Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:June:12 Saturday <Friday, Sunday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2004/6/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:30764 Activity:insanely high
6/11    For those who think it was sheer dumb luck that Reagan just
        happened to be President as the Soviet Union collapsed.  Have a look
        at National Security Decision Directive #75.  Scanned straight from
        the archives:
        \_ Some on soda have been arguing that, while it was certainly
           Reagan's prerogative to spend heavily on defense, he had no idea
           that the Soviet Union would collapse in trying to keep up with
           the U.S.  If you ask me, though, he should still get credit for
           it.  Although I think it's also likely a Democrat would have spent
           just as much in the face of the Soviet threat. -liberal
           \_ (His spending vision)
           \_ You mean like a Cold War warrior like Carter failed to do?  The
              Nixonian detente idea probably looked good at the time and they
              really couldn't understand how screwed up things really were
              behind the Iron Curtain in Nixon's day, but it clearly wasn't
              working by the time Reagan came on board.  It isn't just a
              simple case of spending heavily on defense.  It was an active
              plan to sucker the Soviets into destroying their own economy to
              keep up.  It was economic warefare.  One tiny example: we gave
              them and sometimes let them steal technologies that we already
              knew weren't viable and had abandoned so they could dump oodles
              of cash down a black hole.  That isn't merely heavy spending.
              That is an active plan, a strategy, to destroy your enemy.  So,
              in fact, yes, Reagan believed quite strongly that the USSR was
              set to collapse if enough buttons were pushed hard enough.  Also,
              go read his private papers that were published a few years ago.
              He was writing in-depth political commentary and philosophy for
              years during which time he was lambasted as a bozo by the press.
              \_ "Lambasted as a bozo by the press"... Maybe he was in the pages
                 of the Nation, but its an accepted fact that Reagan had some of
              \_ "Lambasted as a bozo by the press"... Maybe he was in the pages
                 of the Nation, but its an accepted fact that Reagan had some of
                 the most positive press of any president in the modern era,
                 due in no small part to the amazing public relations people
                 who constantly worked to carefully massage his image.  Even
                 after his death, they are working overtime - witness the
                 years of elaborate planning behind all of this celebration
                 (which the press has conveniently failed to report, acting
                 as if it all spontaneously erupted from nowhere).  In fact,
                 the press would often _ignore_ the fact that Reagan couldn't
                 seem to speak clearly, writing incredibly positive reports
                 about his press conferences where he was so garbled that his
                 aides would spents hours afterward "clarifying his remarks."
                 \_ It is an accepted fact?  You can say that but that doesn't
                    make it so.  I was there.  I read the newspapers, I saw the
                    TV reports.  Bozo, cowboy, and idiot was the constant
                    refrain.  As far as the funeral goes, *all* Presidents are
                    required to make their funeral plans *while still in
                    office* so you're barking up the wrong tree on that one.
                    And I'm shocked that you seem to be the only one unaware
                    that Reagan was showing signs of Alzheimer's in his last
                    2 years of office.  Everyone knew.  His announcement letter
                    later was a surprise to no one, so no shit he was sometimes
                    a bit off at the end.  What are you trying to say with
                    \_ You see what you want to, I suppose.  "Idiot," "Bozo,"
                       "cowboy" as a constant refrain?  Sure.  Whatever.
                       Selective memory is a wonderful thing.
              \_ I said, Reagan should get credit, if you didn't see that.
                 If you want to say that "it was an active plan to sucker
                 the Soviets into destroying their own economy to keep up",
                 you need to back this idea -- which is hardly mainstream --
                 up.  Otherwise it's just intellectual masturbating from
                 a Republican, and we know how much that is worth. -liberal
                 \_ I posted a primary source.  If you didn't read it, then why
                    are you here asking for evidence?  I already posted it.
                    What more do you want?  I also personally recall this
                    being talked about at the time so I'm not sure where your
                    mainstream is but I didn't make this shit up in the
                    middle of the night.  I'm not that smart.  I posted a
                    longer thing below if you'd like to respond to that.
