Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2003:December:04 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2003/12/4 [Uncategorized] UID:11306 Activity:high
12/3    What is the most bad ass heavy metal band ever?
        \_ Slayer
           \_ Dude, Slayer are pussies.  Try the first Napalm Death album.
              \_ Napalm Death is better musically, but there's nothing
                 "bad ass" about them.
              \_ dISEMBOWELMENT
      \_ Iron Maiden.  Yeah, there are bigger bad-asses, but everyone
         followed in Maiden's footsteps.
        \_ King Diamond. Of course, are you asking Heavy Metal proper or
           does death metal count (e.g. Cannibal Corpse)?
ERROR, url_link recursive ( ERROR, url_link recursive (
2003/12/4 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11307 Activity:high
12/3    My Second Marxist Indoctrination
        \_ Go back to Russia if you hate America so much.
           \_ Go back to America if you hate Russia so much.
           \_ "It's a war in which we will hunt down those who hate America
              one person at a time." -george
           \_ Go back to Africa if you don't want to be slave.
      \_ wait this article says GWB was a military pilot. Is that really true?
           \_ he was guarding the skies of texas during the vietnam war
         \_ George Bush senior was a pilot (WWII IIRC).  GWB 'served' in
            the national guard during Vietnam.  I say 'served' because his
            service record was, for lack of a better word, spotty.

2003/12/4 [Science/Physics, Computer/Theory] UID:11308 Activity:nil
12/3    Did anybody catch the Nova series on PBS a month or so ago on
        String Theory?  What do you think of it?  Is this Witten guy really
        that smart?  He looks a bit phony.
        \_ Dunno about string theory, but string practice:  ~john/ringback.jpg
           \_ Hot.  Who's she?
        \_ why the fuck do people keep talking about this goddamn show?
           If you want to know about string theory, for some godforsaken
           reason, read a fucking book.
           \_ somepeople want a lay person's explanation to be done in
              an hour.  Books take much longer than that.
              \_ How about
              \_ I'll sum it up in two lines on the motd:
                 If a theory is unrelated to experiment, it's not
                 physics, it's philosophy.
                 for more information type "dict wank."
                 \_ Apparently you're a wank wannabe scientist who's never
                 read Kuhn. --williamc
                 \_ I heard there may be experiments with the potential
                    to falsify string theory coming after the CERN accelerator
                    comes online in 2006. -- ilyas
                    \_ right, and when they do, the theory will either
                       be falsified or just unverified.  wake me when
                       they can calculate the mass on the electron from
                       frist principles or predict a new particle
                       acurately, or do *anything* predictive. <snore>
                       \_ We will eventually run out of things to predict.
                          A theory isn't good only if it predicts something new
                          (although that's really nice).  A theory is good
                          if it doesn't contradict any data and is as small
                          as possible.  Personally I know next to nothing
                          about string theory, and lack the background to
                          learn more.  I don't know how well it fits, and
                          I don't know how small it is (or why there's so
              \_ How about
                          much hype).  -- ilyas
           \_ wow, this is the first time i heard this show mentioned. i must
              be out of it. anyway, go read Brian Greene's "The Elegant
              Universe." it gets pretty dense as you get into it, but given
              enough dedication, you can follow what he's writing.
              \- the Witten/Schwartz/MGreen(not BGreene) is a pretty standard
                 serious work on string theory:
                 witten solved a problem a bunch of other people were
                 stuck on [i think this is descrived in vague terms in
                 the show, but i saw it a only in part and a while ago]
                 annd he's not doubt a bright guy ... but personally i
                 find s. weinberg more impressive and certainly more
                 articulate. "dreams of a final theory" is a more accessible
                 but still interesting book. it's also cheeper than the
                 GSW book ... which is a $50 "paperback" and fairly tough
                 going if you dont have say 2yrs of grad math. --psb
                 \_ did anyone in this thread express interest in
                    a "standard serious work?"
                    \- dear mr. too short: "phony physicists rarely write
                       standard serious works". --psb
                       \_ fuck off. -real physicist
                          \_ you lie. a real physicist wouldn't call herself
                             such (maybe "physics grad student" or "physics
                             prof"). i wont make judgments on whether she'd
                             be posting to the motd.
                             \_ doh! you got me! it turns out that i'm the
                                pompus ass sysadmin knowitall who learns
                                about the most useless theory in physics
                                to impress girls at parties, and you're actually
                                the physicist! my bad!
2003/12/4 [Transportation/Car, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:11309 Activity:high
12/2    Hey as long as i'm bringing purged motd items back to life..
