| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2004/6/21-23 [Computer/Companies/Google] UID:30927 Activity:very high 66%like:30889 |
6/23 Wheee! More free Gmail invites. Email me. -dgies
\_ This is such a great marketing scam. Whipping up the masses to
fight over access to be a beta tester and keeping Gmail endlessly
in the news. Of course this is the exact opposite of the right
way to get a variety of people to test a new product.
\_ They don't want beta testers. They're constructing a social
map (similar to orkut/friendster) of the techno-elite, probably
\_ wow. There goes the neighborhood:
http://www.orkut.com/Profile.aspx?uid=3754490903895861645
http://www.orkut.com/Profile.aspx?uid=9996167195013252263
just to get their fingers on the pulse of the net. It may be
that they'll never open the service to the masses; you have to
know someone already in there.
\_ The true 'techno elite' don't need or want a gmail account.
The people most psycho over it are all on slashdot. There
are some slashdot people who aren't idiots but overall it
isn't techno-elite time overe there.
\_ Gmail seems to work better than any other free email I've seen.
For whatever reason, for me it's fast, uncluttered, and the
search feature is good. Plus it has the most storage space.
So while there's a surplus of hype, it's a good email service.
It's an interesting extension of Google... if gmail becomes
huge, Google becomes basically "the internet", with all forms
of internet content going through them. Pretty neat, and a
huge adv. leverage. I've never ever clicked one of the ads tho.
\_ How does Google become "the internet" any more than Yahoo or
AOL? Yahoo provides the same services as Google and many
more that Google does not. When we get Google-Date that can
find people their perfect match in a few simply clicks then
you're talking.
\_ Well ok, it's mainly hype. My main point was that it is
indeed a better webmail service at this time.
http://somethingawful.com has a gmail article now that's worth a
chuckle.
\_ I got a gmail account, and all I got was this lousy message:
Gmail is temporarily unavailable. Cross your fingers and try again
in a few minutes. We're sorry for the inconvenience.
\_ They don't call it beta for nothing.
\_ I got this too initially, just wait a while for the account
creation to go through. Not a very good first impression though. ;)
\_ They're gone for now. Maybe more later. -dgies
\_ More! More! We want more!
\_ What the heck would I need a Gmail account for? Someone invited
me to orkut and WTF would I use that either? I did sign up for
it to see what it was, but never logged in since. I agree that
this is much ado about nothing.
\_ If it won't for gmail, you won't get that 100mb from Yahoo either,
so shut the fuck up and get it bitch!!
\_ It's the google hype machine in action. In a month or two this
will be Yet Another Free Email Service With Ads unless you're a
slashdot moron in which case you'll always feel superior knowing
you had a 3 or 4 digit Google ID.
\_ Gmail is quite different from your average free mail
with ads. It groups emails by conversation, and does not
clutter up your inbox. If you had 10 corresponds with this
one person, it will just show up as one entry in the inbox.
Click this entry and you will see all emails related to
this conversation. It's also light and fast. Very nifty. I
am no fan of their privacy policy however. But as a techie,
I like their interface very much.
\_ Hmm sounds like stuff I used to do with (n)mh+mh-e+gnus
back in 1994.
\_ Sure, word looks like edlin too.
\_ Why not keep your e-mail on your own PC? What good is
1 GB of free e-mail storage?!
\_ I got some too, thanks to dgies! I'll give away the next two
invites posted here!
\_ OK, they're gone for now. -dgies |
| 2004/6/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:30928 Activity:very high 66%like:30932 |
6/21 Clinton lies!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1157303/posts
\_ Please don't delete properly-formatted freeper links. -liberal
\_ It's a good thing 'liberal' is here to let others know that
s/he has given 'protected' status to properly formatted freeper
links. Here Ye! Here Ye! Let it be known that it is no longer
ok to censor properly formatted freeper links as they now fall
under the protection of 'liberal'! -!freeperboy
\_ Freeper links mysteriously disappearing makes liberals look
like we don't tolerate debate.
\_ It isn't a mystery. Leftists have been censoring the
poor lad since day 1. Where's the mystery? -!freeperboy
\_ I read it. Boy was it a waste of time. And here I was
trying to be mature and engage my Republican friends
in an thoughtful debate and all I read about are the
non-sensical rantings of a bitter author. There's
nothing substantive in here. Now I see why people
delete URLs.
\_ Freeper != Republican. Freeper != conservative. There
are real honest to god conservatives right here on the
motd. Freeperboy isn't one of them.
\_ No. Free republic is useless noise, and a link from it
with the description "Clinton lies!" is most certainly
noise.
\_ Of course, there is the possibility that it was posted
by a liberal to shake up an insufferably dull motd
to make a boring monday morning more interesting.
