Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:January:23 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2004/1/23 [Uncategorized] UID:11895 Activity:nil
1/22    Heh, this woman doesn't know her geography very well.
        http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/22/king.controversy.ap/index.html
        \_ How do you figure that?  Or do you think blacks only come from
           the Congo and the ghettos?  You're not all that bright for a Cal
           student.  Who let you in?  Can your entry be revoked?
2004/1/23 [Science/Space] UID:11896 Activity:nil 50%like:30088
1/22    Money for Mars mission, yay or nay?
        \_ Should the Spanish have spent tons of the government/
           kingdom's money to set voyage to explore uncharted waters and
           lands (America)?
           \_ the Spanish could reasonably have expected that uncharted lands
              had riches for them to exploit.  We already know Mars is a
              barren rock.
              \_ Bullshit.  We don't even know if it has water on it or not.
                 We know more about the fungus between your toes.
                 \_ like saying we don't know if the mojave has water or not
                    \_ Uh?  What?  We know all about the mojave, we know
                       almost nothing about Mars.  What are you talking about?
              \_ But it might have OIL!!
           \_ That's a complicated question.  The Spanish had huge problems
              with their overseas holdings, went bankrupt a few times due
              to the inflation caused by all the gold they plundered, etc.
              Even leaving morals aside, conquering stuff isn't always the
              best thing to do for a country. -- ilyas
              \_ No problem, just don't have a 'mars rock' based economy.
                 As of this date it doesn't appear there will be any natives
                 to exploit so there's no morals issue.
                 \_ Sure there is.  Whenever public money's used for something,
                    you need to make a moral case for it.  Also, it's not
                    really about the gold.  Expanding the country is just like
                    expanding the economy, it has to be done 'organically' or
                    you get counterproductive results, like inflation or
                    revolts or whatever.  In the case of Mars I don't even
                    see a non-scientific reason to go.  Personally, I think
                    there are better ways to explore space than NASA (and
                    better ways to spend government money than NASA).
                      -- ilyas
                    \_ You don't need a morals case to spend public money.  You
                       need a "public good" or "national good" case to spend
                       public money.  Or you should, anyway.  You don't see a
                       non-scientific reason to go?  Neith do I.  I think the
                       scientific reasons alone are reason enough.  I agree
                       that NASA may not be the right place to spend the money,
                       but we should continue the/a space program.  Putting
                       everyone on the dole is not in the public's best
                       interests and certainly immoral.  See the Indian
                       Reservations for how that works out (or not).
                       \_ "Public good" is a (utilitarian) moral argument.  A
                          lot of people, btw, will disagree with this sort of
                          argument for spending public money, either because
                          they themselves are not utilitarian, or because they
                          think 'the public' cannot have a good.  As for
                          "we should" go to Mars, I might as well say
                          "we shouldn't" with equal force.  "We should" is not
                          an argument. -- ilyas
                          \_ The argument 'for' is the advancement of science,
                             the possibility of getting access to new materials
                             or energy sources, and the value that tech can
                             bring to everyone to increase quality of life
                             for the entire human race.  I see the argument
                             'against' as "let's just keep wasting limited
                             resources doing the same thing over and over until
                             we can't do it anymore and we all starve and run
                             out of energy.  Feel free to present your own
                             version of the 'against' argument.
                          \_ There is nothing utilitarian or moral about
                             the term "public good" in economics.  The term
                             refers to items for which it is generally not
                             possible to restrict the benefits only to the
                             payer.  Some examples are national defense,
                             preventing disease epidemics, and emergency
                             services (police, fire, ambulance, etc.).  Since
                             market mechanisms are not efficient for
                             allocating resources to such goods, there is
                             a good economic argument for paying for these
                             with "public money" such as taxes. -!op
                        \_ the life of a few is worth sacraficing for the
                           the life of many. or something like that.
                           \_ which has what to do with the way welfare has
                              utterly destoyed what was left of the Indians?
                       \_ Military intervention, landgrabbing by the US govt.,
                          discriminatory business practices, and outright
                          fraud and theft legitimized by a racist judiciary
                          is responsible for the devastation of the Indigenous
                          Americans and their ghettoization on the
                          Reservations.  Welfare has raised some people out
                          of the borderline starvation they were in.  Don't
                          blame the victims, George Armstrong.
                          \_ You're in the wrong century.  Once on the
                             reservations and being completely "taken care of"
                             by the government, those on the reservations were
                             essentially destroyed as a viable people.  Entire
                             generations were lost to Indian "welfare".  And
                             really, stop with the "Indigenous" crap.  If you
                             ever met one, you'd know they prefer "Indian" all
                             alone without the PC shit confusing things, if
                             you don't know their exact tribal affiliation.
                             \_ How do you think they got on the Reservations?
                                What do you think the conditions were like
                                before welfare for the tribes? They had to
                                rely on handouts from missionaries. Welfare,
                                while certainly not perfect, gave some people
                                on the Res. space to concentrate on more than
                                where the next meal was coming from.  Next,
                                I know self-described Indians, Native
                                Americans, Amerindians, and Indigenous
                                Americans. That I choose to use the last one
                                is my choice. I wasn't blasting your choice of
                                language, so stop being such a sensitive
                                prick.
                                \_ Before welfare?  Missionaries?  You think
                                   missionaries supported millions of
                                   Indians at some point?  I blasted your
                                   word choice because it's PC garbage.  The
                                   welfare reservation handout system has
                                   destroyed the tribes.  It was the last
                                   step required to genocide them as a people.
                                   \_ The nail was already in the coffin.
                                      Welfare is not perfect, but it did
                                      prevent starvation.  Much better, of
                                      course, is the gaming money and the
                                      recognition of sovereignty on the
                                      tribal lands.  And as for being PC,
                                      fuck you, hater, and your honkey-ass
                                      cracker vocabulary.
                          \_ I think he was blaming welfare, not the Indians.
           \_ money will be spent on scientists and on manufacturers (most
              likely in the U.S. soil), hence will create jobs and must be
              good. Bush is brilliant. Go Bush!
              \_ I'm sure you'd prefer to believe that the money is more
                 likely to create jobs if spent on welfare.
                 \_ A chicken in every pot, an ethernet cable in every
                    butthole.
                    \_ An excellent plan.  Free net for every whore will
                       create jobs, so long as the whores become a public
                       resource.
                        \_ But yermom is already a pubic resource.
                           \_ She doesn't charge so she isn't a whore but you
                              do have to line up behind tom for your shots
                              after you get syph or some other 'easily cured'
                              STD.  You ok with that?
2004/1/23 [Uncategorized] UID:11897 Activity:nil
1/23    We need more of these people - they do the jobs americans wont
        Queens Rapists
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1063528/posts
        \_ They have rights, too, ya know.  Is this really any different
           than foreign diplomats who rack up and ignore hundreds of
           parking tickets?
2004/1/23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11898 Activity:nil
1/23    cool. answer some questions, the site determines which
        candidates you agree most with:
        http://www.presidentmatch.com/Main.jsp2?cp=main
        \_ That survey gave me 100% on a candidate who i disagree with on
           several issues, as measured by *their* tally.  Is crap.
