Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:March:15 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2004/3/15-16 [Health/Disease/General] UID:12660 Activity:nil
3/15    Happy thoughts to start the day!:
        "Many turned blue because their lungs were too weak to
        deliver oxygen to the blood. Some coughed so hard they
        ruptured abdominal muscles, or became so sensitive to any
        contact that they screamed when touched. Others could not move
        their eyes without enduring intense pain. Blood spurted from
        the nose, ears, eyes. Sometimes air pockets formed under the
        skin, so that when a patient was turned over, his body crackled
        and popped."
        \_ I told you not to party with psb.
2004/3/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:12661 Activity:very high
3/15    No, really.
        Just out of curiousity, does anyone think Ann Coulter is
        anything but psychotic? "Liberals relentlessly oppose the
        military, the Pledge of Allegiance, the flag, and national
        defense..."  Does anyone truly believe any single portion
        of this sentence? -scotsman
        \_ disclaimer 1: I am not a conservative.
           disclaimer 2: I don't read Coulter, Franken, Moore or the rest of
           the moron brigade publishing books of a certain kind.
           It seems like your objection is to Coulter lumping _all_ liberals
           with those liberals who do oppose "the military" etc.  It does seem
           a little unfair, but I remember a conversation we had recently where
           you did the same thing with conservatives and the
           ultra-religious-right.  -- ilyas
           \_ Actually, no.  I don't think there are any liberals except the
              anarchists and the naive that "oppose the military".  I think
              we all recognize the need for a strong military.  And I'd like
              to see a transcript where I lumped all conservatives with the
              religious right.  --scotsman
           you did the same thing with conservatives and ultra-religious-right.
              \_ <ilyas> although it's a little disingenious to lump pat with
                         conservatives in general
                 <ilyas> that's like me yelling "LIBERALS WANT TO INSTITUTE
                         MAXIMUM WAGE!"
                 <scotsman> the conservatives have lumped him in with
                 So naturally, the conservatives lump Mr. Buchanan with their
                 mainstream, but the liberals are far too smart to lump their
                 extremist shriekers with their mainstream, right ben?
                   -- ilyas
                 \_ Do you have the rest of that discussion?  I admit that was
                    really ... poorly played on my part.  BTW, someone overwrote
           specifics of this sentence or that partial out of context quote,
           it is your whole ultra-left world view she's talking about.  i find
                    an edit to my previous post.  I didn't mean for it to be
                    so heavy handed.  --scotsman
        \_ yes, absolutely.  you're so far left and so blinded by your
           beliefs and closed minded that you seem to actually believe that
           someone with a different view from yours must be psychotic.  you
           are *exactly* the sort of person she's always railing against so
           of course you can't see yourself in it.  it isn't about the
           specifics of this sentence or that partial out of context quote,
           it is your whole ultra-left world view she's talking about.  i find
               \_ Nice dodge! +10 points.
                  \_ post the full quote in context and we'll talk about it.
                     i would never ask you to discuss a partial "..." pseudo
                     quote.  it's ridiculous to ask.
                     \_ I posted plenty for an easy google.  It's out of her
                        introduction, and requires no other context.  -scotsman
           it funny that the left calls the right evil and psychotic and a
           bunch of other things which are all pure ad hominen whereas the
           right spends their time saying the left is wrong and exactly how
           so.  if you'd ever actually read coulter or listened to rush or
           saw hannity's show or a long list of others you won't find the
           sort of outrageous "everyone who doesn't think like me is insane"
           and "i can't believe anyone else could possibly believe this stuff"
           agenda that you're pushing.  have a cookie, it's the only one i'll
           feed you today.
           \_ The first half of my query was obviously hyperbolic to set the
              tone.  I'm glad you bought it.  --scotsman
              \_ *laugh* wow you are *sooooo* clever!  just because you signed
                 your post doesn't mean you're a) not a troll or b) have
                 anything to say worth responding to.  you did manage to waste
                 about 2 minutes of my life responding but it was worth it to
                 get this final ridiculous reply.  why bother posting at all?
                 now that i know you're a troll-who-signs i wont be feeding
                 you anymore.
                 \_ See, the thing is, if you buy Coulter's line, then
                    dialectic between the left and right is meaningless
                    (which I am not yet cynical enough to believe). --scotsman
           \_ Perfect example of Coulterism in action! Attack the questioner
              without answering any of the charges/questions. Bravo! That
                    Coulterite! God forbid you should back up your "yes,
                    absolutely" with any reasoning.
              was unexpected and perfect. --blind motd liberal freak
              \_ It was all answered.  go read it again.  what does "yes,
                 absolutely" mean to you, trollboy?  sheesh.  it's right there
                 for god's sake.  are you really that stupid or really that
                 \_ More ad hominen attacks!  Excellent!  Keep piling it on,
                    Coulterite! God forbid you should back up your "yes,
                    absolutely" with any reasoning.
                    \_ OP didn't ask for any reasoning, only if anyone
           ridiculous degree, which has caused this country to become
           extremely polarized, and THAT is a real problem.
                       believed Coulter.  The answer was given immediately
                       and with no waffling.  It isn't ad hominen if I've
                       already answered your questions in full and *then*
                       insult your intelligence or integrity.  i'm done.  i've
                       fed you enough cookies.  twice you've added nothing
                       and ignored my replies despite giving you full answers.
                       \_ the whole premise of the thread is idiotic anyway.
                          whether anyone here likes it or not, her books are
                          bestsellers, which means that lots of people like
                          her enough to buy her books, which presumably
                          means they don't all think she is psychotic.
