| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2003/9/9 [Uncategorized] UID:10120 Activity:high |
9/8 Prompted by the RIAA and their filesharer lawsuits-- is there a
way for the victims to short-circuit the process, maybe
Donate all assets to the EFF, declare bankruptcy and avoid paying
the settlement?
\_ a friend of mine had an interesting idea. a legal DDOS attack:
if a million people all filed different, small, suits
against the RIAA about some bullshit, the net effect could
be devastating...or could it? i don't know if this could work,
but it's an interesting idea.
\_ This sort of bullshit noise is made by some clown every so often.
The courts are just going to throw everyone out before seeing a
judge. If it does anything, it will simply clog the small courts
and prevent _real_ people with _real_ problems from using them.
Boo fucking hoo on the music pirates getting destroyed. Prices
are too high or the music sucks? Don't buy it. Donating all of
one's wealth to the EFF is *the* most stupid thing I think I
might have *ever* heard on the motd. You're going to go to zero
wealth because the RIAA *might* take you to court? Sheer idiocy. |
| 2003/9/9 [Computer/SW/Languages/Perl] UID:10121 Activity:high |
9/8 Any recommendations for a text-based Yahoo instant messanger app
for linux that logs.
\_ Yahoo::Messenger
\_ what do you mean, there isn't a CPAN module by that name.
\_ Sorry, Net::YahooMessenger, but really, you could have
tried searching.
\_ I did search for "Yahoo" at the CPAN list:
http://www.cpan.org/modules/00modlist.long.html
Why isn't that module listed there? BTW, I'm looking
for an application, not a library.
\_ Luke! Use the source! *WRITE* an application! You
have the power within you! Feel it! Reach out to it!
Close your eyes, unload the IDE, and just *feel* the
code! |
| 2003/9/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:10122 Activity:very high |
9/8 You think the US has bad crime--a friend in London was just mugged
by a guy who hit him in the head with a machete and stole his
phone. Wow. -John
\- and we learn from this; it's hard to kill a person without a gun.
\_ He didn't want to kill him. He wanted his cell phone. No,
it's not hard to kill someone with a machete; ask 300,000
Tutsis. -John
\- if you look at stats, the types of weapons [including
type of gun] has big effects on the fatality rates
associate with crime. although the relationship between
crime rates and gun availability is complicated i
belive the numbers are quite clear the rate of people
killed is alot high when guns are involved. note also
it's a lot higher with long guns than handguns ...
so policy that affects the gun type mixture has
implications for fatalities as well --psb
\_ It's pretty obvious that more people will be killed
given that a crime is commited and that a gun was
involved (as opposed to a gunless crime). This
says nothing about the relationship between gun
availability and crime rate (pro-gun people claim,
probably justifiably, that guns are a deterrent.)
It's also troubling that moral implications
of reckless regulation of private lives does not
enter the discussion of policy.
\_ I'll bet if everyone (except felons, certified
crazies, etc) was _required_ to carry a gun,
stranger on stranger crime would be almost
non-existent.
\_ no, the attacker easily could have chopped up the victim with a
*machete* after whacking them in the head. you've learned
nothing, not even how to properly spread your FUD.
\_ "Hard" is not describing just the physical possibility.
Physical proximity increases the psychological impact
of causing injury.
\_ Anyone willing to whack someone on the head with a machete
for a cell phone doesn't have the same psychological limits
you and I have.
\_ as john said, the goal wasn't a murder. The goal was
a robbery.
\_ which isn't at all what the person above said about
hard. they were talking psychological limitations
to killing, not the attacker's goals. if murder
was the goal, they'd be dead no matter the weapon.
if theft was the goal, they'd point the gun, take
the cell and leave if the victim didn't give the
attacker any crap.
\_ Actually, no, I don't think crime in the US is bad. It's mostly
confined to certain areas of large cities which can be avoided.
This is a very safe country compared to most where you can get
mugged on the street by a guy hitting you in the head with a
machete for your phone.
\_ Interestingly, this doesn't stop Americans from being terribly
_afraid_ of crime, even if (and sometimes even especially) if
they live in areas where they are very unlikely to be victims.
