Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:February:27 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2004/2/27 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12429 Activity:nil
2/26    Rumsfield and the New American Century --psb
        \_ 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
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:
        \_ 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.
              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.
           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
           \_ 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
        \_ 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.
                \_ 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
                                \_ 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 -
                                   \_ 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.
                     |  |
                     |  |
                     |  |
                     |  |
                     |  |
        ,----.      /`-. \
       (      )    /-._|  \
       |`----'|   |        |
       \      /   |`-...   |
        `.  ,'    |'` . |  |
          ||      |`,'- |  |
        ,-||-.    |`-...|  |
       (  ''  )   |        |
        `----'     `-....-'

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:
        \_ His performance on keyboards will be technically proficient but
           lacking in character.
2004/2/27-29 [Computer/SW/Languages/Perl, Computer/SW/Languages/Misc] 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
              $output = map { substr($_,0,1) } @array
              \_ The latter doesn't work, because it calls map in scalar
                 context; you need $output = join "", map { substr($_,0,1) }
              \_ (dolist (i array)(print (char i 0))) -- ilyas
                 \_ gee you're clever.
                    \_ (fun x -> print_char x.[0]) array
                       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:
                                      \_ 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:
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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:
2019/04/22 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:February:27 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>