| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2004/6/24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30986 Activity:insanely high |
6/24 You know the release of interrogation memos a couple days ago?
Notice they did not include any State Department letters, ones that
argue against Ashcroft and the Justice Department's legal conclusions?
The Washington Post got one of the State Dept letters. Guess who
also gets bashed? Boalt Law Professor John Yoo. If you read to the
end of the article, you'll also find that the military intelligence
officers at Guantanamo who were supposed to be doing the abusing
complained and ultimately reversed the policy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A759-2004Jun23.html
\_ Bush/Cheney 2004!
\_ Yeah! Bush/Cheney! http://www.georgewbush.org
\_ Why do you hate Ashcroft?
\_ Bush/Cheney 2004!
\_ Holy shit! You mean our soliders aare actually good guys and thus
the half dozen knuckle draggers in Abu Graib are an aberation and
not taking their orders straight from Dubya? Would ever woulda
not taking their orders straight from Dubya? Who ever woulda
thunk that our guys aren't all raping murderous bastards? This
WAPO story must be a lie. |
| 2004/6/24 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30987 Activity:moderate |
6/23 http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Voter-Drive-Felons.html Kerry campaign gives Felons a new chance to scout the area for houses to rob and children to rape. \_ Why do you hate Kerry? \_ The felons already had the chance to scout the area. This just gives them an excuse to be at some mother's door with a clipboard in hand gathering personal information from people. It's still woefully stupid. I prefer to think Kerry's people are so blinded by hate and ambition they would do anything to win rather than they are outright evil which is what you imply. thunk that our guys aren't all raping murderous bastards? This WAPO story must be a lie. |
| 2004/6/24 [Science/Electric, Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:30988 Activity:very high |
6/24 Your body belongs to Bill Gates:
http://news.com.com/2100-1014_3-5244766.html
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,116655,00.asp
\_ All your skin are belong to us.
\_ "Since last year, Microsoft has been on a campaign to
generate more money from its intellectual property, and in
recent weeks the company has obtained patents for
double-clicking, XML-scripting methods and a system for
generating a to-do list from source code."
\_ Double-click? I guess they are more evil than Apple trying
to patent the GUI.
\_ I don't think it's evil for microsoft or apple to try to
patent stupid stuff; I think it's evil for the patent office
to let them get away with it.
\_ No. The rights to produce products that uses your skin as an
electrical conduit to power Windows powered wearable computing
devices belongs to Microsoft in certain parts of the world for
the next few years. But that isn't as exciting as claiming BG
owns your skin.
\_ I thought the agents in the Matrix already has this technology. |
| 2004/6/24 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30989 Activity:very high |
6/24 The UN declined to extend the US's immunity from the International
Criminal Court. That immunity expires June 30th, the same day Iraq is
supposed to be turned over to a provisional government. Although Iraq
is not a signatory to the ICC, what would happen if the new "soverign"
government immediatly ratified the ICC treaty? Supposedly US soldiers
could be prosecuted in cases where the US is unwilling to prosecute.
\_ putting sudan on the UN human rights panel even
strays my liberal thought shield
\_ What's wrong with Sudan? Did Sudan invade another country
with no cause other than a desire to control that country's
oil? Did Sudan illegally imprison and torture thousands of
foreign citizens whose only desire is freedom from foreign
rule? Did Sudan betray their own citizens and constitution
by imprisoning them in gulags with no legal recourse? Sudan
is much better qualified to sit on the UN panel than America.
\_ Sudan is in the middle of their own little genocide.
\_ And America is in the middle of a Crusade fueled by a
lust for oil. I still ask you why is America better
than Sudan. I wish our hands were as clean as Sudans'.
\_ what planet do you live on and how much pot
and marx did it take you to get there?
\_ I like the cut of your jib! --aaron
\_ Those soldiers should be prosecuted for raping all those Japanese
woman.
\_ Which soldiers? The American ones who got prosecuted for
raping all tose Japanese women?
\_ all of them got a slap on a wrisk for abduct and rape
14 years old "japanese" women.
