| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2004/1/29-30 [Computer/SW/Languages/Perl] UID:11993 Activity:moderate |
1/29 I have a bunch of ^\ chars in my (allegedly XML) file. I'd like
to squash them with perl or php or some such. How can I?
\_ I assume you mean "control backslash". Just use perl regex
\_ I assume you mean "escape backslash". Just use perl regex
to replace. Regex for escape is \cX where X is character after
escape sequence. So perl -pe 's/\c\\//' filename -williamc
\_ tnx, perfect. (i didn't know \c and the per tutorials i
to replace. Regex for escape is \cX where X is character after
escape sequence. So perl -pe 's/\c\\//' filename -williamc
escape sequence. -williamc
\- ObEmacs
looked at didn't say) -top
\- ObEmacs
\_ ObSed |
| 2004/1/29 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Jblack] UID:11994 Activity:nil |
1/29 ILLEGALS RISE 15% SINCE BUSH PLAN
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1067342/posts
\_ We are the knights who say "FREEP! FREEP! FREEP!" |
| 2004/1/29 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:11995 Activity:nil |
1/29 Would you Deaniac types please go out there and do a better job
for your guy. This 2nd and 3rd place thing is just bullshit.
I'm not sure Bush can beat Kerry but Dean is BSE hamburger.
\_ Th3 D0ct0r0r 4 Pr3z!!!@@@@@!!!! |
| 2004/1/29-31 [Recreation/Media] UID:11996 Activity:nil |
1/29 I just got back from seeing "Station Agent" at the Parkway. I believe
it was one of the best movies I've seen this year. For anyone
interested in seeing a good comedy/drama, consider checking it out.
-scottyg
\_ Here's a second for the Station Agent. DId it get any Academy
nominations?
\_ Thanks for not including any MOTD spoilers.
\_ I'd like to recommend "The Fog of War," the new Errol Morris
movie. Everyone should see this movie, regardless of how they
feel about McNamara or the Vietnam war.
\- where is it playing? his movie about that electric chair
repair fellow ho drank 50 cups of coffee per day was pretty
interesting too. --psb
\_ C'mon, Partha, this is sheer laziness, making us look it
up for you... but you know we will anyway: Landmark Act 1 &
2 on Center in Berkeley, and the Landmark Embarcadero in
SF. Post a review when you see it. --erikred |
| 2004/1/29 [Uncategorized] UID:11997 Activity:nil |
1/29 Clark used to live in a trailer in the Mohave dessert [sic].
So he's a hick and his lackeys can't type? |
| 2004/1/29-30 [Consumer/PDA] UID:11998 Activity:nil |
1/29 People using any kind of Sharp Zaurus, what's your opinion of it?
\_ Let me know what you find. I love linux, but I am not sure
how useful it is even if you can compile your favorite linux
program on Zaurus and run on it. I end up getting a PalmOS
PDA mainly for the selection of software.
\_ I have a palm but i just use addressbook+calendar
\_ It runs Linux! It must be the best!! For everything!!!!
\_ just curious, is there a palm emulator for linux, you could run
that on the zaurus if so...
\_ A colleague of mine uses it for loads of security type
audit work--he's porting (ported?) Wellenreiter to it, and
uses it with an SMC CF wifi card to go war-walking. Pretty
cool; he swears by it for "real" work too. -John |
| 2004/1/29 [Uncategorized] UID:11999 Activity:nil |
1/29 The Beneficiaries of Saddam's Oil Vouchers: The List of 270
http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA16004
\_ Look Shirac is not on that list. I wonder if the Washington Times
will print a retraction and apology.
\_ Look the article does not state Chirac was a beneficiary.
\_ Where? I looked under France and he's not there. Also,
one of the end notes suggests that the list may not
all be deals that were carried out, but that were
proposed. Russia appears to be the big beneficiary.
\_ It's just moony propoganda. None of it is true. |
| 2004/1/29 [Recreation/Travel] UID:12000 Activity:nil |
1/28 Just used travelocity and expedia. I like expedia's commercial, but
travelocity gave me better choices. So here's a poll:
travelocity: .
expedia:
other:
\_ I have had excellent deals with Priceline using http://biddingfortravel.com
\_ priceline is a total waste of time. You end up spending
time putting different data points and end up not getting
the hotel you really want. It's all based on trust, and
it's anything but trustworthy. TOTAL WASTE OF TIME.
\_ Well I've gotten direct flights to Reagan National
for under 200$, 3-4 star hotels for 30-40$. YMMV,
unless you are stupid. Thats the whole point of
the site I included - because it gives you the
strategy to get the area you want and what you can
expect to pay. Hmm Hilton in downtown SF for 50$
a night; you're right PCLN sucks. |
| 2004/1/29 [Recreation/Travel] UID:12001 Activity:nil 53%like:10381 50%like:29479 |
1/28 What's the difference between a motel, hotel, and a inn?
\_ Motel: an establishment which provides lodging and parking and in
which the rooms are usually accessible from an outdoor parking area.
Hotel: an establishment that provides lodging and usually meals,
entertainment, and various personal services for the public.
Inn: I think it's the same as hotel.
\_ etymology: motel = "motor hotel" |
| 2004/1/29 [Reference/RealEstate] UID:12002 Activity:nil |
1/28 Want to buy a median priced home? Make $124k first:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/28/MNG9N4JGO01.DTL
\_ Housing bubble!
\_ 3.2 jobs/housing unit. Housing crisis.
\_ haha, a Senior Software Engineer makes about that much.
\_ obUntilJobGoesToIndia
\_ obYouAreAFreakingIdiot
\_ showoff
\_ heh, so does a senior sysadmin.
\_ Many couples can swing that. Most single adults cannot.
ObUCGrad.
\_ This is true. On the other hand, with an income of $150K I
don't really feel I can afford $580K. My neighbor is a
neurologist (wife doesn't work) who makes probably twice
that and he's not in a $580K house either. That's a lot of $$$.
\_ the payments on $580K are only going to be about $3K/month,
which should be easily manageable on $150K/year.
\_ $3K/m with how much down payment?
\_ With a 10% down payment, at 6% interest, payments on
a 30-year loan to buy a $580,000 house would be
about $3150, or about 25% of the gross income of
Mr. $150K. Easily affordable. -tom
\_ With 10% down you're be paying mortgage insurance, or
paying a second mortgage.
\_ Uh, no. Only if you think property tax is free.
The PITI is going to be closer to $4K and at
$150K I am bringing home about $7K net. Could I
do it? Sure, but it's not that comfortable and
that is *if* I have $60K to put down.