        \_ Admittedly, I only read the first page, but on what basis are
           you suggesting that Reagan's policy of competitive spending
           was a conscious ploy?  All I see is a resolve to be bigger,
           better, and more powerful than the Soviets in every arena so
           as to show them the error of their ways.
           \_ But ... as you just said yourself ... the resolve to be bigger,
              better, more powerful was there...  That's all there was to the
              ploy -- the Soviets had a choice of keeping up and ruining
              themselves, or falling behind like China.  Why are you confused?
           \_ How did you manage to form an opinion after reading only the
              first page?  What sort of reply were you expecting?  You don't
              see it because it is there yet you did not read it.  The basis
              upon which I suggest that Reagan's policy of competitive spending
              *among other things* was a concious strategy to destroy the
              Soviet Union is in those pages.  Sheesh.  Read it and then come
              back and let me know if you still think I'm full of shit but
              at least put in some trivial effort to read the most real world
              document you'll ever see from the time period instead of some
              reporter's stripped down version before expessing your disbelief.
              99% of URLs here are from some shitty online newsrags which all
              have some bias or agenda in some direction.  This is primary
              source material.  Read it and find enlightenment.
              \_ Wow, thank you for goading me into reading the document. I
                 see a very concious strategy in place to destroy the Soviet
                 Union, and I am now happy to report that it does not rest on
                 competetive spending at all.  Instead, as noted in the first
                 page, the plan calls for a resolve to be bigger, better, and
                 more powerful than the Soviets in every arena so as to show
                 them the error of their ways-- as I sussed out from the first
                 page.  The only place that even mentions draining the Soviet
                 purse is where the policy talks about keeping an occupation
                 of Afghanistan as expensive as possible-- until the Soviets
                 withdraw.  More importantly, this document shows very clearly
                 where the modern GOP got their strategy for owning the
                 debate and marginalizing their competition.  Bush is the
                 successor to Reagan; how sad to see him squander the
                 opportunity the Gipper's strategy gave him.
                 \_ I shall explain since you're not getting it.  This is a
                    policy directive.  What that means is this goes from the
                    President's desk as a general plan and outline for action
                    to all the 3 letter spook agencies, the pentagon, and the
                    state department for implementation and execution.  No,
                    the President doesn't ever come up with super detailed
                    specific plans such as "let's give them this broken
                    missile guidance tech so they waste money on it".  That is
                    what the spooks and others get paid for.  This primary
                    source shows exactly what I claim it shows, namely, that
                    Reagan wasn't merely lucky to be around at the right time.
                    They USSR would have collapsed in on itself later if we
                    had continued the same containment policy we'd been
                    following for the previous ~40 years, but that might have
                    been another 10, 20, 30, or more and you'd still be
                    concerned about living long enough to have kids.  What
                    Reagan did was step up from the containment policy to
                    actively pushing the USSR's weak spots in an active effort
                    to push them over.  Growing up in the 70's, me and all my
                    friends made ghoulish jokes about nuclear death and not
                    living long enough to see college.  My wife's very little
                    sister who was born in the early 80's is completely
                    ignorant of the concept.  It's an amazing thing to talk to
                    someone born late enough to be unaware of the Cold War and
                    see how their differently their concerns and fears are from
                    those born earlier.
                    \_ Like you, I'm a child of the 70's.  And like you, I
                       thoroughly enjoy not having to live under the threat
                       Mutually Assured Destruction.  Where we differ is this:
                       While I see a will to dismantle the Soviet Empire in
                       this document, I don't see any policies that resulted
                       in the economic instability that the USSR was already
                       lurching toward.  I see a lot of pomp and circumstance,
                       but none of it contributed directly to the thing that
                       finally killed the Great Bear: namely, that a corrupt
                       state-run economy is doomed to fail.  I'm glad the
                       USSR fell, but Reagan shouldn't get the praise simply
                       because his administration wanted it to happen, any more
                       than Bush should get to claim to have brought down the
                       Berlin Wall.  These things were virtually inevitable.