        Does anyone have any statistics comparing per captia crime
        rates by population density?
        \_ let me ask you a question.  If you're walking down a dark street
           at night, do you feel safer when you see lots of cars on the road,
           or when you see lots of other pedestrians?  Do you feel safer
           seeing a squad car drive by, or actually seeing a cop out on the
           beat?  I claim that throwing idiotic car cities like LA and pheonix
           together with real cities like chicago or seattle and comparing them
           with rich suburbs misses the point.  Car culture leads to
           an impersonal, anonymus society, which leads to not only crime, but
           lonelines and misery which you can't quantify with your
            \_ The answer you think is correct is correct.  But, walking down
               a deserted street in SF in the middle of the night i am way
               more on my gaurd than I would be on a similarly deserted street
               in a (much poorer) rural area.  Cities are much richer than
               rural areas on average, but, again, I bet densely populated
               cities have much higher per capita rates of violent crimes.
               (now, that by no means would establish causality between
                poplation density and crime, as there are confounding factors,
                but still... "Animals can be driven insane by placing too many
                of them into too small a space...")
               Also there is a number of famous cases where a person is being
               brutally attacked over a long and well populated distance, in
               places like NY, with no one interferring or calling the police.
               This sort of think does not happen in rural areas. (that is, if
               people see you in trouble, they will help a *much* higher % of
                the time.)
            \_ I have never felt safer having seen a cop.  If i was female I
                would probably feel differently.
                \_ A mugger can only steal what you have on you at the time.
                   The police are under no such restriction.
                   \_ A mugger can kill you. I suppose it's not stealing, but
                      makes you lose everything.
                        \_ It's a hell of a thing to kill a man. You take away
                           everything he's got, and everything he's ever going
                           to have. - William Munny
2003/12/4 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:11310 Activity:high
12/2    I shouldn't do this.  But I just can't help myself...
        I was accused in a now defunct thread of being a pro-life libertarian.
        In fact, I am a pro-abortion libertarian. The difference between me
        and the poster is that i'm capable of a shred of objectivity
        and of conceding an opponents point.  Roe v. wade is a archetypical
        example of "legislating from the bench".  Unless you really think the
        constitution makes mention of which trimester it is ok to kill a fetus
        in. -phuqm
        \_ it's funny how flame/troll/debate topics seem to flucutate
           on the motd.  I've seen people try to start abortion flame
           wars dozens of times without anyone even bothering to
           reply over the last few years, but now all of a sudden it's
           a hot button topic here.  doesn't anyone want to have a
           nice isreal/palestine flamewar?
        \_ The constitution does make it a capital crime to kill another
           human being.  This opens Pandora's Box as concerns the question
           of what constitutes a human being; whether the health of the
           mother is more vital than the health of the fetus; whether a
           woman can be coerced to bear to term a child she conceived
           through rape, incest, date-rape, or other violation; and whether a
           woman is obliged to bear to term a child that has been demonstrated
           to have genetic or terratogenic defects, life-threatening or
           no.  Roe v. Wade seeks to clarify the Constitution by interpreting
           it according to current ethical standards while taking into
           account recent social phenomena like Women's Lib and the Sexual
           Revolution.  This is the job of the Supreme Court: to wade in,
           when the Constitution is unclear, and take a stab at clarifying
           it.  If the Legislative Branch disagrees, it's free to draft
           Constitutional Amendments that clarify the Constitution as they
           perceive it. --erikred
                \_ Sorry, you have it backwards.  Roe was social engineering,
                   completely unfounded with no stare decisis.  Its laughable
                   how you divine the existence of a natural right to abortion
                   from the bill of rights, or that such a question necessitates
                   Federal authority.  Its a state issue, insofar as the
                   question can broached by government.  The role of the
                   Supreme Court is exactly NOT to wade into vaguely defined
                   question of social justice.  Leave it to the voters
                   and a legislature.  'Clarify it with current ethical
                   standards' - so when pedophilia and beastiality are in vogue
                   well have the Supreme Court to clarify it for us.  Whoopee!
                   \_ That's right, abortion is just like pedophelia and
                      bestiality. Anyone who wants legal abortions must first
                      defend legalizing animal abuse and sex with children.
                   \_ Thanks for the laughable assertions, but unless you're
                      willing to put forth a logical explanation for your
                      point of view, expect to be laughed at and then ignored.
                   \_ Law changes with society. If you cannot accept that, then
                      you can't even expect to get to step one in understanding.
                     \_ Here my logical explanation:  I can read the
                        Constitution and all of the ancillary documents.