\_ That's the most reasonable explanation I've seen.
Given that the Freepers have cried wolf so much,
it only makes sense to feature them as entertainment.
\_ Not just reasonable, also correct. -op
\_ More fringie than the tinfoil hat crowd. I
love it!
\_ Big news! Sky is blue!
\_ No it's not. It's grey!
\_ No it's not. It's gray!
\_ Clinton Lies! Hillary Cries!
\_ The truth? You can't handle the truth!
\_ dude, he lied about *SEX* Everybody lies about SEX.
On the other hand, we got a guy in whitehouse right now lied about
WAR. If this is happening in Alex Hamiton's time, it would be
considered as an act of treason.
\_ Lied about war? Which war and what lies? URL, please. And no,
everybody doesn't lie about sex. People who aren't scumbags
don't have to lie about it. Chew on that for a while.
\_ Who is Alex Hamiton?
\_ Mmmmrrrnnnn Brrrrr!
\_ Look at a $10 bill some time.
\_ Oh thanks! I have achieved enlightenment! Now please
tell me, who was that poor old man that died the other
week? What was his name, Roald Raygoon?
\_ Hi troll!
\_ Not everyone believes that Bush lied about the war. There
is no way to prove (beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt)
that he lied about the war. Clinton, however was caught
with is pants down.
\_ If you note what was actually said and not what the media
op/ed pages paraphrase him into saying, there was no lying.
\_ I completely agree. I don't think that he has misled
or lied about the war. He has been fairly honest about
it since the beginning. Anyone who knows how intel.
works knows that it can never be 100%. You often have
to make time sensitive decisions based on incomplete,
conflicting data.
\_ He said he was certain that Saddam had WMD when the
evidence was contradictory and uncertain. That counts
as a "lie" in my book. Look up the defn of lie. It has
more than one defn. Spreading a falsehood (that you
believe to be true) is a lie by one defn of it. He
is certainly guilty of this kind of lie.
Lie \Lie\ (l[imac]), n. [AS. lyge; akin to D. leugen, OHG. lugi,
G. l["u]ge, lug, Icel. lygi, Dan. & Sw. l["o]gn, Goth. liugn.
See {Lie} to utter a falsehood.]
[...]
2. A fiction; a fable; an untruth. --Dryden.
\_ bush hems and misinterprets and miscontrues
and exaggerates immensely the true economic costs of
his tax cuts like ALL THE TIME, whenever he opens
his mouth, i think we're living in an alternate
reality, i don't know how he gets away with it. |
| 2004/6/21 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:30929 Activity:insanely high |
6/21 Global warming will make cities hotter:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996017
\_ Well, unlike global warming, this problem can be dealt with at the
local level:
http://www.greenroofs.com/Greenroofs101/index.htm
There are vaious ways to cut down on the heat island effect, and
they tend to also be things that make cities nicer anyway.
\_ Trees cause air pollution. --Gipper
\_ Who said anything about trees? We can just grow vegetables
on rooftops, like the Ketchup plant. -Gipper #1 fan
\_ I thought global warming was going to make the world colder? That
was the explanation when Al Gore gave his Global Warming speech on
one of the coldest days on record earlier this year. I'm so
confused. Are we heating or cooling? Why did they tell us 20 years
ago we were all going to freeze to death? Now they tell us we're
going to fry. *BUT* in the process of frying, we're all going to
freeze to death! Oh woe! The sky is falling!
\_ are you really this stupid? -tom
\_ are you really this ignorant and obtuse? everything I said
is true with a healthy dash of sarcasm thrown in for my own
amusement. you're probably too young to remember when they
assured us all we were going to freeze to death.
\_ Global warming can make things freeze, see "The Day
After Tomorrow"
\_ i think the fair answer is probably: yes, but the left is
just as dumb. If you want to see the spectacular
failure of the Right to understand how science works,
go read Crighton's speech at Caltech. To see how ignorant
of how science works your typical liberal is, try talking
to them about biotechnology.
\_ Are you stupid enough to believe in global warming &c.?
Read The Skeptical Environmentalist, might help you see
things from a better perspective.
\_ And note that the attacks on TSE were nearly all ad
hominem, argument from authority, and a whole boatload of
other logical fallacies. This more than anything
convinced me that the whole global-warming-believing
community is based on a house of cards. -emarkp
\_ as opposed to, say, Mormonism.
\_ He shoots! He scores!
\_ Not really. Mormonism, like all religions,
is based on faith. The main thesis of the
anti-global warming crowd is that global
warming is also based on faith, which
is a pretty bad situation for a scientific
theory. The above personal attack plays
right into their hands (I'm an athiest
who thinks climate change science is a mixed
bag, but that it's the anti-global warming crowd
who are actually basing their science
on faith.)