           \_ I agree.
        \_ cf. http://www.vote-smart.org
        \_ Me and Joe L. matching at 100%,  94% Edwards, 90% Kerry and 86% Bush
           which just goes to show they're not all that different afterall.
           Even got a 67% with Kucinich who I think was always just clutter
           and 69% with Sharpton who never should have had any press at all.
           Poor Joe, I actually do think he's a good guy, but he was so stupid
           to give deference to a scumbag like Gore.  If Joe had balls I might
           actually be a supporter.
        \_ rofl i support kucinich who???
        \_ Kucinich 100% w00t!
           \_ Yeah I also got 100% Kucinich. It's hard to avoid "no opinion"
              on some of the issues. I'm not sure what I think on healthcare.
              Getting the deficit and debt under control is probably more
              important to me than all the other crap. I might actually be
              a conservative at heart but I hate most actual republicans.
        \_ Kerry 100%, Bush 27%.
        \_ Sharpton 100%, Bush 14% (is it sad that I wasn't trying?)
           \_ hahaha, it gives me Kucinich 100%, Dean 90%, Clark 87%,
              Bush 13%
        \_ That site is just wrong.  I'm conservative yet it rates me
           wanting Democrats.  Dean and Sharpton over Bush.  How wrong.
           \_ What issues are you conservative on?  How much did you prioritize
              them over the issues you're liberal on?  If you're a libertarian
              sort of republican, it's not surprising your views don't mesh
              Bush.
              \_ Many of Bush's supporters are simply too stupid to realize
                 his views and policies don't fit with their own.
                 \_ how ignorant of you.  The problem is with their
                    calculations, not with Bush supporters.
                    \_ Their calculations are based on what you stated as
                       your positions, and what Bush states as his.  Why don't
                       you tell us which of Bush's positions they
                       misrepresent?
        \_ You can tell that there are serious problems with this site just
           by how it lists Bush as having served in the military.  True,
           but not really.
           \_ heh, I agree.  Although if Bush was a reservist today deployed
              for a year in Iraq, then I'd see it.
2004/1/23-24 [Uncategorized] UID:11899 Activity:nil
1/23    I'm trying to track down and/or minimize the number of fax calls
        to my number. I've used Selective Call Blocking and have blocked
        about 8 numbers so far and it worked for a few months but lately
        I've been getting calls from Private Callers. What are some other
        options I have? Is Call Trace useful when you don't know who is
        calling you? Thanks.
        \_ Block private callers.  Why should anyone need to anonymously fax
           you?
2004/1/23 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:11900 Activity:nil
1/23    Cho: don't dish it out if you can't take it.
        http://www.nydailynews.com/01-23-2004/front/story/157605p-138358c.html
        \_ Haha, from Drudge?  This is the guy that's famous for excerpting
           words from speeches that are sometimes minutes or even hours
           apart and then using ellipsis to glue them together into whatever
           phrase he wants to publish.
           \_ "Cheney... gather... violent... law enforcement personnel...
               and... come all... over... my... face."
           \_ From anyone.  If you're going to spew, be prepared to get
              quoted, misquoted, and slammed.
2004/1/23 [Computer/SW/OS/OsX] UID:11901 Activity:nil 54%like:29757
1/23    http://www.pantsfactory.org/?action=comments&linkid=1038
        KisMAC: Kismet, airsnort, airjack, and several other tools
        rolled into one for OS X
2004/1/23-24 [Science/Space] UID:11902 Activity:nil
1/23    Water found on Mars:
        http://www.esa.int/export/esaCP/SEM8ZB474OD_index_0.html
        \_ I thought we already knew this.
           \_ We suspected it.  Now we know.
              \_ just the EU boys trying to lay claim to *something* since they
                 have had nothing but failures and we're looking good this week
              \_ It was known a couple years ago or earlier:
        http://www.govertschilling.nl/artikelen/archief/2002/0203/020304_sc.htm
2004/1/23-24 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA] UID:11903 Activity:nil
1/23    What's the best weekend parking near U.C. Berkeley?  How much will
        it cost?  Daytime hours, let's say 10am to 8pm.
        \_ Depending on where you want to park, possibly free.
           \_ how?  But do I have to drive 45 minutes to look for parking?
              \_ Once again, be more specific.  Near Soda?  Near Haas pavilion?
                 If it's near Soda, I'd find free parking on Ridge or LeConte
                 streets within a couple blocks.  Of course, if there's an event
                 at The Greek, that probably won't work.
                 \_ eh, i think you need a permit to park on those streets.
                    there are parking meters in front of soda tho.
                    \_ Except near Soda you don't need a permit or to feed a
                       meter to park on the weekends.  -- lived on ridge rd.
                    \_ I am pretty sure that you can park anywhere in Berkeley
                       without a permit on weekends now. Excpet meters, that
                       you have to feed on Saturdays.
                 \_ near Sproul.  But if it's cheaper near Soda, that's okay
                    too.
                    \_ Ouch.  Parking will be a bitch all the time around there.
                       I'd just pay for a university lot.  Don't remember the
                       price but it was not insane.
2004/1/23 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:11904 Activity:nil
1/23    The Motd: we remove your faith in humanity at no extra charge!
        \_ Exactly. What I don't understand is why I come back here every day.
           I need to see a shrink about it. I have learned a lot about a
           certain breed of libertarianism and what passes for legitimate
           debate therein though.
           \_ maybe you need your faith in humanity removed. i know i do.
           \_ there's very little legitimate debate on the motd.  you're being
              terribly unfair to other philosophies if you're going to accept
              the motd as the One True Source about anything.
              \_ I do try to be fair, hence "a certain breed".
        \_ So true.
2004/1/23-25 [Consumer/Shipping] UID:11905 Activity:nil
1/23    Say I forward USPS address from A->B. Will USPS notify both address
        A and B regarding the change? I'm asking because my former roomate
        lost in Small Claims and I want to hide address B from him so that
        he can't scratch my car or put holes in my tyres. I'm wondering if
        mail forwarding is a good way of hiding my address while still
        keeping the possibility of him sending me payments. Thanks.
        \_ when you fill out the forms they send a notice to both addresses
           but neither has the other address in them. however apparently
           someone (the sender) can request address change info...
           http://www.usps.com/ncsc/products/ancillary.htm
        \_ Get a PO Box. USPS forwarding is an unreliable mess. only
           use when absoluteley necessary. I just moved out of state.
           had many delays and I probably lost mail.
           \_ If you're in Berkeley, I recomend Postal Annex, between Channing
              and Dwight by the parking garage south of campus.  I had a box
              there for a year and was really happy with it. Unlike a USPS
              post box, they'll let you call your box an apartment on your
              addresses, so you can claim it as your residence and avoid
              all mail at home.
2004/1/23 [Computer/SW/Security] UID:11906 Activity:nil
1/23    http://tinyurl.com/2utfc JWZ vs Mailman, round ONE fight!