                          \_ she sells books because she's hot.
                             \_ ok then why is rush popular?  he sure as hell
                                isn't hot.  he's a fat ugly froggy bastard.
                          \_ Her books consist of repeatedly setting up straw
                             men and knocking them down with unresearched
                             one-liners. She has poor writing skills. The real
                             laugh is to catch her in a live appearance, where
                             she's not ruling the forum. She's not capable of
                             reasoned discourse at all.
                             \_ fine. i agree.  that's not the point, though.
                                the premise of this thread is that it's up
                                for debate whether *someone* doesn't think
                                she's a psycho idiot.  While that someone
                                is not me or you, that there are many such
                                someones is not an open question.
                                \_ Actually, the question was "Does anyone
                                   here believe any part of that sentence?"
                                   At least the reasonable part... --scotsman
                                   \_ re-read your own post.
                                      \_ Think for a second.  Is "Anne Coulter
                                         is psychotic!" a reasonable statement,
                                         or is it trollbait?  The statement
                                         that she made is thoroughly
                                         indefensible and patently false.  But
                                         calling her psychotic is very clearly
                                         hyperbole. --scotsman
        \_ Both extreme left and right demonize their counterparts to a
           ridiculous degree, which has caused this country to become
           extremely polarized, and THAT is a real problem.
        \_ She's not psychotic.  She comes from a long tradition of gaining
           popularity through giving voice to peoples more base impulses
           and thoughts - she has counterparts on the left, though I think
           she may win in the "over the top" department (Joe McCarthy a hero?!)
           Just another symptom of how cartoonish and idiotic our politics
           have become.  That said, I think she also scores on novelty
           factor because she looks like barbie and spits vitriol.
           \_ This deserves the "Well Said" Award of the Day.
        \_ AC's book is revealing.  It will inspire a new generation of
           patriots who will cleanse this country of any and all liberals once
           and for ever!  She is the mother and pin-up of all true
2004/3/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:12662 Activity:high
3/15    Sigh. Another Monday, another edition of the motd censors' favorite
        bland, vanilla topics.  Bring back the Mormon thread! Let's laugh
        some more at the FreePer goons!
        \_ So what was the conclusion? Was Smith a total freak or what?
           \_ If having 52 wives makes you a freak, then I don't want to be
              \_ Nothing wrong with 52 wives.  They are all willing partners,
                 just like in gay marriages.
                 \_ It may or may not be wrong, but it IS very weird.
                    \_ Polygamy is widespread in many species, and in human
                       history.  Nothing weird at all.
                       \_ it leads to social problem since the male/female
                          ratios are roughly 1:1 at birth.  what happens to
                          the other 51 guys with no spouse?
                          \_ that's their problem.  the same thing happens
                             when they are more gay marriages than
                             lesbian marriages.
                             \_ There are roughly equal numbers of gays and
                                lesbians, whereas polyandry is very rare
                                compared to polygamy.
        \_ Yeah, I had to read the archive to see some of the more luidcrous
           attacks on my religion. -emarkp
           \_ Ya know, the motd makes 1000% more sense now that I know there
              is at least two Mormons on it.
              \_ So, soda's motd is some sorta mission?
              \_ Really? How so? -jrleek
                 \_ The continuing comparisons of gay marriage and polygamy.
                    People upset at the increasing societal acceptance of a
                    form of marriage their religion denounces, and the
                    continuing societal disapproval of a form of marriage
                    embreaced by the founders of the Mormon Church.
                    \_ Well, that's a reasonable conclusion, excpet me and
                       emarkp usually sign out posts, and I know it
                       wasn't me posting that.  That's a comparison that's
                       frequent in conservitive radio anyway. -jrleek
2004/3/15 [Recreation/Humor] UID:12663 Activity:nil Cat_by:auto
3/15    Frickin' hilarious.

        Also, make your own quasi rap intro:
2004/3/15 [Science/Physics] UID:12664 Activity:high
3/15    Something for you Physics students  -John
        \_ so, are all you cs dudes "rolling in cash?" -physicsstudent
2004/3/15-16 [Computer/SW/SpamAssassin] UID:12665 Activity:nil
3/14    Right, so spamassassin, while working like a charm, has generated a
        2.5mb bayes_toks file.  If I delete this, will I have undone every
        bit of learning the program has done?
        \_ umm, obviously?
        \_ no, it's only a backup.  the real data is stored in zero-point
           energy fields.
2004/3/15-16 [Computer/SW/Languages/C_Cplusplus, Computer/SW/Languages/Perl] UID:12666 Activity:low
3/14    Is there a function that takes a string and then escape all spaces
        and control chars in it and return a string suitable for use as
        say a filename in a shell?  tia.
        \_ "function" in what, c, the shell, ...?
           \_ in some more or less widely available library of C functions?
              \_ Something like perl's quotemeta? --scotsman
              \_ No. But if you want to look at an example look in
                 openbsd's ksh. IIRC, the function is called x_escape
                 and is in edit.c.
                 \_ Thanks.  One would have thought something has useful as
                    this should make it way to some standard lib.  Not that it
                    is that difficult, but why reinvent the wheel or copy
                    other's work?
2004/3/15 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/India, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:12667 Activity:nil
        What are French troops doing in Afghanistan?  We should just send
        them home.  For all we know, they may be helping Bin Laden.
        \_ There are no French troops in Afghanistan.  They are opposed to
           BushCo and his evil regime.