                       In the meantime, due to Reagan's nuclear brinksmanship,
                       I and my friends were more than certain that the world
                       would be over by 1988, much more so than we'd been
                       before he started his John Wayne politics.
2004/6/12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30765 Activity:nil
6/11    Clinton >> Carter > Kerry. -dem. What's the republican take?
        Or maybe Clinton > Carter >> Kerry ?
2004/6/12-13 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:30766 Activity:low
6/11    Real World IKEA:
        \_ Much more entertaining than MTV.  Thank you.
        \_ that was pretty funny.
2004/6/12 [Uncategorized] UID:30767 Activity:nil 66%like:30611
6/11    Restored.
2004/6/12 [Computer/Companies/Google] UID:30768 Activity:nil
6/11    Think again before you buy a google stock: (
2004/6/12-13 [Reference/Celebration] UID:30769 Activity:kinda low
6/12    Happy bday, scotsman!
        \_ seconded
        \_ I love it when the motd sings to me! --scotsman
2004/6/12-13 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30770 Activity:nil 52%like:30761
6/11    Iraqi WMD shipped to the Netherlands:
        [restored a few times now.  why do you erase facts?  doesn't fit your
         hate-bushco agenda?  censorship sucks.  you can't hide truth.]
2004/6/12-14 [Computer/Networking] UID:30771 Activity:very high
6/12    I setup imaps and pop3s on a freebsd virtual server.  I can connect
        to it if I first ssh into the machine and do pine.  But if I try
        to connect to it from somewhere outside (say soda) it always times
        out.  I can see that the daemons are running from "netstat -a".
        What could be wrong?  some router filtering on 993 or 995?  Or
        the server is configured in some weird way?  this is a virtual server
        on  I just switched to them.  Thanks.
        \_ type lsof -i:995, it should say (towards the end of the line)
           *:pop3s. If it says localhost:pop3s, you aren't listening externally
           Then you can nmap to port 995.  If you don't have the ability to nmap.
           Then you can nmap to port 995.  If you don't have the ability to nmap
           from an external box, email me with the info and i'll do it for you.

           (nmap can also tell you if it is filtered)  -crebbs
           *:pop3s. If it says localhost:pop3s, you aren't listening
           externally.  Then you can nmap to port 995.  If you don't have the
           ability to nmap from an external box, email me with the info and
           i'll do it for you.  (nmap can also tell you if it is filtered)
           -crebbs  [formatd]
        \_ You're almost certainly behind a firewall.  Contact startlogic's
           tech support.  It is also possible your servers are configured to
           only listen on local ports.  It sounds like you have shell access,
           so 'netstat -an' will list all open ip:port combinations.
2004/6/12-14 [Computer/SW/SpamAssassin, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:30772 Activity:high 64%like:30791
6/12    I'm going to switch my dsl provider this month and the new guys don't
        offer webmail. Does anyone know of a cheap (~ $5/mo) web mail provider
        who is reasonably reliable? I've been told to take a look at .Mac, but
        I'd like to hear other suggestions. tia.
        \_ I use and have mail (imap, pop3, webmail) as
           well as www and ftp.  Starts at $4/mo.
           \_ thanks I'll take a look.
        \_ gmail
           \_ I'm not interested in free services that read your email and
              stick stupid ads in the messages. I also don't want to have
              a bunch of junk cluttering up the web ui.
              \_ the ui is really nice, not cluttered, the ads are very
                 subtle, and it doesn't _read_ your mail, unless you think
                 just having your data on their servers means "reading"...
                 it's on-the-fly keyword triggers, not "reading."
                 \_ How is the spam filtering on gmail?
                 \_ Are you either a google employee or a friend of one who is
                    likely to materially gain from friends-and-family options
                    in the IPO?  On-fly-the keyword triggers means they had to
                    scan my mail.  I don't care if they did it when it came in,
                    when it was sitting on their servers or "on-the-fly" when
                    I read it.  They're still reading for content.