\_ No real country would bring an American up on charges. Anyway,
that can only happen in this (bogus) legal context if the country
the person is a citizen of doesn't have a real legal system and
doesn't do anything about their own war crimes. Aaron and similar
echo-chamber leftists may drool at the possibility of 3 judges from
the Sudan, Cuba, and North Korea putting an American soldier or
some high ranking political official on a UN sponsored show trial
but it'll never happen in the real world.
\_ Could we hear from the ehco-chamber motd brownshirts one more time
about how "why do you hate america" is a straw man? I need
a good laugh today. |
| 2004/6/24 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:30990 Activity:high |
6/24 http://www.pvponline.com Online idiots hate Captain America! (In the news section) \_ Heh, when I play online and people have idiotic sound-bite names (Bush sux, etc.) I just start team-killing. Much more fun that way. |
| 2004/6/24-25 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:30991 Activity:high |
6/24 In the "I can't make this shit up" category:
Judge getting dismissed for using a penis pump, shaving his
pubic hair and "pleasuring himself" behind the bench while presiding
over court cases: http://csua.org/u/7wi
\_ Maybe he was hearing rape cases.
\_ I suspect he was pre-shaved. It's unlikely he actually shaved
while court was in session.
\_ I reject your use of the word "unlikely." Have you been
building up statistics on the genital-shaving practices of
judges in and out of the courtroom? I didn't think so.
\_ idiot. have you ever shaved yourself or another? he'd
either gash the hell out of his dick and balls or he would
get caught. keep your anal retentive self where someone
cares.
\_ he did get caught.
\_ not shaving himself. go away anal boy.
\_ He's not anal, he's just fuck-stupid...and not
nearly as funny as he thinks he is.
\_ As a likely male, he can attest to the difficulties of
male genital shaving. Even pervs don't want to nick their
winkie. |
| 2004/6/24-25 [Transportation/Car, Reference/Law/Court] UID:30992 Activity:nil |
6/24 If you get a parking ticket and the court makes it practically
impossible to get a hearing, would you have standing to sue on the
grounds that there has been a constructive denial of access to the
courts?
\- if it is because you are handicapped and have to crawl up the
stairs to the courtroom without handicapped access, probably.
YMWTS: Tennessee v Lane. --psb
\_ I already know that case, that's why I'm asking. -op
\- well that opinion should give you a sense of how to
think about the issue. anythign more specific to your
circumstances will need localized facts, naturally.
parking offenses with trivial fines/consequences may
involves some shortcuts. --psb |
| 2004/6/24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:30993 Activity:very high |
6/24 Ron Reagan speaks! First telling Bush & Co, Inc. That real men
don't invoke Ronald Reagan's name to get their agenda pushed thru.
And now he tells Bush & Co. off about Iraq war. It's about time:
http://tinyurl.com/yq79c
\_ wow, nice way to misquote Ron. He never said the first thing
although it was falsely reported that way. Must be the busines
elite controlled media that wants Kerry in office.
\_ Reagan in 2012!!!!
\_ Why do liberals keep saying Bush lied our way into an Iraq war?
Obviously he made his decisions based on the best available
information at the time -- so you should say it was a CIA failure.
Iraq had WMDs, and the head of CIA said it was a slam dunk. What
President would question that?
\_ I'll assume you're trolling, so I'll keep it short: there were
many complaints from the CIA rank and file about being forced
to produce evidence to support a predetermined conclusion.
\_ I can produce an equal or greater number of URLs with
CIA rank and file saying they felt no pressure at all.
Do you have a URL for the bi-partisan 9/11 commission
conclusions?
Besides, who says Bush came down on CIA rank-and-file to
force conclusions? Even Clinton supports Bush going to war;
nowhere does Bill say Bush lied about it.
\_ In the end, it always comes down to a matter of trust.
There will always be missing information from what
either side can learn. It comes down to this: do you
believe Bush to be trustworthy, and do you believe that
he generally acts in the best interests of the country?
I believe the answer is no, and that his actions should
be judged in that context.
