| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2004/2/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12429 Activity:nil |
2/26 Rumsfield and the New American Century --psb
http://www.poe-news.com/features.php?feat=31845
\_ this is pretty funny. too bad you had to post it with a stupid
misleading label so it sounds like some kind of pnac neocon troll.
more useful label: whacky pictures of rumsfeld with amusing kung fu
captions. |
| 2004/2/27 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:12430 Activity:kinda low |
2/27 Nice folks over in Saudi Arabia. Here's a bit about their recently
relaxed visa & immigration policy:
http://cbs2.com/topstories/topstories_story_057202251.html
\_ This is news?
\_ Uhm, yea, this has been the case in many countries in the region
for decades (with restrictions on all of (1) Jew, (2), Israeli
passport, and (3) Passport with an Israeli stamp). |
| 2004/2/27 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:12431 Activity:high |
2/27 I don't live in California anymore, and it's dissapeared from the
headlines...What's the deal with Arnie? Has he improved the fiscal
situation? done anything else useful?
\_ Of course not. The main thing he's done is claim that allowing
gay marriage in SF will cause civil unrest.
\_Gay marriage in SF doesn't work, the state doesn't recognize
gay marriage. If you don't like it, either change the laws
in Sac. or secede from California. I don't really give a
rats ass about fags getting married, but the law in its current
form definitely does not recognize homosexual unions as a
legal entity, no matter how you may try to reinterpret it.
If a law is discriminatory, go and get it changed. Good luck
trying to get the Latinos to vote for it.
\_ Mmm... racist and homophobic all in one breath.
\_ I don't think it was racist. Latino voters are more against
gay marriage than non-Latino voters. Statement of fact.
\_ Civics lesson 101: Marriage is not mentioned in the US
Constitution. Marriage is not restricted in the CA Const.
CA State Law defines marriage as being between a man and
woman, but relegates issuance of marriage licenses to cities.
By allowing gay marriages in San Francisco, Newsom is defying
CA State Law. In order to censure him, however, the Judicial
branch has to find the state ban on gay marriage constitutional
according to CA Constitution, which is unlikely after the
recent Mass. Supreme Court decision. Until the court rules,
the marriages are presumed legal and legitimate. If the court
rules that the ban is constitutional, the marriages will be
rendered null and void (and Newsom could face criminal
charges); if not, the law will be struck down, and the
marriages will stand and continue.
\_ Why do Americans think the Executive branch has anything to do
with the economy? As if they can push the "create jobs" button
and some choose not to? Not Arnold, not Davis, not Bush, not
Clinton nor any other Executive has the power to "improve the
fiscal situation". And if they did, the few months he's been in
office wouldn't be enough time anyway. I didn't vote for Arnold
and don't like Arnold and I'm voting against his prop 57/58
insanity but I'll grant that he's trying. How many people on the
motd have ever taken a real US Civics course?
\_ In CA, state spending is wholy incumbent upon the Governor and
on how well he can woo the legislature. Do a little more civics
studies yourself.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/fisa/bag/process.htm
Also take a short course on economics, and see how much of an
effect government spending has upon the economy. Connect the
dots, young man.
\_ Woo the legislature? As if the legislature is some mythical
beast that is intent on the destruction of the economy? No,
dummy, it is incumbent upon the legislature to write and pass
bills that will have a positive effect. Since when did the
legislature lose all responsibility for their own actions?
Like I said, take a civics course. Worse than being ignorant,
you're actually completely ass backwards on the subject.
\_ The motd continues to amaze.
\_ Since the Recall put the blame for all of California's
economic woes at the feet of Gray Davis.
\_ Actually they do have a "create jobs" button, but not on such
a big enough scale to make a difference. For that they need
legislative help.
\_ He didn't say "economy"--he said "fiscal situation". You know,
the CA gov't budget problems? Moron.
\_ *laugh* Yes, the governor can magically fix the "fiscal
situation" which is dramatically different and unrelated to
the economy. Refer to my reply above about who writes and
passes legislation in this state. The other guy only needs
a civics class. You're hopeless.
\_ You know, being abrasive doesn't make you any less
wrong. Certainly the governor can't magically fix
anything, but he has a significant amount of control
over both state expenditures and state income, which
are the two aspects of the fiscal situation. For
example, Arnie simply threw away $4 billion in revenues.
100% his own decision, for his own political gain. -tom
\_ Yeah, vs. Davis tripling the car tax to raise money,
also 100% his own decision, which unfortunately
was so unpopular that they threw him out of office.