\_ Yeah, but I could care less about stupid
motd arguments, except when they become
funny as in the above case.
\_ BZZZT! Both pro and anti global warming
advocates *must* be basing their theories
in faith to some large degree or there
wouldn't be anything to debate. The pro-
side bases theirs on the arrogant assumption
that only humans can change the climate and
only humans can save it. This is akin to
the Smokey the Bear commercials. Only *you*
can prevent forest fires. Which is ignorant
pap because forest fires are actually a good
thing... for the forest! Not for people.
The anti- side is essntially saying, "Your
stuff is insufficient to prove anything. At
best you don't have enough data". There is
no faith here on either side unless you're
grinding that agenda axe again.
\_ I'd say the pro side is saying "It looks
like we're changing the climate, and on
something this important we should err on
the side of caution." -pro person
\_ It looks like Iraq might have wmd
and on something this important we
should err on the side of caution
and invade the buggers.
\_ The anti-global warming crowd is
being scientific (skeptical) and stating
that the pro-global warming crowd's
evidence and proposed fixes are not
justified given the amount of information
we have. There are lots of other problems
that we could solve (global poverty for
ex.) using the money that the global
warming people want us to spend on
unproven methods that won't really
improve the quality of life for anyone.
\_ The anti-Iraq invasion crowd is being
scientific (skeptical) and starting
that the pro-invasion crowd's
evidence of WMD and links to terrorism
are not justified given the amount of
information we have. There are lots
of other problems that we could solve
using the money that the Iraq invasion
crowd did spend on an unproven invasion
that hasn't really improved the quality
of life for anyone.
\_ Scientific American, Nature and Science all have
debunked his "findings." You might claim that this
is just argument from authority, but the truth is
that these are the premier scientific publications
in the world and if they all agree on this fact,
then there is a very good chance that they are
correct and not the economically motivated reviews
in Business Week and the WSK. -ausman
in Business Week and the WSJ. Did you read the
Jan 2002 SciAM articles by the four scientists? -ausman
\_ I read the SciAm response. It was a collection of
logical fallacies. That was my /primary example/.
-emarkp
\_ I read the articles in Nature, Science and SciAm.
Frankly I was astonished that such remarkable
publications could stoop so low. The "response"
was in many ways restricted to particular bits
that the author has since posted updates and
clarifications to on this web page.
Some of the rebuttals sounded to me like the
desparate attempts of 19th century "scientists"
to keep darwin's ideas out of science.
The authors main point is that such narrow
thinking prevents us from seeing what the real
problems are (poverty, lack of education, &c.)
and solving those problems.
\_ most non millionaires think the book is a load of
crap,
http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/environmentalist
\_ your reference for 'non millionaires' is http://csicop.org???
what does your class warfare mantra have to do with
anything?
\_ Go read Lomborg's pages on 'errors and corrections'
and 'critiques and replies'.
http://www.lomborg.com/books.htm
There may be some dubious references he's used but on the
whole the book is meticulously referenced and he has been
forthright in acknowledging any problems. His critics, on
the other hand, have been much less forthright or careful
about their criticism, relying on personal and political
attacks rather than debating the facts and policy proposals
as they should.
\_ i don't agree with the above 8 lines at all.
\_ thank you for adding nothing to this conversation.
\_ The funniest thing is that nations like Tuvula are
literally disappearing before our very eyes due to
global warming, while the coal lobby and their
allies continue to claim with a straight face that
no such thing as rising sea levels are occurring.
\_ no. TV is disappearing due to higher ocean levels.
no one knows if that is man made warming or natural
earth warming. there is a huge body of evidence that
supports the idea that this is part of a natural
cycle that we're not the cause of nor are we able to
influence cycles of that magnitude. the effect is
there but you assume there is only one possible cause.
\_ Looks like there's some disagreement in the comments above.
Decide for yourself. The Scientific American 11-page
criticism, and Lomborg's response to it, is posted at
http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg . Read it and see what
you think. Personally, I think it makes SciAm look like a
bunch of politically-motivated idiots.
\_ Why look at an edited version that makes Lomborg look
better than he really does? The SciAm article, his
responses and replies to that and others are here:
http://www.csua.org/u/7uf
\_ freeze dried or freeze fried?
\_ I'm really not sure. The "science" of global warming is too
internally inconsistent and agenda ridden to figure out. |
| 2004/6/21 [Consumer/Audio] UID:30930 Activity:nil |
6/21 E450 based car mp3 player:
http://www.dme.org/log/2004/06/16/project-icece |
| 2004/6/21 [Uncategorized] UID:30931 Activity:nil |
6/21 Maybe this is old news, but I hadn't seen this until today.
