Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2003:October:02 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10408 Activity:high
10/1    Oh gawd.  Check http://latimes.com for an Arnold expose on his treatment
        of women.  I still might vote for him, though, as bad as it is.
        \_ Don't be a hater.
        \_ *laugh*  If it was ok for Bill Clinton, if it was ok for the entire
           Kennedy clan, then I say it's ok for Arnold!
           \_ Wow.  You have no idea what 'consent' means, do you?  I pity
              your SO.
              \_ Reading problem?  Don't they teach basic reading comprehension
                 to freshmen anymore?
           \_ For Clinton, it was consensual.  For Arnold, that's sexual
              harassment.
              \_ Monica worked for him.  It's called "sexual harassment" when
                 it's your boss's dick you're sucking or his cigar going into
                 your vagina.  I noticed you ignored the entire Kennedy clan's
                 many decades of rape and murder.  What about that?  Were those
                 rapes consentual?
           \_ What a bullshit rationalization.
              \_ Go look up "sarcasm".
        \_ The funny thing is this was on wall a month ago.  It was reported in
           a UK paper back in August.  See:
           http://tinyurl.com/kj1n
           And no new information in the Times.  Why is the Times reporting it
           now?
           \_ "The Times did not learn of any of the six women from
              Schwarzenegger's rivals in the recall race. And none of the
              women approached the newspaper on her own.
              Reporters contacted them in the course of a seven-week
              examination of Schwarzenegger's behavior toward women on and
              off the movie set."
              \_ So they didn't report or even refer to the UK paper's story
                 until the week before the election?  Because they wanted
                 in-depth info?  They didn't add any details to the UK story.
                 The timing is just a bit suspicious.
                 \_ My impression was that the LA Times reporters
                    re-interviewed the people from the UK story, and uncovered
                    new examples of Arnold's bad behavior.  As for the timing,
                    you could say they were trying to get as many examples
                    as they could before the election.
                    \_ Which means they planned to release it shortly before
                       the election, and hence timed it for most political
                       clout.  They could have easily issued a preliminary
                       story and then had a big followup.
                       \_ That wouldn't be politically expedient.
                    \_ Which means they planned to release it shortly before the
                       election, and hence timed it for most political clout.
                       They could have easily issued a preliminary story and
                       then had a big followup.
2003/10/2-3 [Uncategorized] UID:10409 Activity:nil
10/1    some dead threads cleaned near the end.  no it's not censorship if
        no one has posted to it in 12+ hours.
2003/10/2-3 [Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:10410 Activity:nil
10/1    Under XP, the status bar at the bottom of my IE keeps
        disappearing on its own. How can I stop it from doing this?
        \_ just a guess, but try opening a folder, selecting View | Status Bar,
           then doing Tools | Folder Options | Apply to all folders.
        \_right click the mouse on the task bar and select properties to change
          it.
          \_ OP said status bar, not task bar.
2003/10/2-3 [Computer/SW/Languages/Perl] UID:10411 Activity:nil
10/1    In Perl, what does "\%hash" mean?
        \_ delayed evaluation of $hash in some eval code probably
        \_ Perl Reference?
           http://www.uic.edu/depts/accc/seminars/perliii/references.html
2003/10/2 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:10412 Activity:nil 83%like:10426
10/1    WMD FOUND!
        http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34881
        Take that, you liberals!
        \_ how many different times have they claimed simaller things?
           What about that strange boat that was uspopsed to be floating
           in the gulf FILLED with WMDs?  What about all those WMDs that
           that turned out to be fertelizer?
        \_ Judging by the other stories on the site, this paper's not
           the most credible thing around. Let's see what the story looks
           like when reported by a more respected source.
        \_ Saying "$60 million in chemical weapons" is stupid. Joe Sixpack
           is supposed to go "OOH SIXTY MILLION THAT'S A LOT", but how much
           is that? A pint of sarin? Is there a "commodity market" where we
           can convert this into real information instead of bullshit money
           numbers? This reminds me of the news stories about drug seizures
           with absolutely ridiculous dollar values in them. --aaron
           \_ Isn't that what about 20 mp3's are worth according to the
              RIAA lawsuites?
        \_ top headline on http://worldnetdaily.com
           "'Baby Samuel' speaks before Senate panel
            Remarkable photo showed boy's hand
            reaching from womb during surgery "
           \_ You've got to love their book promotion:
              "Who really killed JFK?"
        \_ We can do without leftists posting from known crap sites pretending
           to be something else.  "Take that, you liberals!"?  WTF conservative
           would *ever* say something so infantile?  The insult is not that
           you'd do such a lame job pretending to be a conservative but that
           you see as us being that stupid.  If we were as stupid as you would
           like to think we'd have Darwin'd out decades ago.  Go post your
           own pro-lefty trolls.  You'll note no conservative replies
           attempting to defend this nonsense.  You're just masturbating the
           other leftists.   --real conservative
           \_ This is the funniest post all week.  Thank you!
              \_ uh, yeah thanks, whatever, I'm also the anonymous motd comic
           \_ You have obviously not spent much time on the Free Republic
              website. But hey, you gotta admit that it was a good troll.
              \_ I visited and rejected free republic.  They're mostly not
                 conservatives, which is a philosophy, but haters no different
                 than the spewage on the motd from the leftists here. --rc
2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:10413 Activity:nil
10/1    President Bush supports medical liability reform.
        SHOULDN'T YOU???
        link:www.csua.org/u/4l9
        \_ Snore. troll troll troll. boring.
2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:10414 Activity:nil
10/1    http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_822534.html
        \_ I heard a story about this on NPR. The picture is better.