I guess you won't be running any winning campaigns
in your lifetime, Tommy boy.
\_ Wrong. Davis cut the car tax by 1/3 back in 99,
when the state was flush with cash. It went back
to its normal level automatically.
\_ He's been busy raising money to fund the "borrow $15 billion to
balance the budget this year" prop. It's going to get very ugly
out here very quickly.
\_ The Gropinator wants to borrow $15B in bonds to pay for his
$4B/yr car tax cut. Dunno if it going to pass or not. CA voters
are nuts.
\_ Yes they are. Whee! Actually, CA voters aren't much different
than other states. Which is to say that their collective
intelligence is that of a child.
\_ I think the problem with california voters is that they
really represent the equivalent of at least three states
in terms of interests. Very large blocks of California
voters differ by as much as, say, South Carolina voters
and Utah voters. |
| 2004/2/27 [Health/Disease/General] UID:12432 Activity:kinda low |
2/26 EMRG dude. USDA blocking testing for mad cow.
Ranchers doing extra testing but USDA wants them to stop?
because they'l find more mad cows..
\_ I have no idea who EMRG dude is, but you're putting a typical
dickhead freeper spin on the story and intentionally ommiting
a link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/27/national/nationalspecial2/27COW.html
It's ONE, count 'em, ONE rancher who is breaking ranks with the
entire rest of the industry to do the right thing. Since USDA
is a puppet of the beef industry, of course they're going to
go with the majority, not the lone nut who is acting in the
public interest.
\_ Freeper? I'm no freeper! This is Bush's fault!
\_ Freeper? I'm no freeper! It's Bush's fault! |
| 2004/2/27-28 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:12433 Activity:nil |
2/27 Hooray for small boring motd!
\_ At least small boring motd doesn't make you weep for humanity.
\_ They can take our posts, but they'll never take us seriously! |
| 2004/2/27-29 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:12434 Activity:nil |
2/27 I noticed that most of the motd/wall participants are um, how do I
put it, not very young. Is there a reason why the youngsters in
general do not participate as frequently as us? Is it partly
attributed to these newer programs (aim/yahoo chat/msn chat) that
we older and less useful folks have problem adapting to?
\_ Because the wall is both boring and for insiders. It's your own
little playground. Outsiders aren't welcomed or treated
particularly well. Keep the wall, it's your thing, the motd is
more fun for the rest of us. To be honest, the less some of the
wall people show on the motd, the better the motd is.
--neither young nor wall user
\_ any other comments on wall users? How do you know about
how newbies are treated?
\_ the wall is publicly readable. why do you even ask how i
could know?
\_ I think the younger folk (at least me) are still dealing with the
shame of being computer dorks. The motd at least is somewhat
anonymous.
\_ I don't see how this answers the op's question. ?
\_ meaning the motd might be populated by younger types who
want to be anonymous. Eg, you know when a psb, scotsman,
tom, etc posts, but not when the newer guys do.
\_ Oh right. Well I'd like to use a nick, but I don't really
want certain people knowing it's me posting. Well one
person really. Actually that does have something to do
with my not wanting my true uber-geekiness revealed.
\_ Did we just have lunch? Dork.
\_ see, on motd you can simultaneously be a geek and
yet make fun of other geeks.
\_ Aren't computer dorks more accepted now than say a decade ago?
No one bats an eye if you say you killed time surfing the
Web or chatting online.
\_ That's not really relevant anyway, since only computer dorks
will see motd/wall messages.
\_ They can't spell motd.
\_ Kids these days.... |
| 2004/2/27-28 [Reference/BayArea, Transportation/PublicTransit] UID:12435 Activity:nil |
2/27 What is the BART stop that is right under Union Square?
It's one of those cluster of 4 San Francisco BART stops.
\_ I haven't taken BART in years, but I think it is Powell.
\_ The only thing beneath Union Square is a parking garage. Powell
St station, however, is two blocks downhill.
\_ Powell is indeed the one. Drops you off right at SF Shopping Center
or BofA / Gap, depending on where you exit up the stairs
\_ I think he's asking about the Civic Center stop -- though
Powell and Civic Center are only a short walk apart.
\_ Civic Center BART is further away by a couple of blocks.
\_ Duh, yeah you're right. I ought to remember that, but,
uhm, last time I was at Union Square the evening ended...
well, actually I don't remember how it ended. Oh but the
stories.