\_ So you already didn't like the guy so he must be lying
but if you previously did like the guy then it was ok
to invade Iraq. So your feelings about the man then
make him into a liar and justify your feelings about
the man in a circular pattern that makes it nearly
impossible for him to earn your trust.
\_ I believe the total picture provided by TV media, print
media, and VIPs shows that Bush always acted to defend
the U.S. against terrorism, and was provided poor
intelligence on Iraq. Like I said, even Clinton
supported Bush going to war.
Thesis: "Bush didn't lie."
\_ I disagree. It's not about trust. It's about the
inability to see good policy through to the end. The
UN Weapons Inspectors were doing a good job. The
sanctions and containment were working. Bush wanted to
invade Iraq so badly that he was willing and eager to
accept any intelligence, no matter how dodgy, that
supported his desire to invade preemptively. He pushed
his vision when he should have weighed the evidence more
carefully. He made speeches based on evidence that
should have been examined more than once. He let his
eagerness goad him into believeing something that the
facts did not support, and then he sold that belief to
the American people. That he was careful to let
innuendo do the job for him rather than blatantly lying
is no excuse; that's standard CYA.
\_ It isn't his job to question the evidence presented.
By the time the information gets to him it *better*
already be the best possible information available.
If the President of the United States Of America has
to question the intelligence briefs he gets every day
then we're much more fucked than having what some of
you consider a liar in office.
\_ It is the job of the CoC to understand that an
argument based on one sketchy source is not
a viable argument for going to war. Yes, I want
the President to be able to discern between
reasonable intel and fairy tales based on fluff.
\_ Do you really think the intel is presented as,
"And yeah boss this one questionable character
we paid to say some stuff said this stuff but
it's kinda sketchy. Should we invade now?"
Oftentimes intel has one and only one source
and you're lucky to get that. This isn't
journalism school.
\_ Intel that comes from one source, unless
that one source is the Baby Jesus, is
highly suspect. If you run with it, you
must know that you're running a huge risk
of it turning out bad. When it turns out
bad and results in the needless deaths of
hundreds of US soldiers, it's your duty
to cop to and resign.
\_ Tennet was obsessed with Al Qaeda. Clinton told Bush
that Al Qaeda, North Korea, and Pakistein is probably a
greater security threat than Iraq in terms of priority.
and in case you don't remember, Bush said that Iraq
supported 9/11 attack, and Iraq had tons of WMD, and
Iraq was actively buying Uranium from Africa.
\_ Clinton told Bush what? You know this because? Clinton
said so on 9/12/2001? Clinton said and continues to
say a lot of things. Some are even true.
\_ Bush said there were Iraq/al-Qaeda links, he never said
Iraq supported 9/11. Tenet said Iraq had WMD. Tenet
approved the speech that said Iraq was buying uranium
from Africa.
Thesis: "Bush didn't lie."
\_ where is that Iraq/al-Qaeda link, then? and
in case you don't know. Bush is the commander in
chief. he is ultimately responsible for everything,
eventhough he tend to blame everythign to his
inferiors when things go wrong.
\_ Holy cow! Are you really denying a link between
Iraq and middle eastern islamic terrorism?
\_ So you think we should hang our officials anytime
they make an error? Decision makers must always
be perfect? Anything less and we should do what?
Vote in some idiot just because he isn't the first
guy?
\_ The bi-partisan 9/11 commission said there were
links:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-17-hadley_x.htm
Bush is ultimately responsible, but the point
I am making is that he didn't lie about Iraq.
\_ Bush didn't lie. He is just misled. He is not the brightest,
you know.
\_ Bush drew very explicit links between Iraq
and terrorism; terrorism, in the minds of
Americans, means al Qaeda; so, many people
took his comments to mean that there were
explicit links between Iraq and 9/11. Cf.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm
To say that he did not mean to say that Iraq
was directly linked to 9/11 is a lot like
saying, "Will no one rid me of this troublesome
priest?" and then wondering aloud why your
most loyal men have murdered the Archbishop of
Canterbury.
\_ Ok, so now you're saying he didn't lie and
it is his fault that the media through the
op/ed pages misrepresented what he said and
the American people believed the media. Your
line of reasoning is broken and twisted.
