Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:June:06 Sunday <Saturday, Monday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2004/6/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30633 Activity:very high
6/5     Reagan was right about almost everything.
        \_ "Thanks to the peace dividend of the post-Cold War world, and the
            free market expansion that Ronald Reagan initiated, America is now
            enjoying record surpluses."
            \_ ob you mean clinton's surplus
               \_ "The era of big government is over."  Your boy Clinton was
                  smart enough to realize that he better start parroting
                  Reagan to stay popular, political affiliations be damned.
                  \_ You make a far better case saying, "Because Reagan won
                     the Cold War, Clinton could reduce defense spending".
                     What do you think?
                     If you're going to credit Reagan / the Republicans for
                     Clinton's budget surplus, you might as well credit
                     Kerry / the Democrats for trying to get Bush bringing
                     the UN back into Iraq, and a still-functioning
                     safety net in the U.S.
                     \_ ... Wow.
        \_ 28% tax for the filthy rich instead of 70% is good? Bull. Lets
           get it back to the Carter era and maybe the rich oil/construction
           bastards could pay back what they stole from us.
           \_ What makes someone filthy rich?  At what point have you decided
              someone is making *too* much money and should not be allowed to
              have any more?  And where should that money go, exactly?  To
              people who have done nothing to improve their lot in life or
              society as a whole?  Taking money from one person to buy votes
              from another is not what democracy or this country was supposed
              to be about.  If you don't like what you're paying for oil or
              building materials, go off grid, sell power back to the rest of
              us and build your own house somewhere.  Others have done it.  I
              don't want to pay 70% taxes because you're unwilling to live up
              to the demands of your own philosophy.
              \_ Filthy rich: making money off of the misery of other human
                 beings; squeezing out more profit by slashing workers'
                 healthcare and human dignity; indulging in immoral business
                 practices but using your enormous profits to buy votes for
                 legislation to keep those practices legal.
                 \_ So where's the legal distinction between "filthy rich" and
                    someone who's just rich?  Do you believe that all people
                    who have a lot of money are evil and opportunistic and
                    should have that money taken away from them?  Or would
                    you pass tax laws for the rich based on some subjective
                    criteria of their individual merits?  How much money
                    constitutes "rich"?  What about evil opportunistic middle
                    class people who indulge in immoral business practices?
                    Do you believe it's wrong to have a lot of money,
                    however it was acquired?  I really appreciate your well
                    thought-through, differentiated political views.  -John
                    \_ Actually, John, I'm not for new laws, just the equal
                       and fair enforcement of existing labor and business
                       laws and the elimination of the numerous tax-shelters
                       and dodges that allow unscrupulous corporations to
                       avoid paying taxes and fines on crimes committed.
                       \_ This is fair enough, but your original phrasing left
                          a lot to be desired.  I am personally envious of
                          people who inherited a lot of money or have it for
                          whatever reason (no judgment about whether or not
                          they deserve it) and feel that yes, they should
                          pay more taxes than joe sixpack, but that's a far
                          cry from punitive wealth taxes (a la Swedish
                          attempts at wealth redistribution.)  -John
                       \_ That's the only question of John's you answered?  Wow.
                          \_ Well, I thought the rest of the questions
                             hinged on the assumption that I wanted new
                             laws to punish the filthy rich; since I dispelled
                             that misapprehension, it seemed pretty clear to
                             me that I didn't need to actually come out and
                             say that I have no problem with people making
                             all the money they want through fair, legal, and
                             ethical business practices.
                             \_ Except ... will you introduce a 70% tax for
                                'the rich' or 'the filthy rich?'  Reagan
                                repealed it for all the wealthy Americans,
                                while are you bitching about the criminal

        [Freeper link deleted because you are an ass who uses ip addresses
         to hide the freepness of it all]
         \_ You would've deleted it anyway.  Freeperboy only tries to hide
            his links because you always deleted them instantly when he was
            not trying to hide them.  I think the freepers are a bunch of
            idiots no different than the leftist echo chamber on soda but
            you can't hold it against him for trying to hide his links when
            being honest only got him purged (probably by you) that much
            faster.  If you left his links alone and just did the mature
            thing (ignore them), then he would post a link every other day or
            so, get no replies and eventually just go away.  You only make it
            worse by highlighting his posts through endless post/restore wars.