2004/3/15 [Politics] UID:12668 Activity:nil
3/15    Doonesbury hasn't been that good lately, but this Sunday's was not bad
2004/3/15 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:12669 Activity:nil
3/15    Spain to leave Iraq, because of new government voted in as a result
        of the terrorist bombings.
        Another Victory for the Terrorists, and an example of why they will
        crush the wimpy western democracies?  Discuss...
        \_ Turnging and turning in the widening gyre...
        \_ Sorry guys, the talking points this time are just stupid.  The
           Popular Party was not "way ahead in the polls."  They were within
           the margin of error.  The bombings, and the sloppy attempt to blame
           them on ETA, just pushed it over the edge.  The War in Iraq killed
           the PP and you guys know it.  Also, the "Socialist" party in Spain
           is no more socialist than the ruling parties in, say, Germany.
           \_ It sounded to me like:
              "It must have been the ETA"
              "Because they're terrorists."
              "But what about al Quaeda?"
              "It must have been the ETA"
              \_ You forgot the part where they took a kernel of truth and
                 lied from there.  "It must have been the ETA because they
                 had been planning an attack to coincide with the elections,"
                 which is true, but the bombings didin't fit with ETA's
                 modus operandi, and everyone knew it.
                 \_ It wasn't about difficult MO.  It was about the government
                    delaying the release of information.
2004/3/15-16 [Recreation/Dating] UID:12670 Activity:low
3/15    Two ministers charged by the state with violating civil marriage laws
        by performing a gay marriage.  Wouldn't it be easier if we just decided
        that relegious marriage and civil marriage had nothing in common?
        \_ why don't they charge the Mayors first?
        \_ That's a bit extreme.  Right now, religious ministers are licensed
           by the state to perform civil as well as religious marriage in a
           single ceremony as a convenience (and it means far fewer people
           coming to the courthouse for civil marriages, which saves you the
           taxpayer $$).  Some countries don't allow for this and require a
           civil ceremony.  That seems like a reasonable system.  It is what
           will likely happen if same-sex marriage becomes legal (because most
           ministers will refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies and will
           likely not be allowed to perform any civil marriage).
        \_ Yes, but then you have to decide what civil marriage means.  If two
           homosexuals can have a civil union which really just means a legal
           contract, why can't more people sign on to it?  Why not have legal
           polygamy which grants the same benefits to groups as it does to
           couples?  Why limit yourself?
           \_ All I'm saying is that it seems contrary to seperation of church
              and state for a religious ceremony to hold any legal authority.
              A marriage license should have no religious weight, and a
              religious ceremony should have no legal weight.
                \_ Does it really?  ""Congress shall make no law respecting an
                   establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
                   thereof..."  There is less to separation of church and
                   state than is sometimes claimed.
                   \_ Actually, judges often times don't use the actual text
                      of the Constitution itself but rather the intent of the
                      text (which is why the Federalists Papers are often
                      consulted by Constitutional experts). In this case, the
                      first ammendment is loosely interpreted as meaning the
                      government shall not force a particular religion upon
                      the people. Don't know if that was the intent or not.
                   \_ There's also a lot of case law and precedant flowing from
                      that.  It has been extended (by "activist judges") to
                      include all lower levels of government too.
                \_ Religious ceremonies are just that.  Ceremonial.  They
                   already do not carry any legal weight.  That's why you need
                   to go to city hall first and get a marriage license, etc.
                   If the signed and witnessed document is not returned to
                   city hall later, you're not married.  You're single, right?
           \_ If a black man and a white girl can get married, why not have
              legal homosexual marriages?  Why limit yourself?
              \_ exactly. lets just allow everyone to do everything, sanction
                 and tax it. it feels good so do it!  think of the children!
                 it takes a village.  did I miss any?
              \_ why limit ourselves to homosexual marriages.  let's have
                 polygamous marriages.
                 \_ If you want to submit yourself to a denigrating
                    relationship or position of inferior  humanity, knock
                    yourself out.  Just don't expect society to pass a law
                    recognizing the legitimacy of such a relationship.
                    \_ How is it inferior?  Society?  So if society rejects
                       homosexuality, you will accept that?
                       \_ On the contrary: homosexual monogamy is about a
                          relationship between two equal partners. Polygamy,
                          by its very nature, begins to imply a hiearchy:
                          first wife over second wife, etc., with each
                          additional member of the overrepresented gender
                          adding to the overall importance of the under-
                          represented gender.
                          \_ On the contrary, homosexuality throughout history
                             has always been about unequal partners.  Roman
                             men and their males slaves.  Greek men and boys.
                             Prison daddies and their "wives".
                             \_ Contrast that with modern homosexual relation-
                                ships, wherein both partners are considered
                                \_ Similarly, polygamous relationships can
                                   work in modern societies, where people
                                   come together under their own free will.
                                   \_ ...the weird thing (from my POV) is
                                      that I find myself thinking that you're
                                      right.  My objections are based on bad
                                      examples in the past, not mature, modern
                                      relationships. That, and it gives me the
                 \_ Then you get stuff like one person extending their health
                    care to a dozen people.
                    \_ yes and why is that any different than one person
                       extending to only one person?  why extend at all?  why
                       not allow one to extend to 12, 50, 5000 if they're in
                       \_ you're an idiot.
                       \_ You can be in love with 5,000 people, but it's unfair
                          to require employers, the gov't, etc to provide
                          spousal benefits to an arbitrarily large # of people.