Just let it go.
\_ You're kidding, right? The man is not
the brightest bulb, but he and his
minders (Rove, Cheney) are masters at
putting out the image. Lying by
innuendo is a basic trick in the GOP
playbook.
\_ Ok so now it's just a big VRWC. Ok,
thanks for playing. We went from
"BUSH LIED!" to "Bush is a dim bulb
guy who didn't understand that he was
being manipulated by the evil NeoCon
VRWC". You could at least try to be
consistent instead of allowing yourself
to get pushed further and further away
from your original point, which you
clearly lost, you are better off,
rhetorically speaking, granting the
point and starting a new thread on
your fall back position. So now we
can agree that Bush didn't lie but
possible the evil NeoCons manipulated
the poor dumb drunken coked out Texan.
But that's for a different thread, eh?
\_ 1) There's more than one person
responding to you, so I guess
you win.
2) It's not a conspiracy. It's very
savvy message manipulation and
PR. Why does that disturb you?
\_ Bush didn't lie. He was just misled. He is not the brightest,
you know. Of course, next time US try to tell other countries
about something the CIA found out, they will just rofl, and
ask, "Did your mama told you so this time? Bwahahaha!"
\_ Ok, so we made a mistake. We invaded a country. Who's gonna
pay for this? We, we are gonna pay for this with our blood
and lives when the suicide bomber hit us. Someone needs to
be held accountable for this, as this is not the kind shit that
can be dismissed with a simple, ooops.
\_ Hint: the suicide bombers were hitting us long before we
invaded Iraq. Buy a calendar.
\_ Except for the fact that the intelligence agencies from all
these other countries were saying the same things which you
should know if you're not a complete ignoramous but you ignore
because you have an axe to grind and an agenda to push.
\_ really? what were they saying?
\_ damn, buy a newspaper. the whole western world agreed
back in 1998 that saddam had wmd. there is no reason
to believe that the stock piles everyone believed
existed back then suddenly disintegrated since the
1998 inspectors left because of a blue stained dress.
\_ It is undeniable that Iraq, along with Iran, was the largest
state sponsor of terror. In 1993 after WTCI the Ney York FBI
believed Iraq was responsible for the bombing. Where did Abu
Abbas and Abu Nidal live? Where did the only fugitive of WTCI
live? Saddam had repeated contacts with Al Qaeda. What about
the planned chemical attack in Jordan? Dozens of sarin shells?
WMD components in scrapyards.... [formatd]
\_ Yikes! Facts! Stop!
\_ We should nuke the country that has the most WMD on earth.
\_ Wow! You are soooo smart! Go away, you drooling troll.
This isn't High School. |
| 2004/6/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:30994 Activity:very high 57%like:33376 50%like:33798 |
6/24 New CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll!
Most Americans now think the Iraq war wasn't worth it, was a mistake,
and made America *less* safe from terrorism (55% less safe, 37% safer,
6% no change, 2% on opinion), AND, Bush would still make a better
commander in chief, AND Bush leads by a statistically insignificant
amount among likely voters.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/usatodaypolls.htm
\_ Ok, and?
\_ American people are stupid and clueless from the start.
\_ No. It is a comparison. It says that despite whatever
mistakes a number of people feel Bush has made, they
still believe he would be better than Kerry. It does
not say they believe he is doing a great job. Just
better than Kerry and *that* is what wins elections.
\_ one small change to what you wrote:
it's "better commander in chief" where Bush leads,
not "who would you vote for for President", which is
where they are tied.
\_ I stand corrected. No problem. So my followup
is that being a better commander in chief is not
the only thing people are using to decide their
votes. The idea that the American people are
clueless and stupid is not backed by this poll.
\_ World would be even more blowed up if Kerry was
President.
\_ And, the poll URL ("Poll: Iraq a mistake") disappears off the
http://cnn.com front page. Story of 100+ people dying and 300+ wounded
in 1 day in Iraq is moved down. New lead story: NASA's future.
\_ Uh huh, and...?
\_ Do I really need to say it?