                    \_ wow, so what do you think the other webmails do when
                       they scan for viruses?  Or is that somehow, not reading
                       the content?
                       \_ they're scanning for my benefit for something I would
                          do for myself.  google is scanning for their benefit
                          to insert ads which is something i would not do for
                          myself.  the difference should be obvious to anyone
                          not likely to gain financially from google's sucess.
                          again, are you an employee or other person likely
                          to benefit from the google ipo or other google
                          \_ I guess I wouldn't be scanning my mail, since
                             I don't run windows.... but no, I don't have
                             any stake in google at all.
        \_ Followup. Has anyone heard of or Both seem
           to provide web mail for around $5/mo.
2004/6/12-14 [Transportation/Car] UID:30773 Activity:very high
6/12    Can anyone tell me - or better yet point me to refs online - whether
        the city of berkeley has the authority to alter the meanings of painted
        parking zones.  It seems to me obvious that if the state says that the
        yellow zone means one thing, then berkeley can't add restrictions, but
        a source of authority would be nice.
           CVC 22507 covers the right of localities to enact parking
           CVC 21458 defines the meanings of the various colors, but
           gives local authorities the right to define the times.
           Hmm, you might have something here. IANAL.
        \- this is a total guess, but i suspect in some areas like handicapped
           stuff, there would be minimums they could not go below, but i would
           think in some other areas they would have wider latitide, perhaps
           subject to notification. however, trying to arguing anything
           subtle with the berkeley parking functionaries is hopeless and
           you probably have no chance of speaking to somebody intelligent
           with discretion, since the "due process" [sic] is stacked against
           you here for minor matters ... bit on the ass by "de minimis non
           curat lex" as it were. berkeley has ignored state law on a number
           of things like the concrete traffic diverters. i think loading
           zone would reasonably be something with some municipal latitude.
           however if the the local rules are not posted that may be a reason-
           able defense [in theory] --psb
        \_ what additional restrictions did they add?  were those restrictions
           posted or made available to you as a member of the general public?
           if there was a sign nearby you're screwed.  if not, throw yourself
           on a judge's mercy and see how it goes.
           \- part of my point above is "you will never get to see a judge".
              if you write up a "mere" letter, it will be turned down without
              explanation. if you want to go to a second round, you will
              probably have to pay the ticket anyway, take off another day
              of your life etc. the only way you can reasonably argue a
              "de minimis" case in berkeley is if it fits into one of the
              well definied exceptions like "broken parking meter". if anything
              if you start arguing with some Xeroxing and Stapling Elf about
              "why guido calabrese would say i am right" you start feeling
              like you are the stupid one.
              \_ It's probably not worth any of this to fight a $28 ticket, but
                 seeing a judge shouldn't be a problem.  Why would this require
                 two days off work?
           \_ They claim that commercial tags/permits are/is required to use
              the yellow zone for loading/unloading.
              \- hmm, you can certainly ask them "what code am i violating"
                 at which point it should be easy to look up. i suppose
                 there is another argument about not enforcing a law
                 consistency. btw, i have seen some loading zones with
                 signs that say things like "only applies to vehicles with
                 at least 3 axels". i dont think you will be able to show
                 inconsistent enforcement. i think you also will not get
                 enough of a day in court to make the argument: "i was con-
                 forming to any reasonable notion of (un)loading ... the
                 state has an obligation to be explicit about any requirements
                 beyond the common sense." of course "ratio legis est anima
                 legis" doesnt apply to berkeley. i hope you fight this
                 and lets us know how it goes. --psb
                 \_ I hope he fights this with enough ammo and body armor to
                    make a good showing at city hall before he goes down.
              \_ They are right. Yellow zones are for loading/unloading only,
                 with drivers in non-commercial tagged cars are usually
                 required to stay with the vehicle. There are yellow zones are
                 also specifically marked "commercial vehicles only." No tag,
                 you lose. If you have a commercial license, you can probably
                 get it dismissed.
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:June:12 Saturday <Friday, Sunday>