                          \_ The current laws and policies are based on the
                             presumption that marriages are union between a
                             man and a woman.  I am sure there are ways
                             to change it so that it caters well to a
                             society with polygamous marriages, or for
                             that matter, gay marriages.  History is full
                             of polygamous societies with code of laws.
                             \_ All of which are/were based on the superiority
                                one gender over another. Disagree? Prove me
                                wrong: find me one (1) polygamous society,
                                historical or modern, in which one gender was
                                not considered less valuable than the other.
                                \_ This doesn't prove anything.  Historically,
                                   even in monogamous societies, one gender
                                   is considered less valuable than the other.
                                   Find me one society in history where
                                   homosexuality is prevalent (eg. Rome,
                                   Ancient Greece) where the relationship is
                                   not often unequal (Roman with male slave,
                                   Greek with slave boy, etc.).
                                   \_ Point being that you're the one arguing
                                      for historical justification of polygamy
                                      whereas I'm not arguing for historical
                                      justification of homosexual marriage.
                                      \_ Incorrect.  I was arguing against
                                         using a small difficulty in the
                                         current benefits system as argument
                                         against polygamy.
                    \_ Yes, but at least the Bible supports this relationship.
                       \_ Using religious texts as the basis for civil laws...
                          what a great idea.  Call me when we're stoning the
                          \_ umm. see the US Constitution, Decl. of Independen
                       \_ it does? where??
                          \_ How many wives did Solomon have?
                             \_ yea, but Solomon sinned against God when
                                his many wives led him to worship many idols.
                                \_ Look Moses, David, Abraham, Jacob, Caleb,
                                   Gideon and Solomon were all polygamous.
                                   You can try and claim the bible is against
                                   polygamy, but you are full of it.
                                   \_ yes, the bible is full of sinners
                                    but that is the point..
                                    \_ Thanks for erasing the line from
                                       Exodus that specifically states
                                       that a man may have more than one
                                       wife. In any case, the bible quite
                                       specifically, in more than one place,
                                       allows polygamy:
                                       \_ the one that says  man "can"
                                        , David can also send Uriah to his
                                        death, I can also murder tons of
                                        people, but that doesn't mean
                                        it's not a sin just cuz it's in
                                        the bible. "can" != "may"
                                        \_ How about when your brother dies
                                           and you are commanded to marry
                                           his wife, regardless of whether
                                           you are married or not. Is that
                                           a sin, too?
                   \_ The bible does not prohibit polygamy.  However, the
                      bible also does not "support [polygamy]".
                      The bible instructs the husband to love his wife as
                      he loves himself.  Also the bible says that elders,
                      deacons and overseers (people in leadership positions
                      in the church) must be "the husband of but one wife".
           \_ Nah, we just want gay marriage, not polygamy.  After all,
              interracial marriage is allowed, right?
        \_ how do people turn what was normal then to not normal now? Back then
           it wAs normal to have a polygamy; it was normal to marry cousins; it
           was normal to get married at age 15...
           \_ it was only 'normal' for those able to afford it which was only
              the upper reaches of society.  it is no different today.  we
              still have mistresses/concubines, etc.
                \_ what I really mean is that people actually think it is weird
                   disgusting. When I saw on talk shows that people saying it's
                   sick to marry cousins, I was shocked because I don't have
                   that disgusted feeling seeing cousin couples.  Especially
                   when one realizes there were many cousin marriages in the
                   US history. To see the society get brainwashed to actually
                   feel cousin marriages are disgusting is amazing.  At this
                   point, I'm sure there are many people find polygamy
                   \_ Cousin marriages are not, in and of themselves,
                      disgusting.  They do, however, entail a significantly
                      higher chance of producing offspring with rare
                      recessive disorders.  Common taboos against cousin
                      marriages are the product of the very first attempts at
                      eugenics by the Roman Catholic Church.  Now, if you
                      _want_ to inflict bizarre genetic conditions on your
                      offspring, one could very well argue that you're
                      engaging in prenatal child abuse and do not deserve to
                      have custody of your children.
                      \_ This is not true. I don't have time today to
                         google for this, but your genetics is wrong.
                         Do you have any source for this? -bio major
                         \_ What, apart from Punnett squares?
                            \_ (USA Today)
                               \_ "A 7 to 8% chance (of genetic disorder) is
                                  50% greater than a 5% chance," says Philip
                                  Reilly, geneticist and author of Abraham
                                  Lincoln's DNA, a popular history of human
                                  genetics. "That's a significant difference.
                                  People counseling first cousins who want
                                  to marry need to be very careful and clear
                                  on this," Reilly says.
                                  \_ There's a much greater chance of
                                     genetic disorder in children born to
                                     women over 35, and especially over 40.
                                     \_ Women who have children after the
                                        age of 35 should be throw in jail
                                        for child abuse!
                                  \_ That is for first cousins. For second
                                     cousins, the effect is negligible.
                      \_ It depends what you mean by "significantly". The
                         effect is probably only noticeable in aggregate, when
                         cousin marriage is widespread for generations. There
                         are various arguments to be made against cousin
                         marriage. But the genetic aspect is probably not that
                         significant, apart from e.g. "double cousins" or known
                         family problems, especially when there are a lot of
                         other factors that society disregards such as older
                         women having children (increases % of problems) and
                         other analysis one could apply to particular couples.
                         \_ yea, we chinese practised cousin marriage for
                            quite a while, and we are only just slightly
                            \_ well, a) even after inbreeding, it doesn't
                               take much "outbreeding" to bounce back. b) maybe
                               people were stupider or weaker than they would
                               have been? how do you know? c) The average
                               Chinese and Indians in USA are smarter than the
                               average slobs back in the home country.