                        That is the beauty of it, its so simply written all you
                        do is READ the damn thing.  Yes socials mores change,
                        that is why there are provisions for these things called
                        AMENDMENTS.  That is how you change the Constitution,
                        not by redendering your percevied view of justice
                        from a bench.  You elitist fucks think you are so
                        smart, that you need to save the populace from itself.
                           \_ protecting the rights of minorities is one of the
                              tenets of our democracy.  what gives you the right
                              to make laws about what people do with their own
                              \_ you are missing the point.  I suggest that you
                                 are too stupid to engage in this conversation.
                                 \_ I suggest you missed my point. I responded
                                    to the "save the populace from itself"
                                    remark. I also suggest you are a shithead.
                           \_ Please learn to format your posts to 80 char
                              columns. But you are right, if this had been
                              decided by legislature instead of the courts
                              it would be much less contentious.
           \_ Nice.
           \_ That doesn't fit the black and white neocon world, babykiller!
           \_ where does the constitution ever talk about what crimes are
              capital crimes?
           \_ this is well reasoned but not correct.  The Constitution does
              NOT make it a capital crime to kill another person.  The
              Constitution does not make ANYTHING a "capital crime".  IIRC,
              The only "crimes" the constitution mentions by name are
              counterfeiting and treason.  The Constitution is not a body of
              laws for governing people.  It is a body of laws for governing
              GOVERNMENT.  It lays out who has what authority to do what
              and it does so in a pretty damn clear manner. (it is also
              pretty short, i recommend reading it.)  The basis
              for convicting murderers is in STATE laws (the penal code for
              murder in CA is 187 iirc).  The Supreme court has the
              authority to overturn unconstitutional laws; it does not have
              the (constitutional) authority to MAKE NEW ONES.  That is the
              role of the Legislative branches of the US and of the States.
              Roe V. Wade, suggested that it laws against abortion were
              unconstitutional as they violated the non-explicit "penumbra"
              of rights implied by the explicit stating of the bill-of-rights
              Now, this is already a bit of a stretch, but being a Libertine
              i'm all for it.  However, when it goes a step further and says
              "but a law which prohibits 3rd trimester abortions would be ok"
              it is no longer "clarifying the constitution by interpretation."
              It is legislating pure and simple.  It is saying women in the
              US can have an abortion up till 6 months and not after.   That
              is not its role. -phuqm
              \_ It is the role of the Supreme Court to determine if a law
                 is constitutional or not.  The Supreme Court decided in this
                 case that the current law was not consitutional.  The SC then
                 went on to describe a scenario in which a similar law would
                 be constitutional, thus providing a counterpoint to its
                 decision.  It did not make 3rd trimester abortions illegal,
                 and it did not enjoin the House and Senate to pass
                 legislation in this vein on pain of penalty.  How is this
                 legislating?  --erikred
        \_ objectivity is a farce
            \_ Thanks for the sophmoric philosophy lesson.  This is exactly
               the sophistry they are using in law schools today to teach a
               whole generation of law students that it is ok to rule without
               regard for what the law says, because, hell, who can know for
               SURE.  That a goal is not perfectaly attainable does not mean
               you should not attempt to get closer. -phuqm
        \_ is phuqm an alias?  can't seem to find this user.
           \_ fuck'em
           \_ yes.
            \_ then why bother signing your shit?  it's not like any of
               us are going to bother writing you at some anonymous
               hotmail account.
               \_ why does anyone bother? who cares?  it's just a
                  usenet dickhead ego thing.
2003/12/4 [Recreation/Dating] UID:11311 Activity:nil
12/4    Hesh wants sex!
        \_ Damn you and your meme spreading ways.  This Hesh?
           Or this Hesh?
           Or this Hesh?
           \_ This Hesh -op
              \_ What the freak was that?!?
              \_ Hm.  I like my Heshes better.
2003/12/4-5 [Transportation/Motorcycle] UID:11312 Activity:nil
12/4    I want to learn how to wheelies and stoppies on my new Hiyabusa,
        where is a good place to do that?       -new bike rider
        \_ by learning how to spell HAYABUSA, baka gaijin.
        \_ A new rider, you bought a Hayabusa, and you want to do wheelies
           and stoppies?  Hey, can I have your computer?  You're obviously
           not gonna need it for long.
2003/12/4 [Computer/SW] UID:11313 Activity:nil
12/4    Very cool way to fold your shirts quickly -
        Makes me wonder, are there web sites out there that similarly
        teach one how to optimize other things you do repetitively in
        life? (e.g. iron pants optimally, ...)
