the young men before their side has had a chance
           to be aired in an open court in front of a jury of their peers.
           I find this entire article racist, classist, and typical of
           the hatred the ultra right wing religious nuthead freepers are
           spreading.  They should be stopped.  No free speech for fascists!
2003/8/15-16 [Computer/Domains] UID:29356 Activity:nil
8/15    Can someone recommend a good & cheap provider that'll do secondary
        DNS, MX, and mail forwarding for a domain?  I want to keep primary
        DNS and MX, but need something in case things break.  I also would
        like to be able to retrieve mails there when the primary MX dies. -John
        \_ I use dotsters but not for the extra but I believe they provide
        \_ I use dotster but not for the extras but I believe they provide
           all of them for the $15/year domain registration.  They also
           protect my whois records and do some other stuff for free that I
           like.
2003/8/15 [Uncategorized] UID:29357 Activity:nil
8/15    Microbes that can live and reproduce at 121 degrees C:
        http://csua.org/u/3xs
2003/8/15-16 [Academia/GradSchool, Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:29358 Activity:low
8/15    Why did the writer of the MSblast worm wrote it to screw up everything
        on the infected machine?  If the worm isn't as intrusive, I think many
        people will be happy to ignore it intentionally and let their infected
        machines take part in attacking the MS web site tomorrow.
        \_ what--were you never 14?
        \_ I guess he got low grades on "worm coding" in school?
2003/8/15-16 [Computer/SW/Security, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:29359 Activity:low
8/15    D00DZ GN00 WUZ 0WNZ!
        http://csua.org/u/3xw (story.news.yahoo.com)
        http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2003-21.html
        \_ rms:rms
2003/8/15-16 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll] UID:29360 Activity:very high
8/15    Wow, i finally noticed what you guys keep talking about.
        The only non-tech. thread was deleted from the middle of the
        pack.  That's really fucked up.  (i mean, it wasn't a thread
        i was really participating in so i don't really care), but
        sheesh, why would anyone care enough to kill it? Censor
        explain yourself. -phuqm
        \_ Wasn't me, but the motd gets long and needs trimming.  It's the
           ignorant non-post-signing trolls (who're usually too wrong to
           feel comfortable identifying themselves) who're pathetic.  Of
           course it's your right to be anonymous, but you're still
           pathetic.  -John
           \_ Fuck all those anonymous losers.  Like the trolls who wrote the
              Federalist Papers which were originally published anonymously.
              \_Don't buy into his spin.  There is a world of difference
                between anonymous post versus anonymously edit/delete other
                people's post.  Those who censored MOTD justify their action
                because they believe anonymously silence opinion they don't
                like is a form of their freedom of speech.
           \_ you amaze me.  you hurl childish insults at people and get pulled
              in to flame wars that drag on and on for no reason, and then
              consider yourself superior because you sign your name.
              do you seriously think that your insults trolls and flames don't
              make you look like an idiot because you sign your name?
              i've seen posts that were funny, technically informative,
              interesting and thoughtful from anonymous people.  i cannot
              say the same for you(except for the technically informative
              part.)
                \_ I enjoy a good, intelligent debate.  Some anonymous posters
                   make well-thought out points, which I reply to, troll or no.
                   Then, while you're entitled to your opinions, I'm entitled
                   to mine.  The guy below is the first who's given a somewhat
                   rational reason for not putting a name on his posts.  I
                   sincerely doubt, however, if most of the trolls have ever
                   bothered to think that far (hence the "pathetic", which I
                   stick by in this case.)  And let's face it, comparing the
                   motd to the Federalist Papers takes the cake--that's the
                   funniest thing I've heard in ages.  -John
                   \_ It's not up to *YOU* to decide rather motd is relevant
                   \_ John, if the anonymous poster has made a well-thought
                      point, then it *isn't* a troll.  Let's stop using tom's
                      ill conceived "anonymous == troll" definition and keep
                      to the generally accepted internet definition of "troll
                      == trying to start flamefest on hot-button topic for
                      no reason other than to get people riled".