        \_ Do you get a kickback from Pants Factory? If not, try posting a
           direct link: http://www.jwz.org/doc/mailman.html
           \_ normally I would, but the rebuttals from mailman's OG writer
              are on http://pantsfactory.org
2004/1/23 [Uncategorized] UID:11907 Activity:nil
1/22    [Can't stand the commentary? Bye-bye thread.]
2004/1/23-25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11908 Activity:high
1/23    US fought the first Gulf War to help Kuwait defend its sovereignty.
        So how come US can continue to violate Iraq's sovereignty given that
        it has found no evidence of WMD or terrorist activities?
        \_ It's never about sovereignty, son.  The first golf war was to
           prevent Iraq control 36% of world's total oil output.  We never
           cared about Kuwaiti people, nor does the Kuwaiti Royal Family
           for that matter.
           \_ That is just one factor.  The first gulf war is when
              international law, people of Kuwait's interest, and US's
              interest are in alignment.  Unfortunately, in the second
              gulf war, international law is not our our side, and
              whether it's in the US's interest and whether it's in the
              people of Iraq's interest are highly debatable.  It is in
              the Bush admin's interest though.  You have much to learn, boy.
              \_ "international law was not on our side".  since there is no
                 such thing, it is hard to say if it was or not.  there are
                 competing views on this point from reliable people on both
                 sides of this.  The 2nd GW was certainly in the Iraqi people's
                 interests as long as you're not one of the Sunnis who was
                 getting along just fine at the expense of the Shiites and
                 Kurds.  You mave much to learn, son.
                 \_ Why don't you ask Pentagon hawk, Richard Perle, who said:
                    "I think in this case international law stood in the
                    way of doing the right thing."  As for the existence
                    of international laws, try <DEAD>www.un.com<DEAD> -> english ->
                    international laws.  Even Perle understood that there
                    are international laws and the US invasion of Iraq is
                    illegal.  As for whether it is "doing the right
                    thing", it's highly debatable.  You have much to
                    learn, boy.
                    \_ I thought I'd replied to this, but I guess not since it
                       was the same as the rest.  1) Richard Perle doesn't
                       speak for me or anyone else important.  2) As I said
                       every other time you bring up this nonsense, if there
                       is no enforcement there is no law.  And slapping "boy"
                       at the end of your posts doesn't add anything to your
                       case.  You're still naive and ignorant even though you
                       pretend otherwise.  After a dozen times we've gone over
                       this you are still incapable of telling me how those
                       "international laws" get enforced.  Because they don't
                       and can't be.  No enforcement = no law.  I should just
                       save this to a file and paste it back in everytime your
                       silly little ass comes on here with worthless URLs to
                       the UN website.  You never have anything new to say
                       because there's nothing more you can say.  There's no
                       international law.  There are a *lot* of international
                       suggestions, hints, and advice.
                       \_ Well you did reply to it, at least you tried.
                          No, law is law.  Enforcement is enforcement.
                          If say commie China invaded some small country
                          on its border today, it broke international law
                          irregardless of whether anyone dared to send an
                          army to chase it out.  Your silly ass no perfect
                          enforcement means no law argument is bogus.
                          As for slapping "boy", it's just to counter the
                          use of "son". Your protest against my use of
                          "boy" without also mentioning the use of "son"
                          thus exposes you again as the hypocritical
                          silly ass that you are.
                          \_ Nice try at a back handed compliment on line one.
                             I only used 'son' to show you how stupid you look
                             putting "boy" on the end of every one of your
                             cut'n'paste posts.  As far as the actual topic
                             goes: China would not be in violation of anything
                             if they were to invade a neighbor.  Law without
                             any enforcement mechanism is silly.  It's the
                             same idea as when Bush gets attacked for making
                             the "No Child Left Behind" act but not putting
                             any funding into it.  There's no reason to respect
                             a "law" which has no enforcement mechanism.  If
                             you'd like to say "oh boo hoo! the law was broken,
                             woe unto the the earth and all peace loving good
                             peoples!" go right ahead, it doesn't matter what
                             you whine about who 'broke' what pseudo-law when
                             there's nothing anyone can or will do about it,
                             especially when your 'laws' are, at best, just a
                             list of rules countries are supposed to more or
                             less follow BY AGREEMENT, and there's nothing in
                             any of your 'laws' which says what the punishment
                             shall be for a violation.  There's no internatn'l
                             legal system, no police, no judges, no cops, no
                             nothing anyone can or would do to even a second
                             rate nation, such as France, much less to a Hyper
                             Super Power like the U.S.  It's silly and naive to
                             talk about violations like that.  The obvious
                             response is always, "So what?  Go do something
                             about it".  And the fact that no one can, would,
                             or even wants to is what makes International Law
                             and the violation of said myth the farce that it
                             is.
                 \_ the only "competing view" is GW supporters in the US.
                    Everone else in the world knows US broke international
                    law.
        \_ You're right.  We should just walk away and let it fall to total
           anarchy.  Then assholes like you would be here saying "why did
           we leave the poor Iraqis to their fate?  We should have stayed
           and helped them!"  Have a cookie, troll.
           \_ the sad thing is I don't think the poster intended it as a troll
              \_ It is not a troll but a lead to raise additional questions.
                 And yes, you need to think more before feeling sad.
                 \_ okay, so your post was written to raise additional
           \_ [ expression of sadness noted ]
                    questions.  I've thought about it more, and I still think
                    it's sad.  To each their own, I guess.
                    \_ um, whatever
           \_ Assholes like you should learn to stop putting words into
              other people's mouth.
              \_ blah blah blah, heard it all before.  when you hate the man
                 so much it doesn't matter what he does or says you can still
                 put them there.
                 find fault and make him into hitler if you like and feel good
                 about yourself doing so.  the words were there.  no one else
                 put them there.
                 \_ I know you have an irrational hatred for Clinton, so you
                    project that onto others.  You need to grow up.
                       \_ Just tell me one thing: what makes you spill
                          the drivel about hating "the man" when the
                          original poster mentioned nothing about it?  Where
                          did you get the juvenile belief that anyone who
                          questions the Iraq war has to be a hater of
                          Bush?
                          \_ What about those of us who support the Iraq war,
                             but hate Bush for other reasons?
                             \_ It can't be.  If you support the war then
                                you're a fascist (R) and love Bush.  If you
                                hate Bush and the evil fascist (R)s then you
                                are opposed to the war to your core.  There
                                is no middle ground in leftist politics.
                          \_ From reading the motd everyday.  Where'd you get
                             the opposite idea?
                             \_ all the more reason for you to be less
                                presumptuous instead of contributing to
                                the idiocy.
                                \_ Uhm, what?  We're on the motd, so I'm
                                   perfectly in context.
              other people's mouth.
                 put them there.
                 \_ I know you have an irrational hate for Clinton, so you
                 \_ I know you have an irrational hatred for Clinton, so you
                    project that onto others.  You need to grow up.
                    \_ You don't know any such thing.  I have no hatred for
                       Clinton or anyone else.  He's just another scumbag
                       politician no different than the rest.  My original
                       point remains: the poster is a hypocrite and a troll
                       and you've done nothing to refute that in any way.
