Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:June:09 Wednesday <Tuesday, Thursday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2004/6/9 [Consumer/Camera] UID:30689 Activity:high
6/9     Photo Enthusiasts.  I'm looking for a camera mainly for outdoors
        shots.  Camping, Hiking, Travel, etc.  I'm leaning towards the dSLR's.
        What do you think of Canon Eos Rebel (D300), D10, Nikon D70, and
        Olympus E-1.  I also hear rumors of a cheaper Olympus dSLR in the
        late summer.  The only consumer compacts I'm considering are the
        8 MP's, 8080, Powershot Pro1, etc., that have almost all the features
        of a dSLR.  Any thoughts on these cameras, or recommendations would
        be greatly appreciated.
        \_ Wow, check out all these photography geeks.  Now I know where all
           the net pr0n is coming from.
        \_ sounds like you just want a fancy point-n-shoot and have no existing
           lens.  In that case, look at Pentax, Sigma, and Olympus.  They tendto
           be cheap, and their camera is pretty good.
           to be cheap, and their camera is pretty good.
        \_ shoot me an email.  and for those who are interested in this
           debate... join me.           -kngharv
        \_ I recommend the canon 300D. I have one and I use it mostly for
           taking photos while traveling. It is light enough (with the
           stock 18-55 lens or a 28-105 lens) that it doesn't feel like a
           burden to carry while traveling.
           The 10D is basically the same camera as the 300D except that it
           is much heavier, more expensive and doesn't come with a lens. The
           added weight of the 10D was one of the factors that led me to the
           300D. (To be fair the 10D's extra weight is in the magnesium body
           which probably makes it a more robust camera, but the plastic 300D
           seems sufficiently robust for ordinary traveler).
           I would avoid the Nikon and the Olympus since they come with CCD
           sensors. The images from CCDs are not nearly as clear as those from
           the CMOS sensor in the 300D and the 10D. (AFAIK, the way a CCD
           sensor works is that each "pixel" captures just one color and
           then the other colors are interpolated from the adj. pixels. The
           CMOS captures every color at every pixel giving a more accurate
           and clearer/less-noisy photo). --ranga
        \_ Didn't I hear recently that there was some EOS Rebel hack that
           lets you unlock most of the features available on a D30?
           \_ I just googled and saw this:
              I think the dig. rebel is a pretty good deal anyway.
           \- if you dont have an investment in nikon gear, i would avoid
              nikon, unless you are willing to spend $$$ and prefer nikon
              look/feel/interface to canon. again, if you dont have a lens
              \_ Is this b/c of $$$ of Nikkor lenses or b/c of Canon quality?
                 \_ Nikon and Canon has similiar quality.  Both are excellent.
                    Nikon tend to have better wide angle lens, better macro
                    lens, and better flash technology.  Canon tend to have
                    better auto-focus (EV +1 or better), much better focusing
                    speed at telephoto, and generally more feature-packed
                    than nikon for similiar-priced camrea body.
                    Canon is a better company,though.  Nikon's long-term
                    viability is in question            -nikon guy
              investment, i think you need to figure out your total budget
              for body+lens, rather than treat them separately. i think a
              reasonable analogy is amp:body::speaker:lens. you should go to
     and narrow it down some [either to 2-3 models or
              compare on some narrow question rather than "what is better"].
              i note in passing, that weight concerns can be a big deal
              if outdoor = hiking with equipment. while the 1.5x multipler
              is nice for your zoom shots, it makes panoramaic difficult.
              a nice 24prime becomes a 35mm. an 18mm lens or zoom will get
              you 28mm view field, but that is a $$, large lens. if outdoor
              means "at the family BBQ" than this doesnt apply. --psb
              \_ D70 and D300 come packaged w/an 18mm lens.  Where do the
                 diff's betw. a pro-level $2k+ 18mm vs. the DX 18mm lie?
                 \_ in general, there is no such thing as "pro level" versus
                    "consumer" level lens.  If you got the chance, look at
                    \- i personally dont use those terms but there is for
                       sure a difference in build quality as well as specs
                       between say the nikkor 50 1.8 [$100]and nikkor 50 1.4
                       [$300], or the nikon 18-35zoom [<$500] and the 17-35
                       zoom [$1000+] ... i think it is fair to characterize
                       a 300/2.8 as "pro" lens vs. a 300mm zoom at 5.6.
                       lens grouping can also affect optical quality, such
                       as whether a floating element is used. --psb
                       \_ yes, it is true that slower lens tend to have inferior
                          build quality than faster one.  The cheaper lens is
                          somewhat optically inferior than the expensive counter-
                          part is actually generally not true (with exception of
                       \_ yes, it is true that slower lens tend to have
                          inferior build quality than faster one.  The cheaper
                          lens is somewhat optically inferior than the
                          expensive counter-part is actually generally not
                          true (with exception o f
                          "consumer zoom").  50mm f/1.4 definitely has better
                          build quality than 50mm f/1.8.  But in Nikon's case,
                          50mm f/1.8 is actually a bit sharper than the f/1.4
                          counter part.  For 85mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8, the 85mm f/1.4
                          has a lot more apature blade thus make brokeh a lot nicer.
                          counter part.  For 85mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8, the
                          85mm f/1.4 has a lot more apature blade thus make
                          brokeh a lot nicer.
                          But aside from that, the optical differences betweenthe two
                          is insignificant.  I have a 70-210mm f/4.  And in that case,
                          Nikon's 80-200mm f/2.8 is optically superior, eventhough
                          I don't think they DELIBERATELY make the slower lensoptically
                          inferior.  The truth is, bulk of the cost lies upon making a
                          lens just this bit faster.    -kngharv
                          the two is insignificant.  I have a 70-210mm f/4.