\_ Say what, exactly? Stale news gets moved aside in favor
of less stale news. Hello? Information age?
\_ Actually it got moved back up to the front page today.
Guess they didn't want to be accused of burying this,
when they had prominent stories on all previous
CNN/USA Today/Gallup polls. Guess they also want
to appear non-partisan, but not piss off the Bushies
too much. I really doubt it has to do with "stale"
news, especially since the original story had been
released 8:30pm Eastern Thursday night.
\_ Be serious. CNN's news portal is a business, a
business that gauges success by the number of
clicks. You bet your ass they keep track of which
articles are being clicked on, and when that
click-rate drops below a certain threshold, new
stories are rotated in. I think you *drastically*
overestimate the degree of politicization.
\_ I basically agree with this; I don't think
mainstream news outlets care that much about
what they're reporting, but they do pander to
what people will want to hear/read. Except in
cases like talk about media mergers, where the
reporting is all on the side of how great they
are.
The idea that the media is biased towards liberal
is totally ridiculous, but I don't buy into
the vast right wing media conspiracy either. -tom
\_ this is exactly why I don't understand people kept saying that
news media has a liberal bias. At least for TV media, if
anything, the bias seems favors republicans.
\_ How is splashing the death of 100 Iraqis across CNN, when
8000 Americans die daily of cancer, heart disease, and
doctor error, not liberal bias?
\_ Are you trolling? Or are you really that dense?
\_ If you don't have a real response, just don't say
anything. Leave space for those who have a response.
You're wasting precious bits.
\_ I agree with op. You are trolling, dewd.
\_ Hey "dewd", that was my first entry on this
thread. I didn't post the part about 8000 vs 100
dying. So at best it is 2:2. And there's still
no reaponse of any note. This is all bullshit
meta-response.
\_ OK, on the off chance you're not trolling...
It's not liberal bias because the job of the news
media is only to report stories that are newsworthy.
100 people dying in Iraq in a single day is a news
event. 8000 people dying of heart disease and cancer
is an everyday event, and hence not news. Is it
right wing bias for the news to not report the
hundreds of Americans killed by handgun violence
everyday? No it's not. Individual events might be
news, but a general trend is not.
\_ Soldiers returning from Iraq are much more
terrified of Iraq portrayed in the news here
in this country, than they are there patrolling
the streets. Are the thousands of construction
projects carried out by our soldiers (patching
homes, re-opening schools, delivering supplies,
etc. covered by our news media day to day? They
are not, thus combined with continuous reports
of casualties, we get results from "polls" where
Americans ask "[Why are we there?]" We're there
*nation* *building*. When you clear a nest of
hornets, you're going to get stung many times.
This is the greatness of America, we are strong
and rich because this is one of the last nations
not drowning in corruption. Any of the soliders
are worth 100 times any CSUAer myself included.
So splashing a statistically insignificant
number of deaths, and not reporting the
thousands of good things that happen every day
is liberal bias, IMHO.
\_ That's not liberal bias for the reasons
outlined above. 100 Iraqis dying in a single
day is unusual, and hence, newsworthy. Things
being rebuilt in Iraq is an everyday occurance
and hence not newsworthy.
\_ An everyday un-reported occurrence.
\_ An everyday un-reported occurrence. When
things like thousands of positive daily
news events go un-reported, and deaths
and casualties lead the news nightly,
then "polls" become worthless.
\_ "If it bleeds, it leads" has been the
motto of news editors for as long as I
can remember. If you want news of the
Army's good deeds read Stars and Stripes.
As for the worth of polls, they tell us
what the public thinks, not what is the
true state of the world.