           \_ So you are saying that any country can invade any other
              country by first making false accusations, then invading,
              and then saying that they have to stay because if they leave,
              since they already destroyed the former regime and its
                 \_ That's the point.  Us broke international law, and
                    the reason for the war turned out to be based on a lie
                    and has to be changed to "regime change".  If WMD or
                    terrorists were found, even if democracy and peace
                    failed, the war would still be justified.  Now, we have
                    20000 Iraqis dead, 500 US soldier killed, thousands of
                    US soldiers injured, hundreds of bilions of dollars
                    spent, thousands of Iraqis homes and property destroyed,
                    and still no WMD.  If we can find WMD or at the very
                    least have a UN mandate, these losses would be
                    justified, but without them, now it boils down to
                    the only justification left - whether we can build a
                    peaceful and democratic Iraq.  All the more reason to
                    put pressure on the administration to do the right
                    thing instead of throwing Iraqi people's money to
                    the admin's business and defense cronies.  Take this
                    Ayatollah Sistani problem.  If WMD has been found, t
                    his would be a much smaller problem, but now that
                    the whole basis of the invasion rests on regime
                    change, and helping the oppressed Shiites, and now
                    you have this Sistani mullah whom all the Shiites
                    seem to adore, and he's ignoring Bremer and
                    calling for direct elections, there is
                    very little one can do except try to placate him.
                    I hope things turned out well, not because of, but
                    in spite of.
                    \_ Not finding WMD doesn't make it any harder to clean
                       up after.  It's still a very difficult thing.  And as
                       far as "justifying" all those deaths, lost homes, and
                       general mayhem in Iraq goes, I don't think the average
                       Iraqi gives a flying fuck about your "justifications".
                       That's Western White Boy think.  If we rolled in and
                       found a ton of anthrax on every street corner those
                       Iraqis would still be dead, injured, homeless, etc, and
                       not at all agree with your "justification" theory and
                       be just as pissed off that we're there.  Sistani would
                       still be there as before and we'd still have the same
                       mess to clean up.  It would just be harder, not easier,
                       because of the resources we'd have to divert to WMD
                       clean up.  You can't justify the loss of family and
                       home to anyone on the receiving end of that loss.
                       You're so fucking colonial it makes me ill.
                       \_ Your fucking underestimation of the people of
                          Iraq makes me sick.  Iraqis can think and they
                          watch and read the news, and they see the Bush
                          admin caught in lies about WMD, constantly
                          change its justification for the war, and
                          inability to find any WMD.  They also read news
                          about how Bush admin gives fat contracts to
                          its cronies led companies using Iraqi money and
                          oil to pay for these.  You think all these make
                          no difference to the Iraqis?  Are you that
                          naive or are you just plain dumb?
                          \_ Who said the Iraqis aren't smart?  I never said
                             any such thing.  Go back and *READ* what I said,
                             not what you wish I'd said.  I'll repeat: the
                             average Iraqi who lost a family member or home or
                             whatever doesn't give a flying fuck if there were
                             WMD or not.  They don't give a flying fuck that
                             Bush is handing contracts to his buddies or not.
                             They don't give a flying fuck about the whether
                             the war was "just" or not.  Those are your
                             Western White Boy concerns.  They only care that
                             their family member is dead, their house blown up,
                             or their business destroyed and no amount of
                             Western justification for the invasion will change
                             that.  If it was your house that got blown up and
                             2 tons of anthrax was found next door the day
                             after you'd still be pissed off your house was
                             blown up no matter how "justified" some white boy
                             in the US thinks it was.
           \_ So you are saying that any country can invade any other
              country by first making false accusations, then invading,
              and then saying that they have to stay because if they leave,
              since they already destroyed the former regime and its
              institutions, there will be chaos?
                    \_ Bush says:  That's a CIA failure.
              institutions, there will be chaos?
              \_ Whatever the quality of the reason for invading, walking out
                 now would be a case of two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right.  If
                 you broke the cookie jar you should at least help buy new
                 cookies and some elmer's glue.  There's no relationship
                 between whether or not invading was right and what we should
                 do now that we have.  The fact is we did invade and now have
                 a moral responsibility to clean up the mess we made.  You
                 seem to think that we only owe the Iraqi people something if
                 we had found tons of WMD.  That makes no sense to me.
              \_ 10 years of Resolutions are false accussations?
                 \_ Where is the WMD then?
                    \_ Bush says:  That's a CIA failure.
                       \_ Are you trying to make him look bad?
                          \_ No, that's the genuine administration position.
                 \_ And if you want to talk about UN resolutions, no, US
                    did not obtain a UN resolution to invade
                    Iraq.  There are many UN resolutions condemning
                    Israel.  That doesn't mean other countries have
                    the right to invade Israel.
                    \_ Bush says:  An earlier resolution made the war legal.
                       \_ Only problem was Bush tried to obtain a UN mandate
                          for war but had to withdraw.  That shows that the
                          earlier resolution doesn't stand.
                          \_ Bush says:  The earlier resolution still made
                             it legal; the new resolution was a chance to
                             show Saddam that the world was united in
                             opposition.
                            \_ earlier resolution says "severe consequences".
                               analogy would be a law that says it is
                               illegal to possess marijuana and anyone
                               found in possession of marijuana would face
                               "legal consequences".  this doesn't give
                               john doe off the street the right to kill
                               someone found in possession of marijuana.
                               To determine what the consequences should be
                               one should go back to the institution issuing
                               the law (UN in this case).
                               \_ the US isn't john doe off the street and
                                  'legal' is not the same as 'severe'.  did
                                  you think the original un resolution that
                                  said 'severe' meant "we'll sic our lawyers
                                        \_ Try http://www.un.org -> English ->
                                           International Laws.  Who enforces
                                           it?  Member nations through UN
                                           mandate of course.  You prefer
                                           throwing away international laws
                                           and going back to genghis khan era?
                                           \_ "member nations through UN
                                               mandate".  bullshit.  So you
                                              claim the US is in violation of
                                              UN/international law.  Why is
                                              there no enforcement?  Why aren't
                                              all the member states enforcing
                                              their will upon the US?  The law
                                              is the law and must be applied
                                              equally to all.  If any are
                                              above the law or there is no
                                              enforcement the law doesn't exist
                                              as such and becomes a mild
                                              suggestion at best.  We're still
                                              in the Khan era.  We never left
                                              it.  When did World Peace
                                              suddenly strike the planet?  What
                                              year did the Age of Enlightenment
                                              begin?
                                              \_ [I knew this one would go
                                                  unanswered.  Score one for
                                                  the "international law is
                                                  bullshit" side]
                                                  \_ No actually I just
                                                     feel that it's so
                                                     stupid it doesn't
                                                     deserve to be answered.
                                                     This guy can't even
                                                     distinguish between
                                                     law and its enforcement.
                                                     See above example
                                                     about scenario where
                                                     commie China invades
                                                     a small country.
                                                     \_ Been there, done that
                                                        and answered it a
                                                        number of times.  You
                                                        just prefer to change
                                                        the words around and
                                                        reply to your own words
                                                        that you put in my
                                                        mouth instead of what
                                                        was there on screen.