                          And in tha t case, Nikon's 80-200mm f/2.8 is
                          optically superior, eventhough I don't think they
                          DELIBERATELY make the slower lens optically
                          inferior.  The truth is, bulk of the cost lies
                          upon m aking a lens just this bit faster.    -kngharv
                    both focal length and maximum apature.  larger the
                    maximum apature, more expensive it is. Just give you an
                    idea.  Nikon has two similiar lenses:  85mm f/1.4 and
                    85mm f/1.8.  note, that f/1.8 is only 2/3 stop slower than
                    f/1.4.  But 85mm f/1.4 cost twice as much, and weights
                    three times as much as 85mm f/1.8.  Does it mean that
                    85mm f/1.8 is optically inferior? no.  all it means
                    is that it is slower, nothing more.
              \- BTW, I cant emphasize enough about the weight. when you
                 are "travelling" it is a big commitment to carry 5lbs and
                 +$3k in gear. are you sure the "extra reach" of the SLR
                 approach is worth it? if you end up taking 5x as many pictures
                 with a small digital, you'll probably end up with as many
                 good pix. BTW, the main "feature" of a dSLR is choice of
                 lens, not can you choose iso level etc. --psb
                 \_ there are some feature differences too I think. i.e. can
                    you get the features like high megapixels, wide iso
                    range, and the various other settings in a much lighter
                    \_ main selling point of dSLR is the flexibility of interchangable
                       lens. Sure, there are functional differences, but they are
                       insignificant for most people... or obscure.  Example of
                       obscure feature: shutter lag.  Would you spend extra $500
                       for faster shutter lag?
                    \_ main selling point of dSLR is the flexibility of
                       interchangable lens. Sure, there are functional
                       differences, but they are insignificant for most
                       people... or obscure.  Example of obscure feature:
                       shutter lag.  Would you spend extra $500 for faster
                       shutter lag?
                      \_ that's what I'm saying, it's not $500 extra for a
                         dig. rebel compared to a reasonable alternative.
                         sure if someone just wants snapshots then any cheap
                         camera will do.
                 \_ That's the _only_ reason I'm considering the 8MP compacts.
                    Weight.  OTOH, with the dSLR packaged lenses, I'd only
                    need to get a zoom lens to 133mm to get the same zoom range
                    as the 8MP compacts.  I was thinking of pairing the dSLR
                    up with a sub-compact for when I want to go very light,
                    and ditch the extra 2-3 lbs' of camera weight.  The other
                    "main feature" of dSLR's I like is the fps and shutter lag.
                    Both are very problematic w/compact cameras.
                 \_ Actually most of the dSLR's come with a CMOS sensor instead
                    of a CCD sensor. The image clarity from a 6 MP CMOS sensor
                    is better than anything even the 8 MP p&s compact digicams
                    can achieve. I bought the 300D because of the sensor, not
                    because I could switch lenses.
        \_ Recent Popular Photography and Imaging magazine gave the edge
           to the Nikon D70 over the Canon Digital Rebel. It gives it a
           bang-for-the-buck edge over the D100.
                             \-D100 is really sleazy naming ... implying it
                               is a "digital f100" when it is a digital N80
                               which is an ok camera but not really a serious
                               camera like the F90 and higher. btw, i really
                               really really hate the G lenses ... i like
                               having aperture control on the lens. --psb
           \_ I just hate that the D70 has only ISO 200 minimum.
2004/6/9 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:30690 Activity:high
6/9     How do you go about watching a more obscure Olympic sport like judo or
        archery?  Is there some sattelite station that broadcasts everything?
        \_ A lot of the more obscure stuff doesn't even get on film.  They
           might send 1 film crew as punishment... or they might not.
           \_ They all get covered by some country though.  Korea loves
              archery.  (They win every year).  I assume Japan likes Judo.
              (Although I've seen that on American TV too.)  I know you
              could probably watch the Korean coverege of the archery
              contest online. -jrleek
              \_ Excellent! That's the kind of info I was looking for.  So,
                 is foreign sports coverage something that I whould be able
                 to watch on someone's sattelite TV or what?
2004/6/9 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan, Reference/History/WW2/Japan] UID:30691 Activity:very high
6/9     Another from
        A Japanese human rights activist who was taken captive
        in Iraq in April filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the government
        seeking 5 million yen in damages on grounds that his ordeal was
        caused by Japan's dispatch of troops to the country.
        \_ Given what happened to those folks on returning to Japan, this might
           just be a rhetorical lawsuit to slap some sense into his or her
           fellow Nihonjin. It won't work. -- ulysses
        \_ can his balls be any smaller?
           \_ RACIST!
        \_ 5 million yen = $50k.  It's a symbolic gesture.
        \_ He's an idiot.  He was told not to go there in the first place
           before he went.  It's not even a symbolic gesture.  It's a stunt.
2004/6/9 [Finance/CC, Reference/Law/Court] UID:30692 Activity:very high
        The popeye pic about halfway down had me in tears.  The site is mostly
        work safe but it might draw someone's eye so be careful out there.
        \_ The only things more retarded than the Keith guy are the person
           egging him on and the people who enjoy reading it.
2004/6/9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30693 Activity:high
6/9     How does one get rm -W to work?
        \_ I've been giving money to the Kerry campaign as well as the
           DNC and, but we won't know if it worked until november,
           will we?
           \_ In the amount of your tax refund?
           \_ So... rm -W removes movey from your pocket and gives it to
              the Democratic party?
2004/6/9 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:30694 Activity:high 50%like:30808
6/9     Any of you guys try Firefox 0.9 RC1 yet? Stable enough to use?