The State of the Union speech you missed.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/presaddress2.shtml |
| 2004/6/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:30932 Activity:nil 66%like:30928 |
6/21 Clinton lies!
http://csua.org/u/7ue
\_ Please don't delete properly-formatted freeper links. -liberal
\_ It's a good thing 'liberal' is here to let others know that
s/he has given 'protected' status to properly formatted freeper
links. Here Ye! Here Ye! Let it be known that it is no longer
ok to censor properly formatted freeper links as they now fall
under the protection of 'liberal'! -!freeperboy
\_ Freeper links mysteriously disappearing makes liberals look
like we don't tolerate debate.
\_ It isn't a mystery. Leftists have been censoring the
poor lad since day 1. Where's the mystery? -!freeperboy
\_ I read it. Boy was it a waste of time. And here I was
trying to be mature and engage my Republican friends
in an thoughtful debate and all I read about are the
non-sensical rantings of a bitter author. There's
nothing substantive in here. Now I see why people
delete URLs.
\_ Freeper != Republican. Freeper != conservative. There
are real honest to god conservatives right here on the
motd. Freeperboy isn't one of them.
\_ No. Free republic is useless noise, and a link from it
with the description "Clinton lies!" is most certainly
noise.
\_ Of course, there is the possibility that it was posted
by a liberal to shake up an insufferably dull motd
to make a boring monday morning more interesting.
\_ That's the most reasonable explanation I've seen.
Given that the Freepers have cried wolf so much,
it only makes sense to feature them as entertainment.
\_ Not just reasonable, also correct. -op
\_ More fringie than the tinfoil hat crowd. I
love it!
\_ Big news! Sky is blue!
\_ No it's not. It's gray!
\_ Clinton Lies! Hillary Cries!
\_ The truth? You can't handle the truth!
\_ dude, he lied about *SEX* Everybody lies about SEX.
On the other hand, we got a guy in whitehouse right now lied about
WAR. If this is happening in Alex Hamiton's time, it would be
considered as an act of treason.
\_ Lied about war? Which war and what lies? URL, please. And no,
everybody doesn't lie about sex. People who aren't scumbags
don't have to lie about it. Chew on that for a while.
\_ Who is Alex Hamiton?
\_ Mmmmrrrnnnn Brrrrr!
\_ Look at a $10 bill some time.
\_ Oh thanks! I have achieved enlightenment! Now please
tell me, who was that poor old man that died the other
week? What was his name, Roald Raygoon?
\_ Hi troll!
\_ Not everyone believes that Bush lied about the war. There
is no way to prove (beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt)
that he lied about the war. Clinton, however was caught
with is pants down.
\_ If you note what was actually said and not what the media
op/ed pages paraphrase him into saying, there was no lying.
\_ I completely agree. I don't think that he has misled
or lied about the war. He has been fairly honest about
it since the beginning. Anyone who knows how intel.
works knows that it can never be 100%. You often have
to make time sensitive decisions based on incomplete,
conflicting data.
\_ He said he was certain that Saddam had WMD when the
evidence was contradictory and uncertain. That counts
as a "lie" in my book. Look up the defn of lie. It has
more than one defn. Spreading a falsehood (that you
believe to be true) is a lie by one defn of it. He
is certainly guilty of this kind of lie.
\_ I still agree with what the other guy said. What Clinton has done
is probably shop lifting. What BushCo has done is mass murdering.
You are right, there is no comparison.
Lie \Lie\ (l[imac]), n. [AS. lyge; akin to D. leugen, OHG. lugi,
G. l["u]ge, lug, Icel. lygi, Dan. & Sw. l["o]gn, Goth. liugn.
See {Lie} to utter a falsehood.]
[...]
2. A fiction; a fable; an untruth. --Dryden.
\_ bush hems and misinterprets and miscontrues
and exaggerates immensely the true economic costs of
his tax cuts like ALL THE TIME, whenever he opens
his mouth, i think we're living in an alternate
reality, i don't know how he gets away with it. |
| 2004/6/21-22 [Consumer/Camera] UID:30933 Activity:high |
6/21 For those with SLRs: Do you also have a small digital camera?
If so, how often do you use the smaller camera?
\_ I got a 4 megapixel camera for my wife for snapshots of our
son. I never use it. When I want quick pictures I just use
a 50mm or 20mm lens on my D60. -meyers
\_ I still carry around the Canon S230 I had before my SLR for
snapshots, but usually end up letting someone else use it while
I use my SLR.