                   \_ The motd isn't the Federalist Papers.  However, the
                      concept is similar.  The authors of the FP wanted to
                      say their piece without their writings being judged by
                      the unimportant details of who wrote them.  Knowing the
                      author's home state, country of origin, religion, etc
                      would prejudice many readers at the time who would then
                      miss the whole point: the Papers themselves.  Anonymity
                      allows intelligent debate and discussion without making
                      it personal.  For example, you might note that one of
                      your fellow CSUA members has been updating his "twink
                      points list" religiously/insanely for years.  Yes, it
                      is a joke, however, it also demonstrates an excellent
                      reason to not post a name if you want intelligent debate.
                      A person who records their grudges permanently and who
                      brings those grudges to every discussion is not someone
                 a troll but that doesn't dimish the quality of my points.  It
                 only shows the opposition has to resort to ad hominen.
                      you'll be having too many intelligent debates with.
                   \_ It's not up to *YOU* to decide whether motd is relevant
                      or not.  If you actually live in a country which has
                      severe form of censorship, you will discover whatever
                      you are doing is no different from those government
                      agent.  I.e. silence people's voice based upon result
                      of a body who think his judgement is far more superior
                      than others
                      -someone who used to live in a place of heavy censorship
              \_ John knows his security and he knows his history and most
                 things European.  John doesn't know that getting dragged into
                 an idiotic flame fest on the motd over any topic and then
                 putting your name to it is insane for anyone who wants to
                 keep their current or get a new job.  All this stuff gets
                 archived forever.  My politics, although correct at all times
                 :-), are none of any employer's business.  It can only hurt
                 me if they find my name attached to some ridiculous time
                 wasting noise on the motd no matter how brilliant my points
                 or how well I back them up with solid research.  I put real
                 life above the motd and choose anonymity for safety in the
                 real world, not safety on the motd itself where I have no
                 real reason to care what any of you think.  I don't want this
                 all going to google or whatever with my name on it.  Call me
                 a troll but that doesn't diminish the quality of my points.
                 It only shows the opposition has to resort to ad hominen.
                        -- proud to be one of John's "trolls"
                  \_ You essentially have no politics unless you are willing
                     to stand up for your beliefs/opinions/wants/needs.
                     Democracy is not a spectator sport, if you want to
                     to be heard, stand up and fight for your platform.
                     It used to be called character, before the PC zealotry
                    an extremely brave thing to do.  I honstly don't know
                     turned everyone into spineless wimps. -williamc
                     \_ so you're arguing that signing posts shows
                        "character" and is therefore a good thing.  is the
                        purpose of posts on the motd to demonstrate your
                        personal character or is it to convey information?
                        i claim that for the vast majority of poeple who
                        will read your post, your name signed at the bottom
                        carries no useful information.  that is to say that
                        they will neither pay more atttention or less attention
                        to your words based on knowing your login.  i claim
                        that this is a good thing.  it means that arguments
                        are evaluated based on their own merrit alone.
                        if you want to see poeple relying on their reputation
                        to get people to listen to them, turn on the tv.
                     \_ Uhm, yeah that's mostly true...but this is the motd.
                        Are you seriously using the *motd* to make some sort
                        statement about this guy's character??        -mice
                     \_ Hint: Federalist Paper.  May be  you should of give
                        the authors of Federalist Paper a lesson in Democracy
                     \_ I'm not a revolutionary.  My job and the income I
                        provide to my family is infinitely more important
                        than the motd politics flamefests.  If you think my
                        points have no value simply because I don't sign
                        them then you either aren't old enough to be concerned
                        with the real world yet or you're just falling back on
                        ad hominen instead of the true value of debate which
                        is point and counter-point, regardless of the speaker.
                 \_ It is too bad that you are too cowardly to post your
                    name to your opinions. You should proudly sign your
                    posts. -anonymous coward
                    \_ *laugh*  Very funny.  Are you the Anonymous Motd Comic?
                 \_ If any of you ever lived in a country of heavy censorship
                    like I did, you will know that even anonymous post is
                    an extremely brave thing to do.  I honestly don't know
                    if anyone would knows the concept of freedom of speech and
                    expression without live through the experience of not
                    having it.
