Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:February:04 Wednesday <Tuesday, Thursday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2004/2/4-5 [Computer/SW/Security] UID:12093 Activity:nil
2/3     what's the best free telnet program that supports ssh, etc?
        I remember someone posted a name a while ago but can't remember
        the program's name. it is a small program with no install! thx.
        \_ Uhm, by definition, telnet != ssh. They have nothing to do
           with each other. Why not just use ssh?
        \_ PuTTY, use google
           a lot of people also use Tera Term Pro with the TTSSH extension
           \_ i used it but not anymore, IT guy saw everything in the
                clear (including pwd) snooping packets even with TTSSH
              \_ have you ever stopped to consider that maybe you're just
                 stupid? sorry, stupid question.
                 \_ used port 22 twink w/ ttssh extension, still got it
                    \_ reconsider.
                        \_ just spell it out, if i got into soda using
                           tera term pro and ssh and port 22, how can
                           he see my password in the clear still?
                           \_ If you connected to port 22, and didn't do proper
                              key exchange, then teraterm wouldn't have even
                              prompted you for a password.  Try it for fun
                              (and profit!).  telnet localhost 22.
                              \_ But you know what? A supposed ssh client that
                                 doesn't tell even somewhat clued users that
                                 it is transmitting cleartext is not well-
                                 designed. That sounds like reason enough to
                                 use one of the alternatives.
                                 \_ i am unclear as to how you concluded that
                                    the user is somewhat clued.
                                 \_ See that's just it.  It doesn't.  Did you
                                    verify that it did yourself?
                                 \_ I'm confused by this.  How did the user get
                                    an ssh connection in clear text??
                           \_ Stupid, Nasty admin, he plays tricksies on
                              Poor, Innocent user!
                              \_ Fat, Stupid, Nasty adminses!
                                 \_ you forgot greasy and virginal.
              \_ you'd think that such a big hole would have been reported
                 or fixed by now
              \_ maybe IT guy has a keylogger installed on your system?
           \_ putty also has versions of scp (pscp) and sftp (psftp).
2004/2/4 [Recreation/Shopping, Industry/Startup] UID:12094 Activity:nil
2/3     Here's some people who chose to kill their careers by getting
        quoted forever as work time slacker idiots:
        It was fun then but I wonder how many turned up in google when
        applying for jobs and got passed over.
        \_ The level of writing in that article is primitive, and that's being
           charitable.  "Cyber browsing"?  Give me a break.  And some of the
           people quoted don't come across as particularly lucid either.
           Aside from the whole premise, which is silly, the piece loses
           credibility through its piss-poor style.  -John
        \_ This is such bullshit.  Any time it comes up.  If someone is not
           doing their job, it will show in other ways.  tracking employee
           web usage is fucking pointless.
        \_ 1. I would always get packages sent to work... because I'm there
              to pick them up.  I don't have a stay at home wife to collect
              my packages.  That stuff I order when I'm at home.
           2. Oh no!  I wasted 15 minutes shopping online!  FIRE ME!  Dude
              no employee is going to be productive all the time they are
              at work.  Breaks are what people do.
           \_ Both of you are brilliant.  Now *think* for a moment.  If you
              are a hiring manager and have two candidates and one is stupid
              enough to let themself get quoted on google forever as a
              slacker idiot, which one would *you* hire?  The crime isn't
              shopping online, it is being quoted forever talking about it
              on google.  If you say you wouldn't care then you're not a
              hiring manager.
              \_ I've been in places where I've been responsible for saying
                 if someone should get hired.  This article wouldn't change
                 how I felt about someone, and I wouldn't want to work at
                 a company where it did.
                 \_ First of all, just know that I agree with you all whole-
                    heartedly and the person you just answered sounds like a
                    putz. That said, you sound spoiled. I wouln't want to work
                    at such a company either but few of us can be so picky
                    anymore. I work at an alright company but I got lucky -
                    they are too small to have the resources to track web-
                    browsing. Most of my friends who are still unemployed would
                    grudgingly take a job where they did. What sucks is that
                    companies feel they can and should do this.  [moved down]
                    \_ I agree that the above is spoiled but not with the idea
                       that shopping and gaming all day at work is something
                       your company owes you.  If you were the HM and a
                       candidate told you he wanted a 7.5 hour day but said he
                       wouldn't be doing anything but work during those 7.5
                       hours you'd think he was a flaming idiot.