\_ I don't think people have a problem with the
current "Why are we there?" (nation building),
but "we shouldn't have been there in the first
place." Myself included, there are many
who are, and were against our involvement, but
aren't screaming to bring the trooops home NOW
\_ "100+ Iraqis die in single day of attacks; meanwhile,
8,000 Americans died of cancer, heart diseases, doctor
error. Fair and balanced, from Fox News!" |
| 2004/6/24-25 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:30995 Activity:kinda low |
6/24 Hotmail to increase storage. Should I buy storage stocks?
http://tinyurl.com/2suo3
\_ No. You should sell storage stocks. The amount of storage a place
like hotmail or yahoo or google needs is only a few tens of
millions at most and the cost of storage per terabyte continues to
plunge rapidly. The storage industry has razor thin margins which
is why the dozens of companies you could buy a drive from in the 80s
is now Seagate, Maxtor, Western Digital, and (if you're stupid)
Fujitsu.
\_ IBM's gone?
\- ibm sold much of it's disk drive stuff to hitachi --psb
\_ Sold to Hitachi. They handled they 60 and 70 gig failing HD
\_ Sold to Hitachi. They handled the 60 and 70 gig failing HD
problem very poorly. I wouldn't trust them or Hitachi who
bought it because it's mostly the same people.
\_ Hitachi seems to have cleaned up the division.
The new 120-180 gb drives are reliable and
come with good warranties (3 yrs for some).
\_ There is also Samsung. I have one, it's quiet and seems fast,
no idea about reliability but I haven't heard horror stories.
\_ same here. i bought it mainly for its quietness, but thus
far no issues after 6-8 months, which is more than i could
say for some drives i've owned *cough*quantum*cough*
\_ Don't buy a maxtor. The 120 and 160s have lots of problems. |
| 2004/6/24-25 [Uncategorized] UID:30996 Activity:kinda low |
6/24 Gmail is so last week. What you really want is an address here:
http://abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com
\_ Hahahaha, I can't stop laughing. This is so funny. I may want one.
\_ what? no tinyurl or http://csua.org/u URL? :) |
| 2004/6/24 [Computer/SW/Unix] UID:30997 Activity:high |
6/24 Why no manual for woman!! why?? why!!!
[xxx@@soda ~]% man man
[xxx@@soda ~]% man woman
No manual entry for woman
[xxx@@soda ~]%
\_ Because FreeBSD 4.7 is not politically correct. Google for
"Politically Correct UNIX System VI Release notes", which I've read
more than 10yrs ago (not as a web page, of course.)
\_ http://www.laughnet.net/archive/compute/newunix.htm
\_ Why would a man want to enter a woman? A man shound only enter
another man!
\_ Oh that's fucking sick. Of course I want to enter a woman, not
a man you sicko.
\_ In the Catholic version of UNIX, man enters boy.
\_ There wasn't enough space on /usr to install it. |
| 2004/6/24-25 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:30998 Activity:kinda low |
6/24 Do CSUA members go to concerts? Been to any concerts lately?
Plan to go to any this year?
\_ I'll be going to the Aquabats show in July.
\_ Pixies at the Greek
\_ Van Morrison, David Bowie, John Hiatt, The Bobs, recently.
David Byrne, soon. -tom
\_ too bad Bowie isn't playing anymore (in the next few months)
\_ Bowie (at the Berkeley Community Theater) was great, one of
the best shows I've seen in years. -tom
\_ Tokyo Ska Paradise Orchestra at the Independent last Friday. 2.5
hours of the most energetic and wonderful ska I've ever heard.
--erikred
\_ Dang, wish I'd known. -jrleek
\_ Sorry, man. I'll post it next time.
\_ No, CSUA members only sit on the wall and scribble on the motd
24x7.