2003/8/15-16 [Computer/SW/Editors/Emacs, Computer/SW/Editors/Vi] UID:29361 Activity:high
8/15    Is it really worth it for me to learn emacs?  I've been
        getting by with pico and vi for years and years and am pretty
        busy, but there sure seem to be a lot of emacs fans.
        Is there things i can't do because i don't use emacs?
        Is there uber-cool cvs plugins i should be using that i can't
        get for vi?  I know i'm risking a religious war, but i really
        am just asking and want to know. -phuqm
        \- you can use one of the vi-emulations in emacs. although i think
           they will bea little tricky to use if you know 0 emacs. --psb
        Is there things i can't do because i don't use emacs?
        Is there uber-cool cvs plugins i should be using that i can't
        get for vi?  I know i'm risking a religious war, but i really
        am just asking and want to know. -phuqm
         \_ what do you mean you're not a troll?  you don't even exist- danh
            \_ how can he be a troll if he doesn't exist? how did he post
               all that stuff if he doesn't exist?  what are you talking
               about?
        \_ I only use emacs, but there are many people here at my company
           who only use vi and they get by fine.
            \_ well, i get by fine too, but sometimes one "gets by"
               on american cheese 'cause he doesn't know that real cheese
               exists.  If there really is some spread-sheet hook (as
               discussed below) and/or other cool/powerful things about
           \_ I used RMAIL and then VMail in emacs and I loved it.  But now at
               emacs, then maybe it is worth learning. -phuqm
               \_ who moved my cheese!?!?
                  \_ what color is your cheese?
                  \_ please don't start that here
                     \_ that was a joke. your consternation is more of a
                        conversation starter than the joke
                        \_ you dont want to know
        \_ I use emacs when coding several files. I use vi for making small
           edits to those files or for writing perl/bash scripts. vi has the
           advantage in that it is quick to load and on almost every unix box.
           My big three pros about Emacs are
           1. fancy syntax highlighting
           \_ vi also has
           2. mouse support (!) if you running X or Windows
           \_ This is a plus?  Free yourself from the mouse.  You'll get more
              done.
              \_ Does emacs support a joystick?
           3. auto-tabbing
           \_ vi also has
           There are a million other features, those are just my favorites.
           \_ I used RMAIL and then VMail in emacs and I like them.  But now at
              this job I'm forced to use Outlook.
           \_ I concur. vi for stuff like our beloved motd. emacs for several
              C/Perl/language-du-jour files
        \_ This is kind of OT, but something I've always wanted: the major
           drawback (for me) with emacs was the setup process.  Once I had
           syntax highlighting, auto-tabbing, find-this-method-definition,
           etc., things were SUPERB.  But getting there, and staying
           there, has never been easy, and I'm currently using Eclipse,
           which I like.  Are there any quick and easy "distributions"
           of emacs that are well-polished and targetted to, say, java
           and jsp, or C/C++, or XML development?
        \_ I hated emacs setup and chording until I got RSI.  Now I happily use
           Vim, and have everything I liked about emacs in Vim out-of-the-box
           with the exception of gdb integration.
2003/8/15-16 [Recreation/Computer/Games] UID:29362 Activity:high
8/15    Rise of Nations is pretty cool, BUT, are there games that emphasizes
        less on build-up (technology, citizens, research, etc) and more
        on strategic fighting? Like simply moving troops, using artillery,
        etc? This build-up process is simply stupid.
        \_ "amateurs talk about strategy, pros talk about logistics"
           \_ there are games which allow you to manage supply lines and such
        \_ Nectaris: Military Madness for PSX.  One of my all time favorites.
           It's a turn-based game though, but I think that's better than RTS
           anyways.  [edit] Btw, N: MM feels a lot more like a board game
           than a video game.  If you are a hardcore grognard, try something
           like Europa Universalis or wait for Road to Moscow to come out.
           Also, check out http://grognard.com. -- ilyas
           Also, check out http://grognard.com.  [edit2] Sorry, I remembered one
           more thing: check out Combat Mission games from Battlefront.
           Yes, I play wargames a lot. -- ilyas
        \_ play regular wargames.  maybe like Hearts of Iron
        \_ agree with above. there are tons of set piece turn based games out
           there with a lot more strategic depth than the click fest you'll
           get in any RTS game.