                               \_ don't be too sure. these days, among those
                                  with a choice, the smart ones stay home
                                  cause that's where the exciting opportuni-
                                  ties are.
                                  \_ that's irrelevant to the averages. the
                                     ones that came here are mostly on the
                                     smarter side so their average is higher.
           \_ In feudal Japan, it was uncommon for commoners to get married at
              all.  They practiced a kind of common law marriage.
              \_ Most of the world still practices a kind of common law
                 marriage.  -tom
                 \_ I made that up.  -tom
2004/3/15 [Uncategorized] UID:12671 Activity:nil
3/1     I love this site:
        Remind you of anyone?
        \_ That site is nice, and has come up on the motd more than once.
           However, it doesn't really have categories necessary for the
           motd - Mormon Freeper Trigger Finger Man, for instance, or
           ChinaTroll, or even ilyas, psb, and tom who should have categories
           all their own (i.e. The Ilyas, The Psb, The Tom).
2004/3/15 [Recreation/Shopping] UID:12672 Activity:nil
3/15    Simple question, why wear socks?
        \_ Smelly feet?
        \_ Protect feet from any irregularities in the shoe causing calluses.
           Wick moisture away from the foot.  Provide warmth.  Not look like a
        \_ It's easier to wash socks than shoes.
        \_ Why wash?  Why wear anything?  Why not spit on people as you walk
           by?  Why not poke everyone with a knife?
2004/3/15 [Uncategorized] UID:12673 Activity:nil
3/15    Good.  Use your aggressive feelings, sodans.  Let the hate flow
        through you.
2004/3/15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12674 Activity:nil
3/15    You may be a bigger part of the Bush/Cheney endless oil grabbing wars
        of the future then you think -- government might be setting up to
        draft "computer experts" and other skilled draftees in the future.
        Guess what, h0zer -- that means you!
        \_ as long as we are paid..
           \_ Military salaries suck ass.  Veterans benefits make military
              salaries look great.
        \_ Yeah wow that would suck if you had to serve your country!
2004/3/15 [Uncategorized] UID:12675 Activity:nil
3/15    If you're a Roman dictator, watch your back.
        \_ He is a dreamer; let us leave him. Pass.
2004/3/15 [Uncategorized] UID:12676 Activity:nil
3/15    Joseph Smith was called a prophet, dum dum dum dum dum...
        \_ But then the motd had a flame war, smart smart smart smart smart.
2004/3/15 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:12677 Activity:nil
3/15    Your morning dose of inanity as brought to you by the Mouthpiece:
        "Terrorists are indiscriminate (as to) who they attack. They want to
         spread fear and chaos," McClellan said."
        \_ heh, so terrorists really want to spread joy and happiness to
           specific targets?
           \_ "I do not like to be beaten about the head and shoulders."
              "You would prefer being beaten on the feet and knees?"
              Your syllogistic logic has no affect on the inanity of the
              \_ You think that quote is stupid?  Check out the right-wing
                 editorializing (all over the place, obUseGoogle) that the
                 victory of Spain's opposition party is a victory for the
                 terrorists.  Even tho, ya know, the ruling party was the one
                 that backed Bush against 90% of the public and then tried to
                 blame the terrorist attack on ETA without any evidence.
                 Democracy is only good when they agree with us.
                 \_ Hmm, PP is way ahead in polls.  Bombs go off.  PP loses.
                    Yep!  It's a loss for the terrorists!
2004/3/15-16 [Consumer/CellPhone] UID:12678 Activity:kinda low
3/15    I have Verizon and have been pretty happy with the service till
        recently. I no longer have signal in my apartment, and I've verified
        this with other Verizon customers in the apartment. I called
        them up to fix up the cell/repeater but they said they don't have
        any problem in my area. What to do now?
        \_ Take your number and run, boy.
        \_ What phone do you have?  Has there been construction nearby?
                \_ I have T720. I verified this with other Verizon Wireless
                   customers using other phone and they have the same
                   \_ OK, that phone's tri-mode, so that's not the problem.
                      Have you updated the prefered roaming list lately?  To do
                      that, go somewhere with a strong digital signal and dial
                      *228 and follow the voice prompts to "Update your PRL".
                      Your phone should reboot when it's done.  See if that
                      improves your signal.
                Ooops I mean I have T720i. Not sure what the "i" means but
                it must be something significant. Anyways I did update it
                while talking to the cust rep and she said try that fro a few
                days, and if still no luck I can change the phone for free.
                But I seriously doubt it's the phone becuase I can use it
                pretty much anywhere, AND I've confirmed with other Verizon
                customers in the same building that they don't have service.
                So... now sure what to do next.
                \_ The T720i?  On Verizon?  That's a GSM phone.  If you have a
                   GSM phone with Verizon it would go to roam all the time.  If
                   you actually have a CDMA phone and your reception got a lot
                   worse recently, I'd blame either a new building between you
                   and the cell site.  Or else a bunch of new Verizon customers
                   in your neighborhood are causing the cell site to 'breathe'.
2004/3/15-16 [Computer/Networking] UID:12679 Activity:nil
3/15    Apparently the firware in my netgear MA401RA pcmcia card has
        broken WEP support. Any recommendations for an 802.11b
        card that fully works with linux? Any of the 3com Xjack ones?
        \_ I'm not sure if there's a difference but the MA401 is prism2
           based, here, setup info
           prism2/2.5/3 firmwares listed at
           failing that, I'm using a USR2410 (also prism2 based).  Any
           prism2 or orinoco should work just fine. (rebadged dells, etc)
           \_ some versions of the prism2 firmware look to be broken.