\_ Man, you guys are rich, Digi-SLR cost over $900
\_ My SLR is just a used Elan IIe. - guy with S230
\_ you can get film SLRs for $200
\_ Once you have a digital camera, you'll use the film camera a lot
less, be it an SLR or not. Once you get a digital SLR, your film
camera will collect dust. Think about it before you plung down
the money now for a film slr.
\_ when I said small camera, I meant a small digital camera
like a Canon S230
\_ It depends on what kind of photographer you are. If you're
just shooting snapshots, it's probably very true. But if you're
in it as a hobby, like I am, you will find SLRs a lot more fun
than any digital snapshooters. The cost of film and developing
makes me think about getting a digital SLR sometimes, but it
still costs too much and you lose the characteristics of using
different films, which I enjoy. - S230 guy
\_ The 300D is my only camera now. I used to have a p&s digicam and
a aps p&s camera, but I got rid of them after getting the 300D.
It is light enough to take almost everywhere and the picture are
stunning even if you don't know what you are doing.
\_ I have two film SLRs. I'm going to buy a cheap digital p&s for my
wife but I probably won't be using it much. I'm still waiting for
digitals SLRs to get cheaper before I buy one. --- yuen
\_ a small pocket-sized digital camera is great when you want to
travel light and not look like a tourist. you can get very good
picture quality and for photo album sized picture prints, you
won't notice the difference.
\_ if size matters, than, chances are, you are not all that into
photography (and there is nothing wrong with that), thus, you
would use more of a small digital camera. Personally, I find
films are pain in the butt to organize, but using a real SLR
using a fast lens, and knobs and rings to adjust apatures /
shutterspeed an absolute pleasure to taking a picture itself.
\_ That is the choice - the enjoyment of photography, or of the
actual subject at hand. Carrying a Digital Rebel would interfere
with quite a few of my subjects, and I do care about photography.
\_ I like having an SLR (Elan II) and a P&S Digital (S400). If I'm
going to take lame party pictures or whatever, I'll use the digital.
Both serve their purpose, the main reason to use the S400 is size. |
| 2004/6/21 [Health/Disease/General, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:30934 Activity:high |
6/21 For the guy who wanted to learn German, don't. It's not a language,
it's a throat disease. Learn a nice language like French or Japanese
or something. -John
\_ Japanese is also a throat disease. If you have to learn an axis
language, try italian.
\_ A schizophrenic mess, yes, but throat disease? The furthest back
fricative or stop in Japanese is palatal. -- ulysses
\_ If you're lingually adept enough for Italian, you'll have no
trouble learning the phonetics of Japanese. The grammar and
writing system are a whole 'nother kettle of fish-heads. -erikred
\_ For some of those Italian girls I'd be lingually anything.
\_ Methinks Dutch is more of a throat disease than German. And for
those who're clueless: Dutch <> DEutSch.
\_ If you were really cluefull you'd call it Nederlandse, the proper
name for the language. Nobody calls Nederlandse "dutch" except
clueless english speakers.
\_ "English", not "Engels", Nederlandse boy. -John
\_ Dear fucktard: I guess the dutch guy i work with who lived
in the Netherlands for all of his 27 years until about two
weeks ago is a "clueless english speaker" then. I had no
idea. And I suppose that means the Swiss guy i work with
who spent five years in grad school at Delft and speaks
fluent Dutch is also a "clueless English Speaker."
Who knew?
\_ I was born in Holland and speak Dutch fluently, and I have
never ever heard the language referred to as "Nederlandse"
by anyone in English. In Dutch it is called "Nederlands",
or you could say "De Nederlandse Taal" (the Dutch Language)
-eric
\_ Thank you, allow me to reward you the "annality prize of
the day" award.
\_ Even more fun is learning Dutch and German.
\_ Afrikaans
\_ French R's are a bit throaty feeling to me. Deutsche throatiness
levels are up to the speaker... you don't have to make the "ch"
noise deep down and some even pronounce it like "sh". Hebrew
seems throatier from what I hear.
\_ According to linguists, the ugliest sounding languages are:
German, Cantonese and Hebrew. |
| 2004/6/21 [Computer/SW/OS/Linux, Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:30935 Activity:high |
6/21 Any recommendations for a file system I can access natively under
Windows 2003 and Linux (Debian) with ownership, permissions, etc?
Does this even exist?
\_ FAT32 is probably the best you're gonna get.
\_ I've seen NTFS modules for unix but they're usually listed as
read-only. I've never tried them out. You want this on the same
computer for dual-boot, right?
\_ The NTFS drivers have occasional problems just reading directories
correctly (ie, some files aren't visible from Unix).
\_ The NTFS drivers have occasional problems just reading
directories correctly (ie, some files aren't visible from Unix).