2003/8/15 [Uncategorized] UID:29363 Activity:nil
8/15    Do Republicans still call them Freedom Fries?
2003/8/15-16 [Uncategorized] UID:29364 Activity:moderate
8/15    motd censor coward, please identify yourself.
        \_ Okay, you have shamed me enough. I will finally reveal my
           identity. My name is [censored]
           \_ Why tell us?  We already know.  We just don't care.
              \_ I don't know.  Who is it?
                 \_ Who cares?
2003/8/15-16 [Uncategorized] UID:29365 Activity:low
8/15    Is there a Windows or linux utility our there which allows to recreate
        a partition table by scanning the disk and making a guess at what
        the partition should look like?
        \_ What exactly did you do to your PT?
2003/8/15-18 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:29366 Activity:high
8/15    New York power outages: another fine victory for deregulation.
        \_ you're a genius.  have a cookie.
        \_ Look at the bright side.  MS Blaster won't spread as fast.  (Or is
           that the dark side?)
        \_ You're a nut.  It had nothing to do with deregulation.
           \_ Is that you, Pete Wilson?
           \_ It may or may not. But you are correct in that OP is jumping
              to conclusions. I blame that evil schemer, Dr. Chaos!
              \_ http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0815-07.htm
                 \_ Palast is that ultra-leftist kook who thinks that Bush
                    stole the election in Florida.
         \_ I don't think Palast is a complete kook, I read his book,
            his main point is that voting machines in predominately
            white counties in Florida would "spit back out" what it
            considered an improperly filled out ballet and in
            predominately black counties in Florida the voting machines
            were configured to just meekly accept an improperly
            filled out ballot, remarkably different behavior than
            in the former example.  He doesn't claim gwbush is
            directly responsible for this but someone or some
            organization was, probably the same people who came
            up with the great idea to hire a private firm to
            knock a bunch of ex cons off of the voting rolls in Florida,
            which is fine I guess except no one bothered to check their
            work and a lot of people were unable to vote on election
            day. - danh
                \_ Nice troll, dan.  From here on down none of this has
                   a single thing to do with the power outage, power
                   deregulation or anything else.  While you're trolling
                   from the left you might go check out the various trolls
                   from the right who would tell you about the leftist
                   media cheating the voting in the panhandle, the military
                   who got screwed in (D) controlled counties, how those ex
                   cons weren't allowed to vote by law, that the (D) had a
                   phone bank running in Texas(!!!) calling old people to
                   tell them they'd voted for Buchanan before anything had
                   even happened meaning they were planning on contesting the
                   election on the butterfly ballot but only if it didn't go
                   their way, and that the full state wide recount had bush
                   losing by three (3!!!) votes in a single scenario because
                   (pay attention) those nice rich white areas with all those
                   fascist republicans using their fancy shamncy voting
                   machines had the same error rate as the punch cards once
                   someone looked at them by hand, and most of the errors
                   were in Gore's favor.  Now that you've trolled the motd
                   with the partisan crap and I've counter trolled it and
                   a few other below have all added their bit of strict
                   partisanship, let's let it go and move on.  You've got
                   another election to lose coming up and your party would
                   be better served if you directed your energy to the
                   future instead of the past.  Besides, who the hell wanted
                   Gore in office on 9/12 anyway?  Not even Gore.
                        \_ bush did steal the election in Florida
                           \_ Excellent.  Well backed statement.  You got
                              into Cal?  You're on the football team?
                           \_ Even though a later count confirmed he had
                              a narrow lead?
                                \_ 1) some counts had him winning some
                                   had him losing. (In fact the general
                                   thought is if just a palm beach recount
                                   Bush won, if a Florida wide recount Bush
                                   lost.  2) once it didn't matter
                                   anymore the counts were a lot less
                                   thurough. 3) Bush stole the elections pre
                                   counts by agressivly denying the rights
                                   of people to vote by falsely declaring them
                                   felons and knocking them off the voter
                                   roles.
                                   \_ about (1): 'general thought'?  Without
                                      numbers you can think all you want...