                 \_ Typical "sour grapes" brigade response.  I prefer to work
                    at companies where I'm not the only one working.
                    \_ oh, yeah? and where do you work--
                       \_ This is funny.
                 how I felt about someone.
2004/2/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12096 Activity:moderate
2/3     So it's a wrap.  We're now at Kerry >>> Edwards > Clark and the
        rest will be dropping out.  IMO, Clark barely scraped by, has too
        little funding coming from a small clique of rich people and will
        be out of the race in a few weeks at most.  Edwards will be around
        until at least CA and then we'll see.
        \_ I just don't get the Edwards thing.  Is there a message there
           that I'm missing, or is he really running a successful campaign
           on being young, hansome, and having a southern accent?
           \_ He's not that young, just looks it. He's in his 50's.
           \_ Don't forget making your millions by suing doctors for things
              they didn't cause!
              \_ I've read less biased links about his court time.  Let me
                 remind you that you can sue anyone for anything you want in
                 this country but only the *JURY* can decide if your case
                 has merit.  Juries decided his cases did.  Case closed.  And
                 no, I'm not an Edwards supporter.
        \_ Clark is positioning himself as a VP candidate, by not pissing
           anyone off.  Kerry/Clark will be able to go after Bush on
           military issues.
           \_ Bullshit.  I think Clark is a guy who actually means what he says,
              and if he says he won't consider a VP slot, I think he means it.
              I predict that if he loses a few more primaries, he'll bow out
              of politics permanently.
           \_ Bullshit.  I think Clark is a guy who actually means what he
              says, and if he says he won't consider a VP slot, I think he
              means it.  I predict that if he loses a few more primaries,
              he'll bow out of politics permanently.  [formatd]
              \_ Which gives Clark about a 9 month stay in politics.
           \_ Kerry already has the war record thing going for him.  What does
              he really need Clark for?
              \_ Being southern.  Problem is, Edwards is too and he's more
              \_ Kerry has the perception of being too liberal.  He's a
                 democrats from the same state as Ted Kennedy.  What do you
                 expect?  Kerry/Clark or Kerry/Edwards will bring in support
                 from moderates and southerners.  Personally I think
                 Kerry/Clark is a better fit because they bring credibility
                 to foreign policy and terrorism debates.  Edwards might help
                 Kerry carry more southern states, but it takes more than
                 carrying a couple of southern states to win against Bush.
                 Dean, of course, is flaming out just like another dot-com.
                 Raised a lot of cash and blew it all away in a short time.
                 That describes a typical dot-bomb.
                 \_ Problem w/ Edwards/Kerry is that they are both senators.
                 It's good to mix it up a bit, vs having two ppl w/ legistlve
                 exp. Also Clark/Kerry seems to really hit home the whole
                 military angle and just BushBash away wrt his flight suit and
                 other military/political gaffes.
                 \_ I think I'll donate my flooz to Dean's campaign...
                    \_ Way too funny for the motd.  Pearls before swine....
                 \_ Are you saying Clark has foreign policy experience?  Uhm,
                    sort of, but I'd put more faith in Kerry's 35 years for how
                    foreign policy works than Clark.  As far as the South goes,
                    Edwards has done better there so far and is a 'real'
                    Southerner.  Clark is from Arkansas which is sort of the
                    south only if you're from either coast.  Clark doesn't have
                    *any* experience dealing with terrorism.
                    \_ fighting terrorism means commanding the military.
                       Do you fight against Bin Laden with diplomacy?  No,
                       you send in troops and bomb the hell out of the guy.
                       Who has experience commanding troops?  Clark.  Not Bush,
                       not Kerry, not Edwards.
                       \_ Fighting terrorism means intelligence work and black
                          ops and beating/drugging people in dark rooms.  Now
                          that you understand do you still see Clark as the
                          right guy for that job?  No experience, certainly.
                          If all it took was bombing shit, then we've already
                          got the right guys in office and don't need a new
                          \_ The current administration doesn't get the whole
                             precision bombing thing unless it supports troop
                             movements. Think about it: Afghanistan and Iraq
                             showed off our ability to hammer the opposition
                             so that the ground troops could mop up. Bosnia
                             showed off our ability to hammer the opposition
                             so the the ground troops didn't need to mop up.
                             \_ Well, that also has to do with the fact that
                                the Serbs weren't suicidal fanatics.
                             \_ So you think the more primitive weapons used in
                                Yugoslavia were somehow better aimed and more
                                effective and precise because they were dropped
                                during a (D) administration?  Okey dokey!