\_ You keep 7k? BULLSHIT! I keep ~7k each month
of my 120k. LIES! LIES! LIES! YOU LIE! My
friends in Nebraska who are both nurses pay about
50% of their take home for their very normal
nothing special house and there sure as hell isn't
a housing bubble in Nebraska. It's a perfectly
normal number to pay these days in this country.
\_ Yes, I keep $7K and that is with my current
mortgage deduction. It would be less without
it. I am sure you don't mind living on $3K per
month for your cars, insurance, tuition,
utilities, home improvements and whatnot but
some of us try to save money and/or have lives.
\_ Your neurologist probably makes much less than you think.
\_ I doubt it. He's a partner in his practice and is 15
years out of medical school.
\_ You have absolutely no idea what his income or his
total wealth is. Maybe he's paying half his income in
alimony and child support for 5 kids. You have no idea.
\_ I know what a neurologist makes and I know he
only has one kid, but you make a good point
which is that sometimes life isn't rosy and
being stuck with a $4K mortgage when your wife
leaves you with 5 kids ain't fun. You can make
wads of money and still not afford a $580K house.
A $580K house is not "normal middle class". My
neighbor put all of his money into paying off his
student loans and buying his share of the practice,
but I guess you would have him being a wage slave
living paycheck to paycheck because it's "normal".
\_ They can swing it, but it's still a lot of money for a pretty
mediocre house. For families with kids the Bay Area sucks.
That doesn't seem to faze the Indians who live in shitty old
apartment complexes with their multiple children.
\_ why live in the Bay Area? I got smart and moved out.
\_ Most CS jobs are here.
\_ you can get a house really cheap in Bangladesh.
\_ but you're not allowed to work there, white boy. |
| 2004/1/29 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:12003 Activity:high |
1/29 "I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.'
Those were not words we used."
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 1/27/04
"This is about an imminent threat."
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
(I can give you whitehouse.gov urls if you like)
\_ Actually, yes please. URLp.
\_ Older quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030210-7.html
Newer quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040127-6.html
\_ There's also plenty of other juicy quotes from McClellan and
Rumsfeld like "mortal threat," "serious and mounting threat,"
"immediate threat," "unique threat" etc. etc. etc.
\_ until they retroactively change the press releases. -tom
\_ Do the internet archives track the white house?
\_ Where/what are the "internet archives?"
\_ <DEAD>wayback.org<DEAD>. obGoogle
\_ whitehouse.gov set their pages to request no-archive,
after they were caught modifying press releases to
say "the end of major combat operations" instead of
"the end of combat operations." -tom
\_ url ??
\_ http://csua.org/u/5ro (Washington Post)
\_ Speaking of which, is there an official document I can examine
which lists the reasons for war (i.e. causus belli)? I just
want to check that, in fact, the american people were mislead
by being told that the primary reason for going to war were WMD.
\_ The resolution to grant Bush authority to deal with Iraq:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0210/S00023.htm
This is as close to a statement of causus belli you will find.
I have yet to find any transcripts of hearings/debate leading
to it. Any help on finding that would be appreciated. --scotsman
\_ I think the best reference would be Powell's speech to the UN,
which was really the only time the entire case for war was
laid out comprehensively. Of course, technically that wasn't
addressed directly to the American people.
\_ Right... hence my problem with the whole line of attack
against Bush. I mean it might work politically, but the line
of reasoning seems, shall we say, a little suspect.
\_ Not really, its simply a technicality. The imminent
threat of WMDs was always clearly the justification,
from the State of the Union address to numerous
discussions in the media (particularly from Cheney) to
press conferences etc. etc. To argue that the President
is immune from attack simply because the case wasn't
presented formally is specious. Also, the case WAS
presented formally to Congress, who (presumably)
represents the people.
\_ Not _the_ justification. _A_ justification. That's
the whole point! What I keep hearing over, and over,
and over again is 'the president said WMD were the
primary reason for war. There are no WMD. Therefore
the war had no reason, and the president lied.'
This argument, as presented is simply false, because
there were multiple reasons presented in all cases,
and all of them, except possibly (but not necessarily)
the WMD one are valid still.
\_ It was the only justification that mattered.
"We're the good guys, they're evil, let's go
get em" might play in the Bible Belt but it wasn't
what got massive support behind the war. What
got the support was Bush saying "mushroom cloud."
\_ It was? Do you think even a large minority agrees
with you? At any rate, there is a difference
between a 'primary' reason, which presumably is
the first reason listed in some official casus
belli document (maybe), and 'the only reason that
mattered', which, to put it mildly, is subject
to interpretation.
\_ Americans have never been shown to support
wars for purely humanitarian reasons, and
as Human Rights Watch has pointed out the
Iraq war doesn't qualify as justified on those
grounds alone. So what other justification
are you proposing? The only one that I heard
was that we were stopping an imminent threat
to OUR country. Anything else is just spin
after the fact.
\_ So let me get this straight. The human
shredders, the rape rooms, the mass gassings,
the prisons for children, etc. etc. are not
enough for the Human Rights Watch? Or for
you? That's good to know... Let's not
forget Iraq's supposed connection to
terrorists, which is certainly playing out
prominently now.
\_ What links to terrorists? Osama hated
Hussein, and the foreign terrorists in
Iraq now aren't blowing things up to
bring back the Baathists.
\_ Glad you have the inside terrorist
scoop. Our guys don't know that. Can
you please let them in on it and your
information sources?
\_ You can blather all you want about
human rights violations, but much
worse is perpetrated every day by
Mobuto Sese Seku and we're doing
absolutely nothing. Fact is,
humanitarian reasons don't convince
the American public and they don't
convince me.
\_ You are using present tense, but
Mobuto died in 1997. Anyways, do you
have a catalogue of his abuses so we
can compare? I am starting to think
you are just trolling. Bush was not
even President then.
\_ I wasn't aware Human Rights Watch speaks for
this country or people. I think we not only
should have gone into Iraq but many other
countries for HRVs over the years but I
understand that real politik prevents that.
When it doesn't we should do it. BTW, did
HRW 'point that out' before or after the
war? I'll bet it was before when they were
generating fake estimates of 600,000 Iraqi
civilian deaths from war and millions more
from post-war starvation, disease, etc.
\_ The primary justification was that Hussein was an
imminent threat to the US. To bolster that argument,
the administration said that Iraq had WMD. It also
said that Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda. The sum
total of this image that the Pres. sold to the
American people was that Hussein had planned the
WTC attack and was now about to hand nukes to the
same group that carried that attack out. The
evidence before and after did not support this
view. Did the Pres. out-and-out lie? I don't know.
Did he play on the fears of the American people to
force them to support his plan to invade Iraq? Yes.