                                      but it's just partisan wishful thinking.
                                      CNN ran a story a month after
                                      the recounts, saying an unofficial
                                      recount completed, and would have given
                                      Bush the victory anyways.  That
                                      unofficial recount had some nice
                                      advantages (for instance, since it wasn't
                                      important, neither democrats nor
                                      republicans tried to influence it in
                                      an illicit way, so it's as close to
                                      impartial data as you will get).
                                      (2): Do you have anything more than
                                      anecdotal evidence to back this up?
                                      If anything, I expect the recounts to
                                      be more, not less accurate, if special
                                      interests no longer breathe down the
                                      necks of those poor volunteers (see (1)).
                                      \_ Recounts mainly consist of checking
                                         the numbers at the main office against
                                         the local numbers.  No ballot checking,
                                         no actual recounting.
                                      (3): Do you have any data to back this
                                      up?
                                      \_ Check the New York Times, Washington
                                         Post, etc.  This, for obvious reasons
                                         was given very little attention in
                                         the press, but the abuses by Katherine
                                         Harris and Jeb Bush against the voters
                                         are documented.
                            standard many times over...  Is it your defense
                                      \_ google for "bush florida black
                            voter roles felon" and you will find a lot
                            of articles talking about just this issue
                            http://www.commondreams.org/views/121000-106.htm
                            is one.
                                      At any rate, the best you can say is
                                      there is some uncertainty, not that
                                      BUSH WITHOUT A DOUBT STOLE THE ELECTION.
                                      You are a partisan moron, btw.
                                      \_ one thing i think we should all agree
                                         on, though, is that regardless of who
                                         "really" won the 2000 election, the
                                         voting process in america has some
                                         *very* serious problems that need
                                         to be dealt with immediately.
                                         if the 2000 election were a scietific
                                         experiment to determine who should
                                         be president, the only result one
                                         could publish would be "inconclusive."
                                         that should not be allowed to happen.
                                         i think all of our time would be
                                         better spent trying to work towards
                                   read the decisions.
                                         better election process in the future
                                         than getting all worked up about 2000.
                         \_ The USSC decision was 7-2 in favor of Bush.  He
                            won, period.  All the demagoguery and race
                            baiting can't change that fact.  Of course,
                            if you start divining the will of the
                            voter based on some completely arbitary
                            standard many times over...  Is it your contention
                            that Democratic voters are so stupid
                            they can't fill out a punch card?  Voters should
                            be required to pass an intelligence test
                            and if you are a net recipient of money from
                            the government you can't vote.
                            Read the damn USSC decision.
                            \_ http://www.supremecourtus.gov/florida.html
                            \_ the 7-2 case said that Florida could decide what
                               to do.  Florida followed Florida election law
                               and was looking at every ballot to look for
                               things like hanging chads.  The case went back
                               to the Supreme Court and this time in a 5-4
                               case the court said that Florida's election
                               laws be damned, they were awarding Florida
                               to Bush.  Get your history right.
                                \_ I set this trap deliberately to see if
                                   you read the decision - you obviously
                                   did not.  The USSC decision was 7-2
                                   that the recounts were unconstitutional
                                   under equal protection and due process.
                                   Look for your own intellectual honesty
                                   read the decisions.  Article 2 of
                                   the Constitution dictates plenary
                                   power to choose electors resides with
                                   the legislature - not the unelected
                                   state judiciary.  Everything you wrote
                                   is wrong and is rebutted in the
                                   several decisions.
                                   \_ just out of curiosity, are you refering
                                      to "Per curiam opinion in Bush v. Gore;
                                      Rehnquist, C. J., concurring; Stevens,
                                      Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ.,
                                      dissenting" from the supreme court
                                      link above?  i'll go read it, but i want
                                      to make sure it's not a red herring.
              \_ Armchair quarterbacks in politics need to find a life...
                 \_ laugh while you can, monkey boy!  soon the liberal media
                    will start reading the motd and their vast conspiracy
                    will crumble when they are exposed to the Truth at last.
                    \_ Too late:
                       http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=257&row=0
2017/09/22 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/22    
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2003:August:15 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>