\_ Homicide rates, Y2K, per 100K population:
50.14 South Africa
21.40 Russia
10.00 Lithuania
9.94 Estonia
6.22 Latvia
5.64 USA
2.94 Spain
1.81 Australia
1.79 France
1.76 Canada
1.61 England
1.42 Italy
you were a stree thug. I've got no sympathy for
1.17 Germany
\_ Do you have stats that break out cities vs non-cities for
any of these countries? The US non-gang banger crime rates
are probably lower than Germany's rate listed above.
\_ Crime is slowly spreading into the nicer areas so there is
some justification for crime fears but it is true that the
_current_ rates in those areas are still low.
\_ Unfortunately, some areas where people had to go to (like Berkeley
for school) has bad crime rates.
\_ You don't _have_ to go to a crime ridden city for school and
the city doesn't have to be so crime ridden. Get rid of
pro-crime groups like Cop Watch and you'll see crime drop even
in Berkeley.
\_ You know the crime rate has gone down in Berkeley since
since Cop Watch started in the late 80s, right?
\_ You're going to attribute lowered crime to Cop Watch?
You're nuts. I was here in the early 80's to now and
it has to do with more cops on the streets on foot and
on bikes being more aggressive with criminals during
the last 20 years. Next you'll be claiming that a
butterfly in China has somehow caused crime to drop
here as well.
\_ cops commit crimes.
\_ yes, I'm sure the dramatic drop in crime in
Berkeley is due to Cop Watch coming down hard on
the evil UCPD and BPD and keeping them from
abusing drug dealers and muggers by limited the
poor oppressed criminals civil rights and freedom
of movement by putting their sorry asses in jail.
\_ it's only a crime if you get caught.
\_ No, you are the nut for claiming that Cop Watch has
had an effect on the crime rate one way or another.
You are making a totaly unsubstantiated claim and
then when evidence is shown contrary to your claim,
you fall back on ad hominem tactits. Show me the
evidence that Cop Watch has caused increased crime
in Berkeley. The best way you could do it is to
compare Berekely with a similar city and show that
the crime rate dropped more in the other city.
Bet you can't do it, though. I think that Cop
Watch has caused the police to act more civilly
especially on South Side, leading to better
community relations and more respect for the
police, which has led to *surprise* a lower
crime rate. Where the police are totally out
of control, like LA Southside in the 90s, is
when crime goes up the most.
\_ The cops were always civil in Berkeley *unless*
\_ a BPD once yelled at me, "What's the matter
with you, you got your head up your ass?" And
he thought I was a grad student, not a punk.
\_ If you were pissing on my shoes I'd say the
same thing, punk.
you were a street thug. I've got no sympathy for
the trash crawling around Telegraph in the 80s.
\_ I lived in South Berkeley in the late 80s
and the cops were most definitely not civil.
\_ Me too. Never had a problem. Maybe you
should stop spitting on them.
\_ You think London has bad crime compared to NYC, LA, or most
large American cities? In Berkeley, some idiot shot and killed
a student for his wallet. I assume your friend survived.
\_ I remember when I was at Cal, in the paper, I read some guy was
mugging a couple on Channing St., and he gave them a count of 3
to give him their wallets. At 2, he shot the guy.
\_ Yes, there are many anecdotes around and no one ever said
Berkeley was a safe place anyway. And no, he didn't shoot at
2. The idiot guy tried to talk to his mugger about it and
settle their differences without violence. After all,
violence never settled anything, right? Yes, I was here then
also.
\_ I believe that they both reached for the gun.
\_ Must be a different dude. The deader I know of tried
the Peace & Conflict Studies Department method. His
girlfriend who handed over her purse is still alive.
\_ Is this the appropriate situation to claim,
"Isn't it ironic?" -alanis
\_ No, but it sounds good.
\_ Alanis was wrong. She sang of tragic, not ironic.
\_ Alanis was responsible for a whole generation
of teenage girls being taught to horribly
misuse a perfectly good word.