        \_ lol. The Russian text says: "A magazine about how money's made"
                                                Now, -thats- funny. _/
2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:10415 Activity:kinda low
10/1    I got a stupid question.  There are more than 40 states in USA
        suffering budget crisis.  Why California governor is the only one
        get recalled?
        \_ An aside here: Did you know $87 billion would cover the deficits
           of all 50 states combined?
        \_ it's an order of magnitude problem.
           \_ California's economy is an order of magnitude, if not more,
              larger than many of those States.  Further, California's
              economy was concentrated on high-tech sector.  Granted,
              Davis is not nearly as effective as, let say, Pete Wilson.
              But using budget crisis as the ground for recall when
              the budget crisis arises due to severe lack of capital gains
              and sales taxes than lavishing state spending?
                        --OP, not a Davis fan.
              \_ From 1993-94 to 2000-01 spending increased from $47.3 billion
                 to $80.1 billion. As a percentage of budget, CA's deficit
                 is among the 6 worst (with OR, NV, TX, AL, and WI). What say
                 you? --dim
                 \_ the business week article 2 weeks ago said that CA
                    spending between the same period you quoted increases
                    on average 1% per year.  Now I am *REALLY* confused.
                                -kngharv
                    \_ http://www.bailard.com/CA%20muni%20market%20piece_2003.pdf
                 \_ how about revenue drop?  can anyone give me a lead
                    on where i can find info like that?
                    \_ From $75.7 billion to $65.8 billion. I've seen
                       other, but similar numbers like $66.6 billion.
                       http://www.nctimes.net/news/2003/20030309/52655.html
                 \_ you are ignoring the rising costs and population in CA
                    since 1994.
                    \_ Rising population should mean rising revenues, unless
                       you mean there are more freeloaders now. In fact,
                       revenues have almost doubled and yet we are still
                       outspending them.
                       \_ That was the case in 2000 when there was a surplus.
                          But now it turned into rising unemployment benefits.
                       \_ Higher energy price is part of the reason.
                 \_ heck, gasoline was $1.20 in 1993.
                    \_ And under $1.00 in 2001. Your point?
                 \_ those 5 other states are not recalling their govenors.
              \_ Other governors don't have the power crisis (for good or
                 bad) hanging over their head. Also, there is no politician
                 who is as uncharismatic as Davis; he really has no friends,
                 so he's easy to kick while he's down.
                 \_ I would think the power "crisis" should be hanging over
                    the head of Pete Wilson and the Bush appointed FERC.
                    \_ I'm sure you would think that.
        \_ Yawn.  He's not being recalled because we're in debt.  He's being
           recalled for being a criminal, for selling out the state in such
           a huge way to special interests, for selling his signature, for
           telling the Big Lie one too many times, and for being so cynical
                       \_ Is this some homosexual code word?
                          \_ no
           it makes other politicians look good by comparison.  This is so
           old.  It's been discussed over and over.  Please stop the really
           lame loaded questions with the pre-loaded assumptions.
           \_ How is he "a criminal"? I don't like Davis either, but don't
              get ahead of yourself here, chippy.
              \_ When there's quid pro quo cash for his political support and
                 it's so blatant (Davis opposes measure, business reps show up
                 and write $100k check, Davis signs bill next day) then it's
                 criminal.  Keep up with the news.  Chippy, indeed.
                 \_ Funny.   When Wilson did this it was called free speech.
                    \_ And when Bush gets whopping donations from oil
                       lobbies, no one bats an eye.
                       \_ And give government contracts to his friend companies
                          to rebuild iraq.  What is company did Cheney work
                          for as CEO?  How is that company doing?
                 \_ He has not been arrested or charged with any crime.
                    Calling him a criminal just makes you look stupid.
                    \_ And BC lied in a federal court.  And several in the
                       Kennedy family have raped or killed someone.  So what?
                       Powerful people never go to jail or get charged.  You're
                       very naive if that's your standard.
2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:10416 Activity:nil
10/1    Let's say Davis gets recalled and some republican, presumabley Arnie,
        gets elected.  Then some democrates get together and decide to have
        a recall in a couple months.  they succeed, beating arnie with some
        wildly popular democrat celebrity.  This pisses off the republicans,
        who then stage another recall and take over with an even more amazing
        republican celebrity, etc. etc. etc.  when does it stop?  doesn't
        anyone see this as a bad direction to go in, even if you hate davis
        and happen to like one of the potential replacements?  In civilised
        states removing the governor from office ins something only the state
        legislature can do.
        \_ It stops when Arnold takes over because the people won't do another
           recall.  It simply won't pass.  Arnold doesn't have a lengthy and
           well documented record of crimes against the people of this state.
           \_ yeah except for molesting all those women.  And violating his
                immigration.
                \_ urlP
                \_ you can't violate immigration laws in CA.  we don't have
                   any.  and he's a kennedy now so what he did to those women
                   fits right in with the rest of his family.
        \_ wow, you just figured this out?
        \_ it dopesn't stop.  we're doomed.
        \_ when the democrats grow up, it'll stop
           \_ From this comment, it sounds like it's not just the Demos that
              need to grow up.
        \_ You make it sound like its easy to get a recall election ceritifed.
           \_ And it is.
              \_ Which is why it's only happened once but it's been tried
                 dozens of times.  At least pretend to know something.
                 \_ Dozens of times?  Cite, please.
                    \_ The sky is blue.  Go read a fucking newspaper.  It's
                       been mentioned in dozens of articles.
2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10417 Activity:kinda low
10/1    Iraq: What Went Wrong
        http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16650
        \_ need help here. don't speak english.  What are the units,
           or number of men in a:
           regiment ~4000
           brigade ~6000
           division ~20000
           \_ These are all for the US Army. Each military has a different
              structure.