        \_ Have you watched "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy"?
           \_ It's on cable, not "free" TV, right? :(
                \_ no, I think abc has it now.  It still sucks.
           \_ "I think it's called ge-wur-zammer."
        \_ That is so cool.
2003/12/4 [Uncategorized] UID:11314 Activity:nil
12/4    wrt to the grammy's, what's the difference between "album of
        the year" and "record of the year"?
        \_ "Album" = "album", "record" = "single"
2003/12/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11315 Activity:nil
12/4    US State Department to censor Wesley Clark's testimony in Milosevic
        \_ My question is why Wesley Clark would testify at a court which
           USA never recognized at first place?  Wouldn't it makes a mockery
           of our own policy?
           \_ You're thinking of the ICC, the International Criminal Court.
              Clark is testifying before the International War Crimes
              Tribunal in the Hague, about his command of NATO during the
              Kosovo action.  These are totally different entities.  It's
              fairly obvious that the State Department is trying to
              suppress positive news coverage of a Democratic candidate,
              as there isn't much to protect in the way of national security
2003/12/4-5 [Computer/SW/Languages/C_Cplusplus] UID:11316 Activity:nil
12/4    Is there a way to do a c/c++ log macro/function so that in the log
        message it will automatically output the filename/function name
        or something of that sort?
        \_ One (bad) attempt, just to give you an idea:
        #define LOGMSG logMsg(__FILE__, __LINE__,

        int logMsg(char *fname, int line, char *msgfmt, ...) {

           char msg[512]; va_list vl;
           va_start(vl, msgfmt); vsprintf(msg, msgfmt, vl); va_end(vl);
           printf("%s:%d : %s", fname, line, msg);
           return 0;
        Macros don't allow varargs, so your uses of this macro are going to
             \_ that's almost as cool as the shirt folding thing.  Thanks.

        look like
        LOG_MSG "This is error number %d\n", foo);
               ^ note missing "("
        The macro will expand this to
        logMsg(__FILE__, __LINE__, "This is error number %d\n", foo);
        and your log msg will look like:
        myfile.c:104 : This is error number 5
        It would be a lot nicer if you could define some standard log formats,
        then you wouldn't have to do that horrible horrible macro stuff.
        \_ You should use log4cplus.  I use it and it's fairly easy to
2003/12/4-5 [Computer/SW/Languages/C_Cplusplus] UID:11317 Activity:nil
12/4    Is there any reason to worry about mixing the usage of malloc and new?
        Obviously, you can't delete() malloc'd memory (and vv), but aside from
        that, will bad things happen?  Oh, I should note that this is for a C
        library that is used by C++ -- a coworker suggested wrapping my memory
        allocations (and deletions) with
        #ifdef __cplusplus
                foo = new char[100];
                foo = (char*) malloc(100 * sizeof(char));
        \_ as long as you call free only on malloc-allocated memory and delete
           only on new-allocated memory, you should be fine.  If it were the
           case otherwise, then you wouldn't be able to link C++ code against
           C code.
2003/12/4 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:11318 Activity:high
12/4    Maine teacher sues over school board curriculum that prevents teaching
        about non-Christian civilizations and religions, e.g. ancient Greece:
        \_ Maine SAD1's Superintendent speaks out on the charges:
           To wit, 7th and 8th grade curriculum focuses on European and
           US History, while World History is relegated to 9th grade.  Cole
           teaches middle school.  Supe claims that Cole is welcome to
           broach non-Christian topics so long as they apply to topics set
           aside for each grade.
           \_ Thanks for the response.  I wouldn't say this settles it, though.
              Time will tell but if the charges are as baseless as the
              superintendent seems to believe, the lawsuit will be dismissed
              out of hand.  For the teacher to go through so much trouble,
              there may very well be something going on here that we don't
              yet know about.  It is true that more and more school boards
              across the country are controlled by fundamentalist groups, and
              are using their position to dictate curriculum.
              \_ what will be ironic and sad is if the conservative agendas
                 of school choice and religion in school are both
                 of school choice and religion in the school are both
                 idiot kids who were put in schools with a medieval
                 curriculum by their barbarian parents.   I think this
                 may well be where we are heading.
          \_ So the ancient Greeks, Romans, Vikings, Celts, etc. were not in
             Europe? How about native American cultures in the USA?
              yet know about.
                 pushed to the point where there is a vast underclass of
                 idiot kids who were put in schools with a midaeval
                 curriculum by their barbarian parents.
2018/11/22 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2003:December:04 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>