            You give power to something by trying to silence it.  You should
            know that long before now.
                --conservative but not a member of the freeper echo chamber
                \_ Somebody else might have deleted it, but I would have
                   let it stay.  -op
            \_ If a freeper link added any value to the link it points to,
               I could understand keeping it around.  As it stands, there's
               no reason (apart from freeper vitriol) not to simply post a
               direct link to a credible news source.  I'd feel the same way
               if someone started posting fark links.
        \_ free economy-- rich gets richer and poor gets poorer. I support
           the 70% tax.
           \_ Die communist scum die.
2004/6/6 [Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:30634 Activity:very high
6/5     Related to the British auto mechanic post last week where Brits
        call their machines as "her"... is our country feminim or masculin?
        The Germans refer to their country as Vaterland, and the Russians
        refer to their country as Mother Russia. What is USA referred to as?
        \_ The only Chermans I've heard refer to their country as "Vaterland"
           had shaved heads and combat boots.  Never heard a Russian mention
           "Mother Russia" or Rodina (sp?) either.  What a stupid idea.  And
           the UK drivers I know wouldn't be caught dead (those rare times
           when they're sober) talking about "her".  Cheers, mate.  AFAIK
           the US just has Uncle Sam, but that doesn't count. -John
        \_ I don't think the U.S. tends to get assigned a gender as often,
           probably because English grammar doesn't require one to use
           gender as often.  What gender does China get, ta, ta or ta?
           \_ The US personification is male.
              \_ ...except in the lyrics to "God Bless America"
                 \_ He is talking about Uncle Sam you imbecile.
                    \_ In this case, you are the imbecile. Obviously Uncle Sam
                       is male and nobody needs to be told that. The point is
                       that there is more imagery than Uncle Sam. This is a
                       political cartoon figure. England has John Bull and
2004/6/6 [Computer/SW/Languages/C_Cplusplus, Computer/SW/Compilers] UID:30635 Activity:nil
6/5     How does typedef get compiled into machine code?
        \_ what the hell are you talking about?  C?  It doesn't.  It's merely
           a type alias.  C compilers don't even do strict type-checking
           against typedefs; what makes you think it gets to the machine code
        \_ It doesn't get that far.  The answer to your question is closer
           to "How do ints, floats, structs, etc. get compiled into machine
2004/6/6-7 [Computer/SW/Security] UID:30636 Activity:very high
6/5     I got an unauthorized charge of $9.99 on my credit card from
        Privacy Guard. To my surprised the company does credit check
        for that exact same amount. Can someone tell me what's going on?
        Is my identity being stolen?
        \_ I think it's more likely you unwittingly signed up for some stupid
           service when you made some online purchase.
        \_ a response to my own post. Basically Chase called me in January
           and asked me if I wanted this service for free for 2 months.
           I said ok, but they never sent me any info on how to log in or
           use the service. Now that I got charged, they're telling me
           how I could log on and use the service.
           \_ Let us know if you manage to get them to reverse the charge.
              \_ they're not obligated to.  technically, op agreed to it.
                 failing to cancel is how they make money.
                 \_ Yes, true, and yet, in the interests of good customer
                    service, a lot of companies will reverse the charges if
                    you object to them.  I've had success with PacBell and
                    Blockbuster over implicit consent agreements.
2004/6/6 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30637 Activity:very high
6/5     Suppose Bush gets re-elected again (god forbid, I know, but let's
        just keep this as a hypothetical question) because of the other dumb
        states like Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida, etc etc.
        Is it actually possible for his 2nd term to extend to the third term
        because "we're at war"?
        \_ RTFC:
        \_ Oh ho!  So it's only ok if this happen's to Lucifer's democratic
           minions like FDR, eh?
           \_ FDR:  Died 1942.  22nd Amendment:  passed February 27, 1951.
              Bad troll, have a history book.  -John
              \_ FDR died April 12, 1945 in Warm Springs, Georgia.
                 But your point still holds.
        \_ No. Unless he gets the supreme court to do some favors for him.
           \_ You mean like the last presidential election?