        \_ Using .8.  It's ok.
2004/6/9 [Uncategorized] UID:30695 Activity:nil
6/9     Reply to:
        Date: 2004-06-09, 8:50AM PDT
        I need ESC and DELETE keys for my iBook.
        it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial
2004/6/9 [Science/Biology] UID:30696 Activity:very high
6/9     He gets a little crazy at the end, but he's got a point.
        Religious Zealots in schools:
        \_ Yeah, and what's the deal with gravity anyway? I have no
           conclusive evidence that it exists. Back in my day, we didn't
           have no fancy "science" to teach us about the world. We had
           the Bible, and dagnabit, it was good enough for us!
        \_ They're only religious zealots if you consider science a religion,
           which some (mostly nonscientists) do.  Schools don't teach any
           science other than the generally-accepted theory.  You have to go
           to college if you want to learn about fringe theories.  Since
           schools have to teach such a broad curriculum, I don't have a
           problem with them teaching only the most popular theories.
           \_ I only consider science a religion when people treat it as
              religion.  This point is made in the editorial, but it's
              somewhat obsured by his retoric. Most people I know treat
              somewhat obscured by his rhetoric. Most people I know treat
              evolution as religion, not science.  In science it's ok to
              know the problems with your theories.  Not so with most
              evolution advocates.  To them it's like the bible, "It's the
              TRUTH, it is the WORD.  Evolution is FACT!"  That makes it a
              religion.  You don't need craky theories to point out
              problems in evolution's case, it's full of them.
              \_ I don't know a single person who treats evolution as a fact
                 or unassailable truth.  The strongest defence of it I've seen
                 is someone saying that it's an accepted theory.
                 \_ Man, you should get out more.
              \_ When your viewpoint IS a religion, it's natural to assume
                 everyone with an opposing view has religious-like faith
                 in their viewpoint.
                 \_ Nah, I think it's just the self-rightousness that
                    reminds me of religion.
                 \_ How about this quote from my High School Bio teacher?
                    "Yeah, it's sceince so we call evolution a theory, but
                    it's really fact."  (Ok, it's paraphrased, it was 7
                    years ago.)
                    \_ Theory doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
                       Perhaps you should have listened better or asked more
                       questions at the time.
           \_ You're letting the right-wing anti-intellectuals define the
              debate again.  Evolution is the most widely accepted scientific
              explanation of the facts and, as such, deserves its place as the
              theory of choice in educating the youth.  The "growing minority
              of scientists" who challenge evolution are growing because it
              would be impossible for their number to shrink without swiftly
              approaching zero.  Darrow made it impossible for the fundies to
              do away with evolution altogether, so they're trying instead to
              insinuate their fictions into the debate through pseudo-
              reasonable discourse, but before you know it, they're showing off
              pictures of dinosaurs standing with neanderthals and voting to
              standardize pi as 3.
              \_ I also find it amusing that the religious nuts don't feel the
                 need to go after the physics and math curriculum(except for
                 the pi thing.)  To me, e^(i*theta)=cos(theta) + i*sin(theta)
                 is much more indication of a god than anything in biology...
                 And what about all the time spent on Newton's law of
                 gravitation which is *known* to be wrong?
                 \_ Because it's right 99% of the time, and the 1% where it's
                    wrong is too complicated for high-school kids.
                    \_ right, and that sounds really reasonable to me, since
                       i'm a scientist, but that's not the point.  predictions
                       of how biology works based on evolution are also right
                       >99% of the time, but for some reason the religious nuts
                       want people to make a big deal out of that in spite of
                       the fact that all the science taught in school, and even
                       a lot of the math has some problems if you really
                       look deeply at the Truth of the matter.  It shows a
                       basic failure to understand how science works.  The job
                       of a science teacher is not to teach truth in some
                       absolute sense, it's to teach what works, which includes
                       both evolution and newtonian gravitation.
                   \_ You all realize the Pi thing is a myth, right?
                       \_ sounds reasonable except the "predictions of
                          how biology works based on evolution are also
                          right > 99% of the time" part.  evolution nuts
                          want people to believe evolution is like set
                          in stone.  it's not.
                       \_ Could you describe what you mean by 99% of
                          experiments, and maybe a few example links?
                   \_ You all realize the story about religious nuts
                      legislating Pi to 3 is an urban ledgend, right?
                      Snopes doesn't meantion that the value they wanted
                      to legislate was 16/5 or 3.2.  This was in 1897.
                      The bill was not religiously modivated, as I recall,
                      it had something to do with standardizing
                      mesurements.  Not that this makes it ok, but it does
                      make you stupid.
                      \_ I could see some value in a commerce-based standard
                         for Pi.  If some commodity is commonly sold by the
                         barrel, and you want to translate that into some other
                         volume, there might be value in a law saying "You can
                         use Pi=3.2 in your conversion and the other guy can't
                         sue you for cheating him."
                         \_ no way.  the same could be said then for 1/3, 2/3,
                            etc., but it's not relevant.  The uncertanty will
                            always be limited by the rest of the problem, and
                            the number of digits of pi used will depend on
                            the precision to which the diameter is known and
                            the precision to which you need to know the
                            circumference.  This will never be more than, say
                            10 digits or so at the *absolute* maximum, and
                            since we know millions of digits, its just not
                         \_ Sorry, looks like I was wrong about the reason
                            being standarization, it had something to do
                            with a math crank.  link:
            \_ Catch this part?:
        Fortunately, Indiana has, or had, a bicameral legislature.  The bill
        came up for first reading in the Senate on Thursday, February 11.