                    \_ Bush says:  An earlier resolution made the war legal.
                               one should go back to the institution issuing
                               the law (UN in this case).
                                  you think the original un resolution that
                                  said 'severe' meant "we'll sic our lawyers
                                  said 'severe' meant "we'll sic our lawyers
                                  on you in the international courts!"?
                                  on you in the international courts!"?
                                  \_ it's an UN resolution, so go back to
                                     UN to decide what it means.  otherwise,
                                  on you in the international courts!"?
                                  \_ it's an UN resolution, so go back to
                                     admit that you are breaking international
                                     law.
                                     UN to decide what it means.  otherwise,
                                     admit that you are breaking international
                                     law.
                                     \_ if there was a real thing called
                                        international law then maybe it could
                                        be broken.  if you have to go back and
                                        'ask' 10 years later what was really
                                        meant by something then the whole
                                        process is a farce anyway and it really
                                        doesn't matter.  tell me, who exactly
                                        enforces this 'international law' you
                                        speak so highly of?  where can i go
                                        and read the laws and the consequences
                                        for breaking them?
           \_ Just to stick up for those opposed to the war: not all of us are
              saying get out of Iraq; we merely don't trust the current
              administration to do the right thing while there.  We never
              should have invaded, but we're there and we're stuck for now.
              \_ A fair position.  Question: if Gore was in office, what do
                 you think he would have done post 9/11 with Al Qaeda, Iraq,
                 Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc?
                 Were you also opposed to what happened in Afghanistan?
                 \_ [ Bad idea. ]
                 \_ I am not the first guy, but I agree with him. We need
                    to clean up what we broke in Iraq. I was in favor of the
                             \_ Either way will do.  The Jews need more
                                living space.
                           the nasty selfperpetuating evil it's mired in now.
                       Now, realistically, how likely are one of these two to
                    invasion of Afghanistan. I think Gore would have invaded
                    Afgahnistan and then called it a day. He probably
                    would have tried to continue the Clinton peace process
                             \_ Nah, despite all the wars and killings,
                                Israel is the peace loving nation, once it
                                has attained its rightful King Solomon era
                                Greater Israel size and thrown all the
                                Palestinians out.  Jews need more living
                                space than present day Israel.
                                \_ not really.  we should just let the arabs
                                   kill them all and then we wouldnt have to
                                   worry about it.
                    in Palestine and Israel, which was making some progress
                    unlike "The Roadmap." -Motd Liberal
                    \_ There is no realistic chance of peace in the Middle
                       East.  Here is how it could happen:
                       (1) Israel is nuked, or otherwise destroyed, and never
                           rises up again.
                       (2) The palestinian society/culture/infrastructure
                           is irrevocably broken and rebuilt again without
                           the nasty selfperpetuating evil it's mired in now.
                       Now, realistically, how likely are one of these two to
                       happen?  What will probably happen is, Israel will wall
                       itself off and try to live as a besieged state.
                       Palestinians will continue to blow themselves up and
                       train their children to do the same, and everyone will
                       go on their merry (?) way.
                       \_ nah, the likely outcome is Israel will bring
                          in more and more settlers, and expand with
                          more and more settlements until it reaches its
                          size during King Solomon's times, and all
                          Palestinians are thrown out of Greater Israel.
                          \_ Possibly but I think it won't happen due to the
                             increase in settlements but yet another Arab
                             inspired war and this time the Israelis will just
                             push them all out and be done with it like they
                             started but wimped out on doing 50+ years ago.
                       \_ Genocide.  The Palestinians want genocide, and
                          eventually they are going to get it.
                          \_ The palestinian nation is a peace loving nation
                             and if only the Jews would just jump in the ocean
                             and all die we could finally have peace in the ME.
                        \_ People once thought the same thing about
                           Ireland.  While things are still somewhat bad
                           there, they do credit Clinton with bringing
                           people closer to compromise.  There can be
                           peace in Israel/Palestine; it just takes the
                           right time, the right man, and the right
                           motivation.  Bush's policies have set back that
                           possibility a great deal.
                           \_ The Ireland situation was different.  You had a
                              different kind of rebel there and it didn't
                              infect the entire Irish culture.  Irish mothers
                              \_ What do you mean it can't be fixed?  If
                                 we can fix Kurds, Shiite and Sunnis in
                                 Iraq, we can fix Jews and Palestinians in
                                 Palestine/Israel.  Just send in the marines,
                                 and force these quarrelsome shemites to learn
                                 to live together peacefully or be shot.
                                 \_ Start shooting arabs then.
                              didn't blow themselves up and leave tapes behind
                              saying they did it because they loved their
                              children.  Nor did they send their children off
                              to blow themselves up in discos and pizza parlors
                              \_ oh boo hoo!  if only we understood and
                                 accepted their differences as a people then
                                 we could all just get along!  The willful
                                 blindness and naivete of some is TRULY
                                 astounding.
                              \_ Eh.  In some sense I don't _care_ what
                                 exactly goes on in their heads.  Do I care why
                                 a serial killer kills?  Why should I care why
                                 a serial killer nation kills?  I just want to
                                 put the serial killer away to pay back his
                                 debt to his victims.  There is no excuse to
                                 be found in palestinians' heads for what they
                                 are doing.  It's simply wrong and evil.
                                 \_ SOrry, guess my statement was unclear.
                                    I was trying to say, the Palestinians
                                    (and most arabs) will simply ignore
                                    overwhelming evidence that contradicts
                                    what they wish to believe.  It's in
                                    the religion.  I should tell the story
                                    about the guy who refused to believe
                                    California is bigger than Azerbaijan.
                                    Basically, people who belive peace is
                                    possiable with those people don't have
                                    any idea what they're talking about.
                                 \_ Yeah those people are inscrutable.
                                    They cannot be understood.  Their thinking
                                    process is alien to us.  They are like
                                    serial killers.  Their culture is evil.
                                    They are not normal humans.  In fact,
                                    they can't even be called humans.  They
                                    are more like rats.  They should be
                                    exterminated.  We should burn
                                    them so normal humans like us Jews can
                                    have more living space.  long live
                                    Greater Israel!
                                    \_ They may very well be understandable.
                                       But they don't deserve to be understood,
                                       much like any serial killer.  The
                                       palestinians have a serial killer
                                       culture.
                                    \_ Pick up an English language arab
                                       newspaper or read them on the net.  Then
                                       come back here and tell us how peaceful
                                       and loving and understanding and how
                                       if only the Jews would just give up a
                                       few more square miles here, and there,
                                       and everywhere, peace would be at hand.
                                       Your ignorance is almost painful but
                                       you do the Berkeley hippy long haired
                                       PC leftist thing really well.  Give
                                       peace a chance!  Think locally, act
                                       globally!  Everyone just wants love!
                                       \_ Well, Israel has never stopped the
                                          continuation of the process. With
                                          settlers and ongoing miserable
                                          conditions in the territories, it's
                                          not credible to say they would always
                                          have been the same way. The ones that
                                          went to Jordan seemed to be able to
                                          lead normal lives. Leaving those
                                          camps there for all those years was
                                          a mistake either way.