                \_ hence the link to the collection of firmwares.
                   1.07.01 for me. (secondary, 0.3.0 or something like that
                   for primary) -dwc
        "Stano Meduna wrote a patch to add driver based WEP encryption to
        the Orinoco driver to support properly broken PrismII firmwares."
2004/3/15-16 [Uncategorized] UID:12680 Activity:nil
3/15    Anybody heard anything about the Regents buidling a new UC campus in
        \_ You don't mean UC Merced, do you?
2004/3/15-16 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:12681 Activity:nil
3/15    How does one access the motd archive?
        \_ search the archives to find out.
        \_ less ~mehlhaff/tmp/motd,v.  Use '/' to search for phrases.  If
           you have too much time, man co.
        \_ someone (marco?) wrote a program to scroll through the motd
           history.  Anyone remember? -EricM
           \_ ~marco/bin/motdbrowse ?
           \_ i use ~mjm/bin/motdbrowse -!mjm
              \_ note that the RE search feature is broken. -mjm
           \_ We should put these scripts in /csua/bin :)
        \_ a fully seacheable, indexed (categorized), and archived motd will
           be available in the next week or so. Thanks to those who
           QAed it for me in the past few weeks.
           \_ I'll see your vaporware and raise you a phantom terabyte RAID
              \_ tb raid is only 8 drives.  its not that big a deal.
2004/3/15-16 [Computer/Networking] UID:12682 Activity:low
3/15    arab phrase and its english translation useful in iraq:
        \_ What's the joke?
           \_ there's an image on the page, doesn't work for lynx
              \_ it didn't work for me either, and i'm using adelphia cable
                 \_ is this the old "doesn't work cable modem" joke?
2004/3/15-16 [Reference/Tax] UID:12683 Activity:nil
3/15    Turbo Tax or Tax Cut?  Now that turbotax does not include copy
        protection this year, is anyone switching back to turbo tax?
        \_ Yeah, I'm using TurboTax, and I used it for the last 4 years too.
           But geez, Norton AntiVirus added product activation, and they
           also charge $19.95/year per computer for virus updates.
           \_ their stuff doesn't work. still get hit by viruses that
            other shareware can easily find and remove
        \_ TT.  TC was crap last year.
           \_ I fully agree. I ended up having to buy TT after finding that TC
              had no capability to handle my situation.
2004/3/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan] UID:12684 Activity:nil
3/15    I don't know if this is old news or what, but I found this exhibit
        about Perry's visit to Japan very interesting.
2004/3/15-16 [Uncategorized] UID:12685 Activity:nil
3/15    all i can say is , bend over Spain.. bend over..
        \_ must be tough to communicate when you have that problem.
           do you just resort to writing? i imagine it sometimes
           slips out though, in emotional circumstances.  --NERFAMC
           \_ huh?  is this motdedit munging things again?
                  \_ You are humor impaired.  Train harder.
2004/3/15-16 [Reference/Religion] UID:12686 Activity:very high
3/15    Who would win in a fight: Joseph Smith or Moses?
        \_ Does Joseph Smith get to drive da Bears Bus?  -John
        \_ Young, part the Red Sea Moses or old, after 40 years
           in the wilderness Moses?
           \_ As long as he keeps his arms up, Moses wins at any age.
        \_ Jacob, who wrestled God and won.
        \_ Depends on the type of fight.  1. Miracle Fight.  A bit silly
           since they are both servents of God with miracles under their
           belts, but... I give this one to Moses.  More consistently
        \_ Depends on the type of fight.  1. Miricle Fight.  A bit silly
           since they are both servents of God with miricles under their
           belts, but... I give this one to Moses.  More consistantly
           big miricles.  2. Unarmed combat.  JS was famous for being
           big miracles.  2. Unarmed combat.  JS was famous for being
           extremely strong and an excellent wrestler.  Moses was a
           prince.  Point to JS.  3. Sword combat.  Probably Moses, he
           was a prince of Egypt and probably studied sword/knife
           fighting.  (Or whatever was common then)  4. Modern armed
           combat.  JS.  Moses had no experience with guns... -jrleek
           extremely strong and an excellent wrestler.  Moses was a
           prince.  Point to JS.  3. Sword combat.  Probably Moses, he
           was a prince of Egypt and probably studied sword/knife
           fighting.  (Or whatever was common then)  4. Modern armed
           combat.  JS.  Moses had no experiance with guns... -jrleek
           \_ Can you try spelling a little more poorly?
              \_ oKe, butt I don' tknoe why.
           \_ wrestling was a popular sport among ancient peoples.  Moses
              takes all of them except the modern gun combat.  give him a
              sling instead and we'll see.
              \_ maybe Moses could win in modern gun combat too:
        \_ haven't you seen the Super Best Friends episode of South Park?
2004/3/15-16 [Computer/SW/Languages/Java] UID:12687 Activity:nil
3/15    ***YAWN*** can someone please post an interesting/mind boggling
        c/java trivia? Like if "I have class A {int x; } class B extends {...}
        what is the expected behaviour?" Something short but interesting
        for discussion.