           \_ thanks.  this means, according to Clark, we didn't have
              that many people fighting in Iraq when the war started.
        \_ WOW. that was a good article. If he wrote even half of that, rather
           than being all written by speechwriters/assistants, he's one
           heckuva candidate
           \_ his opinion on Iraq war is highly regarded.  although personally
              i can't make a good connection between a good general and a
              good president.
              \_ general and president are both administrative jobs.
                 sure beats failed oil company executive, AWOL texas
                 air national guardsman/draft dodger, and playboy
                 millionaire.
                 \_ sorry, but no.  they're bother leadership roles.  if we
                    needed administrative types we would've voted Gore in.
                    \_ we DID vote gore in.  GWB somehow stole the election!
                       \_ OMG!  WTF!  LOL!
        \_ Coming from the guy who lobbed 100+s millions in tomahawks and
           destroye, apart from bridges, hospitals, water plants etc.
           a few tanks.  This against the Christian Serbs who rescued downed
           allied pilots in WWII. What a joke.
2003/10/2-3 [Uncategorized] UID:10418 Activity:nil
10/1    Oh man.  Just go look at the Drudge Report right now.
        \_ Standard hatchet job on a right wing figure.  If he was a leftist
           hollywood actor, it'd be a paragraph in the entertainment section.
           It's just business as usual.  Move along.  Nothing new to see here.
           \_ If he was a holywood actor his fame would revolve around
              ranting about those evil drug addled liburhals.
        \_ I don't see what you are talking about...
           \_ Some big full page thing about Rush and drugs.  As per usual
              Drudge there wasn't a complete story, just bits.
2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/SIG] UID:10419 Activity:nil
10/1    Does anyone have any good urls to why Davis sucks? Democratic URLs are
        a plus. -reg'd dem.
        \_ what's the free east bay rag that has "savage love" in it?  Check

           their website, the recent issue has an article that talks a bit
           about my "favorite" example of Davis's incomptetance/criminality
           (the oracle bribe).  The funny thing is that although Davis is the
           worst govenor we have had in my lifetime, and is everything bad
           that people *think* is bad about republicans vis-a-vis big business.
           There is *nothing* that is known about him now that wasn't known
           before the last election when he was elected.
           \_ Simon was just a weak candidate and even so came close.
              \_ Yep. Simon was worse than weak. He outright lied in his
                 attacks against Davis. Any halfway decent candidate would've
                 beaten Davis. Blame the Repubs for that one.
        \_ From FTCR, more a consumer rights website, but still good stuff:
           http://www.ftcr.org/insurance/pr/pr003676.php3
           http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilities/nw/nw002082.php3
           Oh man, there are too many to list here. Just type "Davis" in
           the searchbar.
        \_ Is this a troll or are you serious?  What state have you been living
           in for the last few years?  The sky is still blue.
           \_ yes, this is serious. i see people bash davis mostly on car tax,
              electricity, and recently, drivers licenses for illaliens... i
              am looking more for the lies and big business links.
              \_ go see Davis and Oracle.  Davis and the prison unions.  Davis
                 and the teacher's union.  Davis and (insert special interest
                 here).  Anyway, you don't think the issues you came up with
                 are more than enough?  Are you a masochist?  How much more
                 abuse would you like to see inflicted on the citizens of
                 this once great state?
2003/10/2-4 [Computer/HW/Laptop] UID:10420 Activity:moderate
10/2    Time for laptop opinions again--I'm looking for something lightweight
        and solid that will let me run FreeBSD and VMware/WinXP nicely.
        I don't need a CD drive.  Main conditions are trackpoint rather than
        trackpad, and weight less than 4 lbs/2kg.  I'm considering an IBM
        X31;  only problem is that it's "only" got a 1.4 PIV.  Any opinions
        on similar laptops from personal experience would be greatly
        appreciated.  -John
        \_ I'm using Virtual PC 5.x.  Works way better than the crap VMware is
           pushing.  I don't know of any decent laptops that still use the
           old style thumb breakers.
        \_ Side note: on the video card comments from a while ago...I'm
           currently playing Halo on my laptop (Radeon 7500M chipset).  I have
           to turn off many of the features (and it's not a DX9 chipset) but it
           plays great.  Mostly I'm missing the eye candy (which look great on
           my Radeon 9800 at work).
                \_ GFX card doesn't have to be stellar--I have a good home
                   machine for games.  Virtual PC is nice, agreed, but it
                   does not run on top of FreeBSD.  -John
        \_ Why make your life so complicated? Get a Macintosh. You'll get access
           to the majority of dekstop applications that the majority of users
           care about and you still will maintain full compatibility with unix
           apps which, using tools like fink, are trivial to install on OS X.
           \_ Because it costs about $1000 more for similar hardware?
                \_ Apple's low-end hardware is pretty competitively priced,
                   but none of it is under 4 pounds.  -tom
           \_ Nonsense. Please show me a Powerbook comparable laptop priced
              at $1000. or iBook class laptop sold for $300.
           \_ Only if your benchmark is crap that Dell mostly makes or
              similar.
        \_ Couple things: 1. IBM X-series, as far as I know, never equipped
           with P4 CPU.  I think it has something to do with how much heat p4
           dissipated.  X-series went from P3M straight to Pentium-M.
           2. There is a Pentium-M version of X31.  I am not sure can it
           support booting from an external, USB CD writer or not.
           3. Dell has something that is similiar in spec.  I vaguely remember
           it is called X300.  Pentium M/12.1" screen.  Dell is lighter
           1.7kg vs IBM's 2.2 kg.  The down side, if you call it, is that
           Dell doesn't have dedicated video memory.