                                          \_ Jordan?  Yeah the ones who went to
                                             Jordan lived nice normal lives
                                             after tens of thousands got
                                             butchered on that side of the
                                             border by their fellow Arabs.  If
                                             you don't know the history of the
                                             area you really should take 5-10
                                             minutes to read a summary online
                                             before sharing your opinions here.
                                             The mistake Israel made is they
                                             started to kick out the Arabs 50
                                             years ago but chickened out and
                                             didn't finish the process.  That
                                             left them with a few million
                                             really pissed off Arabs inside
                                             their borders which is the worst
                                             situation possible for all sides.
                                             Israel will eventually either lose
                                             a war or be overwhelmed by it's
                                             internal Arab population and then
                                             be no more.  The only other option
                                             that exists for Israel to survive
                                             beyond the next 20 years is a war
                                             that they win which has to be
                                             started by the Arabs so the
                                             international community types are
                                             appeased which then leads to
                                             them kicking out the 5th column
                                             Arabs inside the borders now.  I
                                             don't see any other paths that
                                             lead to anything other than the
                                             complete destruction of Israel
                                             and genocide inflicted upon the
                                             Jews by the Arabs.  At least maybe
                                             someone will pass a UN resolution
                                             asking them to please stop or
                                             something.  See the Tutsis for
                                             how that turned out.
                                             \_ Why do you believe that the
                                                Israelis have the right to
                                                kick the Arabs out 50 years
                                                ago?  The Arabs didn't kick
                                                the Jews out during the
                                                hundreds years during which
                                                they ruled the region.
                           I never said they had the right.  I said what   _/
                           should have done and that what they did was a huge
                           mistake.  The Arabs are on that land all the way
                           through North Africa and elsewhere because they
                           waged a bloody war of conquest to take it from the
                           previous owners.  I don't see you crying about
                           them.  And yes, the Arabs *did* kick out Jews from
                           all over the ME and took their property as well,
                           but there's a long history of that through the
                           ages, so it must be ok.  They're just Jews.
                           You said they left "a few million really pissed _/
                           off Arabs inside their borders". Well, the only
                           real problems have been from the ones who have
                           have been under occupation in fenced camps, while
                           over time a lot of land grabs and other injustices
                           have been inflicted on them. I say again, it's just
                           not credible to wilfully ignore that and pretend
                           there was no other way to deal with the territories.
                           It was done out of militarily strategic concerns,
                           with an eye to the other Arab states. But that does
                           not mean it was the only option.
                           \_ Fenced camps?  You've never seen the "camps"
                              which btw are supposed to be weapons free as
                              guaranteed by the UN which is supposed to be
                              running them until such time as the people can
                              be found living space in other Arab nations but
                              we know none of that ever happened, including
                              your illusionary fences.  I do agree and said so
                              before that the push was for military/strategic
                              reasons.  There's no crime there.
              saying get out of Iraq; we merely don't trust the current
              administration to do the right thing while there.  We never
              should have invaded, but we're there and we're stuck for now.
              administration to do the right thing while there.  We never
              should have invaded, but we're there and we're stuck for now.
              \_ A fair position.  Question: if Gore was in office, what do
                 you think he would have done post 9/11 with Al Qaeda, Iraq,
                 Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc?
                 Were you also opposed to what happened in Afghanistan?
                       happen?  What will probably happen is, Israel will wall
                       itself off and try to live as a besieged state.
                       Palestinians will continue to blow themselves up and
                       train their children to do the same, and everyone will
                       go on their merry (?) way.
                       \_ nah, the likely outcome is Israel will bring
                          in more and more settlers, and expand with
                          more and more settlements until it reaches its
                          size during King Solomon's times, and all
                          Palestinians are thrown out of Greater Israel.
                       \_ Genocide.  The Palestinians want genocide, and
                          eventually they are going to get it.
                              in the name of anything and say on TV how proud
                              they are afterwards.  Golda said there won't be
                              peace until palestinian mothers love their
                              children more than they hate jews.  She was
                              right 40 years ago and it's still true today
                              and for the future.  The palestinian 'culture'
                              is just broken.  The few people that were in
                              favor of peace were executed by Arafat as
                              'collaborators' when he came back from exile in
                              Tunis.  Never bargain with terrorists.  Letting
                              Arafat back in and giving him some form of
                              credibility was the worst possible mistake for
                              both Israel and the Palestinians who wanted a
                              nation and a real life and peace.  Not until
                              Afarat is dead and forgotten can anything
                              positive happen.  Bush, Clinton, etc, don't
                              stand a chance.  I find it shocking that you'd
                              say Clinton was making progress when in fact he
                              had already given up long before his term was
                              over.  Bush only got involved because he was
                              pressured into it and wasn't all that serious
                              about it.  This is one of those things we should
                              not bother with until there's a local change of
                              some sort.  It can't be fixed from the outside
                              and it is sheer American ignorance and arrogance
                              in the best colonial sense that says otherwise.
                           \_ It's amazing how so many people claim to
                              "understand" the minds of the palestinians,
                              when the really have no idea.  The willful
                              ignorance ALONE is astounding.
                              \_ oh boo hoo!  if only we understood and
                                 accepted their differences as a people then
                                 we could all just get along!  The willful
                                 blindness and naivete of some is TRULY
                                 astounding.
                              \_ Eh.  In some sense I don't _care_ what
                                 exactly goes on in their heads.  Do I care why
                                 a serial killer kills?  Why should I care why
                                 a serial killer nation kills?  I just want to
                                 put the serial killer away to pay back his
                                 debt to his victims.  There is no excuse to
                                 be found in palestinians' heads for what they
                                 are doing.  It's simply wrong and evil.
                                 \_ SOrry, guess my statement was unclear.
                                    I was trying to say, the Palestinians
                                    (and most arabs) will simply ignore
                                    overwhelming evidence that contradicts
                                    what they wish to believe.  It's in
                                    the religion.  I should tell the story
                                    about the guy who refused to believe
                                    California is bigger than Azerbaijan.
                                    Basically, people who belive peace is
                                    possiable with those people don't have
                                    any idea what they're talking about.
2004/1/23-24 [Transportation/Car] UID:11909 Activity:nil
1/23    And a good place to get a good car wash (i.e. they actually clean
        the insides, wash the carpets, etc.), also in the East Bay?
2004/1/23-24 [Uncategorized] UID:11910 Activity:nil 54%like:32346
1/23    Good place to get a Jeep aligned in the East Bay?
        \_ If you want a dealer, I like the Michael Stead dealer in
           Walnut Creek. Otherwise, just go to any Midas or similar
           shop.
2004/1/23-25 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:11911 Activity:nil
1/23    Kay gives up the search for the mythical WMD,
        admits that they probably never existed:
        http://csua.org/u/5oa
        \_ Yeah, I am sure that's the end of it.
        \_ Already, the Kay report identified dozens of weapons of mass
           destruction-related program activities and significant amounts
           of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations.