        \_ Implement the factorial function without iteration or named
           functions (using lambdas is ok).  Dave, you aren't allowed to
           answer this one.  Any language is allowed.  For bonus points,
           do it in a language which infers types for you.  -- ilyas
        \_ if you're bored, go read the comp.lang.c FAQ
  or the Java IAQ
2004/3/15-16 [Health] UID:12688 Activity:kinda low
3/15    Where can I look to find information on what happens when medicine
        (prescription and otc) expires?  Something like erowid but for legal
        drugs.  I'm curious as to what I'm actually doing when I take old
        tylenol or spread anti-itch ointment on my skin- what's the
        effective half-life of the drug, what's the worstcase scenario, etc
        \_ idiot, throw them out.
           \_ He might be unemployed and wants to save money.
2004/3/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:12689 Activity:nil
3/15    Computer specialists will be drafted first:
        \_ old news and what's wrong with serving your country again?
2004/3/15-16 [Computer/SW/Unix] UID:12690 Activity:low
3/15    I seem to remember tcsh saying "You have new mail" when I first logged
        in, but I don't get that anymore.  How do I re-enable this?
        \- mail variable --mr. tcsh
           \_ I have tcsh, set my $mail and $MAIL, and have biff y, but it
              still doesn't work.
              \_ do you have new mail?
                 \_ I sent myself new mail, no-go.  Works on another machine
                    with the same dot files (paths adjusted of course) ...
                 \_ I sent myself new mail, no-go.  Doh, it stopped working
                    on my OpenBSD machine too after I changed my dot files.
                    I must've screwed something up.
        \_ one way is in .login you can add the command 'nfrm'
        \_ Every time i log in it says "You have no life."
        \_ You've got mail! </AOL guy voice>
2004/3/15-16 [Academia/UCLA] UID:12691 Activity:low
3/15    is it possible to unregister a domain name? a friend of mine has been
        threatened legal action by UCLA and wants to drop all association w/
        a website he registered a few months back.
        \- sell it on ebay. --psb
           \_ he's trying to minimize complications... and no, it is not
                cadaver related.
        \_ so umm, why doesn't he just contact his registrar? they can disable
           his domain, if not delete it outright.
        \_ as long as he doesn't post any unlawful material on that
           website, ucla has no grounds to sue him on. even if he owns
           \_ Wrong.  UCLA can sue, and win, for trademark infractions.
              <DEAD><DEAD> probably would be safe, but
              universityofcalifornialosangeles wouldn't be.
              \_ fucla seems to have lost.
           \_ I am no legal expert but my understanding is that not matter
              how groundless a law suit it is, you must respond to it unless
              the court refuse even to accept it (very unlikely).  Once a suit
              is filed against you, you have to respond it by yourself or thru
              legal counsel in acordance with the legal practice, i.e. you can
              not just say they are morons they have got no legal basis.  So no
              matter how frivilous a law suit is, it can cost you thousands of
              dollars.  If in the end you win, you might get your legal expense
              covered if you are lucky, but that is 2 big IFs.
              \_ are you trying to say that UCLA can do whatever the fuck it
                 wants to because it has more money and lawyers than us plebes?
                 surely this can't be allowed to continue in a democracy!
                 \_ i know youre being sarcastic but youre also wrong.  we have
                    laws against SLAPP suits from big corps and other mega
                    entities such as UCLA.  op needs to find someone willing to
                    take his SLAPP suit on a contingency basis and counter sue.
                    UCLA is unlikely to go to court over a domain name if they
                    have something on the line in a SLAPP suit and will most
                    likely settle and go away.
                    \_ Even for SLAPP suits, you need to find a lawyer or
                       defend it competently yourself.  That is = money + time
                       + anxiety = $$$.  You might get compensated afterward
                       IF your defense is competent.
        \_ Transfer it to me, I'll take it.  (what is it?) -crebbs
2004/3/15-16 [Computer/SW/Languages/Misc] UID:12692 Activity:very high
3/15    Any Sodans who is Mogolian?  I am a bit curious on how you deal
        with the fact that Mogolians can only be written vertically.  Is there
        any software such as browser that has vertical layout?
        \_ You're forgetting one very important aspect of Mongolian history:
           Russian imperialism.  They use a cyrillic phonetic system now,
           which is what they've adopted for the web.  For example:
           \_ I am fully aware of Russian imperialism.  90% of Mongolians
              speak Russian.
           ".mn" is their domain extension.  Also, there is a LaTeX font
           package for mongolian that handles the vertical script:
           \_ cool... but that is not what I am looking for.  I am wondering
              about how their browser works :p
              \_ yes, and that was answered with the above link to a .mn
                 website.  They use the cyrillic alphabet for web stuff.
           ".mn" is their domain extension.  Isn't it amazing what 30 seconds
           with google will do?
        \_ do you perhaps mean "Mongolian"?
           \_ no, Mogolian... lives out with the Moguls.
              \_ then wouldn't it be "Mogulian"?
              \_ Aren't the two related?
              \_ then wouldn't it be "Mogulian"?
              \_ Aren't the two related?
                 \_ Do they read the Klingon Book of Mormon?
        \_ ok, Mongolian.  Does anyone knows how computer deal with
           writing which can only be written vertically?
           \_ I am having a hard time visualizing any writing system which
              _requires_ vertical writing.  What if Mongolian is written
              horizontally?  Will Mongolians suddenly cease to understand it?
                -- ilyas
              \_ Mongolians are similiar to Arabic in a way which all letters
                 are connected, and depend upon the position of the letter
                 relative to its word, the glyph may be different.  It is
                 less convinient than traditional Chinese or Koreans to
                 change its orientation.  I just thought this would be a
                 very interesting computer science problem to solve this kind
                 of writing system.  Besides Mongolians, Manchurians (which
                 is heavily influenced by Mongolians) are the only script I
                 know that is written exclusively in vertical form.
                 know that is written exclusively in vertical form.