           4. Personally, I prefer IBM's build quality and its keyboard.
               \_ why do you like the keyboard?  I hate the ibm keyboard.
                  I am still not used to the the left control key.
                  \_ personal choice.  "Personally I[he] prefer[s] ..."
           Having said that, IBM recently moved the notebook production from
           Taiwan to the mainland China.  Not that I have anything
           against China, but I heard their first couple batchs was not up
           to the par (common issue when one moved its manufacturing
           facilities).  So, when you are hunting for bargain, becareful.
           email me if you have more questions.         -kngharv
2003/10/2-4 [Transportation/Car] UID:10421 Activity:kinda low
10/2    Why is the waterpump usually changed the same time as the timing
        belt? Isn't it a pretty reliable part?
        \_ The belt needs to be removed to change the pump. So if the pump
           fails then you get your timing belt changed whether you need to
           or not. It's a matter of convenience and will save you money. Have
           the nearby seals changed, too. It costs almost nothing and if one
           leaks on your new belt it will cause it to slip. --dim
                \_ how much for the seals?
                   \_ Less than $100 parts+labor
        \_ Because it's hard to get to it.  You don't want to pay the
           labor twice.  But I guess you know that already, and yes,
           I wish they just build the part such that it last for 16 years.
        \_ fyi, my water pump was messing up, this jammed up my timing
           belt, I had to replace both parts again, this time from a good
           mechanic
        \_ by the way I called the guy up and he said the aftermarket belt
           is $100 cheaper, but don't last as long. Any reason why OEM
           belt would last longer?
           \_ Boy, he's riding you for a good one. How can aftermarket
              timing belts be $100 cheaper when the OEM belt costs about
              $20?
              \_ Depends on the car.  What car do you have, op?
           \_ pony up.  the timing belt is very important.  you're supposed
              to only be changing it only every 60K-90K miles.  who knows
              how crappy the non-OEM belt is (and whether it was > $100
              cheaper for them to buy); and your mechanic is actually warning
              you
           \_ pony up.  the belt is very important.  you're supposed to only
              be changing it every 60K-90K miles.
2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10422 Activity:nil
10/2    "During the production of the 1991 mega-blockbuster Terminator 2:
        Judgment Day, a producer on that film recallfortyish female crew
        member, who was wearing a silk blouse. Arnold went up to the woman,
        put his hands inside her blouse, and proceeded to pull her breasts
        out of her bra. Another observer says, "I couldn't believe what I
        was seeing. This woman's nipples were exposed, and here's Arnold and
        a few of his clones laughing. I went after the woman, who
        had run to the shelter of a nearby trailer. She was hysterical but
        refused to press charges for fear of losing her job. It was
        disgusting."  Arnold the Barbarian: Premiere Magazine March 2001
        \_ confirmed by Arnold, he's behaved badly.. voting for McClintock
           \_ confirmed by Arnold where?  url-p
              \_ that he was a bad boy, but he doesn't identify specific
                 occurrences
                 \_ Right...  So saying this story is confirmed by Arnold
                    is a ... tad misleading.  Don't you think?
              \_ It's all over the news.  Check yahoo news.
2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:10423 Activity:kinda low
10/2    Anybody want to waste your vote?  That poll below gave me an idea.
        You can write in a candidates name.  I'm tempted to write in
        "!psb".  I wonder if they'll tally those. -psb #1 fan
        \_ Pffft!  You're not the real psb #1 Fan.  His *real* #1 Fan would
           never suggest a write in for !psb.  His Greatness, the psb, would
           be governor of this small state if he chose to.  --psb #1 Fan
        \_ let's all write in "John Smith"
           \_ John Galt.
              \_ Who is John Galt?
        \_ "Jedi"
        \_ since this is a circus, how about Dumbo?
                \_ How about Krusty?
2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10424 Activity:high
10/2    So Arnie groped women.  So what?  Clinton also groped women and used
        a cigar on Lewinsky.   I'm still voting for Arnold.
        \_ for me the "so what" is  that the same ultra-conservative republican
           power brokers that were willing to go to any lengths to bring
           down Clinton over this not only don't care, but are 100% behind
           him.  why doesn't that seem to bother anyone?
           \_ Will.  To.  Power.
           \_ Please name these nameless ultra conservative power brokers.
        \_ See, most people have this notion of "consent", and they think it's
           important.  Without "consent" it's called "assault".  Tune in
           tomorrow when we discuss what a "lie" is and why it's bad when used
           to start a "war".
                \_ They don't call it assault in france, italy, japan, etc.
                   It's just normal there.
           \_ Why are they speaking out only now? I mean, they never filed
              charges or spoke out (even anonymously) until now. Just because
              he's running for gov, it's only now important the truth be
              revealed? I guess being violated by only a big-shot actor is not
              enough to demand justice.
              \_ How long did it take for Flowers or Jones to come forward?
                 \_ A few weeks.
              \_ I hope someday a woman you love has a long talk with you
                 about what it can be like to come forward with this type of
                 allegation. That is if you know any women. --aaron
                 \_ My wife was grabbed on campus.  She went straight to the
                    cops and somehow isn't permanently psychologically damaged
                    for life.  She doesn't walk around calling herself a victim
                    or go to therapy 5 times a week.  Weird, huh?
                 \_ Several of the women came out anonymously, according to the
                    LA Times article, so it's not like we know who they are.
                    All I'm wondering is what the motivation is. It isn't
                    solely because of what happened to them.
                    \_ Stop pretending to be dense about it. You can't
                       imagine why a woman who felt taken advantage of by
                       Arnold might feel he isn't fit to be governor? How
                       she might consider paying the pain of coming forward
                       due to the prospect of him being elected? --aaron
                       \_ *laugh* Do you feel their pain, aaron?