2004/6/6-7 [Finance/Shopping, Finance/Investment] UID:30638 Activity:insanely high
6/5     70% tax unfair? My landlord inherited 21 tall rise buildings from
        his dad in Westwood. He does nothing except collecting $ and hiring
        other managers to take care of shit for him. There are plenty of
        apartments in Westwood but they're all overpriced because of the
        few elites who decide to artificially inflate the price. 70% tax
        unfair for the superwealthy people? My ass. The rich is getting
        richer and the poor is getting poorer, and that is a fact from
        having unrestrained capitalism.
        \_ Uhm, excuse me, sorry to interrupt your frothing, what what business
           is it of yours that he is the ceo and owner of his own little real
           estate empire?  What the hell have *you* done to deserve a lower
           rent or free access to this guy's or anyone else's wealth?  The rich
           are no richer than they ever were.  The poor are better off now in
           this country than they ever were in any country at any point in
           history.  If you don't want to make this guy even richer, then go
           invest in owning something, stop paying rent which was always a
           loser's game and take care of your own shit.  How many apartments
           have you or some other trashy renter destroyed because 'hey, it's
           only a rental, fuck the landlord anyway, eh'?  I'll bet you've left
           at least one apartment in much worse shape than you got it and then
           you bitched over every penny they took from your deposit to cover
           the damages.  Hey, I know, let's have super strict rent control. It
           has worked soooo well in SF and Berkeley to make housing affordable
           and available to the little people.  Not.
                \_ That's quite the rant.  Are you saying that markets are perfect
                   and that they never need adjustment?  That we should allow
                   the establishment of family fortunes that perpetuate a con-
                   centration of economic power into the hands of an ever-
                   wealthier elite?
                   \_ The Founders of this nation were in favor of *not*
                      allowing family fortunes to be broken up.  They believed
                      that passing family wealth to a single child was better
                      than splitting it among them and destroying through
                      division.  Modern families have been ignoring their
                      advice and splitting their wealth, thus in a few short
                      generations destroying it so I'm not at all concerned
                      about your Communism 120B Professor's propaganda about
                      "the establishment of family fortunes taht perpetuate a
                      concentration of economic power in the hands of an ever-
                      wealthier elite" because reality shows this to be
                      opposite to what you believe.  Nice way to ignore just
                      about everything I said, btw.  If you're just here to
                      be the new commie-troll, then congrats on your one
                      success.  If you actually believe this crap, then you
                      can respond with more than phrases from the Little Red
                      book and one line, no content blowoffs that the people
                      responding to you are just ranting.  I was talking about
                      rent control and the land lord/renter relationship and
                      all I got back was mindless off-topic propaganda.  The
                      least you could do is provide on-topic mindless
                      propaganda if you want your troll to survive more than
                      the next hour this time or 30 seconds next time.
                      \_ IMHO(I'm not the guy above) the rental problem is
                         partly the fault of assholes who do not participate
                         in the market and so destroy it for everyone else.
                         By this I mean perspective tenants with too much money
                         and too little brains who don't bother to respond to
                         price at all and break the rationality of the market.
                         Just because someone can afford 2500/mo rent doesn't
                         mean an apartment is really *worth* that, and they
                         should keep shopping and spend the money they save on
                         something else.  I do not propose any governement
                         based solution to this, but I believe that smashing
                         the Real Estate cartel would go a long way towards
                         fixing the problem.  Again, I'm not proposing a
                         government solution, just proposing that individuals
                         refuse to use realtors' services when there is
                         *any* alternative, and that people use the Internet
                         as much as possible to replace them.  This is already
                         happening.  I guess the one government based solution
                         I might propose would be adding a course in the public
                         schools that teaches about home ownership and home
                         buying.  It's fine to learn that stuff from your
                         parents if they happen to be responsible and own a home
                         but for the rest of us, learning in the real world
                         is a pain.
           \_ advice #1, take your anti-depressant pill.
              advice #2, get your facts straight:
              \_ *LAUGH*  Read your own links.  I stopped at the first after
                 it agreed with me about half way down page 1.  And here's the
                 key phrase from *your* link,
                 "Why such relatively fast income gains for the rich? In a
                 word: education, one of the biggest income determinants.
                 Workers with more education simply earn more."
                 Which tells us that the only thing holding people back is
                 their own unwillingness to get a better education.  Education
                 in this country is free or nearly so for the poor.  There's
                   \_ Only if you're smart.  Dumbasses like Bush have family
                      money, so they can go to increasingly expensive schools.