\_ teenage girls (and adult men and all between)
have been horribly misusing that word LONG
before anyone had heard of Alanis.
\_ you are wrong. She did not sing of
"tragic" any more than she sang of
"ironic". rain on your wedding day is
ironic if you think like a teenage girl.
It is not tragic. 10K spoons is neither
tragic nor ironic. (but more the latter
than the former). Only the plane crash
could be considered "tragic" by anyone not
an idiot, and even that is pushing it and
it also has ironic elements. (though that
is DEF. pushing it). Oh yeah, a no smoking
sign on a cig. break is ironic not tragic.
(if you are a smoker who expected to smoke
but who obeys signs). [formatd all over
this *mess*]
\_ Wow, you heard the same stand up routine
everyone else did and took it for your own.
You're obviously too clever for motd. |
| 2003/9/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:10123 Activity:high |
9/8 http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/6726186.htm Dean: the party of young rich white educated geeky people. \_ why should black people vote for Bush as opposed to Dean? I am too tired to tell you right now why that article is stupid. \_ what an amazing cop-out. you're too tired? than dont respond at all. you're wasting bits. \_ Ah, yes, bits, that unrenewable resource. Dude, the motd is a waste of bits. Deal. \_ what a dumb article. "More than 6 in 10 whites describe themselves as Internet users, while about half of blacks say they use it". Notice the capitalized Internet and the attempted distinction between "about half" and "6 in 10". \_ Why should black people vote for Dean? Why should the color of one's skin have any relation to their politics? \_ spoken by a true white boy \_ not white and you still didn't answer anything, but i don't expect you to because the answers don't fit your agenda. 1) they shouldn't, 2) it doesn't. \_ beats the hell out of me. why don't you ask the NAACP? \_ naacp? i don't hang out with racists, thanks. \_ You're viewing the article in the wrong light. Dean needs the Dem nom first. There are more minorities in the Dem party. The ability to relate to minority POV is thus, more significant. |
| 2003/9/9-10 [Uncategorized] UID:10124 Activity:moderate |
9/9 If they are going to come up with four blade razors, why doesn't
the next company just make five blade razors?
\_ "This one goes to eleven!"
\_ "But this one goes to eleven!"
\_ SNL. Patented 13th blade for that extra close shave.
\_ Just pull the whole piece out. No shaving need for the next few
days. |
| 2003/9/9-10 [Computer/Networking] UID:10125 Activity:kinda low |
9/9 why does ping <DEAD>ensim.rackshack.net<DEAD> returns localloop ip (127.0.0.1)? \_ cause somebody is bad. dig <DEAD>ensim.rackshack.net<DEAD> \_ you mean they can fool ping to think it's the localloop ip? |
| 2003/9/9-10 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA] UID:10126 Activity:nil |
9/9 Have you guys ever on CSUA experience some lag from time to time while
typing in a doc, or composing an email? It just happened to me again
while I was typing this message, it appears to pause for a sec or two.
Is this the result of someone on soda running some cpu intensive tasks?
\_ This is generally from network usage at Cal. The kids are back in
town and firing up their gnutella clients.
\_ Yeah I experience it all the time, it it network lag for me.
I blame it on the file sharers at work. |
| 2003/9/9 [Health, Health/Disease/General] UID:29523 Activity:high |
9/8 Nearly the saddest thing I've ever read.
http://csua.org/u/47e (netscape.com site)
\_ Wow, playing counterstrike and warcraft
now counts as exercise.
The walking bits gets me. Why is walking
consider moderate excersize?
\_ THAT gets you? What about the purposeless wandering?
\_ I dunno, I can purposelessly wander pretty damn fast.
\_ cool, my life is "light exercise"!
\_ I dunno, can anybody find the document that article used as a
source? The most likely candidate I could find was this:
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/physical/pdf/PA_Intensity_table_2_1.pdf
which makes it seem to me like that article is a gross
exageration.