\_ op's asking for one w/ ownership & perms, guys
\_ they don't really exist, but we're being nice about it.
\_ NTFS has ownerships and perms. What's the problem if it can
be made to work under linux?
\_ Unless you're specifically asking about it for dual-boot, you may
have better luck just setting up a samba server with ACL support.
\_ I once read about an ext2 FS driver for windows, but I can't say
anything about reliability/quality.
\_ Ext2fsd by Matt Wu or something, google it. RW access,
semi-stable, use at your own risk...
\_ Thanks, will try this. (Yes, it's for dual boot.) -John
\_ You're welcome - williamc |
| 2004/6/21 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30936 Activity:very high |
6/21 So much for the Reagan bounce.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Polls/iraq_election_040621.html
\_ No one ever said there was one. I want to see Kerry's poll numbers
\_ patently false
\_ it's nice that you both interrupted my statements and failed
to back yours up in any way. score 2 points.
\_ patently means obviously, and he's right. -!op
after a debate. So far, the more news coverage he gets the lower
his poll numbers go right after a press event. His advisors should
be shitting in their pants thinking about that one.
\_ Yeah, just look up on http://news.google.com for "reagan bounce".
Pew poll. Do at least a tiny bit of research before posting.
\_ Like research has anything to do with the motd. Or hyperbole
is unheard of here.
\_ It does, actually. And, you can exaggerate, but at least
don't be totally wrong.
\_ Ok, so you went to google and found some op/eds from stupid
people. You can always find stupid people in op/eds. No
one from either campaign or any responsible person in
government said it would happen.
\_ That's a lot better than "No one ever said there was one."
Good.
\_ I disagree. Go to http://www.pollingreport.com and look at the
the polls done in the last week. The three most recent listed
there all show a modest recovery in Bush's numbers. -Kerry supporter
\_ "Seventy-six percent now say the war has damaged the United
States' image in the rest of the world; that's 13 points more
than last summer. Sixty-three percent say it's caused long-term
harm to U.S. relations with countries that opposed the war, up
12 points..." Where's the bozo who always calls this claim
The Big Lie? |
| 2004/6/21 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:30937 Activity:high |
6/21 Can anyone here offer a reasonable defense for partial birth
abortion? -jrleek
\_ WOW! This was a *great* troll! I'm shocked that you got so many
lines out of such an obvious hot-button issue. *VERY* well done!
You earn the "Troll of the Month" award!
\_ if the foot is still in the pussy, it's fair game
\_ Why do you hate trolls?
\_ Um, which procedure are you talking about, since the PBA folks
can't seem to specify (even in the bill)? Do you mean Intact
Dilation and Extraction?
\_ Either Intrauterine cranial decompression ior Intact
Dilation and Extraction. Perferably both, I don't see a
whole lot of difference between the two. -jrleek
\_ Here is some information on intact dilation and extraction:
http://csua.org/u/7up (nationmaster link)
This procedure is only performed under extreme circumstances,
most of which involve the woman's life being put in severe
danger or the fetus actually dying in utero. I would argue
its necessary for doctors to be able to choose this procedure
under these circumstances. The bill that passed through
Congress and that Bush signed did not, and that is why it will
ultimately be struck down.
\_ My understanding is the the bill that was passed
allowed for the procedure under these conditions.
Link?
\_ I believe the situation is described under the link I
provided. The bill _does_ make an exception to save the
woman's life, but does not make an exception for
"health." This is an extremely murky area, becuase
then you are required to get into judgements about what
damage to quality of life constitutes "grevious damage"
to health, and distinguishing that from a case where
the woman's life really is in danger. I believe there
is also some very murky language in the bill itself
as to what procedure they were talking about, but I don't
have any URLs on hand for that one at the moment.
The groups challenging the law claim that it defines
"partial-birth abortion" so broadly that it bans
many types of safe abortion techniques that are used
in pre-viability procedures in the second trimester.
If they had passed a law that specifically banned third
trimester IDX abortions where the woman's health was
not in danger, as many states have already done, the
ACLU and NAF would probably not have much of a case.
But they wanted to make a big splash with the pro-life
groups, so they chose the more broadly worded bill.
\_ Ok, I just googled this up, but you're correct
about it not mentioning a that the procedure is
ok if the woman risks disability. However, i
wasn't really talking about the BUsh bill, I'm
curious in a more general sense. Assuming the
bill was written with this clause, why would you
support partial birth abortion? (Assuming you
don't support straight up infanticide.)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba7.htm
_/
I think you're slightly mischaracterizing the debate-- it's not as if PBAs
are being pushed as a great birth control alternative. Late term abortions
of any kind are dangerous and painful, and they're *always* a last resort.