                       \_ Fighting terrorism means a lot more than just using
                          the stick. You need to use the carrot, too. See
                          The Nazis vs. The Russian Partisans, Britain vs.
                          The Irish and many many more historical examples
                          of why just trying to defeat "terrorism" with force
                          only always fails.
                       \_ Fighting terrorism means stop making enemies with
                          everyone and stop telling everyone else what to do.
                          \_ Sometimes, outside the sandbox, you can't always
                             be friends with everyone.  Sometimes the bad guys
                             really are bad and really do want to kill you and
                             there's really nothing you can do about it if
                             you're not willing to surrender.  Are you French?
                             \_ sometimes yes, as with the Germans in WW2.
                                It's not the case with the current "war on
                                terror" though.
                                \_ perhaps you'd like to go read up on the
                                   history of Islamic conquests and the spread
                                   of Islam since it's inception and then say
                             \_ Do you honestly advocate killing every one
                                of the worlds 400M Arabs? You are never going
                                to be able to seperate the "bad" ones from
                                the "good" ones, you know.
                                \_ Duh, of course not.  This goes back to the
                                   original thing I said which is that fighting
                                   terrorism is primarily *not* a "drop the
                                   bombs on them!" task, but dirty ugly black
                                   ops, capture/torture, and assassination as
                                   necessary.  As for the rest, by squeezing
                                   their funding sources and helping more
                                   moderate (ie: not suicidal crazy) Muslim
                                   states and groups the terrorists will run
                                   out of places to hide and the ability to
                                   recruit replacements and volunteers for
                                   their militarily useless suicide missions.
                                   \_ Fair enough, I agree with you mostly
                                      then. I think you need to remember that
                                      the carrot works better than the
                                      stick in modifying human behavior.
                                      But we do need both, and probably
                                      the stick you advocate is the
                                      right one to beat with.
                                      \_ Cool, psych1 time: the stick works
                                         faster, the carrot works better if you
                                         are patient, persistent, have time,
                                         and care about the feelings of the
                                         subject you're training.  I'll be
                                         honest: I don't care as long they stop
                                         sending their own children out wearing
                                         bombs.  Everything after that is up
                                         for negotiation.  Never negotiate with
                                         terrorists.  They always want more.
                                         It's that whole "peace with honor"
                                         thing.  It didn't work then, either.
                                         \_ One man's terrorist is another
                                            mans freedom fighter. Were the
                                            US Revolutionaries "terrorists"?
                                            How about the IRA? The Contras?
                                            I could go on, but the point is
                                            that your absolutist stance does
                                            not really work in the real world.
                                            Not that I advocate negotiating
                                            with terrorists directly, but
                                            listening to their demands and
                                            undermining support for them
                                            is vital. It is the whole
                                            "hearts and minds" idea. Even
                                            Bush knows this, see how we pulled
                                            out of Saudi Arabia. This was OBL's
                                            number one complaint.
                 \_ You are right that Kerry is seen as another Dukakis. I
                    don't think having a Southern VP will help much. IMO,
                    a VP can hurt (Lieberman, Ferraro) but can't help. It's
                    just the VP. Are Southerners supposed to suddenly vote
                    for a Yankee because there's a Southerner on the
                    ticket? People will mostly vote for the President they
                    want and the VP is an afterthought with limited influence.
                    \_ You think Joe hurt Gore?  I think Joe is a righteous
                       upstanding guy who only brought credibility to that
                       backstabbing scumbag, Gore.  Your idea that the VP
                       doesn't matter to voters is contrary to accepted wisdom.
                       You may or may not be right but those who earn their
                       money getting people elected would all say you're wrong.
                       \_ Funny, I thought he was a self-rightous whore for the
                          insurance industry.
                          \_ You are correct.  Him and Kucinich are the only
                             two Democratic candidates who would actually
                             cause me to vote for Bush.
                       \_ Yes, I think Joe hurt by virtue of being Jewish.
                          I realize what the accepted wisdom is, but think
                          about it. If GWB suddenly chose Dean or Kerry or
                          <your favorite candidate> as VP would you vote
                          for him? People are going to vote for the President
                          they want. The VP has influence, but you cannot
                          award "The South" to a candidate based on his VP.
                          Gore was *from* the South and lost badly there.
                          \_ If Bush chose Kerry or Dean then I'd certainly
                             *not* vote for him.  VP *does* matter.  --(R)
                          \_ Because Gore was a loser.  Not because his VP was
                             Jewish.  It wasn't that long ago 'they' said that
                             a *Catholic* could _never_ be President....