Is the world (and Iraq) better off without Hussein
in power? Yes. Does that fringe benefit justify,
in retrospect, the Pres.'s decision to act
unilaterally? No. The same result could have been
\_ I don't think you have enough of a retrospect
to speculate. Wait 20 years or so. Consider
Lybia, for instance.
achieved through working with our former Coalition
partners. Would Coalition support have resulted in
a better handling of post-war Iraq? Yes.
\_ Please explain in what way we could have "worked
with our former Coalition partners" such that
SH would be tossed out of power and those mass
graves would be unearthed. The rest of your
post is your unbacked and very biased opinion.
I'm glad you have the motd to express your
opinion but it's just your opinion at this
point.
\_ It goes like this: instead of rushing to
invade, the Pres. keeps pursuing his case
against Hussein in the Security Council. At
the same time, he intros resolutions calling
for greater monitoring of the human rights
violations occurring in Iraq. He makes
demands that the Security Council will see
as reasonable but that Hussein will see as
infuriating. Hussein refuses to cooperate
with HRV inspectors, and the US turns this
into a crusade to free the Iraqi people
from a tyrant and mass-murderer. With the
moral issue on our side _before_ the
invasion, our former Coalition allies would
either have to jump on board or risk
appearing utterly callous. Within six
months, we either have our invasion (and a
damn good reason for it), or we have
Hussein weakening his own position. The
invasion of Iraq and the subsequent over-
throw of its dictator is not the issue; how
it was achieved and what the Pres. did to
bully us into it is.
\_ The problem with this is most of the SC
doesn't give a flying fuck about HRVs and
in at least one case, Russia, they were
owed billions of dollars they needed very
badly and weren't going to do anything
to fuck that up. I admire your idealism
but the real world doesn't work like that.
None of them gives a shit about appearing
callous or anything else when there's big
bucks and oil contracts on the line.
\_ Why did Russia just agree to forgive
the Iraqi debts then?
\_ I'm glad we are all so shortsighted and quick to judge the Prez
now, unlike b4 with Clinton. Pluz! If he said, he's a tyrant,
and a magnet for terrorist, do you think that'd be enough reason
to attack? No. Any answer you hear from him you won't accept, even
though it was Clinton's policy for regime change.
\_ Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles and kept up the sanctions.
His policy was prudent. He didn't send 150,000 troops into
harms way and invade another country unilaterally when virtually
all of our traditional allies disagreed with his justifications.
By the way, you overwrote my post, dickhead.
\_ Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles which let Bin Laden know
we could hear his phone calls and he immediately stopped
using easily tracked electronic communications after that.
Clinton, big dummyhead, threw away our best source of info on
Bin Laden to cover up his penis problems.
\_ The problem with using this as a political attack on the President
is the average voter will accept that the CIA fucked up. It sure as
hell wouldn't be the first time. For example, the CIA was totally
and completely taken off guard when the Berlin Wall fell and that
sort of thing was their primary reason for existing. Also, the UN
agreed that Iraq had WMD and many foreign intelligence agencies also
agreed so it isn't as if Bush & Cheney sat in a room and concocted
some story. It was accepted around the world as fact that Iraq had
WMD. The only dispute was what to do about it. You can hang your
political hopes on this one if you like but you'd be in the tiny
minority that hates Bush so much that no matter what he says or does
you'll find a reason to hate him. The rest of the country just
isn't like that. Iraq just isn't the issue you think it is or want
it to be and even if it was it still isn't a candidate killer.
\_ The UN did not think that Iraq had WMD. Neither did the French
or Germans. You are just repeating the same tired old lie.
\_ Prove it. URL. The French were bought off. What's your
excuse? They didn't even pay you.
\_ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3323633.stm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2003/0918spin.htm
Go ahead and try and prove that the "UN agreed that
Iraq had WMD." You will not be able to do it, because
they never said that. What is your excuse for continuing
to defend Bush's lies? Did they pay you off?
\_ UN INSPECTORS WERE IN THE COUNTRY! WE KICKED THEM OUT TO BOMB!
Clearly, the containment policies the UN were pushing had been
effective enough to decimate the programs they had. The CIA
should have known this. The inspection teams were all but
screaming it. This is our fuckup, top down. Now Bushco is
trying to absolve itself, and doing a pretty poor job of it.
\_ Bushco? Who exactly kicked out the inspectors, genius? I
don't recall Bush being in office at the time. If you do,
then I want some of what you've been smoking.
\_ They came back in before the war, remember? No, of course
not, just like you don't 'remember' the justifications
for invasion.
\_ Its been clearly documented that there was heavy pressure on
the CIA from the administration to produce intelligence that
fit their preconceived notions. Whether or not this pressure
came directly from the President remains to be seen. Its
kind of amazing to me that people can be so blase about such
a massive failure of government on every level to do the right
thing. Unfortunately, I highly doubt we will ever see an inquiry
into this with our current Congress.
\_Clearly documented? Ok. Where's the documents? URL, please.
\_ Oh please. This is so commonly known, you're just being
pedantic. But if you must, here's a reprint of a relavant
WaPo article from 04 June 2003. This should get you
started. You're welcome. And we all know how "liberal"
the WaPo is, ha ha.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060603A.shtml
\_ I read your article. It only says that Cheney visited
to ask about the info he was being given. Some people
said they felt pressured by those visits, others said
they didn't and none of them claimed the pressure was
direct. It's just what a few people felt. You need to
read your own sources with a less biased eye. Thanks.
\_ Bias? You mean, common sense. If you're a lowly
engineer at gigantic XYZ company, how would YOU
feel if the CEO of the company came into your office
and wanted to know exactly how each line of your
code was going to help him make money? You might
feel some PRESSURE to produce RESULTS, wouldn't
you? Don't be a dumbass. There are plenty of
other sources that demonstrate the kind of pressure
that was applied, but digging them out again for
you will never convince you anyway so it doesn't
matter. Even a transcript and full confession signed
in Cheney's blood would no doubt be ignored.
\_ So now we go from proof and clearly documented to
common sense? I note you ignore the others who
said they felt zero pressure. It would be better
if a major decision was taken without anyone ever
going back to ask the guys that produced the data
anything about it or for more details. You're
real rocket scientist material. Remember, we do
rockets in metric now.
\_ No, you accused me of bias, shitheel. I was
explaining to your little rat-brain how
executive pressure works. The article was
an example of something that is COMMON
KNOWLEDGE to everyone, right and left, except
for Pedantic Libertario-Nerds such as yourself.
\_ http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact
Great New Yorker article about how Cheney pressured
the intelligence community by Sy Hersh.
\_ The newyorker? A source of info on the inside
working of the federal government? Oh, please....