\_ I usually avoid the gauntlet of people by getting off at montgomery
and then walking up post. It's a short walk and there is more
window shopping on the way. --gabriel
\_ Powell was perfect. Thanks. -op. |
| 2004/2/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:12436 Activity:high |
2/27 Civics lesson 101: Marriage is not mentioned in the US
Constitution. Marriage is not restricted in the CA Const.
CA State Law defines marriage as being between a man and
woman, but relegates issuance of marriage licenses to cities.
By allowing gay marriages in San Francisco, Newsom is defying
CA State Law. In order to censure him, however, the Judicial
branch has to find the state ban on gay marriage constitutional
according to CA Constitution, which is unlikely after the
recent Mass. Supreme Court decision. Until the court rules,
the marriages are presumed legal and legitimate. If the court
rules that the ban is constitutional, the marriages will be
rendered null and void (and Newsom could face criminal
charges); if not, the law will be struck down, and the
marriages will stand and continue.
\_ Wouldn't Newsom only face charges if he violates a court order?
\_ His opponents might charge him with some abuse of powers
charge. Hm, then again, if that's illegal, why's Willie
Brown a free man?
\_ Well since there is some legal ambiguity about state law vs.
the US constitution, he could argue he was just making a good
faith effort to satisfy the needs of his constituents. His
opponents wouldn't have a very strong case unless he violates
a court order telling him to stop.
\_ BS. He modified state documents w/o state authority. He's
a felon many times over.
\_ You're frothing at the mouth. Would you like a napkin
to wipe it off. (At least I hope it's froth...)
\_ Hmm... the mayor modified the city marriage license.
That seems like it would be in his authority to do...
\_ good luck, the liberal courts are in his pocket
\_ See, this is why nobody likes you.
\_ Plus, there's this little matter that in order to get
convicted of a crime, you have to commit one.
\_ Nice universe you live in, how do I get there?
\_ Step one: take off the foil helmet.
\_ U.S. Constitution, equal protection clause -- this is why gay
marriage can go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
\_ equal protection clause exist for 3-somes, 4-somes, 5-somes,
etc.. too right? who says that marriage should be only for a
man&woman or man&man or woman&woman... what about 2men&woman or
2women&man or 2women&2men or etc... if gay marriage can go to
the U.S. Supreme Court..polygamy will follow by the same premise..
\_ Unless the States have anti-polygamy definitions in their
Constitutions. Fed > State, unless Fed doesn't exist.
\_ Gay people have equal protection under the 14th amendment.
All men have the right to marry a woman, similarly all women
have the right to marry a man. No man has the right to marry
a man and no woman has the right to marry a woman. Since
the marriage rights are applied in a equal and fair manner
to all citizens there is no claim under the 14th amendment.
\_ I'm disinclined to agree with you: see the 1st amendment
where is mentions something about making no laws that respect
an institution of religion....
\_ Not institution, but 'estalishment'. While ignored today
establishment refers to a state established church as
existed and still exists in England, as well as most of
the Thirteen Colonies at the time.
Hence antidisestablishmentarianism. In the mid 1900's
leftists twisted this in an attempt to secularize US
society. Finally, the Constitution was written to
limit the scope of Federal power.
\_ What does religion have to do with it? Are you implying
that by not providing for gay marriage the federal gov
is somehow establishing a religion?
\_ "And what else floats on water? ... And therefore..."
\_ This exact same argument was used to rationalize
anti-miscegenation laws, too.
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/04needs/106us583.htm
\_ so? The link refers to fines / incarceration for
miscegenation. No such equivalent exists today.
In fact homosexuals are a celebrated 'mascot' group
with special privileges such as hate crime statutes.
One could argue this is because of all the homosexuals
in academia and media. The analogy fails.
\_ Wrong, the argument was made by people just like you
that miscegenation laws were okay and did not violate
the 14th Amendment, since blacks could still marry
and have sex with blacks and whites could marry and
have sex with whites. The analogy stands. Gays
are still incarcerated and are subject to losing
their jobs for having sex with other gays. And
there have always been all those homosexuals in
there have always beens all those homosexuals in
academia and media and everywhere else. Now, with
lessened persecution, they are just finally coming
out of the closet where you can see them.
\_ You know nothing about the arguments I make
so please don't assume. If you have any
appreciation for history whatsoever you would
recognize that the 14th amendment was explicitly
aimed at free slaves. You see I have no problem
with you passing whatever legislation you want
through the legislature or referendum. Instead
you want to subvert the republican process to
atone for your bizarre notion of social justice.
Many states have anti-sodomy laws, so what?