                       \_ Joe almost won Florida for Gore. That was pretty
                          much his whole reason for being on the ticket, to
                          motivate Jewish retirees in Florida. If Edwards
                          can get North Carolina or South Carolina for Kerry,
                          Bush's chances get a whole lot worse. I personally
                          don't think he can do it, but his presence could
                          make the difference in a close state like West
                          \_ The point is that Gore couldn't even get
                             Tennessee for Gore.
                             \_ ouch!
        \_ Before we start calling this a wrap, let's remember that we're only
           up to 578 delegates pledged out of 4,321 possible votes. Yes, Kerry
           has out-delegated his closest competitor (Dean) by 100%, but the
           game is still in its early stages, and there's plenty of room for
           more people to drop out. Moreover, remember that the Dem Primary
           is not constructed on any reasonably logical rules:
           \_ Thanks for the URLs, I'll check them out.  The thing is there's
              this whole momentum thing.  People like winners.  They vote for
              winners.  They want to be associated with winners and tell their
              friends they voted for a winner.  It is certainly possible but
              growing ever more unlikely as each state turns to Kerry that the
              others can hope to catch up.
2004/2/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12097 Activity:moderate
2/3     Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and other Democrats on the committee
        reminded Rumsfeld that in September 2002 he said "we know" where
        weapons of mass destruction are stored in Iraq.  Explaining that
        remark, Rumsfeld told the panel that he was referring to suspected
        weapons sites, but he acknowledged that he had made it sound like he
        was talking about actual weapons.  The remark "probably turned out
        not to be what one would have preferred, in retrospect," he said.
        \_ If you're going to troll you need to spice it up a bit.  This
           blatant bait isn't going to catch anything.
           \_ Maybe he's meta-trolling.  You know, write something to get people
              to accuse you of trolling.
        \_ look, no one is going to bite on this obvious troll material.
         \_ maybe it isn't troll material which is why I keep deleting your
            \_ it's troll material.  what do you expect?  conservatives
               frothing?  liberals whooping it up?  the opposite?  it doesn't
               matter what anyone in Mass. says about anything in the real
               world.  it's a small, loud, useless little state.  troll.
               \_ Dumbass, this wasn't about what anyone in Mass. said, but
                  what Rumsfeld said. I guess it got you frothing. -!op
2004/2/4-5 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:12098 Activity:moderate
2/3     Massachusetts high court:
        "The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom,
        if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage
        wrote in the advisory opinion.  A bill that would allow for civil
        unions, but falls short of marriage, makes for "unconstitutional,
        inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."
        \_ Hear hear
        \_ If you're going to troll you need to spice it up a bit.  This
           blatant bait isn't going to catch anything.
        \_ same troll
2004/2/4-5 [Computer/HW/Memory] UID:12099 Activity:nil
2/4     Flash memory?  not Compaq Flash, is it?
                           \_ Compact Flash.  Yeesh.
        \_ Looks like a software problem, not a hardware one. --dim
        \_ did some engineer with a busted Nomad MUVO come up with the
           reformat idea
2004/2/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12100 Activity:moderate
2/4     For whomever said that the VP candidate matters in a presidential
        election I have only two words for you: Dan Quayle.
        \_ VP candidate matters only when the Pres. candidates are closely
           matched. Bush won because the GOP convinced voters that Dukakis
           was soft on hard crime.
           \_ and because Dukakis looked like a twink in that oversized
              helmet and tank
              \_ I like that picture of Al Gore looking down a barrel of
                 a rifle.
              \_ No, because Dukakis said, "I will raise your taxes".
        \_ Dan Quayle was a good man.  If you knew anything about Dan you
           wouldn't say he was a negative for Bush.
           \_ He "was"? What happened to him? Did he die? Turn into
              a bad man?
              \_ I'm unaware of what he's done with his life since then.
                 He isn't dead AFAIK but he may be out raping nuns for all
                 I know.  I tell you he "was" because he "was" but it is
                 possible he may not be anymore.  I chose my words carefully.
2004/2/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:12101 Activity:very high
2/4     The Democratic motd wonks may be interested in this forum held
        in South Carolina before its primary. Instead of the candidates
        going at each other, each takes a turn answering questions from
        pre-selected audience members (who, in this case, happen to be
        low-income and associated with community-based organizations).