\_ Sy Hersh has more integrity in his little
fingernail than the entire Neocon cabal combined.
\_ Kennedy on the Office of Special Projects:
http://csua.org/u/5rn
\_ Amazon link to Weapons_Of_Mass_Distraction:
http://csua.org/u/5rp
\_ Actually, yes please. URLp.
\_ Older quote:
which lists the reasons for war (i.e. casus belli)? I just
http://http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030210-7.html
Newer quote:
http://http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040127-6.html
\_ There's also plenty of other juicy quotes from McClellan and
Rumsfeld like "mortal threat," "serious and mounting threat,"
"immediate threat," "unique threat" etc. etc. etc.
\_ until they retroactively change the press releases. -tom
\_ Do the internet archives track the white house?
\_ Where/what are the "internet archives?"
\_ <DEAD>wayback.org<DEAD>. obGoogle
\_ whitehouse.gov set their pages to request no-archive,
after they were caught modifying press releases to
say "the end of major combat operations" instead of
"the end of combat operations." -tom
\_ Speaking of which, is there an official document I can examine
which lists the reasons for war (i.e. causus belli)? I just
want to check that, in fact, the american people were mislead
by being told that the primary reason for going to war were WMD.
\_ The resolution to grant Bush authority to deal with Iraq:
http://http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0210/S00023.htm
This is as close to a statement of causus belli you will find.
I have yet to find any transcripts of hearings/debate leading
to it. Any help on finding that would be appreciated. --scotsman
\_ I think the best reference would be Powell's speech to the UN,
which was really the only time the entire case for war was
laid out comprehensively. Of course, technically that wasn't
addressed directly to the American people.
\_ Right... hence my problem with the whole line of attack
against Bush. I mean it might work politically, but the line
of reasoning seems, shall we say, a little suspect.
\_ Not really, its simply a technicality. The imminent
threat of WMDs was always clearly the justification,
from the State of the Union address to numerous
discussions in the media (particularly from Cheney) to
press conferences etc. etc. To argue that the President
is immune from attack simply because the case wasn't
presented formally is specious. Also, the case WAS
presented formally to Congress, who (presumably)
represents the people.
\_ Not _the_ justification. _A_ justification. That's
the whole point! What I keep hearing over, and over,
and over again is 'the president said WMD were the
primary reason for war. There are no WMD. Therefore
the war had no reason, and the president lied.'
This argument, as presented is simply false, because
there were multiple reasons presented in all cases,
and all of them, except possibly (but not necessarily)
the WMD one are valid still.
\_ It was the only justification that mattered.
"We're the good guys, they're evil, let's go
get em" might play in the Bible Belt but it wasn't
what got massive support behind the war. What
got the support was Bush saying "mushroom cloud."
\_ It was? Do you think even a large minority agrees
with you? At any rate, there is a difference
between a 'primary' reason, which presumably is
the first reason listed in some official casus
belli document (maybe), and 'the only reason that
mattered', which, to put it mildly, is subject
to interpretation.
\_ Americans have never been shown to support
wars for purely humanitarian reasons, and
as Human Rights Watch has pointed out the
Iraq war doesn't qualify as justified on those
grounds alone. So what other justification
are you proposing? The only one that I heard
was that we were stopping an imminent threat
to OUR country. Anything else is just spin
after the fact.
\_ So let me get this straight. The human
shredders, the rape rooms, the mass gassings,
the prisons for children, etc. etc. are not
enough for the Human Rights Watch? Or for
you? That's good to know... Let's not
forget Iraq's supposed connection to
terrorists, which is certainly playing out
prominently now.
\_ What links to terrorists? Osama hated
Hussein, and the foreign terrorists in
Iraq now aren't blowing things up to
bring back the Baathists.
\_ Glad you have the inside terrorist
scoop. Our guys don't know that. Can
you please let them in on it and your
information sources?
\_ You can blather all you want about
human rights violations, but much
worse is perpetrated every day by
Mobuto Sese Seku and we're doing
absolutely nothing. Fact is,
humanitarian reasons don't convince
the American public and they don't
convince me.
\_ You are using present tense, but
Mobuto died in 1997. Anyways, do you
have a catalogue of his abuses so we
can compare? I am starting to think
you are just trolling. Bush was not
even President then.
\_ I wasn't aware Human Rights Watch speaks for
this country or people. I think we not only
should have gone into Iraq but many other
countries for HRVs over the years but I
understand that real politik prevents that.
When it doesn't we should do it. BTW, did
HRW 'point that out' before or after the
war? I'll bet it was before when they were
generating fake estimates of 600,000 Iraqi
civilian deaths from war and millions more
from post-war starvation, disease, etc.
\_ The primary justification was that Hussein was an
imminent threat to the US. To bolster that argument,
the administration said that Iraq had WMD. It also
said that Iraq was involved with Al Qaeda. The sum
total of this image that the Pres. sold to the
American people was that Hussein had planned the
WTC attack and was now about to hand nukes to the
same group that carried that attack out. The
evidence before and after did not support this
view. Did the Pres. out-and-out lie? I don't know.
Did he play on the fears of the American people to
force them to support his plan to invade Iraq? Yes.
Is the world (and Iraq) better off without Hussein
in power? Yes. Does that fringe benefit justify,
in retrospect, the Pres.'s decision to act
unilaterally? No. The same result could have been
\_ I don't think you have enough of a retrospect
to speculate. Wait 20 years or so. Consider
Lybia, for instance.
achieved through working with our former Coalition
partners. Would Coalition support have resulted in
a better handling of post-war Iraq? Yes.
\_ Please explain in what way we could have "worked
with our former Coalition partners" such that
SH would be tossed out of power and those mass
graves would be unearthed. The rest of your
post is your unbacked and very biased opinion.
I'm glad you have the motd to express your
opinion but it's just your opinion at this
point.
\_ It goes like this: instead of rushing to
invade, the Pres. keeps pursuing his case
against Hussein in the Security Council. At
the same time, he intros resolutions calling
for greater monitoring of the human rights
violations occurring in Iraq. He makes
demands that the Security Council will see
as reasonable but that Hussein will see as
infuriating. Hussein refuses to cooperate
with HRV inspectors, and the US turns this
into a crusade to free the Iraqi people
from a tyrant and mass-murderer. With the
moral issue on our side _before_ the
invasion, our former Coalition allies would
either have to jump on board or risk
appearing utterly callous. Within six
months, we either have our invasion (and a
damn good reason for it), or we have
Hussein weakening his own position. The
invasion of Iraq and the subsequent over-
throw of its dictator is not the issue; how
it was achieved and what the Pres. did to
bully us into it is.