        Apparently deciding to have some fun, they referred it to the Committee
        on Temperance.  The Committee reported back on Friday, February 12,
        approving the bill, which then had its second reading.
              \_ Pi is 22/7ths, just as Jesus intended.
                 \_ If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for
                    \_ If God had meant man to fly, he wouldn't have invented
2004/6/9 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:30697 Activity:insanely high
6/9     Why is a piece of Laci's hair on the fishing boat evidence of anything?
        If Scott owns the boat, isn't it normal that Laci would've boarded the
        boat several times either at home or on water?
        \_ If neither his nor her family knew about the boat, that suggests
           Lacy didn't know about it either.  Since it's such a small dinghy
           it's pretty unlikely she would have wanted to go out sailing on it
           unless she likes going fishing.
        \_ Another point is that I'm sure some of her hair was on his clothing
           and could have fallen off in the boat.  I find my girlfriend's hairs
           at my work now and then.
           \_ Yeah, but how likely would a loose hair stay on a boat
              after spending the day out on a windy bay?
              \_ If it falls under the seat or gets wet... maybe.
              \_ shit, how do pieces of 2lb test line stay on a boat for
                so long?
              \_ Would you *really* send a man to lifelong imprisonment or
                 possible death because you're certain beyond a reasonable
                 doubt that any of his wife's hair found on his boat would
                 have to have been there only because he killed her and
                 used the boat to dump her and the hair stayed there afterwards
                 for investigators to find, but if she had been in the boat
                 for innocent reasons or her hair simply fell off his clothing
                 then it was certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the wind
                 would have blown it off?  You're saying that the hair of
                 dead people is somehow immune to being windblown in a way that
                 the hair of those alive is not immune to being windblown.  I
                 hope I'm never in front of a jury with people like you on it.
                 \_ remember that particular logic train next time *you* get
                    jury duty.
2004/6/9 [Uncategorized] UID:30698 Activity:nil
6/9     Learn to indent kngharv, you fucking dweeb.
2004/6/9 [Science/Biology] UID:30699 Activity:high
6/9     To those people who don't believe that "evolution is set in stone,"
        what exactly is it that you don't "believe"? Evolution through natural
        selection is a process, much like how a quicksort would work. What
        arguments would you have against evolution? I find it puzzling that
        people would accept that a quicksort would work without question but
        question naturally selective  [formatd.  learn 80 columns]
        \_ I personally find 'macro-evolution' if not necessarily 'wrong,'
           then extremely counterintuitive.  My main problem is the origin
           of bacterial life, which, as people below noted, is not evolution's
           department per se. -- ilyas
        \_ quicksort-- seeing is believing. You can observe quicksort and
           see that the algorithm works by trial and error, and by induction,
           proof, etc. Evolution-- can't observe it. You can make convincing
           arguments based on solid facts and theory, and you can prove
           it via small examples (British butterfly evolve to match the
           color of the pollution) but you can't prove the entire history
           of evolution, and you certainly can't prove it by via induction
           or any other method.
        \_ I believe you can evolve to using 80 character columns.
           genetic algorithms. -williamc
           \_ Your rationale is terribly flawed. One can say the same thing
              about physics. Just because we have done a lot of experiments
              proving that there is a gravitational constant doesn't mean
              that G is the same everywhere if we were to follow that line
              of thinking. The same can be said for quicksort, you have a
              certain "faith" in your inductive process that it works. If
              you posit that your inductive method for mathematically proving
              quicksort works is valid you have to give the same credence
              to something like a genetic algorithm, which has been also
              mathematically proven. If that's the case then you
              will have to agree that inductively we can apply
              such an algorithm to biology. If biology were to follow
              a quicksort algorithm vs. that of a genetic algorithm
              then you would have to come to the conclusion evolution
              occurs through quicksort. There is ample evidence that
              biology follows a genetic algorithm, and you can actually
              observe evolution at work on a small scale on a daily basis.
              In fact, we use it everyday in recombinant DNA and in dog
              breeding. There is also unequivocal evidence that all
              life forms of significance pass their genes to subsequent
              generation. In other words, the only way you can "doubt" that
              evolution occurs through the process of genetic algorithms is if
              you A) Reject inheritable traits B) reject the concept that things
              change over time (in other words evolution) C) Reject the cellular
              you A) Reject inheritable traits B) reject the concept that things
              change over time (in other words evolution) C) Reject the cellular
              basis for life D) Reject genetic algorithms as a valid algorithm.
              In addition if you follow the conventional wisdom of
              "seeing is believing" then I suppose you believe in magic,
              little green men from mars, and that hobbits really do exist on
              Middle Earth. -williamc
              \_ I think that science and belief are simply independent.
                 Most of the scientists I know (including me, probably) have
                 at least one kooky belief within the realm of the unproven
                 and non-disproven.  How is believing in hobbits going to
                 stop me from advancing science by, say, trying to measure
                 k_B better?
                 \_ It's not, until you start demanding that we teach hobbits
                    to 6th graders, to the exclusion of real science.
              \_ I suppose that someone could decide that evolution happens
                 but reject the idea that a new species can occur, i.e. lose
                 the ability to interbreed... but this is a stupid notion
                 because there is evidence and observation of this too.
              \_ The arguments I've heard is that there are two things:
                 micro-evolution and macro-evolution.  micro-evolution is
                 accepted by all scientists but not macro-evolution.  There
                 is also the question of why we aren't seeing a continuous
                 spectrum of living things as opposed to say lion and leopard,
                 evolution is supposed to happen through these accumulated
                 tiny genetic changes, but why does it often result in these
                 very distinctive species?  I read some answer somewhere
                 but it wasn't very convincing at all.