                      However, bright, but not genius, poor kids are getting
                      priced out.  And there are a lot of other disadvantages
                      to being born poor, such as crappy public schools which
                      neither prepare you for nor steer you toward good 4-year
                      degree programs.
                 no excuse to not have at least a 4 year degree, yet if you
                 keep digging deeper, you'll find (no big shock) that the bulk
                 of the poorest of the poor didn't graduate highschool.  Is
                 that the fault of the rich?  I'm sure you'll make some
                 argument to that effect.
        \_ So... you just want his money, because he has more than you?
           Got it.
           \_ Actually, what this guy is saying, is that since this rich
              guy already has all these assets, he has an advantage in
              sqeezing more money out of the rest of us.  It's like M$,
              market dominance leads to the ability to force people to pay
              what you want them to pay.  Taxation seems like a reasonable
              way to me to keep wealth from turning into hereditary
              aristocracies dominating all wealth in the US.
              \_ bingo. there's clearly a point at which wealth goes beyond
                 wealth. Billionaire empires would grow faster than the
                 general economy and more and more power gets concentrated
                 into the hands of a few. There's no injustice in putting
                 huge taxes on inheritances and incomes that are beyond the
                 pale. These are huge sums at just the tiniest top fraction
                 of people.
                 \_ So, I ask again, at what point do you put that 100% tax
                    rate?  How much is too much?  How much are we 'allowed' to
                    own in your little communist utopia?
                    \_ What 100%? I merely defend the principle of progressive
                       income tax, inheritance taxes, etc. Call it whatever
                       you want, I don't give a shit.
                       \_ We already have all that.  Now what?  It obviously
                          isn't having the desired effect for you.  When the
                          tax rates were even higher the rich were still, you
                          know, rich.  The only way to make the highly driven
                          and educated *not* be rich is a 100% tax.  All that
                          will do is drive them to another country with a
                          realistic tax rate that allows them to be rewarded
                          for being smarter than the rest of us.
                    \_ So it's either black or white with you?  Either we're
                       free market capitalists or we're pinko commies? Way to
                       use your noodle, dude.
                       \_ I answer this above.  When the tax rates were higher
                          than now the rich were still rich.  If you want them
                          to not be rich the only way is to have a 100% rate.
                          So, yes, I'm not only 'using my noodle' but I have
                          correctly applied it to the communist point and
                          spent the 2 seconds thought required to figure out
                          the necessary tax rate to achieve the desired effect.
           \_ well, no, but I really think I could have better use of money
              than him. For example I could have bought 3 hybrid cars instead
              of his stupid Hummer.
              \_ Not true; the tax credit for rich Hummer owners is far more
                 lucrative than anything you'll get in your battery rocket.
                 \_ I really don't understand how this tax shelter still survives.
              \_ I really think I could have better use of money than you.
                 Gimme all your money!
                 \_ I'll be glad to!  Just forward your bank account information
                    to my business partner in Nigeria and I'll hook you up.
         \_ They are priced fairly. If they were not, then they would go
                \_ ah, and if by raising the Bay Bridge toll to $10 and you
                   still get just as many bridge payers, then it is still
                   priced fairly? Some things are called inelastic supply and
                   and demand, my little cricket.
                   \_ Yes because there are other options to cross the bridge.
                      There is bart, car pooling, going around, or getting a
                      job that doesn't require bridge crossing.  If the bridge
                      toll went to $10 and the same number of people continued
                      to cross it then yes it is still priced fairly.  If
                      bridge use declines, as expected, but only slightly while
                      BART use goes up then yes it is still priced fairly.
                   \_ Housing isn't one of them. Move from Westwood and
                      rents will be cheaper. My gf lived in Westwood
                      because she liked it better than Mar Vista or Palms.
                      She paid more for the privilege. She could've lived
                      somewhere else cheaper.
                      \_ There is inelastic supply and elastic supply.
                         Over the long term, traffic patterns will definately change.
                         I already cringe the few times I have to cross the GGB.
                         I'd never go across it if they raised it to $10.  -rollee
                         \_ You would cross it at $50 if there was something
                            worth more than $50 to you at the other end.
           \_ Also if one or a few landlords own most of the land in an
              area, monopoly or oligopoly effects prevent fair prices.