\_ The problem with this is most of the SC
doesn't give a flying fuck about HRVs and
in at least one case, Russia, they were
owed billions of dollars they needed very
badly and weren't going to do anything
to fuck that up. I admire your idealism
but the real world doesn't work like that.
None of them gives a shit about appearing
callous or anything else when there's big
bucks and oil contracts on the line.
\_ I'm glad we are all so shortsighted and quick to judge the Prez
now, unlike b4 with Clinton. Pluz! If he said, he's a tyrant,
and a magnet for terrorist, do you think that'd be enough reason
to attack? No. Any answer you hear from him you won't accept, even
though it was Clinton's policy for regime change.
\_ Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles and kept up the sanctions.
His policy was prudent. He didn't send 150,000 troops into
harms way and invade another country unilaterally when virtually
all of our traditional allies disagreed with his justifications.
By the way, you overwrote my post, dickhead.
\_ Clinton lobbed a few cruise missiles which let Bin Laden know
we could hear his phone calls and he immediately stopped
using easily tracked electronic communications after that.
Clinton, big dummyhead, threw away our best source of info on
Bin Laden to cover up his penis problems.
\_ The problem with using this as a political attack on the President
is the average voter will accept that the CIA fucked up. It sure as
hell wouldn't be the first time. For example, the CIA was totally
and completely taken off guard when the Berlin Wall fell and that
sort of thing was their primary reason for existing. Also, the UN
agreed that Iraq had WMD and many foreign intelligence agencies also
agreed so it isn't as if Bush & Cheney sat in a room and concocted
some story. It was accepted around the world as fact that Iraq had
WMD. The only dispute was what to do about it. You can hang your
political hopes on this one if you like but you'd be in the tiny
minority that hates Bush so much that no matter what he says or does
you'll find a reason to hate him. The rest of the country just
isn't like that. Iraq just isn't the issue you think it is or want
it to be and even if it was it still isn't a candidate killer.
\_ The UN did not think that Iraq had WMD. Neither did the French
or Germans. You are just repeating the same tired old lie.
\_ Prove it. URL. The French were bought off. What's your
excuse? They didn't even pay you.
\_ UN INSPECTORS WERE IN THE COUNTRY! WE KICKED THEM OUT TO BOMB!
Clearly, the containment policies the UN were pushing had been
effective enough to decimate the programs they had. The CIA
should have known this. The inspection teams were all but
screaming it. This is our fuckup, top down. Now Bushco is
trying to absolve itself, and doing a pretty poor job of it.
\_ Bushco? Who exactly kicked out the inspectors, genius? I
don't recall Bush being in office at the time. If you do,
then I want some of what you've been smoking.
\_ They came back in before the war, remember? No, of course
not, just like you don't 'remember' the justifications
for invasion.
\_ Its been clearly documented that there was heavy pressure on
the CIA from the administration to produce intelligence that
fit their preconceived notions. Whether or not this pressure
came directly from the President remains to be seen. Its
kind of amazing to me that people can be so blase about such
a massive failure of government on every level to do the right
thing. Unfortunately, I highly doubt we will ever see an inquiry
into this with our current Congress.
\_ Clearly documented? Ok. Where's the documents? URL, please.
\_ Oh please. This is so commonly known, you're just being
pedantic. But if you must, here's a reprint of a relavant
WaPo article from 04 June 2003. This should get you
started. You're welcome. And we all know how "liberal"
the WaPo is, ha ha.
http://http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060603A.shtml
\_ I read your article. It only says that Cheney visited
to ask about the info he was being given. Some people
said they felt pressured by those visits, others said
they didn't and none of them claimed the pressure was
direct. It's just what a few people felt. You need to
read your own sources with a less biased eye. Thanks.
\_ Bias? You mean, common sense. If you're a lowly
engineer at gigantic XYZ company, how would YOU
feel if the CEO of the company came into your office
and wanted to know exactly how each line of your
code was going to help him make money? You might
feel some PRESSURE to produce RESULTS, wouldn't
you? Don't be a dumbass. There are plenty of
other sources that demonstrate the kind of pressure
that was applied, but digging them out again for
you will never convince you anyway so it doesn't
matter. Even a transcript and full confession signed
in Cheney's blood would no doubt be ignored.
\_ So now we go from proof and clearly documented to
common sense? I note you ignore the others who
said they felt zero pressure. It would be better
if a major decision was taken without anyone ever
going back to ask the guys that produced the data
anything about it or for more details. You're
real rocket scientist material. Remember, we do
rockets in metric now.
\_ No, you accused me of bias, shitheel. I was
explaining to your little rat-brain how
executive pressure works. The article was
an example of something that is COMMON
KNOWLEDGE to everyone, right and left, except
for Pedantic Libertario-Nerds such as yourself.
\_ http://http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact
Great New Yorker article about how Cheney pressured
the intelligence community by Sy Hersh.
\_ The newyorker? A source of info on the inside
working of the federal government? Oh, please.... |
| 2004/1/29 [Reference/Military] UID:12004 Activity:nil |
1/29 So when is the war happening to stop stuff like this?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/lra.htm
\_ Duh, your own article says they're fighting right now. |
| 2004/1/29 [Politics/Domestic/Election, ERROR, uid:12005, category id '18005#6.125' has no name! , ] UID:12005 Activity:nil |
1/29 How can Dean possibly be out of money? I mean seriously, I thought
he had like $40 million in the bank?? I know he spent $7-10m in Iowa
and I'm guessing another $3m in NH which should leave him with $30m
or so. What's up with that?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040129/D80CI9683.html
\_ Poor management? Spending $7 to $10 mil in Iowa is retarded.
\_ Concentrating on too many states, ie. spreading his resources too
thin. Also, opting out of federal matching funds hurts.
\_ pocketing $30 million as "expenses" |
| 2004/1/29 [Science/Physics] UID:12006 Activity:nil |
1/29 Fermionic condensate created:
http://tinyurl.com/2hjjb (news.yahoo.com)
\_ Fermions cannot form condensate. Bosons can. However, pairs of
fermions can become pseudoparticle bonsons and condense, which is
what happens in conventional superconductor. What they probably
achieved is cooling fermions so much that they fill up the fermi
levels from ground up (almost) one-by-one. (Look up phy 7C text.)
It's interesting stuff, although calling it fermionic condensate is
an intentional oxymoron and a PR exercise. Also, there are far
more known states of matter than listed in the above url.
\_ The same phenomenon happens whenever you make a superconductor.
Pairs of electrons act like bosons. The only special thing is
that they did it with bigger fermions than before.
\_ I think not. In conventional SC, fermions are bounded as
Cooper pair and not in their free states, but this is outside
the scope of motd.