                 \_ It looks like you're looking for an explanation of
                    "speciation".  I think the accepted argument is that if
                    you start with a homogenous population, and provide 2
                    different ecological niches (either habitats, food sources
                    or lifestyles).  Members of the homogenous population will
                    go into one niche or the other.  Animals in niche 1 will
                    tend to interbreed with others in niche 1 and will have
                    fewer chances to breed with those in niche 2.  If an
                    adaptation favorable to those in niche 1 occurs, it will
                    spread throughout animals in niche 1 due to "survival of
                    the fittest".  That adaptation will not have much chance to
                    spread to niche 2 because of limited interbreeding, and the
                    adaptation might be unfavorable to those living in niche 2.
                    As animals in the different niches accumulate more
                    different changes, they become less likely (or able) to
                    interbreed, and so the rate of differentiation accelerates.
                \_  A similar problem appears in the fossil record.
                    Basically, you don't see slow changes though history,
                    you see large sudden changes.  For example, For
                    millions of years you have fossils of the same kinds
                    of fish.  Then, all of a sudden, all those fish are
                    gone, and it's a completely new set of fish in the
                    \_ You can selectively breed a hairless chihuahua from a
                       wolf in under 10,000 years.
                       \_ I heard that's more because of some unique
                          characteristic of dogs than anything else.
                          all cats look more or less the same for example.
                          \_ Do tell...
                             \_ don't remember.  heard from a friend.
                                something to do with the unique way dogs grow
                                such that one can arrest their growth, thus
                                making dogs like chihuahua, which essentially
                                never grew up.
                    \_ The fossil record has a relatively coarse time
                       resolution.  If there was some event to cause a major
                       change in climate/habitat/food sources, it might cause
                       everything to evolve to adapt or die out within only
                       a few hundreds or thousands of generations, but for
                       most animals, that would mean completely new species
                       appear in only 10-100 thousand years.  The fossil record
                       would completele miss that change unless it was fairly
                       recent.  After all, maybe only 1 in a million animals
                       get fossilized.
                       \_ All correct, but in order to adapt, you either

                          need a whole lot of mutation, or the genes have
                          to already exist.  (As in the London moth case.)
                          This evolution seems to be happening on a much
                          larger scale, and faster than predicted.
                          \_ In just a few decades a Soviet scientist trying to
                             breed less viscous minks created a breed that has
                             floppy ears, spotted coats and 'barks'; 3 things
                             never seen in wild minks.  Where did these new
                             genes come from?  It turned out they were all side
                             effects of having the adrenaline system become
                             underactive.  Turning one gene off produced a wide
                             range of seemingly unrelated effects.
        \_ The whole debate about any scientific theory being "set in stone"
           or a matter of belief is a reflection of both sides' lack of
           understanding of science or of what the point of science education
           is.  The loudest people on both sides of this issue are generally
           not scientists...besides, given that only about a week of a
           typical yearlong course on biology is devoted to evolution,
           and that it's not really important to major political issues
           or technology, it's unclear to me why people care so much.
           \_ natural selection has huge consequences for technology as well
              as implications for politics. evolution
              is a powerful model.
        \_ Why bother to find out? It's already set in stone. Whether you
           understand it or not is predetermined. You either do, or you don't.
        \_ how about asking this question to the undergrads at Texas,
           Tennessee, and South Carolina? Soda is not exactly the right
           place to ask this question. Also, learn to obey 80 columns!!!
           \_ Learn to not be so annally retentive.
        \_ I think that creationists (some anyway) accept natural
           selection. They can understand how one species can acquire
           traits that eventually turn it into another. The issue is
           whether an amoeba can turn into an elephant. That process is
           not clear at all. Worse still, how can a soup of primordial
           chemicals turn into the amoeba to begin with?
           \_ Creationists don't even bother to learn what they're arguing
              against. Is it easier to start from fish? How about fish to
              elephants? Evolution (genetic processes) isn't incompatible
              with an idea of a more limited creation.
              \_ I view it as not more limited, but more elegant.
           \_ Evolution doesn't explain how primordial chemicals turn into
              amoeba nor does it say that it's not possible for God to
              have created the first amoebas from which everything else
              evolved.  Why can't people just accept that the Bible or
              any religion for that matter are all human constructs?
              \_ You are both describing "scientific creationism" which
                 sounds reasonable but which is rejected by science simply
                 because science often despises religion. Evolution is a
                 gospel to some.
                 \_ Science seeks to explain phenomena through verifiable
                    facts.  Since a true "act of God" is not a testable
                    hypothesis, it is almost by definition outside of science.
                    For a field of science to include as a premise an act of
                    God is essentially to hang the whole logical construct on
                    an unverifiable assumption.  It would be like a theorem
                    in math saying "1+1=2, except when God changes it."
                    \_ It is more philosophy than science, but rather than
                       allowing for the possibility that evolution did not
                       create all life as we know it it is taken as fact.
                       1+1=2 for given assumptions. Evolution is just a
                    \_ I asked God.  He proved to me scientifically that he
                       created both the amoeba and the elephant.  Adam named
                       them, though.  God wasn't much on naming things after
                       the first few days.
                 \_ Two kinds of scientific creationism:  1) God created all
                    of this through the engine of natural selection; works
                    because the acceptance of God as creator does not impede
                    accepting the most rational explanation, but simply adds
                    a layer of faith the to mix. 2) God created all of this
                    as described in the Bible, subject to a few tricks of
                    physics but without resorting to evolution; doesn't work
                    because it requires the substitiution of faith for good
                    old scientific reasoning.  The latter tends to get scoffed
                    at by scientists; the former tends to be incomprehensible
                    to atheist scientists but doesn't elucidate the same sense
                    of scorn.