              \_ This is not true in Westwood. If you think it is
                 overpriced then move to Santa Monica, Bel Air, Brentwood,
                 WeHo, Inglewood, or wherever you think rents are fair.
                 \_ Santa Monica is very very very expensive.
                    Bel Air is mostly houses owned by the rich, and they
                    hate students. Brentwood rarely rents out to students.
                    Marina Del Ray rent is like NYC rent. Actually, Westwood
                    is pretty cheap compared to these places I mentioned. Now,
                    Inglewood, that's a much more affordable place.
                    \_ Brentwood's not expensive if you know where to look.
                       Same with Santa Monica.  -- ilyas
                       \_ Isn't Santa Monica still under rent control? --rollee
                          \_ Don't know.  Santa Monica is like "Berkeley South"
                             in most respects. -- ilyas
                Do you have a car? Have you driven to Santa Monica, say, -/
                near the beach? Have you shopped around? Rent there is
                $100-$200 more than Westwood for studios and 1 bdrms.
                If SM were indeed cheaper, there would be more students
                living there, but the fact of the matter is that SM
                residents are mostly young fresh grad, 20-30 something. A
                better parallel is that SM is more like Emeryville.
                \_ So what you're saying is the Westwood rents are still quite
                   fair since they're cheaper than anything else around.
                   Thanks for clarifying.
        \_ As an aside, one good argument I've heard for high taxes is that
           money corrupts the democratic process.  So keeping people from
           amassing large amounts of wealth is important to provide each
           person an equal voice.  You may argue that the solution to the
           problem of money in government could be solved by anti-corruption
           laws, but history seems to show otherwise.  For example, look at
           all the corporations contributing hundreds of thousands of
           dollars to throw parties for politicians at the convention in
           Boston.  I think Kennedey has a party with a price tag > $100K
           paid for by companies with bills pending before his committee.
           \_ There will always be enough money around to corrupt politics.
              You can't fight human nature with tax laws.  Having a super high
              tax for the purpose of avoid political corruption by sucking the
              life out of people seems silly to me.  It's as if you're saying
              most rich people do nothing with their wealth but buy politicians
              which oh nevermind, it's just silly.
           \_ I respectfully disagree. The few elites know how to allocate
              wealth better than the poor. I'd rather have the rich people
              control money so that they can contribute to the Ghetty Museum,
              Metropolitan Opera, Gates Hall, Rockefeller Funding, Carneghie
              Scholarships, and things. If you had allocated the same amount
              of money to the poor, they'd squander it on alcohol, plasma TV
              and football fields.
              \_ yeah, but who'd build the plasma TV's, the football fields,
                 and the distillerys?
                 \_ You're all a bunch of fucking communists. Go find a time
                    machine and move to the Soviet Union.
        \_ Haven't you guys followed the stock market and financial news?
           Haven't you seen news about Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, LTCM bailout,
           Stern's market timing, etc.?  You don't think those are just
           the tip of the iceberg?  Wake up!  They are raping your arse,
           and you are saying "thank you!  it's lovely!  do it again!"
           And the idiots above are saying, "Hey! don't worry, some day
           you can get rich too and join us in screwing little people."
           \_ It's the great American hesitation:  wait, if I make it hard for
              rich people to screw the little guy, then how will I screw the
              little guy when I win the lottery?  Keep them hoping, and
              they'll do their best to stay out of trouble and maintain the
              status quo.
2004/6/6-7 [Computer/SW/Unix, Computer/SW/Security] UID:30639 Activity:moderate
6/5     I have no idea what changed, I may have accidently changed some
        option I can no longer find, or my friend's 2 year old may have
        hit some obscure key combo, but Now WinXP now logs me out every
        time the screen saver goes off. I only have 1 account on this
        machine, and there's no password. This is the epitome of a stupid,
        useless extersize.  Anyone know how to turn it off?
        \_ Right-click the desktop | Properties | Screen Saver | Password
        \_ Turn off the screen saver.
        \_ I don't think you get logged off, but you are probably screen
           locked.  The idle-logoff feature is a separate utility you have
           to install.
        \_ is it a normal screen saver?  The resource kit comes with a screen
           saver that logs you out automatically...
           \_ the log-off screen saver on the resource kit is a separate
              purchase. So I don't think he as the resource kit with his
2004/6/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30640 Activity:high 55%like:30630
6/5     Live free or die: how many more Carl Dregas?