\_ The valence (highest orbital) electrons form pairs and carry
the current. The lower-orbital electrons are bound.
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/4/7
http://www.physicstoday.com/vol-56/iss-10/pdf/vol52no10p17-18.pdf |
| 2004/1/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:12007 Activity:very high 50%like:12375 |
1/29 Go go gadget http://rotten.com (work safe) http://www.rotten.com/library/history/war/wmd/saddam \_ Excellent roundup. Not that it will change a single mind here or anywhere else. Welcome to the United States of Clueless Nobodies And Polarized Axe Grinders! \_ Hey too bad you missed all the Clintonistas from 98 when the inspectors left to the day GWB took office saying Iraq had WMD and we were sure of it. Some of us know our history further back than selective quotes from a handful of people we're trying to discredit. |
| 2004/1/29-30 [Uncategorized] UID:12008 Activity:nil |
1/29 Ideal ingredients for the perfect Manhattan?
\_ "what have I done to deserve this flat, flavourless manhattan?"
\_ Good bourbon for starters. Jack Daniel's and Jim Beam are not good.
see webtender: http://www.webtender.com/db/drink/1641
\_ Obviously no Jack or Jim. I had one last night with Johnny
Walker black that turned out good, and I'd imagine Maker's
Mark would taste great as well. Not sure if there's much
difference between varieties of bitters or vermouth, though,
which is sort of why I asked. Any other whiskey drinkers
on the motd? --op
\_ Johnny Walker is Scotch, which is quite different from bourbon.
My Fav. Bourbons are Wild Turkey 101, Booker's, Knob Creek
and Maker's Mark. MM is mildest, and KC is most full-bodied.
\_ Basil Hayden's. Very tasty. Slight cherry nose. Very
smooth. Though I wouldn't mix it.
\_ I'm a big fan of Maker's Mark or Jameson, depending on my
mood.
\_ Some of the more expensive Wild Turkeys are pretty good
(rare breed and kentucky spirit), they're probably between
MM and KC in body.
\_ I believe Manhattan's were originally made with rye whiskey,
but bourbon (which is lighter-bodied) is now the standard.
Lots of choices, do a google group search for various brands.
\_ Yah. Manhatten is the whiskey (of all varieties) answer to the
martini. |
| 2004/1/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Taiwan] UID:12009 Activity:high |
1/29 Boom! Whale explodes in Taiwan!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4096586
\_ "What a stinking mess" :) funny..
\_ "Once moved to a nearby nature preserve, the male specimen...
drew the attention of locals because of its large penis,
measured at some five feet...." Those wacky Taiwanese.
\_ "More than 100 Tainan city residents, mostly men, have
reportedly gone to see the corpse to 'experience' the
size of its penis," the newspaper reported.
\_ http://csua.org/u/5rs
\_ This is bizarre. - tainan taiwanese |
| 2004/1/29-30 [Computer/Networking] UID:12010 Activity:nil |
1/29 Where can I find the percentages of computer users that access
the internet with Dial-Up and High-Speed (cable/dsl) etc? |
| 2004/1/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:12011 Activity:nil |
1/29 Condi attacks WMD critics, spouts usual line:
"The president's judgment to go to war was based on the fact that
Saddam Hussein had for 12 years defied the international community."
C'mon, Condi, we defied the international community because they
defied the international community?
http://csua.org/u/5rh
\_ You're right. We should have just ignored it and drove another
nail into the UN Credibility Coffin.
\_ Hmm... Inspectors were in, looking around, reporting that
it looked like any weapons had been destroyed, but that they
needed more time. Looks like their policy was working PRETTY
FUCKING WELL. I'd call that a crowbar for your coffin.
\_ I agree with this. Hans Blix wanted more time, and
I think the other member nations felt that Saddam had
been contained, and was coughing up more documentation.
\_ Hans Blix? Idiot. In 1998 when Clinton pulled them
they said they were 90-95% done and needed more time,
but did they get it? No. They didn't because Clinton
was wagging the dog so hard the dog flew off into the
gutter. Clinton lobbed a few useless missiles in,
"Mission Accomplished!" and we could all forget about
his penis problems. You think? Not really. Try some
history, then you'll have something to think about. The
story predates your entry to college and political
awakening as a freshman at the feet of some leftist
Berkeley prof. |
| 2004/1/29-31 [Reference/History/WW2/Japan, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan] UID:12012 Activity:moderate |
1/29 "Lost in Translation" was it really that good? Nominated for best
picture. I haven't seen it yet. Will our fabulous motd movie critic
give us a review? Thanks.
\_ I thought it blew chunks, but I was in the minority I guess.
Scarlett Johansenn (sp?) is just not that good an actress, and as
much as I love Bill Murray he had scarcely anything to do. This
is besides the fact that it recycles yet again some really tired
cliches about Japan. However, the Academy Awards picks this year
are on the whole amazingly good (3 nominations for City of God!!!).
In fact I'd be surprised if most Americans had a chance to see
most of the nominated movies.
\_ Seabiscuit? ... SEABISCUIT?!
\_ "on the whole"...of course they had to nominate some crap,
but notice that Harvey Weinstein Oscar Bait (tm) like Cold
Mountain mostly got snubbed. Hey usually the Oscars are
100% Seabiscuit-like, so I was impressed.
\_ Seabiscuit is one of the best movies I have seen in
the past few years and deserves to win. The "crap"
that was nominated was ROTK (and its predecessors).
\_ I agree with you, in part. LOTR sucked monkey nuts.
Sea Biscuit is not fit to clean stables with.
\_ I think soda has got to be one of the only
places where you will find people that dislike
the LoTR movies. Odd, that.
\_ It's not necessarily "dislike." It's just that
there are so many better choices.
\_ I liked them all, but they are not worthy
of an Oscar. If they are then Raiders of
the Lost Ark should've swept the Oscars, baby!
\_ Just when you thought the trolls were safely stowed
in the movie....
\_ Good? Yes. Best Picture? No.
\_ I thought it was interestingly ambiguous, but not wholly
satisfying. -tom
\_ Good. Not great. IMO, Academy voters voted this in because
Bill Murray's character said "I want to eat healthier ... eat
Japanese food", and all the fatties agreed.
\_ I thoroughly enjoyed it, but then I did live in Japan for six
years, which probably explains why the rest of the audience didn't
laugh as hard as I did. Best Picture? I don't know about that...
Bill Murray does the sad clown very well. --erikred
\_ For a relaxing time, make it Suntory Time.
\_ Have any Sodans tried Suntory Whiskey? How is it?
\_ Overpriced and mediocre. Many salary-men drink it watered
down (mizu-wari), which is even worse.
\_ Do you like the feeling of alienation?