2004/6/9 [Recreation/Activities] UID:30700 Activity:nil
6/9     There are no REI's where I live. What are some stores that sell similar
        products? Thanks.
        \_ EMS
        \_ yellow pages? where is this by the way. REI is a gigantic chain and
           some of their stores aren't called REI.
                \_ LA -op
                   \_ REI is about a hundred yards from where I'm sitting right
                      now.  Rosecrans and Aviation in Manhattan Beach.
                      \_ This guy is a retard who didn't even look at
                         REI's web site for locations.
2004/6/9 [Uncategorized] UID:30701 Activity:moderate
6/9     ARGGGG who deleted my Helen Kane post. I'm not happy about that.
        \_ Is Helen Kane a hot chick?
2004/6/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:30702 Activity:insanely high
6/9     Orson Scott Card talks about Media Bias (and admits his own)
        \_ The only so-called 'media bias' is the fascist right wing owned
           nutters who have stolen our first amendment rights and are in
           cahoots with bushco to destroy the rest of our rights.  Well, except
           for the second amendment which is the only right you never really
           had.  That right is the only one reserved for States, not
           \_ Is there a right to wear a tinfoil hat?
              \_ Not enumerated in the Constitution but generally speaking,
                 you have the right to wear a tinfoil hat so long as you are
                 not causing needless harm to someone else which seems
                 difficult to do by merely wearing a tinfoil hat.  So, yes.
                 \_ But if you craft your tinfoil hat to focus the sun's rays
                    so as to be a weapon, that's not permitted, unless it's
                    covered by the second amendment.
                    \_ The Second Amendment doesn't actually cover anything.
                       It's the only "Right" in the Bill of Rights that
                       provides no rights.  So no worries!  Wear your laser
                       hat without fear of violating the SA!
                       \_ Your tinfoil hat violates my first amendment right
                          to freely practice my religion of worshiping your
                          giant bald skull.
                          \_ It's still bald.  It just has a tinfoil hat on
                             it, the second amendment still provides no rights
                             and your first amendment rights are in full effect
                             so we're doing ok.
           \_ The founders thought to grant rights to 'states'?
              \_ No, they thought to grant specific powers to the Fed, the
                 rest of the powers to the states and all of that is over-
                 ridden by the bill of rights which is for the people, except
                 for the second amendment which doesn't grant any rights to
                 anyone at all.
        \_ Come on.  Even George Will and William Safire understand that Fox
           News is a right-wing propaganda machine.  You hear all the time
           about researchers being fired from Fox for not toeing the Murdoch
           line.  You don't hear about this crap at the so-called liberal
           media outlets.  Given the supposed saturation of the market by the
           liberal media, you'd think someone would step forward.
           \_ Personally, I'm not as enamored with Fox News as he is, but
              can you argue that that articles he details are not
              examples of media bias?
              \_ they are *individual* examples of biased *articles*.  He makes
                 no attempt to generalize them to "the media", other than to
                 say things like "on Fox News, and only on Fox News, we get
                 television reportage that gives us at least two sides of
                 every important issue."  This statement alone is reason to
                 discount the entire article.  -tom
                 \_ Can you disprove his statement?  I doubt it.  Unlike you,
                    I watch Fox, CNN, and a few other 3 letter news stations
                    so I have a basic upon which to comment.  Unlike you.  Fox
                    does a fair amount of rah-rah USA! but it gives the bad as
                    well.  Watching the other stations you'd think this was
                    Stalinist Russia and the end of the world was near.
                 \_ Did you read the end of the article?
                    \_ you mean where he follows up that statement with one
                       about how fanatics are convinced they're in sole
                       possession of virtue and truth?  Yes, I thought it was
                       quite amusing.  -tom
        \_ could someone remind me why anyone cares about what I
           have to say about anything?  -tom
           \_ CFR (Call For References) on this.  Where have George Will and
              William Safire stated that Fox News is a "right-wing propaganda
              machine"? -emarkp
        \_ could someone remind me why anyone cares about what Orson Scott Card
              \_ You won't get a reference because they never said any such
        \_ could someone remind me why anyone cares about what Holbub
           has to say about anything?  -tom
           \_ I think he says interesting things.  I don't always agree,
              but he's usually interesting and he expresses himself well.
              Also, his articles usually result in more interesting things
              on the motd, so I post them.
              \_ and you blow away edits while doing that.  good job.  -tom
                 \_ Wasn't me, dummy.  I use motdedit.  A bunch of posts
                    were erased, and I replaced mine, because I keep what
                    I post around in case someone erases it.  You get a
                    twink point.
                    \_ Anyone who counts tweak points needs to grow up.
        \_ Fox News prime time: ~ 1.3 million
           CNN prime time:    ~ 0.9 million
           broadcast news prime ime: 30 million
           Extremely well documented (liberal) media bias on guns:
           He was on cspan a week ago but unfortunately segment not available
           \_ bias against guns isn't liberal, it's intelligent.
              \_ that's biased!  Besides, guns aren't the problem, they're
                 perfectly safe until people get involved.  We should be
                 banning people, not guns!
                 \_ Ban evil! -- ilyas
           \_ John Lott has been caught making up data on many occasions.
2004/6/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30703 Activity:very high
6/9     Bush Administration memos:
        "What can we get away with that might not technically be torture?"
        "Who can we define as not protected against torture?"
        "Can we argue the president has the authority to authorize torture?"
        Bush Administration testimony:
        "We never authorized torture."