                          \_ Have you ever actually talked with a real girl?
                             People are a lot more complicated than sheep,
                             even the blow up kind that you're probably more
                             familiar with.  Especially in regard to trauma
                             where the victim is often more socially
                             stigmatized than the criminal.    -sax
                             \_ Any reason you talk to traumatized girls, sax?
                                Are you looking for a cheap lay on the rebound,
                                or are you just that kind of sensitive new age
                                guy?
                             \_ Which still begs the question of why they came
                                out. You're saying they value politics more
                                than their personal pain.
                                \_ Stop Trolling.
                                   \_ It's a valid point.  Calling it a troll
                                      doesn't magically make it go away.  What
                                      you simple mindedly call a troll is the
                                      very thing being debated, fool.
           \_ Paula Jones charged that there wasn't consent.  While defending
              himself from the lawsuit, Clinton lied about Lewinsky and
              tried to get her to lie about it.  That's a bit worse.
              \_ technically, a bj isn't sexual intercourse, so he sort of told
                 a half-truth instead.
                 \_ Don't get all lawyerly on us.  You're now comparing a bj
                    of an intern that worked for BC to some random and nameless
                    women who, days before we vote, suddenly start claiming
                    he touched them.  Gee, what a shocker.
                    \_ did you miss the part below where this is old news?
                       It's only sudden news in the American media.
        \_ Let's put the woman issues aside for now.  Do you want someone
           spends $100k on car washes annually, $4k on haircut, etc to manage
           your state's budget?  If he's elected, I wouldn't be surprised
           if he authorizes a hummer for every elected officials.
           \_ 1)  you're stupid, there's a difference between what he does
                  with his own money, and our money . . . just like there is
                  a difference between how he runs his businesses and his
                  personal life.
                  \_ TBD.
              2)  if he authorizes hummers, then I'm running for office
                  (for either kind).
           \_ Does it bother you that BC held up airport traffic so he could
              get a haircut?
              \_ You know this never happened right?
                 \_ I know for a fact it did, thanks.  History isn't so easily
                    rewritten.
              \_ it didn't cost us $87b.
                 \_ good way to divert the topic and ignore the point.  well
                    no, not really actually since you're busted doing it.
           \_ i fear the candidate who wants to make money being Governor
             so he can do the things you describe
              \_ Arnold has lots of money and he is doing that already.
                 What I fear is not Arnold but his *advisors*.  You see,
                 Arnold is not going to run California.  He is just a puppet.
        "When your muscles feel like they are about to explode, when you are sure
        that you can't do another rep, you stop-  Only if you want to come in
        second place."  -Arnold Schwarzenegger.
                   \_ Uhm, no.  I don't.
                \_ gropes or not, you have to admire him.  -ax
2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10425 Activity:very high
10/2    Let's see, in the last week we've had:
        The Plame Affair
        Rush gets fired from ESPN for being a racist
        Rush gets exposed as a pill popper
        Arnold admits being a groper and harasser of women
        Kay says WMD will not be found in Iraq
        Iraqis riot outside police station claiming bribes required to apply
        Yay for right wing meltdown week!
        \_ Neo-cons are just trying to make republicans look bad temporarily
           so people will either keep Davis or put in Bustamante.  That way
           they can still blame the mess in California on the Democrats
           when Bush runs for re-election.  Just a theory. ;)
           \_ You read alt.conspiracy every day too, huh?
              \_ Nope, just naturally paranoid.
        \_ - Claims of Rush being a racist are absurd--the comment was on the
             media.  The criticisms of Rush's comment have been racist.
             \_ "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in
                 the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black
                 quarterback do well." -Rush Limbaugh
                 racism 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
                 prejudice 2 a (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning
                 formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
                 \_ The second part of the quote: "There is a little hope
                    invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the
                    performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The
                    defense carried this team."  ---  Anyone that knows
                    football knows that this is blatantly wrong. McNabb has
                    been incredible on the field. This is Rush showing his
                    bias against black QB's, and then not understanding
                    why everyone else was saying he was so good, and
                    therefore attributing the media accolades to media
                    racism.   -nivra
                    \_ whether Rush is right or not on his opinion is
                       irrelevant.  The question is whether his statements
                       are racist or not.  Rush's statements never implied
                       that McNabb is bad because he is black.  he was talking
                       about the media.  In fact, Rush thinks McNabb is
                       good, but not as good as he is portrayed by the media
                       \_ His statement belies the fact that he has a lower
                          opinion of McNabb's worth than the media.  His
                          attribution of this difference due to race belies
                          the fact that he thinks about race himself, and
                          believes that the media does as well.  This is
                          racial prejudice. -nivra
                          \_ Wow, that's a cool way to flip everything on it's
                             head!  Rhetoric 100 with Jameson?
                          \_ Rush's opinion:
                                McNabb = +3
                                Media Perception:
                                McNabb = +6
                                Rush's goal: explain the +3 difference
                                   between reality and perception.
                                   Rush thinks McNabb is good, but not
                                   +6 good.
                                   \_ That's double-plus good, brother.
                                      \_ Ignoring the point, but nice attempt
                                         at creating a false reply with a
                                         witty literary reference.
                             \_ Agreed.  The charge of racism lies in how he
                                chose to explain the extra +3.  The fact that
                                his knee-jerk reaction was media "race" bias,
                                combined with the other factors I mentioned
                                below, such as his implicit support of people
                                who have outright expressed racism, such as
                                Lott (albeit when he let his guard down),
                                point to the fact that he is most _likely_
                                racist.  Not definitely, just likely.  -nivra
                                \_ If being knee-jerk about accusations of
                                   racism makes one racist, then just look to
                                   your left to find all the racism you can
                                   stand.