\_ review in comic form: http://www.geocities.com/cogsci127/lint.gif
\_ I think it is amusing that all the whities that have been to
Japan say that it is a good study of Japanese culture, while
the Japanese claim that it is racist.
\_ Funny I haven't heard that from my own pool of whities. All of
those I know who have been to Japan including myself say it's
a great film for the experience of being in metro Japan - that's
different from being a "good study of Japanese culture".
\_ Funny, I've heard P.C. white people saying it's racist, and
Japanese people saying they didn't find anything offensive.
\_ My Japanese wife thought it was hilarious. Neither of us think
it's a good study of Japanese culture. It's a good study of
what it's like to be jet-lagged and culture-shocked in Tokyo.
It's not racist-- the gag is that Bill Murray is confused and
tired, not that the Japanese are weird. --erikred
\_ Dude. Sorry. They are weird. Nice, terribly civilized,
very polite, cultured, but fucking weird. -John
\_ Actually, the culture is majorly fucked up, and
the "weirdness" is the natural result of that.
\_ This coming from the man who lives in Switzerland?
I think we're back to the pot-kettle relationship.
...nothing against Switzerland, mind you, I'm just
saying.... --erikred
\_ A brief look at, say, Japanese cartoons makes me think,
wow, Japan is the weirdest country ever. I mean, there's
some seriously bizarre stuff. Then I think, well, we in
America watch a cartoon starring a sponge wearing pants,
and I think pot, kettle, black.
\_ While I agree with you in principle, I hafta say; I've
never seen DVDADO tentacle porn featuring underage
virginal school girls in any popular american animation.
The Japanese certainly seem to have some strange...err...
never seen DVDADO tentacle porn on underage virginal
school girls in any popular american animation. The
Japanese certainly seem to have some strange...err...
interests.
\_ Hi Eli! What is it with you and tentacle porn?
\_ Mmmm...Tentacle porn...
Japanese certainly seem to have some strange...err...
interests.
\_ Hi Eli! What is it with you and tentacle porn?
\_ I SO did not post that. I don't like tentacle
porn. What are you talking about, Mr. Anonymous
Troll? --lye
\_ Mmmm...Tentacle porn...
\_ Hehe, and this is the trap: all you get from Japan
is the weird tentacle fetish stuff, so you assume
that that's all they watch. All they get from the
US is cop dramas about solving your problems with
guns, so they assume that we're obssessed with guns
and violence. If you can't see the communication
gap, you're not looking hard enough. --erikred
\_ Except the Japanese would be right.
\_ RACIST!
\_ I thought it was fantastic. But i think everyone would agree
that it's worth seeing. If you're in the mood for a movie and
you're willing to spend the $9, then go see this film. It is
better than 90% of the crap that's out there. 90%, not 99%. |
| 2004/1/29-30 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:12013 Activity:nil |
1/29 As far as I know, no DVD-Audio players have a digital-out, and this is
some anti-copying measure. Couldn't you just put it in a computer and
rip it, possibly using DeCSS?
\_ I was under the assumption DVD-audio / SACD can't be read by
computer drives.
\_ ditto.
\_ If it doesn't have the same pit size and wavelength, why is it
called DVD? If it does, it should be readable with the right
program.
\_ Odd. This (http://csua.org/u/5ri seems to have a digital out.
Or did you mean that the digital out in this or similar device
only passes AC-3/DTS, but does not pass DVD-A information?
OBTW, google trivially found that the Meridian 598 does provide
a digital DVD-A out. Unfortunately, the Meridian might be pricier
than what you are looking for.
\_ My question was entirely theoretical, but thanks. -op |
| 2004/1/29-30 [Computer/SW/Database] UID:12014 Activity:nil |
1/29 MySQL vs. PostgreSQL. Discuss.
\_ MySQL for easy setup, PG for anything important / heavy writes.
\_ c'mon... just do a little google'ing. you'll get a much more
thorough answer than you will from here. in particular check
out the postgres website... or http://openacs.org |
| 2004/1/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:12015 Activity:nil |
1/29 Is there any way to have DSL in BA without getting screwed by SBC?
I'm paying $30 for a phone line I don't use but I keep it for DSL.
\_ You can call them and get them to take off a bunch of 'features' you
don't need, like long-distance access, and switch to no free local
calls and I think you can get it down to ~8/mo. BTW, that still
will include 911 service, which is a good thing 'cause most cell
phones don't have e911 service (and can't always get a signal either)
\_ Speaking from (very bad) personal experience, NEVER call 911 on
your cell phone. You will be put on hold, and wait...and wait...
and wait...until either you already got ripped off, murdered,
etc., or you've given up in disgust and tried to find a payphone
(good luck!). --lye
\_ My understanding is that most cells go straight to the
Highway Patrol. If there's a big accident on a busy freeway
in your calling area, then yeah -- cell 911 is pretty fucked
up. I've called 911 on my cell 3 or 4 times, and I've only
had one really bad experience, which isn't an ideal
hit-ratio. |
| 2004/1/29-30 [Uncategorized] UID:12016 Activity:nil |
1/29 Geeks - your dating probs solved!
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01292004/entertainment/16912.htm
\_ That caption works better for the link below. -tom
\_ heh |
| 2004/1/29-30 [Recreation/Dating] UID:12017 Activity:moderate |
1/29 Yet another reason not to emulate Europeans:
http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article177749.ece
I think the last sentence is funny.
\_ You would, pigfucker.
\_ I'm not European. I don't fuck pigs. |
| 2004/1/29-30 [Computer/SW/Languages] UID:12018 Activity:nil |
1/29 Why are portrait print films ISO 160, while the ISOs of all other
print films are 25,50,100,200,...,3200 (2^n * 25)? What's so special
about ISO 160? Thanks.
\_ for softer contrast:
http://photo.hitechemall.com/selfilm.htm
\_ This only tells you that if you want soft contrast you should use
portrait films which are ISO 160. But what I want to know is
that why all film manufacturer decided (or found out) that they
should make their portrait films at ISO 160 in order to give best
results for portrait work.
\- it's possible it is easier to get say consistent skin tones
from indoor/outdoor films if you squeeze the iso range.
that's just a guess why you might want 160/320 rather than
100-400. ok tnx --psb |
| 2004/1/29 [Uncategorized] UID:12019 Activity:high |
1/29 So basically, we can bomb the shit out of whoever we like, whenever
we like, about whatever stupid reason we make up, and everybody just
has to like it? America RULES!
\_ "Because we have nuclear weapons". -D. Leary
\_ "We've got the bomb!"