        \_ Doesn't it make sense that someone might want to know where the
           line is and what does and does not constitute torture and against
           who?  You'd be happier if no one asked and they just went ahead with
           no central policy for this stuff?  Then you'd bitch that no one
           thought about it or set a policy and how evil the admin is for not
           even considering setting any guidelines.
           \_ I think he says interesting things.  I don't always agree,
              but he's usually interesting and he expresses himself well.
              Also, his articles usually result in more interesting things
              on the motd, so I post them.
           \_ If they didn't intend to commit torture, or something close to
              it, why would they have reasearched legal justification of
              torture?  Idle academic curiosity?
              \_ Perhaps they wanted to get as close as possible but not over
                 the line?
                 \_ If that's the case, shouldn't the party line be:
                    "We never authorized this much torture."
                    \_ The New Improved Republican Party with 20% less torture!
              \_ I guess the only reason you want to read about copyright
                 law is if you want to steal software/movies/music right?
           \_ No, I'd be happier if the Administration would grow up and pass
              on the memos to Congress, and I'd be tickled pink to see Biden
              on the memos to Congress, and I'd be tickled pink to see BinLaden
              rip Ashcroft's head off in the US Capitol Rotunda Thunderdome.
              Barring that, I'd settle for Ashcroft in jail for contempt.
              \_ Man, bringing the "bust a deal, spin the wheel" credo
                 to Washington would kick ass.
        \_ Lies.  Response deleted
2004/6/9 [Computer/SW/WWW/Server] UID:30704 Activity:high
6/9     Apache (2) question:  I assume there is a quick easy way for me to put
        something in httpd.conf that will take all requests to and redirect them to what is the best way to do this? tnx.
        \_ Look up redirect rules or just make /dir the document root.
           \_ so mod_rewrite, hun?
2004/6/9-10 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll] UID:30705 Activity:very high
6/9     Hey, what happened to the sodomize kngharv posts?
        \_ Perhaps somebody has already renedered the suggestion moot?
        \_ Better question: What's up with all the sodomize posts?
           \_ Some annoying people just scream sodomy.
        \_ and mind you that in your world, sodomy is still illegal.
        \_ kngharv got scared and learned to indent, so the message was
           not needed anymore.
           \_ no.  i got sick of looking at kngharv's messed up posts
              and indented them for him.
                \_ thank you indentd guy. I think there should be some form
                   of punishment for 80 column violators, paragraph
                   interruptors, and other haines things people do to motd,
                   otherwise, these violators will keep on doing what they're
                   good at doing... fucking up the motd. I propose we
                   squish these violators for a week to teach them a lesson.
2004/6/9-10 [Computer/Theory] UID:30706 Activity:insanely high
6/9     A claimed proof of the Riemann Hypothesis is now a top story on /.
          -- ilyas
        \_ This isn't really news. De Branges has been claiming this for a
           long time. He's not a kook, but most of the experts don't seem
           to believe him. (In particular, note that the paper referred to
           in this recent press release is actually dated March 2003.)
           my name is lewis.
           \_ awww.  Well, it would be neat if RH were true. -- ilyas
              \- It is true. We just have not proven it.
              \- It is true. We just have not proven it. --psb
                 \_ Yeah, I agree with Feynman's intuition in these things.
                    It would be too ugly for RH to be false. -- ilyas
                    \- an interesitng contrast is the continuum hypothesis.
                       i remember being in a room with large math brains and
                       all of a sudden they started saying things like "i think
                       the continuum hypothesis is true" "i dont think it is
                       true!". although on another occasion the largest brain
                       of all in this area i believe came down on "i think
                       there is some weird set that can be constructed that
                       would show it to be false".  --psb
                       \_ CH is independent of ZFC.  We finished proving this
                          just today in class.  The problem with discussing
                          the truth or falsity of CH or any other statement
                          involving infinite quantities is that you ultimately
                          have to make the case that our world is a model of
                          ZFC.  That claim seems very dubious to me -- I am
                          not even sure our world contains aleph_0.  For me,
                          the truth or falsity of such statements can only be
                          established w.r.t. some model. -- ilyas
                          \- well the famous indep proof gives people a little
                             bit of an out not avail in the case of RH, where
                             so many papers have to issue the "assumes RH is
                             true" disclaimer. this is not really my area and
                             i neither know much about it nor have good
                             intuition ... i was never lost as fast in a
                             math talk as one by a german fellow on model
                             theory. however the chiatin's omega stuff
                             sound kind of conceptually interesting. worth a
                             look if you are not familiar with it. back to
                             CH/ZFC: some time back P COHEN made the comment
                             "i am an analyst  ... but i did some good work
                             in set theory" in 10 Evans. "you had to be there".
                             i could not follow WOODIN's work in this area.
                             \_ I think Omega exists like Pi exists.  We have
                                slightly better algorithms for approximating
                                Pi, of course.  I think I ll need another
                                year to follow Cohen's forcing stuff. -- ilyas
                             \_ I saw a talk by Woodin on this topic
                                a couple of years ago. He thinks the CH is
                                false. If I remember correctly, his argument
                                is that there are structures that can be
                                built up in ZFC + Projective Determinacy that
                                have nice properties and the potential to
                                yield very interesting new fields of
                                mathematics. One can build similar structures
                                in a different level,  but to do so requires
                                that the CH is false.
                                \_ That's not an argument for the falsity of
                                   CH, that's an argument that the falsity
                                   of CH is useful to assume to get interesting
                                   math done. -- ilyas
                                   \_ And when talking about questions that
                                      are independent of the standard axioms
                                      what exactly is the difference?