You are a boderline fascist and remind me of the
homosexual elements of the Nationalsozialistische
Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
\_ And the point you're (purposefully?) missing
is that there is nowhere in the Constitution
a definition of marriage that excludes same
sex marriages; there is only the SC's
interpretation that marriage falls under the
umbrella of "life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness." Until there is language
explicitly defining marriage as being between
a man and a woman, any law to that effect
will be unconstitutional. So, no, they're
legislating from the bench; they're doing
their job of making sure the legislature
does no pass laws contrary to the US
Constitution.
\_ Defense of Marriage Act signed
by President Clinton Sep. 21, 1996.
Except Hamilton, Madison, Washington
Adams and Jefferson were all closet
homosexuals and really meant to provide
for uninhibited sexual gratification
regardless of gender, age or species -
right?
\_ Defense of Marriage Act is a law,
not a Constitutial Amendment. It's
been sitting pretty, waiting for
Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
by President Clinton Sep. 21, 1996.
a challenge for quite some time. |
| 2004/2/27-28 [Recreation/Dating] UID:12437 Activity:nil |
2/27 So what exactly are the legal, practical implications of a state-
licensed marriage? As opposed to just saying you're married. --single
\_ Corporate benefits packages, state and federal tax breaks,
property laws, etc.
\_ Calling BDG!
\_ They call it tying the knot for a reason; you are tying the
knot around your neck. At least with the hangman your pain
lasts only a minute.
\_ I'd call you a misogynist, but you never can tell these days.
\_ Perhaps after you find that "special" woman and are
stupid enough to marry her and then she leaves you
and takes 1/2 of everything you own and you end up in
the poor house struggling to survive each day while
she spends each day lounging on the beach with a new
boy toy each week you will understand what women are
capable of and why they should be avoided at all costs.
__
[__]
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
,----. /`-. \
( ) /-._| \
|`----'| | |
\ / |`-... |
`. ,' |'` . | |
|| |`,'- | |
,-||-. |`-...| |
( '' ) | |
`----' `-....-'
\_ IF I COULD PUT GAY IN A BOTTLE / WELL I SURE THE FUCK WOULD |
| 2004/2/27-28 [Recreation/Celebrity] UID:12438 Activity:nil |
2/27 Oscar predictions?
\_ No more screeners end up on the internet...
\_ The burger will be decent but greasy, and the fries bad.
\_ Will continue being grouchy and living in the trash can.
\_ Felix will get upset when he messes up the apartment.
\_ I predict the ceremony will be pompous and boring.
\_ Pound-for-pound will never again be the best boxer in the world.
\_ Will remain first name of my bologna.
\_ The Perl implementation will probably hang around for a long time.
\_ and... motd is spent.
\_ A good effort by the Open Cluster Group, but will probably never
see broad distribtion.
\_ A sadly underrated vintage '80s synthesizer capable of some truly
nasty gut-trembling distored bass sounds, the Oscar has seen a
resurgence of late via emulated software synthesis:
http://www.gmediamusic.com
--lye
\_ His performance on keyboards will be technically proficient but
lacking in character. |
| 2004/2/27-29 [Computer/SW/Languages/Misc, Computer/SW/Languages/Perl] UID:12439 Activity:high |
2/27 In perl, say I have a @list of strings, how do I print the first
character of those stings, concatinated? For example, if @list is
['hello','world',123], I want an output of hw1. I can do a loop,
substr, and the .= operator, but it looks lame...
\_ what's wrong with just doing what works?
\_ TMTOWTDIT, but foreach $item (@array) { print substr($item,0,1) }
is one way. -tom
\_ map { print substr($_,0,1) } @array
or
$output = map { substr($_,0,1) } @array
\_ The latter doesn't work, because it calls map in scalar
context; you need $output = join "", map { substr($_,0,1) }
@array.
\_ (dolist (i array)(print (char i 0))) -- ilyas
\_ gee you're clever.
\_ Array.map (fun x -> print_char x.[0]) array
p([[X|_]|Y]):-print(X),p(Y).
Incidentally, I know of multiple cases where a Perl
programmer benefitted from seeing a solution in another
language. But I respect your anonymous snide remark
anyways. -- ilyas
\_ Because we all know that anyone posting anonymously
is also less intelligent and has invalid points. I
post anonymously to cloak my inferiority to you and
others who are so smart because you sign your names.
Really, it's just jealousy. Anonymity is a form of
envy. I think I'll start signing all my posts so I
envy. I think I'll start signing all my posts so I
anyways. -- ilyas
can be just as smart and well likde as you!
can be just as smart and well liked as you! -- ilyas
\_ you're pathetic. -intelligent, valid anonymous guy
\_ wow I can't believe how many ways there are to do this.