\_ If it's so reluctant, why can't the baby be born and then be adopted? How
does having the baby essentially being birthed spare the mother anything?
It's a messy issue, but it's one of those things where if a qualified MD is
willing to do the procedure, it's probably because there's no other choice.
I'm opposed to the bill because it seems like simple political grandstanding,
and will mislead people into thinking that all abortions are as bad as PBAs.
As for why I would "support" PBAs, I support them in the same sense that I
support cops being able to shoot people-- in a perfect world they wouldn't
be necessary, but here we are.
\_ I don't support or not support it. Its not a medical
term. There is no such procedure. I support a
woman's right to choose an abortion up to the
point of viability. Beyond that, legislation is
and has always been appropriate under Roe v. Wade.
IDX itself makes me queasy, but under most of
the circumstances listed above besides the dubious
"mental health" reason, I would support it. The
"pba ban" bill is ridiculous because it defines
and bans a set of medical procedures that don't
exist.
\_ because some people think abortion is
a right no matter what.
\_ Claiming you don't know what PBA is because
it's not a medical term is like saying you
don't know what a cat is becasuse it should
be called "feline domesticus."
\_ Its a false analogy. The imagery that is used
to describe "partial birth abortion" is from
the aforementioned IDX procedure, which as I
said is extremely rare and is used almost
exclusively to protect the life of the mother.
\_ Where are the statistics that back this
claim up?
\_ Ashcroft tried to get them but was
denied by a judge. No numbers either
way.
\_ Then how can you say that it's
"extremely rare and is used almost
exclusively to protect the life of the
mother"?
The bill that was passed does not ban this
procedure specifically - instead it broadly
defines 'PBA' in a way that encompasses
many safe and legal techniques used for
pre-viability abortions in the second trimester,
some as early as the 12th week. This is bad
science and bad medicine. Just for some
perspective, 58 percent of legal abortions
occur with the first eight weeks of gestation,
and 88 percent are performed within the first
12 weeks. Just about 10 percent are performed
between 13 and 20 weeks. Less than one half
of one percent occur after 24 weeks, where IDX
would be used.
\_ Here you go, Washington Post editorial on partial birth abortions:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17029-2004Jun4.html
\_ Shrug. If people come up with a bill that says partial birth
abortions are legal only when it's the best choice for the mother,
I think that would be totally constitutional, abortionists would
be satified, and everyone could go home happy. |
| 2004/6/21 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30938 Activity:very high |
6/21 Nader taps Camejo to be running mate:
http://csua.org/u/7ul (Reuters)
It will break my heart if Bush wins CA because of this.
\_ you and a lot of other people.
http://www.dontvoteralph.net/start.htm
http://www.fuckyouralphnader.com
\_ All of them hard core Democrats. Their opinions have no value
to Nader supporters. See my reply below.
\_ What about http://repentantnadervoter.com.
I used to be a Green and I voted Nader in 96 and 2000.
I left the party, joined the Democrats and gave Kerry
money because of Nader's bull headedness. This should
concern you.
\_ I also voted for Nader in 2000, and have also given several
hundred dollars first to Dean, and now to Kerry.
\_ We've been over this. Nader voters do not *owe* Kerry or the
Democrats their votes or support. We are in a different party.
We don't like your guy any more or less than we like the other
guy. If Nader wasn't running, most of us would stay home or vote
for a different second party candidate.
\_ I think it is your duty as a reasonable and moral human
being to get out of the house on election day and vote
for the candidate most likely to beat Bush.
\_ I'm sorry, did you miss the part where I don't care what you
do? I'm much more concerned with those people who actually
might think a Green vote would make a difference now.
\_ Exactly. If you can honestly say "Nader or nobody" then
the Dems, the GOP and me don't care a rat's ass about you. The
problem is, contrary to their rhetoric, a great deal of
Naderites *would* have otherwise have voted for Gore and are
getting ready to do the same thing *again*. They are between
3 and 6%, depending on who you ask. -- ulysses
\_ Hey you guys, leave Nader alone. I am voting for him.
He is doing a lot of good for this country. Heh. -- ilyas
\_ Ilya, you know I respect you, but I'm having trouble
controlling the boot of death right now. --erikred
\_ We've been over this. If another guy runs who they like
better then they should vote for that guy. If the choice
was GWB or Stalin, you'd be voting for GWB but not because
you like Bush but because Stalin would be so much worse.
The same is true of the Nader voters. Some would vote for
Kerry if their candidate wasn't available but not because
they wanted to as a preference, only because they feel
the alternative is further from their own beliefs. I don't
see how voting for the lesser of evils is healthy for
Democracy. It is a good thing that Nader is there for us.
If Bush wins with Nader running, then Democracy wins, even
if that might have been the difference and Kerry loses.