\_ Of course the article is crap. It isn't mainsteam media's job
to inform but to create new and manipulate popular opinion to be
more in line with what the reporters and their editors want you
to believe. |
| 2003/9/9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:29524 Activity:insanely high |
9/8 http://asia.reuters.com/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3408521 Sigh... once again world leaders were unprepared for the obvious and easily foreseen. Only a week ago Japan announced they're going to _start_ spending $2b/year for the next 5+ years. SK has no plans for defense at all. And in the next year we have a good chance of seeing a few million people anywhere in the region go up in smoke. Literally. \_ According to the 2003 CIA world factbook the military budgets for these countries in 2002 were (roughly): S. Korea: $13B Japan: $40B \_ Percentage for missile defense? near zero. \_ Kim Jong-Il isn't going to do anything. Why not? Because he'll lose if he tries. Kim Jong-Il's most important goal is survival. He merely wants to give off the appearance of being crazy so he can blackmail donor countries. If he did anything, we would invade and he would lose. for sure. \- it's probably actually the case that NKorea is willing to "bid" to higher risk levels. going with the poker analogy, bluffing might be just that when it comes to a single round of poker, but the willingness to run higher risks has implications across repeated interactions. in a MAD world you dont directly threaten the other side, but you threten the other side with your willingness to risk things going out of control. this model applies in a certain modified way in the north korean case. lit. references skipped. BTW, pico iyer has an interesting travel essay on NK from a few yrs back in "tropical classical" i think. there is also an interesting frontline on NK. --psb \_ You know, that's very similar to what people said about Saddam Hussein: he'd either use/have WMD's or allow the inspectors in. 1) we haven't found WMD's (which of course brings up nasty questions of either intelligence failure or someone else getting the weapons. 2) he didn't let inspectors in \_ uhh, revisionist history here? \_ Thanks for the correction--I must be hanging out with the wrong crowd. His obstruction in 1994 led the inspectors to believe that they couldn't accomplish anything (and hence the left). The UN resolutions in 2002-2003 were for Hussein to lead the inspectors to WMD's or produce evidence that the weapons had been destroyed. No one expected him to let his country be invaded rather than comply. \_ the inspectors left in 1998. Not 1994. Also he did start producing serious evidence there were no WMDs, but the adminstration went to the the rest of the world and said he was lieing and they had evidence to prove it. Funny how now they are backing away from that and hoping most people wont notice or care. Which is working in the US but isn't working too well outside of the country. And as has been proven recently the US CAN'T go it alone unless they are willing to make sacrafices and pay through the nose. \_ His evidence was late and weak thus leading to the reasonable assumption + intelligence that there were easily found WMD. Hussein's actions still make no sense. We had a large force at his southern border and were making preparations to invade that were so obvious CNN was showing the work being done on international TV and he still wouldn't blink. \_ Perhaps he was not willing to fully cooperate because US is bombing his military capabilities even beyond the no fly zone, and has pretty much stated that we would try to assasinate Saddam if we find the chance? \_ No, your timeline is way off. We were *way* beyond no fly zones and other sanctions era garbage at this point. If he didn't blink it was clear he'd get invaded and crushed, party over. No blink. You can't judge foreign leaders based on your local concept of common sense. \_ It was clear to him he would get invaded no matter whether he blinked or not. US special forces is all over Iraq by that point, and condition for no invasion is for Saddam to step down and go into exile. Exile means US can assasinate him anytime it wants. The voluminous evidence (several thousand pages) is \_ So how much of your half-eaten Cheetos did you spew all over your screen while typing that? not weak but as much as he can provide given that, as we now know, he really doesn't have any WMD. \_ Obviously I need to stop posting late at night. There is no sane explanation for Hussein's actions. Why do you expect Kim Jong-Il to be different? \_ There's a really interesting long ass article about Kim Jong-Il in last week's new yorker, I guess I could post it somewhere if you're interested. now I feel like psb, this sucks. - danh \- evolutionary ameliorism \_ So you work for the State Department and have access to the psych profiles of foreign leaders? What security clearance does that require? Is there any other secret shit you can maneuvering to prevent a war at all costs. Keeping US share with us? --super