\_ "Somebody set up us the bomb!" -0wing
\_ "We get signal" -- operator
\_ hey, we live in the U.S., a democracy. the man making the calls
was elected (fairly or not), and there's not anything you can do
about it except hope he gets beaten in November.
< |
| 2004/1/29-30 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:12026 Activity:very high |
1/29 BTW, front page in the SF Chronicle today has David Kay saying that
he talked to all the CIA intel guys and *not one of them* said
they felt pressured although they admitted failure. They honestly
believed it as did the French and German intel they worked with.
\_ I'm sure none of the underlings at Enron felt pressure, either.
They thought there was just a lot of oil in the Cayman islands.
\_ Totally different situation. Get your oranges out of the
apple cart and we'll talk. No one at Enron in a decision
making role ever claimed to know nothing about what was going
on. They all hired lawyers.
\_ http://csua.org/u/5rq
Washington Post article says otherwise.
If someone did tell Kay they felt pressured, don't you think
that would be the end of their carreer with the CIA?
\_ Stop bringing common sense into the discussion! You are
just a Bush hater!
\_ no, I don't. the failure up front is enough to destroy their
careers already. common sense.
\_ France and Russia did *not* agree with the Bush Administration:
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/usallieswmd.html
\_ No one said Russia did. French intel is another story.
\_ Here is a very good (and long) article that indicates that
pressure was applied. It also states that *everyone* thought
that Hussein had WMD:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/01/media-preview/pollack.htm
Start with "The Politics of Persuasion"
\_ Uh, he says so, but there's not much to tell me he's right.
Also, the guy wrote the book "The Threatening Storm: The Case
for Invading Iraq" in 2002, which a lot of neocons were
waving around prior to the war. In any case, I know what
Powell presented to the UN, and it was total crap, and that
was enough for me.
\_ The fact that he sees both sides of the issue makes him
more credible to me, not less.
\_ So if I told you a big fat lie from one side and at least
a partial truth from the other, you'd swallow that lie?
\_ if you know anything about Bush, he is the type who has repeatly
make decision, find out it wrong, and blame his subordinate so he
is free of all the responsibilities (George Tenet). This entire
David Kay drama is just a way to defuse pressure for Bush. And
yes, I am a Bush hater, and I hate him more for the fact that he
is a such soft shoulder than his undisguised political agenda to
enrich his friends and the wealthy.
\_ Oh really? Tell us about Bush. What is your secret source of
information about his "type" that you claim to know so well?
Your undying hatred? Good thinking. I feel your pain!
\_ Bush is a dumbass. This is how a smart dumbass runs the
country. By delegating responsibility and trying to look
like you know what you're doing. The interesting part is it's
arguable that this might be better than liberals running the
country.
\_ Vote Green! Seriously, though, no President has run this
country in that sense for a long time. There's a zillion
things going on that he might get a 5 second briefing on once
a month, if that. Without delegation you get a G.Davis style
micromanagement idiot who never gets anything done because one
person doesn't have the time or brain power to cope with it.
Pick any Fortune 1000 company. Do you think the CEO is
intimately aware of every product plan for the next 12 months?
Or even what might be happening next week or happened last
week? Not a chance in hell. The Federal Government dwarfs
any Fortune list company and always will. |
| 2004/1/29-30 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:12027 Activity:very high |
1/29 Interesting. A spring offensive planned in Afghanistan near the
Pakistani border, where Bin Laden is thought to be holed up. Nearly
two years after the fact, and very close to the election.
Eeeeenteresting.
\_ You want wag the dog? Try an aspirin factory in the Sudan and
2 cruise missiles into a camel's ass which did nothing but let
bin Laden know we can listen to his phone calls. Brilliant!
\_ You want wag the dog? Try an aspirin factory in the Sudan and
2 cruise missiles into a camel's ass which did nothing but let
bin Laden know we can listen to his phone calls. Brilliant!
\_ motivations aside, don't you want to catch Osama?
\_ Definitely want to see him caught, but the timing is so...
interesting.
\_ what if they found out more information just recently?
\_ Could be. I'm not inclined to believe much that this
Administration says, however. They've already proven
\_ *laugh* nice troll attempt but we're long after that
one. try again. no cookie.
\_ Definitely want to see him caught, but the timing is so...
interesting.
\_ what if they found out more information just recently?
they have little credibility.
\_ consider how they stolen the election at first place,
you would think people would of known better.
\_ *laugh* nice troll attempt but we're long after that
one. try again. no cookie.
\_ you also don't want to fight during winter in Afghanistan
\_ we invaded Iraq without "solid prove" of what exactly? What
exactly is your missing point?
\_ Once burned, twice shy.
\_ Of course it couldn't be because they might have found where a
bunch of al Qaeda training camps are. Nope, nope, nope, let's
assume evil first until proven otherwise and then just assume
assume evil first until proven otherwise and then just assume
evil anyway.
\_ I agree with you.
evil anyway.
\_ I agree with you.
\_ we invaded Iraq without solid prove. And that is my point.
Iraq poses no immediate threat, and it has drained resources
away from the real issues.
\_ we invaded Iraq without "solid prove" of what exactly? What
exactly is your missing point?
\_ Once burned, twice shy. |
| 2004/1/29-2/1 [Industry/Jobs] UID:12030 Activity:nil 66%like:12059 |
1/29 "Hey all, my girlfriend is hiring a part-time unix sys admin
contractor...", see /csua/pub/jobs/sysadmin
\_ I still want to know how so many women ended up in technical
management roles. I've yet to meet a single woman in such a
position with enough technical *or* management experience to
fill a piss bucket.
\_ Donna Shirley
\_ Yes, any and all men are fully qualified for these positions
no matter what. Women need not apply because sysadmins on
the motd are latent homosexuals and only want to hang around
with other men in the server room....serving each other.
\_ At Cisco three of my managers were women. All of them were
knowledgeable about the development of routing software
and network design and deployment. Two of them had 15+
years of coding experience (real coding in assembler and
c) before becoming managers. They were also the best
organized and friendliest managers I've worked for. They
always made sure that things like monthly one-on-ones
occured, that reviews were taken care of in a timely
fashion, that people weren't overworked, necessary equip.
\_ I'm glad your experience was different from mine. However,
you don't have enough evidence to claim "most women" are
highly competent or anything else. You got lucky, IMO.
\_ I interned at Cisco and noticed lots of female managers. This
is consistent w/ other places I've worked as well. From exper,
I see that women can be just as technical as men, but that
more often than not they also possess other skills that male
engineers lack. These skills include organizational and ppl
skills. --likes working with women and men
\_ Is she HAWT?
was available &c.
No doubt some women (and many men) who are incompetent
become mgrs but most women who become mgrs. are given
that position because they are highly competent. |
| 11/22 |