                                \_ let's face it.  We all have prejudices
                                   of some sort.  all of us, white, yellow,
                                   black.  I guess the Right thinks that
                                   the Left only thinks the Right is
                                   racist.  In reality, we all have
                                   prejudiced views one way or another.
                                   The Left is as guilty as the Right
                                   in these things.
                 \_ I can read the dictionary, moron.  His comment is that the
                    media is making a bigger deal of the QB than they should
                    because of his race (that is, the press want to present a
                    good example of a black QB).  That is a criticism that the
                    media is racist.
                    \_ Analogous statement:
                       "Colin Powell only got appointed because he was black."
                       \_ Your analogy would be better if Colin Powell was
                          an elected official --aaron
                          \_ fixed.
                             \_ except it's still wrong.
                    \_ And before Rush stuck his stupid head into this, nobody
                       had mentioned race at all.  McNabb was judged on his
                       acheivements as an *individual*.  Only after the dumbass
                       made his "commentary" was McNabb being judged as a
                       *representative of the black race.*  *Rush* is the one
                       obsessed with race, not the sports media.  Clearly you
                       are NOT a football fan or a follower of the sport.
                       \_ He's not saying that and you know.  He was commenting
                          on the press making the guy into a better athlete
                          than he is *because the press* wants to see a black
                          QB doing well.  Anything else is from your own head.
                       \_ I'm a different poster from the above.  I agree
                          that his comments are more directed towards the
                          media overhyping black quarterbacks than a statement
                          on McNabb being not good because he is black.
                          \_ But the media isn't overhyping black quarterbacks.
                             \_ But they are.
                             \_ ... which is why he's racist.
                                 \_ You have terrible logic.  The media
                                    isn't overhyping black quarterbacks.
                                    This implies that Rush thinks that
                                    McNabb is not as good as he really is.
                                    This does not imply at all that he
                                    thinks that McNabb is not good because
                                    he's black.  Rush may have thought that.
                                    But he certainly didn't say that or even
                                    imply it.
                                      -not generally someone to defend Rush
                                    \_ Mm, I think it's pretty clear that Rush
                                       is suggesting there's some sort of
                                       affirmative-action effect going on
                                       for the black person.
                                        \_ That doesn't make him racist.
                                           I know that affirmative action
             Logically, you are correct. _/exists.  I know that some
             You cannot conclude that      minorities got into Berkeley
             Rush must be a racist from    because of their race.  I mean
             his statement.  However,      this is a fact.  I know this
             taking into account:          fact.  Therefore, I'm racist?
             1) He was wrong about the     I know.  This is different
                presumed media  bias.      because Rush was wrong about the
             2) His reasoning that         affirmative action, but it still
                identified race as the     doesn't make him racist.  Maybe
                most likely reason for     he thinks that McNabb isn't
                his assumed media          that good (maybe because he's
                overestimation.            racist, or maybe because he doesn't
             3)  His history record of     like the Eagles, who knows).  And
                conservativeness, and      then he thinks that the media has
                support of conservatives   a bias towards  blacks.  He puts
                who have been blatantly    these 2 ideas together.  That's not
                racist.                    enough to conclude that he's racist.
              One can conclude it is       \_ I agree. -- not white
             likely that he iss a racist   \_ me too.,
             or at the minimum, has        \_ You go through such logical
             racial prejudices. -nivra        contortions to defend this idiotic
             \_ are you saying that           windbag, and then you wonder why
                conservatives are             black people think white folks
                racist?                       are out to get them.
                \_ reread, then see Lott,  \_ Please see the definitions
                   Trent & Dixiecrats -op     of racism and prejudice again.
                   \_ see new upcoming
                      thread
            \_ dude, this is hard to            \_
                format. how do you do          2: discriminatory or abusive
                it?             behavior towards members of another race.
        overwrite-mode _/       I don't see Rush being a racist based on
          -nivra                the definition of racist.
                                           exists.  I know that some
                                           minorities got into Berkeley
                                           because of their race.  I mean
                                           this is a fact.  I know this
                                           fact.  Therefore, I'm racist?
                                           I know.  This is different
                                           because Rush was wrong about the
                                   \_ he's controvserial because he has
                                      opinions that not everyone shares, only
                                      about 25 million people listen to his
                                      radio show every day.
                                           affirmative action, but it still
                                           doesn't make him racist.  Maybe
                                           he thinks that McNabb isn't
                                           that good (maybe because he's
                                           racist, or maybe because he doesn't
                                           like the Eagles, who knows).  And
                                           then he thinks that the media has
                                           a bias towards  blacks.  He puts
                                           these 2 ideas together.  That's not
                      \_ The statement is actually more clearly described as
                         "racially insensitive".  However, some of the
                         secondary definitions of "racist" cover racially
                         insensitive remarks.
                         \_ "racially insensitive" is a meaningless phrase.
                            it means whatever a self-created victim wants it
                            to mean.
                                           enough to conclude that he's racist.
                                           \_ I agree.
                       \_ Thanks, so your answer is "zero, but I read what
                          some other guys think!"
                                           \_ I agree. -- not white
                                           \_ me too.
                                           \_ You go through such logical
                                              contortions to defend this idiotic
                                              windbag, and then you wonder why
                                              black people think white folks
                                              are out to get them.
                                           \_ Please see the definitions
                                              of racism and prejudice again.
                                                \_
            \_ dude, this is hard to       \_ Please see the definitions
                format. how do you do         of racism and prejudice again.
                   \_ What part of "independently confirmed" do you not
                      understand?
                      \_ You know what an "allegation" is?  It's what the
                         National Enquirer reports after paying off someone's
                         maid.
                it?                             \_
                                               2: discriminatory or abusive
                                behavior towards members of another race.