                                      \_ 'False' without qualification means
                                         'false in the real world.' -- ilyas
        \_ He's still been trying to convince people of this. The proof
           is pretty painful, and you can't really claim this without
           getting other people (a lot of other people) to look at the proof.
           It still might be true, I haven't looked at the proof (and probably
           couldn't understand it if I did) -chialea
           \_ Does your motd entry actually say anything?
              \_ Does she ever?
2004/6/9-10 [Computer/SW/Security] UID:30707 Activity:high
6/9     Microsoft Security Summit at Moscone Center on June 22. Has anyone
        here actually been to one of these?  Are they worth going to?
        \_ Pretty much they say, "We're secure, just patch and reboot a lot,
           those smelly hippies wore the same sock yesterday so who wants to
           use their icky software?"
2004/6/9-10 [Computer/SW/Security] UID:30708 Activity:kinda low
6/9     pgp/gpg: I'm trying to verify the authenticity of an iso file.
        I've read the gpg man page and HOWTO, and I still don't understand
        what is the right way to do this. Shouldn't it take 2 commands?
        Here are the three filenames:   DC0FCB63.asc
        dban-1.0.3_i386.iso dban-1.0.3_i386.iso.asc
        What's the correct incantation?
        \_ wow it's sad that this software is so arcane to use.
        \_ Is this correct? -op
           gpg --import DC0FCB63.asc
           gpg --verify dban-1.0.3_i386.iso.asc
2004/6/9-10 [Computer/Domains] UID:30709 Activity:kinda low
6/9     Bind question:  Back in the day if i set my DNS server to be the
        "master" it didn't go looking to internic to tell it whether it was
        authoritative or not, now though it seems it does.  How can i tell
        it "hey, you are authoritative, stop looking elsewhere for than
        answer.  ok thanks,
2004/6/9-10 [Uncategorized] UID:30710 Activity:very high
6/9     Anybody use "Darik's Boot and Nuke"?
        \_ Yes.  What about it? --jameslin
           \_ what do you have to hide?
              \_ More importantly, who are you trying to hide it from?
                 \_ Yeah, screw you hippies!
              \_ credit card numbers?  passwords?  tax returns?  --jameslin
           \_ Any problems? Does it work as advertised?
2004/6/9-10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30711 Activity:high
6/9     Reagan's death to help Bush's election, yay! Republicans rules!!!
        \_ Maybe they planned it?  He really died a while ago, and they
           just released it now when Bush needed a boost? (Watch out for
           the sudden capture of Bin Laden next month...)
           \_ I hope this is a joke but it's hard to tell on the motd these
              days.  Anyway, donning my tinfoil cap for a moment, if they were
              going to 'release the body' for political reasons, late October
              would be a better time or during some serious PR crisis.
2004/6/9-10 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:30712 Activity:high
6/9     Here is something I don't understand.  In USA, people kept bitching
        about China's Tiananmen Square. The most illustrated photo was the
        guy who stands at front of tanks.  Just past month, Israeli tank
        actualy *FIRED* the artilary shell at demonstrators, yet I don't heard
        anything about people bitching about it.  Why?
        \_ you mean the terrorist hiding behind those kids?
        \_ hello ilyas. Logic doesn't work in the real world.
           \_ what makes you think this is ilyas?
           \_ wow, you really don't know ilyas.  i've never heard him say
              _anything_ anti-israel.
              \_ Hi.  It's not that I think Israel can do no wrong, it's that
                 people don't appreciate the strain Israeli society is under.
                 Imagine gigantic Oklahoma-city style bombs going off in the US
                 every week due to Mexicans who want California back.  That
                 would be a comparable situation.  (This probably doesn't
                 need to be stated, but I am not op.  Duh.) -- ilyas
                 \_ Well, Israel doesn't have Oklahoma-city style bombs going
                    off every week. Most of them are small scale. They also
                    have been and are still actively in the process of land
                    settlement/population transfer activities and military
                    occupation. Your analogy thus falls rather short IMO.
                    \_ Israel is much smaller than the US.  Israel is tiny.
                       Larger countries can absorb more shock.  I think you
                       may be rejecting the analogy because it makes it seem
                       like Israel is in terrible duress, and has been for
                       many years.  Sadly, I think that's precisely the case.
                       As far as the military occupation is concerned -- you are
                       right.  You have to understand though, that Israel is
                       _still_ at war with some of its neighbors (Syria).
                       Almost any pullout move on their part results in
                       their enemies growing bolder (remember the aftermath
                       of the Lebanon pullout).  The situation there is so
                       messy, I don't really know what I would do in their
                       shoes.  The IDF operates under the assumption the
                       palestinians and surrounding arab states work towards
                       destruction of Israel.  I don't blame the IDF for
                       thinking this. -- ilyas
                       \_ Thinking?  It's the stated, in writing, Palestinian
                          policy to destroy Israel as their ultimate goal.  Not
                          having their own contiguous nation, not having peace,
                          not a bogus right of return.  Destruction of Israel
                          is their goal.  They not only don't try to hide it,
                          they trumpet the fact at every opportunity.  Western
                          pro-Palestinian media simply ignores it and fails to
                          report the giant pink elephant standing in the middle
                          of the Middle East cocktail party.
        \_ there was a discussion a few days ago. See the motd archives.
        \_ The tank fired at a house, it detonated early on a pole in the
           way, the shrapnel killed a bunch of people (kids too).  The
           Tiananmen Square people didn't have suicide bombers, all of their
           supporters are unarmed, and never killed any pro-government people.
           \_ And today the Europeans will suck their own cocks to get in bed
              with China but all hope Israel dies and goes away so they can
              get back to business as usual.
2017/09/24 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:June:09 Wednesday <Tuesday, Thursday>