spy #1 fan \_ One doesn't need all that "secret shit". It's common \_ Umm, China constitutes > 70% of N Korean imports. Since N. Korea has no natural resources or domestic industry, this means in effect N. Korea survives only through China. PRC military wants military parity with the US ~ 2025, their generals and military reports are very specific that they view the US as adversary. Sorry you are wrong (unless of course you know more thant the entire US defense establishment). sense. The problem with US intelligence services is too much technology and too little common sense. Kim wants to hold on to power for the long term, and to do that his best model is the PRC. Unfortunately, US sanctions is preventing him from following in the PRC's footsteps. He also faces much more serious military pressures and burden as compared to the PRC. South Korea poses much more of a threat as the better model than Taiwan vis-a-vis the PRC, since Taiwan is so small compared to PRC. Yes, Kim might strike if he is cornered. If you let him have a way out, he would take the way out. I think US wants to take him out whereas S. Korea prefers a more moderate, slower, but less risky way. Maybe if PRC continues to prosper economically, it can pull N. Korea out of economic disaster even with US sanctions. Either take Kim out ASAP or help him with economic liberalization are both better than the current impasse. \_ No, it isn't common sense to threaten your neighbors and the US with nuclear weapons if you expect to survive long term. If staying alive and in power was his goal, he's chosen a suicidal and foolish path that only a mad man would take. How do you see 10+ years of nuclear weapons and missile development in a starving nation as a means of survival as common sense? \_ If S. Korea, Japan, US feels threatened by N. Korea, how do you think N. Korea feels about the might of the US? If N. Korea's military is weak, US and S. Korea would likely have taken it out a long time ago, given that USSR is no more and PRC is more and more unwilling to support the liability that is N. Korea. \_ Sigh... if the US wanted to take out NK we could do so right now. NK can *never* be so strong that we can't take them out. You have it all backwards. The *only* reason to take them out is they're getting too strong and building WMD and the means to use them *and* are suicidally threatening to do so. Otherwise no one would care what a backwater starving nation run by yet another psycho is doing to it's people. \_ not "no one." South Korea would care. Most south Koreans still have family over there. \_ Sure and USSR could have taken out Afghanistan. Just throw a few nukular bombs and then send in the whole damn Red Army. 3rd grade arguments aside, the question is always, "At what cost?". And no, the reason N. Korea is more and more a concern is not that they are getting too strong but that they are getting too weak and unstable, and of course, the above stated desires of S. Koreans to have a united nation. As for caring about "backwater starving nations", it's all about projecting power and securing interests, like in Iraq, or Philippines in the last century. \_ don't forget that the current PRC model all started with Mao being *dead*. all through the idiocy of the great leap forward and the cultural revolution there were moderate leaders ready to turn China into a real country, and without the maniac dying all this was totaly impossible. Kim is NK's maniac. \_ Mao is a brutal dictator but not a maniac. Yes, GLF is sheer stupidity but I think Mao really believed it would work, at least initially. As for the GPCR, it is Mao's calculated bid to return to power. The PRC model (a more basic version) has been experimented upon off and on since the commie takeover, by the likes of Zhou, Liu and Deng. Mao did not like it too much not because of its merits/problems but because it gives too much power to Liu and others, sidelining Mao. \_ [troll purged] \_ In Washington the 'common sense' prevailing intelligence is that North Korea is China's client state. They are maneuvering to force the US off of the Korean peninsula so China can expand its sphere of influence. DUH. \_ PRC's main concern is much more than whether US troops is on the Korean peninsula. It's biggest fear is war on the Korean peninsula. Politically, helping N. Korea would be disastrous since PRC has good relations with S. Korea, and need trade with Japan and US. Not helping would be disastrous since its people and military leaders would be questioning why it is giving up what the previous generation gave life and blood for. Economically, it would be disastrous for the whole region either way. Militarily, it would have a hard time matching US / S. Korea. PRC is maneuvering to prevent a war at all costs. Forcing US off the Korean peninsula is way down on the bottom of the list. This is all common sense, and very basic. |
| 2003/9/9 [Computer/SW] UID:29525 Activity:nil |
9/9 restored from reasonably recent copy. someone else munged it while
editing the live file. please learn to use your editors. |