Here is the ultimate question. After parsing, internal
representation, and optimization in Perl, which one of the
above gives you the quickest runtime?
\_ Depends on the size of your array. Generally map is faster
as length @array gets larger.
\_ what are you implying, that the function "foreach"
expands the representations in memory (extra malloc
maybe?) and then goes through the elements? For
example "foreach $a (1..10000)" does an expansion,
and that "foreach $a list" does the same thing?
\_ I'm not implying anything. Everything I say is
emperical experience. I leave the internals as
an exercise to the reader.
\_ That's all bullshit.
array.each {|i| print i[0].chr}
\_ Prolog is shorter:
p([[X|_]|Y]):-print(X),p(Y). -- ilyas
\_ I'm not convinced that's really shorter. How is that used? I
don't know much about Prolog. Given a list called "Array",
how do you print it?
\_ p(Array). -- ilyas
\_ As I suspected. So it ain't shorter!
\_ In some sense, 'array' in your code and
'[[X|_]|Y]' in mine are equivalent. Both are
internal variable names for some data. What you were
asking me to do is something else, namely provide
a function call wrapper to the code, which isn't what
your code does. I think the original stands as an
equivalent to yours. -- ilyas
\_ In some sense, that code and your code are
given the same input. You rule!
equivalent because they produce the same output
given the same input. You rule! -- ilyas
\_ Well I could say
[].each{|i|putc i[0].chr}
\_ Given an array "array", it prints the characters.
It's a function call. No? (It's ruby, for anyone
who doesn't know...)
\_ Given an array "[[X|_]|Y]", it prints the
characters. Prolog names can have structure
built in. -- ilyas
\_ cool. btw i shortened it again.
array.each {|i| print i[0].chr}
built in. -- ilyas
\_ Well I could say
[].each{|i|putc i[0]}
[].map{|i|putc i[0]}
Is that longer than Prolog? I'm no ruby
expert so I'm not sure if there's anything
better there.
\_ Yup, you win. You can look here for more
examples me, dbushong and some others
came up with:
http://www.bushong.net/david/comparisons
\_ cool. btw i shortened it again.
\_ you rock! -- ilyas
-- ilyas
\_ cool. btw i shortened it again(2) |
| 2004/2/27-28 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:29835 Activity:low 75%like:29838 |
2/26 No, really... /var/mail is getting full:
-rw-rw---- 1 njh mail 24023725 Feb 26 17:18 njh
-rw-rw---- 1 georgy mail 22633905 Feb 26 17:11 georgy
-rw------- 1 vlin mail 20938590 Feb 26 15:19 vlin
-rw------- 1 uctt mail 20938475 Feb 26 14:28 uctt
-rw------- 1 leec mail 20921676 Feb 26 16:17 leec
-rw------- 1 danberry mail 20881048 Feb 26 16:18 danberry
-rw------- 1 ericwo mail 20872793 Feb 26 10:55 ericwo
-rw-rw---- 1 isabelle mail 20446008 Feb 26 11:41 isabelle
-rw-r--r-- 1 nivra csua 19251192 Feb 23 12:36 nivra
-rw-rw---- 1 marc mail 18391040 Feb 26 17:20 marc
Why isn't there a quota on this partition?
\_ I don't know about you, but my /var/mail quota is 15 MB, hard 20 MB.
\_ I guess if you're cool and know the right people and maybe run
for CA governor as a joke candidate you get more space.
\_ I think selling ladies underwear with your name on it
should count towards the secret-csua-life-point-that-gives-
you-more-mail-quota. No comment on the other evil-doers,
though. -John
\_ two of those accounts are sorry'd. can they still retrieve email?
how are they supposed to fix their mess? |
| 2004/2/27 [Uncategorized] UID:29836 Activity:nil |
2/27 Exploding Taiwanese whale, whose sperm made it a whale of a celebrity:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4096586
\_ You're a few weeks late... |
| 2004/2/27 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:29837 Activity:nil |
2/27 Turn your sleepy little podunk town into a tourism lightning rod and
media circus in one easy step:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/27/nyregion/27CND-PALT.html?hp
\_ Hang on: "Mr. West, who is 26 and was elected last year on the
Green Party ticket...."
??? How many Green mayors are there? I thought Gonzalez would
have been the first.
\_ How wrong I was:
http://www.feinstein.org/greenparty/greenmayors.html |
| 5/17 |