           - Dubya 2004 State of the Union
           \_ Yay, SOTU!  It's like campaigning, only no one calls you on
              your lies!
              \_ Yeah, after last year I was expecting some real whoppers.
                 I didn't hear any obvious lies this year, though. Did you?
              \_ well, I wouldn't say the statement was a lie.  look at
                 the words he uses.
                 \_ I love how it went from WMD, to WMD programs, to
                    WMD related program activities. Orwell would be proud.
                    \_ A WMD Program-Related Activity would be writing a memo
                       saying "Gee, wouldn't it be nice to have some WMDs?"
        \_ Read unspinned statements direct from David Kay
           http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1063926/posts?page=21#21
           \_ "unspinned" [sic]?  On Fox News?  Look at the intro and the
              first question--the whole interview is slanted.
                \_ how do you slant an interview - he either said the
                   words or didn't.  Are you implying the
                   transcript is false?
                   \_ When did you stop beating your wife?
                      \_ "I have never beat my wife" is a fair answer in an
                         interview.  You think D.K. is an idiot and was some
                         how entrapped by the Evil Fox News interviewer?  This
                         isn't grade school and he's no grade schooler.  He
                         said what he said.
                         \_ He's a Republican lap dog given leading questions
                            by a right-wing propaganda machine posing as
                            a news program.  It's all spin.
                            \_ That's ok.  CNN will rescue us from the clutches
                               of spin and bias.
                            \_ Then it wasn't at all "beating your wife"
                               questions?  Then why say it was?  Why do you
                               care at all what is in any of his reports or
                               anything he does?  If he's a (R) lapdog then
                               he should be out there planting evidence so you
                               tin-foil hat types can continue salivating.
                               \_ I'll use small words, so you have some chance
                                  of understanding.  I was responding to the
                                  question, "how do you slant an interview?"
                                  with a typical example of a leading question
                                  designed to slant an interview.  The
                                  questions given by Snow were not attempts to
                                  put Kay on the defensive; rather, they're
                                  attempts to get him to defend the
                                  administration's position.
                                  As for your last sentence, there's a big
                                  difference between going on TV because the
                                  party machine told you to toe the line, and
                                  falsifying evidence.
                                  \_ I'll use small words, so you have some
                                     very small chance to understand.  It
                                     doesn't matter what the interviewer asks.
                                     It doesn't matter how.  It never does. Tv
                                     interviews exist so the subject has the
                                     opportunity to spew forth whatever their
                                     views are on whatever the subject wants to
                                     talk about, not the interviewer.  This is
                                     true for political, entertainment, sports
                                     and all other standard Tv interviews.  In
                                     the next class, we'll be discussing how
                                     you can post to the motd without looking
                                     like the ignorant tinfoil hat wearing slut
                                     you are.
                                     \_ right...that's why the Michael Moore
                                        interview of Charleton Heston had the
                                        same message as Fox News interviews
                                        do.
                                        \_ MM isn't an interviewer.  He's a
                                           political figure with an axe to
                                           grind.  I shouldn't have to explain
                                           that MM doesn't make any bones about
                                           being a leftist or pretend to be
                                           neutral in any way.  Why do you even
                                           bother mentioning MM as if he was
                                           anything else?  Do you really
                                           seriously see him as a journalist??
2004/1/23-24 [Science] UID:11912 Activity:nil
1/23    What's the profile of a troll?  I don't think I'm a troll
        but people here think I make trollish statements.
        \_ people here will apply the word "troll" to a lot of things.
        \_ Motd troll: anyone who disagrees with someone else when that
           anyone doesn't have a good counter statement.
        \_ Anyone who posts on anything non-technology related, as sodans
           are clueless and/or angry about any other subjects.  Thus said
           non-technology related post can only serve to incite flamewars.
           \_ but can't you have technology related flamewars?  geek-wars?
              \_ what for?  you can get more than enough of that at slashdot
                 and other garbage sites trolled by the ignorant masses of
                 wanna-be know-nothing fan-boys.
                 \_ we seem to have some of those here too.
                    \_ but we don't have to feed and encourage them.
2004/1/23-25 [Consumer/Audio] UID:11913 Activity:nil
1/23    Drink the Kool Aid!
        http://www.apple.com/hardware/ads/1984/1984_480.html
        \_ so why did they bother adding the iPod to that commercial?
2004/1/23-24 [Reference/Religion] UID:11914 Activity:high
1/23    I'm not trolling, I'm really curious:
        What is the reason given by Christians that human life or a soul or
        whatever happens at conception, and not later, such as late brain
        development or birth?  It's sure not in the bible...
        \_ Jeremiah 1:5. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
           before you were born I set you apart"
           \_ That kind of implies you have a soul before you're even concieved.
              \_ That's why the Church says condoms are bad?
                 \_ too complicated to explain here on the motd.  But that's
                    not the reason.
              \_ That's why onanism is a sin.
                 \_ Is it a sin if, instead of tossing your sperm on the ground
                    to die in cold, dry misery, you give it a nice, warm home
                    in someone's stomach?
                 \_ But sperm die on their own anyway.  And the sin of Onan was
                    that he was denying his brother an 'heir' out of spite.
                     \_ That's how I see it too, but many have interpreted it
                        as the act of wasting your seed outside a vagina.
              \_ And Mormons believe that the soul preexists our physical
                 existence.  When I've talked with traditional Christians about
                 interpretation of that passage, they respond by saying that it
                 just means that since God knows everything, including the
                 future, he could know a future-existing person before he was
                 born. -emarkp
                 \_ So you exist before you're concieved, and if a baby is
                    concieved, it's God's will.  And if they're not concieved
                    that's also God's will, but if they're concieved but then
                    aborted, it *wasn't* God's will?  That reminds me of how
                    parents will say stuff like "My son is so smart" and then
                    turn around and say "Look what your son did!"
                    \_ Hey, I'm just reporting what people have told me. -emarkp
                    \_ From God's perspective, God knows what happens.
                       But from our human perspective, we still have
                       free will.  It's still our choice.  God doesn't
                       force us to choose good or evil.  It's free will.
                       \_ Pre-ordained free-will.  Cool paradox.
                 \_ Yeah, free will is so pesky..
                    \_ Depending on your philosophical axioms, free will may or
                    \_ Depending on your philisophical axioms, free will may or
                       may not be contravened by foreknowledge. -emarkp
                 \_ Let's send a rover to the planet Kolob!
                    \_ Kolob is a star, not a planet.  Get better sources.
                       -emarkp
                       \_ Sorry, planet near the star Kolob.
                          \_ We don't know if there are any planets near the
                             star Kolob. -emarkp
                             \_ I'll stop reading Bruce McConkie then.
                                \_ Well, keep in mind he presents his opinion as
                                   his opinion.  However, on rereading, you can
                                   read Kolob to be a planet or a star.  My bad.
                             star Kolob. -emarkp
                             \_ I'll stop reading Bruce McConkie then.
                                   -emarkp
                 \_ what's your definition of a traditional Christian?
                    \_ Typically I mean non-Restorationist Christians.