                 \_ Would it be analogous to trying to write calligraphy
                    vertically? People below don't seem to get what you are
                 \_ what's the problem? if they have arabic fonts then you
                    can easily do mongolian. if nothing else you could
                    flip the display sideways. in English you can still read
                    something if you flip it sideways, it's just harder.
                    \_ w p n t t s i b
                       h r o o r i f e
                       a o t   y d   t
                       t b   r   e i t
                         l a e f w t e
                       i e   a l a   r
                       s m b d i y l
                         ? i   p s o
                       t   g l p   o
                       h i   i i a k
                       e t d k n n s
                         ' e e g d
                         s a       e
                           l t m s v
                             h e e e
                             i   e n
                        \_ Enter the Matrix!
                        \_ this is why you guys don't work in Usability
                           \_ it's a cultural thing.  A lot of old Chinese
                              text which contains English are written this
                              is way, and it's matter of getting used to it.
                        \_ except mongolians alphabets are all connected.
                        \_ ugh! I meant to show that it's difficult
                           to read vertical english.  the words are
                           tongue in cheek, but it seems that people
                           think it's easy to read the vertical
                           text above.
                           \_ For viewing, flipping is ok, but what about
                              when you are entering text?  Doing it sideways
                              would be a big pain.  I don't think that's acceptable.
                        \_ sigh. Don't you get it? I was referring to English
                           turned on its side. In your example, the letters are
                           l t m s v
                             h e e e
                             i   e n
                        \_ Enter the Matrix!
                           still horizontal but you placed them vertically.
                           the brain recognizes word shapes, which your example
                           destroys, but which is preserved when rotated. Now
                           imagine a font that creates sideways Mongolian.
                           \_ For viewing, flipping is ok, but what about when
                              you are entering text?  Doing it sideways would
                              be a big pain.  I don't think that's acceptable.
                              what's  needed is like a word processor that goes
                              verticle line by verticle line.
                              \_ What I'm saying is that if you for example
                                 made the font as I described, and just set
                                 your monitor on the side, it seems like that
                                 would give you most of what you want in Word.
                                 In fact all of Windows could be flipped and
                                 the titlebars etc. would make sense. It may
                                 not be easy in current programs, but concep-
                                 tually I don't see any real problem.
                \_ Chinese used to be written almost exclusively vertically
                   until the last century.  There is no problem reading Chinese
                   aligned in any orientation, so it's just a matter of habit.
                   \_ that's because chinese is different.  It doesn't use an
                      alphabet, and words are not composed of letters.
                      Instead each "word" is always a square shape.
                      So it feels more like what's below except it's even
                       \_ sigh.

You have new mail.

You have new spam.
                         what      a       this.     see
                         is        big     try       if
                         the       deal    flipping  it
                         problem?  to      me        looks
                         it's      read    sideways  even
                         not       like    and       better.
                      better in that each word is always a square (maybe
                      like each word is always 5 letters).  Also,
                      "pictographic" (don't know the more accurate
                      term) writings tend to be easier to read.  One
                      can scan it really fast.  In practice, I think there is
                      no difference in terms of reading speed for chinese
                      between vertical and horizontal.
                         what      a       this.     see
                         is        big     try       if
                         the       deal    flipping  it
                         problem?  to      me        looks
                         it's      read    sideways  even
                         not       like    and       better.
                 \_ It be analogous to trying to write calligraphy
                    vertically? People below don't seem to get what you are
                    \_ imagine hand writing English (script form) which each
                       letters in a word are connected... try to write *THAT*
                       in a vertical form, you would get some idea what is
                       the problem... this analogy doesn't reflect the true
                       difficulty in Mongolian, as English alphabets' shape
                       does not change relative to the position of the word
                       and vows.
2004/3/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:12693 Activity:nil
3/15    The Sinking Lifeboat: Uncontrolled Immigration and the
        U.S. Healthcare System
        \_ racist.  no need to read link. freeper = racist.
           \_ you are a left wing liberal commie traitor sodomist whatever
2004/3/15 [Uncategorized] UID:29869 Activity:nil
3/14    I support chews for cheeses.  Also, the establishment of a religion
        for the promotion of the Jamaican dialect called "More mons".
2004/3/15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:29870 Activity:nil
3/14    1971: Kerry negotiates with Viet Cong for US surrender...
        from the Congressional Record
        \_ Think about how many more US lives we could have saved if
           we'd pulled out four years earlier.
                \_ Tell that to South Vietnam, which was free for 2 years,
                   and the millions of Cambodians slaughtered by Communists.
                   \_ Cambodians?  Cambodians were mostly slaughtered
                      by the Khmer Rouge, which the Vietnamese overthrew
                      not long after South Vietnam was no more.
                        \_ Khmer Rouge were formally known as the
                           Communist Party of Kampuchea.  Saloth Sar and
                           his coterie established their Marxist
                           credentials in Paris and Eastern Europe.
                           North Vietnamese were Communists aligned with
                           the Soviets.
        \_ all patriots need to read the following masterpiece by a blonde hot
           kinky conservative knockout and you will get a hard on exposing
           the true faces of liberals around you --
           \_ Just out of curiousity, does anyone think Ann Coulter is
              anything but psychotic? "Liberals relentlessly oppose the
              military, the Pledge of Allegiance, the flag, and national
              defense..."  Does anyone truly believe any single portion
              of this sentence? -scotsman
           \_ w00t!
2019/01/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:March:15 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>