                                I don't see Rush being a racist based on
                                the definition of racist.
                             \_ irrelevant whether or not it is true that
                                the media is overhyping black quarterbacks.
                                it is just an opinion.  he was hired by ESPN
                                to be controversial and not a typical
                                sports commentator patsy.
                                \_ The reason he's "controversial" is because
                                   he's bigoted.
                                   \_ what about all those people and sports
                                      writers trying to promote the
                                        "Great White Hope"
                      \_ I'm a Tom voter.  I still think doing a hit job a few
                         days before the vote is incerdibly transparent.
              \_ Rush *IS* a racist. Period. He is also a homophobe.
                 His show is filled with hateful comments, with
                 hints of truth in them. A hint of truth != a pound
                 of objective reality.
                   \_ He may be a racist, but the statement he is being
                      criticized for was not racist.
                      \_ The statement is actually more clearly described as
                         "racially insensitive".  However, some of the
                         secondary definitions of "racist" cover racially
                         insensitive remarks.
                 \_ Curious, how many hours have you listened to his show?
                    \_ http://www.fair.org/articles/limbaugh-color.html
           - Rush story about pills is in the National Enquirer.  Please, if
             you're going to discount conservative sources, discount tabloids
             too at least.
                            \_ Which took 7 weeks and only got printed a week
                               from the election?  You really believe the LA
                               Times isn't grinding an axe and this is good
                               journalism??
           - The Arnold story is old--it's troubling, but so is the holding back
             of the story until the week before the election.
             \_ Idiot.  Even Fox is covering this:
                http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98871,00.html
                \_ "The New York Daily News, without identifying its source,
                   reported Thursday that Limbaugh was being investigated by the
                   Palm Beach County (search) state attorney's office. The
                   newspaper said it had independently confirmed the
                   allegations, which were first reported by the supermarket
                   tabloid the National Enquirer."
                   Source is still the National Enquirer.
                   \_ What part of "independently confirmed" do you not
                      understand?
           - The Arnold story is old--it's troubling, but so is the holding
             back of the story until the week before the election.
             \_ Tell that to all the women he humiliated and who didn't pursue
                charges for fear of losing their job.
                "What could you do? He was the highest-paid actor in the world.
                I was a peon," [one victim] said. "The only thing you could do
                is stay away from him."
                \_ Wah!  A week before an election I've got no sympathy.  If
                   they were so concerned we should've heard about it 2 months
                   ago (or more).  But that wouldn't have been politically
                   useful.
                   \_ Actually, we did hear about his behavior. Anyway Arnie
                      admitted it. But if you already thought Arnie is the sort
                      of person you want to see be the governor, I doubt this
                      information would change your mind. Arnie has too much
                      subconscious goodwill from being a movie star.
                   \_ It was in a UK newspaper shortly after he announced his
                      candidacy.  The LA Times just sat on it to release it 1
                      week before the election.
                   \_ You could also say that the LA Times had spent the
                      last seven weeks collecting as many cases as they could,
                      so Arnold couldn't just dismiss it as an isolated
                      incident.  The reporters wanted to show a lifetime
                      pattern of behavior.  Irrespective of the political
                      edge to it, doesn't it change voters opinions of Arnold,
                      especially for the women voters?
                      \_ Then why was there no new information in the LA Times
                         story?  It had the same info as the UK story.
                         \_ The general idea is the same, but the specific
                            examples are either reconfirmed through re-
                            interviews, or entirely new.
           - In Kuwait, WMD smugglers were caught trafficking $60M of chemical
             weapons OUT of Iraq.
             \_ Which has about as much credibility as the Enquirer story,
                so shut the hell up.
           - (I haven't heard the Iraqi police story)
2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:10426 Activity:nil 83%like:10412
10/1    WND FOUND!
        http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34881
        Take that, you liberals!
        \_ how many different times have they claimed simaller things?
           What about that strange boat that was uspopsed to be floating
           in the gulf FILLED with WMDs?  What about all those WMDs that
           that turned out to be fertelizer?
        \_ Judging by the other stories on the site, this paper's not
           the most credible thing around. Let's see what the story looks
           like when reported by a more respected source.
        \_ Saying "$60 million in chemical weapons" is stupid. Joe Sixpack
           is supposed to go "OOH SIXTY MILLION THAT'S A LOT", but how much
           is that? A pint of sarin? Is there a "commodity market" where we
           can convert this into real information instead of bullshit money
           numbers? This reminds me of the news stories about drug seizures
           with absolutely ridiculous dollar values in them. --aaron
           \_ Isn't that what about 20 mp3's are worth according to the
              RIAA lawsuites?
        \_ top headline on http://worldnetdaily.com
           "'Baby Samuel' speaks before Senate panel
            Remarkable photo showed boy's hand
            reaching from womb during surgery "
           \_ You've got to love their book promotion:
              "Who really killed JFK?"
        \_ We can do without leftists posting from known crap sites pretending
           to be something else.  "Take that, you liberals!"?  WTF conservative
           would *ever* say something so infantile?  The insult is not that
           you'd do such a lame job pretending to be a conservative but that
           you see as us being that stupid.  If we were as stupid as you would
           like to think we'd have Darwin'd out decades ago.  Go post your
           own pro-lefty trolls.  You'll note no conservative replies
           attempting to defend this nonsense.  You're just masturbating the
           other leftists.   --real conservative
           \_ This is the funniest post all week.  Thank you!
              \_ uh, yeah thanks, whatever, I'm also the anonymous motd comic
           \_ You have obviously not spent much time on the Free Republic
              website. But hey, you gotta admit that it was a good troll.