        \_ Damn that article has a lot of hero worship for a man who murdered
           serveral people.
           \_ I don't think you're quite reading the author right.  I think
              there's a lot of hero worship _because_ he murdered several
              people (but they were all The Man).
              \_ Oh I am reading it right, I just find it scary how much
                 hero worship someone can have for a man who shot down
                 several people in cold blood.
        \_ What is this?  A radical libertarian site?
        \_ Yeah, how many more loonies are we going to get before we make a
           psych eval necessary to own a gun?
           \_ From my COLD, DEAD HANDS!!!
              \_ I want a t-shirt of this and an Iraqi grabbing an M-16 from
                 a dead soldier. Does this mean I hate America?
                 \_ No, but even a libuhral like me can see that you
                    just wrong.
                 \_ US soldier in foreign country != US civilian in US.  Does
                    this really have to be explained?  Why don't you make a
                    business out of printing up your t-shirt and selling it?
                    You'll probably sell a dozen or so.
2004/6/6-7 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany] UID:30641 Activity:very high
6/5     First Wave at Omaha Beach - a recounting by military historian
        S.L.A. Marshall from 1960. A vivid account of D-Day.  Also
        interesting to note that many of the German forces at Normandy
        were POWs (including some Korean) and that had two Panzer
        divisions inland been closer to shore the invasion would have been
        a complete failure.
        \_ ok, i have a stupid question for you military history buffs.  why
           was use of a shield abandonned in the gun era?  Couldn't the groups
           of men coming off the boats have used shields to make a kind of
           "tortoise shell" the way roman soldiers used to do?  obviously it
           woudln't be totally effective, and would hamper returning fire,
           but it seems that in that particular situation it would have made
           a big difference.
           \_ Uh, it's called a tank. You know, the weak ass Sherman tanks.
              \_ More importantly, there were supposed to be tanks right up
                 there in the front, and the soldiers were told to get behind
                 them.  But at Omaha, the tanks pretty much all sank.  There's
                 some show on the history channel about scuba diving down to
                 figure out why the tanks didn't make it, but I didn't catch
                 the conclusions.
                 \_ woah! the tanks are still there?
                 \_ I think that the gist of it was that the tanks were
                    outfitted with a canvass skirt thing to turn them into
                    makeshift boats, but because it was not tested in rough
                    seas, the design was flawed and when they tried using them
                    for real they all got swamped, the motors stalled, and they
                    \_ Here's where the might of the USA lies.  We can
                       afford such costly mistakes and roll on without
                       losing a beat.
                       \_ Heh.  The Soviet Union made much bigger mistakes
                          during WWII than some tanks sinking, but they
                          "rolled on without losing a beat" for quite some
                          time afterward due mostly to sheer numbers.
           \_ Bullets are *much* faster than spears and arrows.  For a shield
              of metal to stop a bullet, it either must be very thick or
              very sloped to deflect the bullet.  A highly sloped shield would
              have to be very large to cover a man, and so would be unwieldly
              to carry.  A thick shield would be far too heavy if it was of any
              decent size.
        \_ awsome site:
                \_ You know, I don't pity people like this, I just laugh
                   at them.  How pathetic.  -John
                \_ Heil! Long live und Vaterlande!
          \_ This is pretty good too, authentic SS recordings:
        \_ The Allied forces were expected far to the northeast, where the
           English channel was narrowest.  Instead, they landed at Normandy.
        \_ The whole "if the two SS panzer divisions had been closer" fact
           is why D-Day was an amazing military victory that we still
           celebrate, unlike say, the Palermo crossings into Italy, which
           were a turkey shoot. The 82nd and 101st's main job was to
           delay by a day or two the arrival of the Panzers on the beach
           front. They succeeded, but at casualty rates approaching 50%.
           Also, a massive disinformation campaign was mounted to
           convince the Germans we were going to land a Pas De Calais,
           which they bit on. So it was a pretty amazing victory all
           the way around.
        \_ Double agents misinformed Germans.  The misinformation campaign
           by the allies worked.  Some general didn't want to wake up
           Hitler either.  The german panzer reserves were only to be
           released by Hitler.
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:June:06 Sunday <Saturday, Monday>