        In this format, there's nowhere for the candidates to hide. Go
        to enter "candidate forum" in the video
        search box, and click on "Democratic Presidential Candidate
        Forum" (1/30/2004: Columbia, SC). Running time: 1 hr., 28 min.
        My impression: Gen. Clark, hit with the most difficult
        confrontation, responded masterfully; Edwards makes me
        suspicious of smooth-talking pretty-boy Southerners; Kerry
        will get his ass kicked by Dubya; even the liberal activists
        in the audience were wondering what Kucinich was smokin'; Dean
        kept his confidence and enthusiasm in check (which was too bad);
        and Sharpton executed a couple clever (though ill-deserved)
        one-liners. -elizp
        \_ I like your summary. Do this more often. I esp agree that Kerry
        has no hope. I think Clark or Edwards have the best shot.
           \_ Edwards looks like a little boy. Nobody wants a little
              boy being president of the United States (with the
              exception of the monkey currently holding the POTUS seat),
              I think Clark has the best shot.
              \_ Kerry is out-marketing Clark. People seem to go for Kerry's
                 tough-guy talk and corny one-liners. When you get right
                 down to it, Clark may indeed be the strongest, but he'd have
                 to win the nomination first. Clark's not as good a politician
                 as Kerry. Which is a good thing, but cheap politics works.
                 \_ Clark is a Republican.  Anyway, if Bush is so weak and
                    such a blazing idiot then it shouldn't matter.  _ANY_ of
                    these guys should be able to obliterate Bush so you should
                    be voting your concious, not based solely on who you think
                    has the best chance.  They all have 100% chance of success
                    because Bush is such a stupid monkey.
                    \_ Don't get cocky. -liberal
                       \_ I'm not cocky, we all know Bush is a stupid monkey
                          and we all know he stole the election and didn't
                          even get the popular vote so of course he'll lose
                          this time.  How can a stupid monkey like Bush get
                          into office twice?  He can't steal it twice.  Thus,
                          Bush must lose because he's a stupid monkey and every
                          single Democratic candidate running is superior.
                          \_ You are not a very good imitation of a lefty,
                             righty troll.
                             \_ I wasn't imitating.  I'm mimicking which is
                                intended to be seen for what it is for
                                effect.  I guess that was lost on you.  Losing
                                only one of you isn't too bad.
2004/2/4-5 [Recreation/Humor, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:12102 Activity:kinda low
2/3     Funny in a really stupid poorly done random drunken sort of way:
        And no, not work safe.
        \_ No, not really.
           \_ You weren't drunk enough.
2004/2/4 [Uncategorized] UID:29778 Activity:nil
2/3     The psychological hazards of extreme latitude:
2004/2/4 [Recreation/Humor] UID:29779 Activity:nil
        \_ NSFW --wall
           \_ ?
              \_ Not Safe For Work.
                 \_ dude, the acronym's NWS
                    \_ dude, you are wrong
                    \_ National Weather Service?
        \_ Funny yet very deeply disturbing.
2004/2/4 [Politics/Domestic] UID:29780 Activity:nil 50%like:29782
2/4     Conservatives -- what two issues do you really care about?
        Liberals      -- what two issues do you really care about?
        Moderates     -- what two issues do you really care about?
2004/2/4-5 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:29781 Activity:insanely high
2/4     Someone needs to tell the Chinese that the phrase
        "Pearl of the Orient" is racist and that they should not use it
        \_ Context?
        \_ who uses that phrase? --Chinese
        \_ In Chinses it's always "Pearl of the East".
           \_ Hong Kong websites.
        \_ In Chinese it's always "Pearl of the East".
           \_ That's certainly racist and Eurocentrist.
              \_ eurocentrist?  nah, it's old world centrist.
                 it ignores the existence of the americas.
                 that westerners call themselves westerners
                 doesn't mean the world is japancentrist for
                 \_ Why Japan? Racist.
                    \_ because I hate fucking japs!  don't tell me jap is
                       racist too.
                       \_ You don't like to have sex with them?
                          \_ No, but I enjoyed having hot sweaty sex with
                             yermom all night long.
                             \_ I love the motd.  This deteriorated so quickly
                                I had to laugh.
        \_ Racism is the denigration and otherwise maltreatment of an
           underclass by an overclass.  Therefore, by definition, the
           Chinese cannot be racist, since the overclass/underclass
           power relationship cannot exist.
2019/02/22 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:February:04 Wednesday <Tuesday, Thursday>