                       Catholics and Protestants mostly.  I haven't had much
                       interaction with Orthodox faiths.  Granted, I don't have
                       -emarkp
                       a full survey of those faiths, but have discussed this
                       point with members of many of them.  -emarkp
                       point with members of many of them.  -emarkp
        \_ http://tinyurl.com/2tb77
        \_ Either way, if it has a soul, souls can't die. So no problem. "Go
           directly to heaven. Do not pass go, do not collect $200."
           \_ but they haven't been baptized yet, so maybe they won't
              go to heaven.
              \_ that God, he's a vengeful one. he'll throw you out on a
                 technicality.
                 \_ not necessarily.  we can't say for sure what he'll do.
                    but why risk the salvation of souls?
                    \_ I thought only a hundred odd thousand souls were
                       getting into heaven.  And they've already been chosen,
                       since god is all-present and fore-knowing.  And that
                           \_ something I heard from some jehovah's witnesses.
                              I'm paraphrasing... and he's pretty ironic, so
                              who knows what he actually believes.
              go to heaven.
              \_ that God, he's a vengeful one. he'll throw you out on a
                 technicality.
                 \_ not necessarily.  we can't say for sure what he'll do.
                    but why risk the salvation of souls?
                       Prince is one of them.
                       Damn.  I'm going to be stuck burning in hell and he's
                       going to be up in heaven rocking out all the ladies.
                                      \_ Why do you think that Christianity
                                         (a minority religion on this planet)
                                         is the right bet?
                        \_ did it come from one of his songs or is that
                           one of his "beliefs"?
                           \_ something I heard from some jehovah's witnesses.
                              I'm paraphrasing... and he's pretty ironic, so
                              who knows what he actually believes.
                    \_ Yeah, for all we know you're damned unless you die
                    \_ Yeah, for all we know you're damned unless you die
                       wearing a green top hat. I always wear one.
                       wearing a green top hat. I always wear one.
                       \_ believe what you want, but we'll all know the
                      \_ http://www.op.org/steinkerchner/fenwick/cccbaptism.html
                       \_ believe what you want, but we'll all know the
                          answers when we die, and we'll have all eternity
                          to contemplate what we could have done differently
              \_ If they're Catholic, they get to wait in Limbo.
                 \_ wait for what?
                          answers when we die, and we'll have all eternity
                          to contemplate what we could have done differently
                                \_ only if there is an eternal afterlife.
                                   \_ are you a gambling man/woman?
                                      Do you want to bet on your eternity?
                                      \_ Why do you think that Christianity
                                         (a minority religion on this planet)
                                         is the right bet?
                                      \_ if "not taking the chance" is the core
                                         of your faith and beliefs then it
                                         seems unlikely that you're going
                                         anyplace other than Hell.  I suspect
                                         "pragmatic faith" is not the route
                                         to Heaven.
              \_ If they're Catholic, they get to wait in Limbo.
                 \_ wait for what?
                    \_ until their souls are cleansed and they can then go
                       to Heaven.
                      \_ http://www.op.org/steinkerchner/fenwick/cccbaptism.html
                    \_ just wait. nothing in particular.
                        \_ wait for all eternity then.
                           \_ Pretty much:
                              http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm
        \_ Faith and logic/reason.
2004/1/23-24 [Uncategorized] UID:11915 Activity:nil
1/23    pantsfactory turns out to not suck that hard.  It's kind of like
        fark with more of a geek emphasis
2004/1/23 [Uncategorized] UID:11916 Activity:nil 66%like:11923
1/23    R.I.P. Captain Kangaroo
2004/1/23-24 [Computer/SW/Apps] UID:11922 Activity:nil
1/23    I've used RogerWilco for gaming and ICQ to send files directly to
        another user.  Now I've heard RW has some security issues and ICQ
        requires account setup etc. I'm interested in replacements for both in a
        corporate environment, preferably open source.  Any suggestions?
        \_ gaming in a corporate environment??
           \_ No, distance collaboration.  Right now we're using phone
              conversations (and sometimes Yahoo messenger voice chat) and a
              common ftp server to xfer files.  I'd like to xfer files directly
              from one site to the other without the interim point (these are
              scientific data sets and can be quite large).
              \_ ftp and a phone.
2004/1/23 [Uncategorized] UID:29755 Activity:nil
1/12    As predicted by South Park:
        http://salon.com/ent/wire/2004/01/22/bennifer/index.html
2004/1/23 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:29756 Activity:nil
1/22    Are people who support "pro-free-downloadable music" conservatives
        or liberals?
        \_ doesn't enter into it.  the industry has failed by not recognizing
           basic facts about the material.  check out http://magnatune.com.
        \_ In the sense of RPG alignment, I'd say they are Chaotic, not Evil.
           \_ Nah, they are Neutral or even Lawful. They just don't care
              about that law too much. They'd rather not break it, but it's
              pretty minor and they obey most other laws. It's hard to make
              the case they are really hurting anyone so it's not Evil.
              \_ I said they're not evil, but since they are breaking the law
                 as a matter of course, they are NOT Lawful and probably Chaotic
                 An otherwise moral filesharer would probably be Chaotic Good
                 \_ Not to elevate this into an Iron Geek contest, but breaking
                    s few minor laws doesn't make a character Chaotic. Most
                    people are just opportunistic. Ok, they're not Lawful. But
                    if they're otherwise regular folks who fit in with society
                    they're not Chaotic.
                    \_ I agree. otherwise moral filesharer is Neutral-Good
             \_ when "minor" laws are broken in large numbers, it becomes
                a major problem.
           \_ can you please refresh my memory?  Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic, ...
              \_ two axes: one of good-evil, and one of lawfulness-disregard
              \_ Very roughly:  Lawful=Act on principles or laws
                                Neutral=Balanced motives
                                Chaotic=Act on pragmatism or impulse
                 for law:  L-N-C, and Good,Neutral,Evil, so every character is
                 one of G-N-E, and one of L-N-C, for a total of 9 different
                 personality types.
        \_ They are the fallen paladins of the 'net, the blackguards if you
           will.
        \_ I suppose in the strictest sense of the definitions, a true
           conservative would say it is illegal, and a true liberal would say
           the laws should be changed.  You know, conservative = conserve the
           status quo.  Liberal = liberalize laws or social norms.
           \_ but don't liberals want to protect the rights of artists?
              \_ I was just speaking as to the original meaning of the words,
                 not what they mean in common parlance.  I don't want to open
                 that can of worms, unlike the OP.
        \_ What if you support it, but you don't do it?
           \_ what if you do it, but don't support it?
              \_ play the monkey-spank game until you change your mind
        \_ I'm conservative and support a total reexamination of IP law.
2004/1/23 [Computer/SW/OS/OsX] UID:29757 Activity:nil 54%like:11901
1/23    http://csua.org/u/5o3 [pointer link replaced with direct link]
        KisMAC: Kismet, airsnort, airjack, and several other tools
        rolled into one for OS X
2004/1/23 [Uncategorized] UID:29758 Activity:nil
1/23    Motherfucker loves cheetos
        \_ MONKEYBUTT!!!!!!!!
2017/09/23 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/23    
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:January:23 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>