              \_ I visited and rejected free republic.  They're mostly not
                 conservatives, which is a philosophy, but haters no different
                 than the spewage on the motd from the leftists here. --rc
                 \_ And there's no spewage from right wingers here?  Are you
                    blind or just willfully ignorant?
                    \_ I said nothing of the sort.  Don't put words in my
                       mouth.  Read what I said and stop making false
                       assumptions.  Or just learn to read.
2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:10427 Activity:moderate
10/2    Hey, everyone who was calling Bustamante and Davis "oily" should
        check this out:
        http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/6913655.htm
        \_ He's spending his own money.  The twist is he just wants to get it
           back afterwards.  This is a "rich person's advantage" more than
           a loophole.  Post again when you want to have laws that eliminate
           the advantage that people with money have.
           \_ Guess you didn't see the part about the law he was violating?
              \_ Do you understand what "loophole" means?  Irrespective of
                 the implicit bias that goes along with the reporter saying it
                 was one.
                 \_ Mmm mmm, and dodging the spirit of a law through a loophole
                    is ethical how?  Oh wait, I get it, this is part of that
                    whole "Republicans can do no wrong, Democrats can do no
                    right thing."
                    \_ First of all, "loophole" means it wasn't illegal.
                       Second, it's the reporter's, the Berkeley attorney's,
                       and your opinion that the spirit of the law is being
                       broken.  I don't have the same opinion.
                       \_ Right, because you're a republican, see above.
                          \_ Actually, I'm a Democrat.  I think the article
                             is weak, and you need to throw something that
                             sticks.  Like Arnold sexually assaulting women
                             or Wilson's CIA wife being outed or Rush
                             making a stupid statement as an NFL commentator.
                       \_ Wrong. Loopholes are following the word of the law
                          while avoiding the intent of the law. If Bustamante
                          were rich, he could "loan" himself millions and then
                          the casinos could cover them after the election.
                          \_ ^Wrong^Right.  Otherwise the rest of what
                             you said is accurate.
                             \_ Yeah, I was smoking one of my 4 joints.
                                \_ Did you at least share with the anecdotal
                                   cop?
                       \_ ``Wealthy candidates can loan their campaigns more
                            than $100,000, then have special interests repay
                            their loans. Proposition 34 closes this loophole,''
                           That's what the ballot initative said.  That's what
                           voters voted for.  But I guess your opinion is
                           that Arnold is not acting in a contrary fashion to
                           what is described above.  -nivra
                           \_ The only problem is, why does the reporter
                              call it a loophole then?  It would certainly
                              have more impact if the headline said,
                              "Arnold violates campaign finance law ..."
                              \_ Perhaps he (or his editor) feels that's better
                                 left for the court to decide.  The lawyer
                                 quoted states clearly that he believes it's
                                 against the "letter and spirit of the law",
                                 and thus is suing. --scotsman
                              \_ Did no one read the damn article? Because the
                                 FPPC ruled ~1 yr ago that personal loans
                                 received by the candidate from a bank
                                 >100,000 would be allowed only if the bank
                                 is doing this during its normal course of
                                 business.  I don't know why the FPPC ruled
                                 this way, but it certainly goes against the
                                 way the intent of the law as it was phrased
                                 to the voters on the ballot.  -nivra
                       \_ Because Arnie is doing the same thing that Bustamante
                          was doing, but Arnie gets away with it because he's
                          rich. That's literally how self-loaning works.
                          Bustamante isn't worth $4M but Arnie is. So he makes
                          the loan, and after the election, someone else pays
                          for it. Voters get the details later. Bustamante had
                          to report whose covering the loan for him before the
                          election. Hell, the Indian casinos may be covering
                          Arnie's action too. Loophole...
2003/10/2-3 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:10428 Activity:nil
10/2    Go go go!
        soda [177] wc /etc/motd
             827    6559   43252 /etc/motd
2003/10/2-3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:10429 Activity:nil
10/2    Wow, David Kay just reported that there aren't any WMDs, and now Bush
        asks for another $600 million to keep looking (on top of the $300
        million already spent).  Almost a billion to look for something that
        isn't there!  Go team!
        \_ I'll bet you were one of the people who wanted to give the UN a few
           more years to look only this spring.
           \_ Oh right, the reason they're not finding them right now is
              because Saddam won't give them access to the palaces. Wake
              the fuck up.
              \_ No, because either a) they've been moved, b) they're well
                 hidden, c) they were destroyed, or d) they never existed.
                 (d) no one thinks this.  (c) is possible but can't be
                 documented.  (b) can only be proved if they're found, can
                 never be disproved.  (a) same as (b).  Unlike you I've put
                 real thought into it and understand that whether or not any
                 are ever found has nothing to do with whether or not they
                 existed or when.
2003/10/2-3 [Computer/SW/Security] UID:10430 Activity:low
10/2    someone posted a web page to access our soda mail, what was it
        again? thx.
        \_ I think it was shot down as insecure.
           \_ John says everything is insecure so we should just do it.
2003/10/2-3 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:10431 Activity:nil
10/2    Longest. motd. Ever!
        soda [114] wc /etc/motd
             721    5798   37683 /etc/motd
23 threads,  689 lines, 189 replies,  30.0 lines/thread,   8.2 replies/thread
                             stddev:  42.4                 9.4
2003/10/2-3 [Consumer/CellPhone] UID:10432 Activity:nil
10/2    What are LG phones, are they any good?
        \_ LG used to be called 'Lucky Goldstar'.  They now make all kinds of
           electronics.  I got an LG VX1 phone ~1 year ago.  I'm quite happy
           with it, although the phone book interface is a little awkward.  I
           heard they improved it on later models, though.
2017/09/24 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/24    
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2003:October:02 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>