I would happily vote for Bush over Stalin. I would vote
for Kerry over Bush *if* I bothered to show which I am
unlikely to do for Kerry. My preference is Nader and if
that means Bush wins and Kerry loses because Nader "stole"
votes from Kerry, then so be it. They weren't his in the
first place if they're going to someone else. I think some
of you are so blinded by your anti-Bush rhetoric that you
can't see or acknowledge that other people who share some
of your beliefs don't share all of them. We are the other
party in this country, not a third party. --Nader'04!
\_ No, democracy does not win in a scenario of 3 parties,
where 1 guy gets 40 percent and the other two get 30.
without runoff voting, you may very well have the
situation of most people disliking the choice. The way
our political system works, the place for building the
coalitions and hearing minor candidates is in the
party primaries. I would prefer runoff voting but this
is reality. In many ways the democrats and republicans
both suck, but they are what pan out from our political
process. Why can't the Greens win even a single congress
seat?
\_ If we had 3 parties that might be true. We have 1
party and are working hard to make a second. Vote
Nader in 04 for Democracy! And how exactly is it
that minor candidates are heard in primaries? The
primary system is for the Demopublicans. It is not
an official part of the Constitution. And why should
I want to hear about 'minor candidates' from the
major party anyway? I want to hear from the 'minor
party' which never happens to any degree because the
press won't report on them. Why won't the press
report on them? Because they don't get enough votes.
Why not? Because the people don't know enough about
them. Why is that? Because the press won't report
on them enough. Hmmm....
\_ Ah so the evil press is why not one single
congressional district can elect a green. Actually
in the primary both Kucinich and Dean offered
similar rhetoric to Nader. Both got a bit of
support but failed to win the primaries. They
got tons of coverage. They couldn't win over the
mainstream. I'd say that was a pretty fair war
of ideas. This country's policies ultimately
come from Congress and you can't just sweep in
at the top in some ultra-liberal coup.
\_ Barbara Lee qualifies as a pretty radical
member of Congress.
\_ a democrat... point?
\_ Healthy democracy also implies 'compromise.'
\_ But not endless capitulation. Compromise means both
sides give something up. If all Nader supporters
voted for Kerry what exactly would we get that we
wouldn't have gotten if Kerry won without us? Nada.
\_ Kerry is much more liberal than Gore.
\_ I'm sorry, but this "democracy works" arguement is so
fucked up. In short, i am hoping you live in California
instead of some other battleground state, as your vote
wouldn't of made a difference anyway. |
| 2004/6/21-22 [Consumer/CellPhone, Computer/SW] UID:30939 Activity:low |
6/21 I've never had a cell phone. My parents have Verizon Wireless and they
live in another state. Is it possible for me to add myself as another
line to their account and get a number with a local area code and just
pay them $20 a month? Is this a bad idea?
\_ Do area codes even matter anymore now? Most people I know just call
me with their cell phones (or company phone) and which area code
you're in doesn't make much of a difference to them.
\_ I might be possible now. I had a similar situation last year. AT&T
said that they were working on multi-area code family plans but
that they didn't have one available yet. I had to buy a separate
plan ~ $30/mo.
\_ How about this: Get on their plan with a number in their area code
then tell the cell phone company you're moving and want a new phone
number. Only wrinkle is if your company uses different frequencies
in different regions and your phone only covers one band. |
| 2004/6/21 [Transportation/Airplane] UID:30940 Activity:high |
6/21 Private space flight: http://tinyurl.com/yq2jn (sfgate.com) \_ stupid comments about hating everything deleted. violation of the waste of bits laws of physics. \_ Why do you hate physics? \_ I don't. I love physics. That's why I'm protecting the laws of physics from bit wasting motd posts. I even got a "P" in Physics 10! |
| 2004/6/21-22 [Computer/Companies/Google] UID:30941 Activity:high |
6/21 Is this a joke? I tried "shanghai" in gmail, and I got
sanjeev.sisodiya is not available, but the following usernames are:
\_ i think it's a server hiccup. when i was checking for available
usernames, i got some strange ones returned like you did.
\_ same here
\_ Beta. Anyone who uses gmail for real email they don't want to
lose is an idiot.
\_ NO, YOU ARE THE IDIOT, FUCK OFF THE MOTD!!
\_ *laugh* Another trollish slashdot fiend drools on the motd.
\_ lol, you are an idiot!
\_ heh, better an idiot than an ass, ass.
\_ ha, but you the stupid arse. |
| 2004/6/21 [Uncategorized] UID:30942 Activity:nil |
6/21 WHY DO YOU HATE WHY DO YOU HATE QUESTIONS? |
| 3/15 |