Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:June:21 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
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/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] 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?
2017/09/26 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/26    
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:June:21 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>