\_ it does seem that way sometimes. |
| 2004/6/24 [Uncategorized] UID:30999 Activity:nil |
6/24 Some sites say they may share information and if you don't agree,
you can't use their site. What would you do? Example: ticketmaster |
| 2004/6/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/911] UID:31000 Activity:very high |
6/24 omg, cheney cusses in senate. http://drudgereport.com "Cheney curses senator over Halliburton criticism... VP to Sen. Leahy: 'F**k You'... Nearly a dozen senators witnessed..." \_ Poor guy's under a lot of pressure right now, what with being caught lying and all about Iraq / Al Qaeda connections. \_ Wow, this is so done. Let's have a direct quote which turned out to be false. \_ Gee, I've got more than two hundred. Here's one, you wilfully ignorant fool: "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." --Dick Cheney \_ Clinton lost it during an interview with the BBC. He accused them of siding with the "far-right" for asking a non-softball question. At least with Republicans, it takes idiotic criticism night and day to finally see them pop, but with Democratic politicians, anything can make them burst, because of the constant coddling they get. Bush and his crew, despite being accomplished and impressively educated, get called "stupid" by all kinds of Hollywood people who dropped out of high school and college to act. \_ I forgot to tell you Clinton doesn't control the world anymore. \_ I forgot to tell you Clinton doesn't control the world anymore. \_ Fortunately, he never did. What gave you the idea that the US President controls the world? \_ Actually, only Bush gets called stupid. (Cheney is called evil, Rummy is called a warmonger, Wolfowitz is called a neocon.) \_ Have you actually seen the Clinton interview? http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/progs/panorama/latest.ram The "losing it" bit is about 16-17 minutes into it. I don't think it is fair to say he lost it, but you should at least see it yourself before you make up your mind. (Oh and a short 1 minute edited clip does not mean you saw it.) -aspo \_ So you'll make sure in the future to not take Republican statements and events out of context? Is there a 17 minute clip leading up to Cheney "losing it" we can watch? \_ So I'll take it you haven't seen it? When there are clips available I'll watch them, when there are full transcripts I'll read them. In this case I really don't think Clinton lost it at all, but yes I have a bias. As for Cheney, I don't see why the fuck anyone cares. All it means to me is that this adminstration is feeling the heat a hell of a lot more. Yay! -aspo \_ You know, I'm getting tired of this repeated lie. The head of the 9/11 commission has said there's no significant difference between what the President and VP are saying and what the commission is saying. You want to argue this? Post your quotes and sign your name. -emarkp \_ The 9/11 commision and the President/VP are on the same page as far as "'links' between al Qaeda and Iraq". op is wrong. What the media jumped on was, "no collaborative relationship" -- the NY Times overstated this by writing "No Iraq-Al Qaeda Tie" in its headline. \_ Yes, Saddam didn't help plan 9/11. But there /are/ links between Al Queda and Saddam's Iraq. This is the same big lie that poeple tell WRT illegal immigration. When people demand that immigration laws are enforced, the demagogues say "why do you hate immigrants!". I'm tired of it. -emarkp \_ Ok, there is a link between al Qaeda and "Saddam's Iraq" but it's not really fair to say that. The cell remotely linked with al qaeda was in Kurds autonomous region, outside Saddam's control, protected by US of A. \_ The only control Saddam didn't have was air power over certain regions. Since he didn't have an air force that hardly matters. \_ There are links between Al Queda and a whole bunch of other countries. Even the United States is "linked" to Al Queda. We armed them in the 80's. Heck, about 19 of them were in the United States as they committed a horrible act three years ago. But we can't invade every damn country that's "linked" to Al Queda. \_ You've stretched reality beyond the breaking point. If this was a class paper (outside the Sociology department), you'd get an "F" for that line of reasoning. \_ [ delete my post and I get to delete yours ] \_ Logical reasoning is so tiresome. \_ Relevance? Saddam was courting them /recently/. Also, the links were more substantial than the mere presence of Al Qaeda agents in Iraq. And sign your posts. -emarkp \_ "courting them": gotta back this up, d00d. \_ Here's a link for you: http://tinyurl.com/2q6x5 (upi.com) \_ You're several days late; the CIA believes those were two different people. -tom \_ That's it? One dude in a low-level militia is your collaborative link between Iraq and Al Queda? Even Pakistan has high level nuclear scientists doing more collaborative work with them. \_ There are more countries have bigger ties with Al Queda. Why attack Iraq? \_ Al Qaeda isn't the only terrorist organisation. \_ That link does not show "courting", fool. \_ Hmm, Saddam gave Atta(?) a visa and trained him as a pilot? \_ Al Qaeda wanted Iraq as a safe haven and for WMD development, and Saddam never responded. This is the no "collaborative relationship" result. \_ We attacked Iraq because it refused to collaborate with terrorists. |
| 2004/6/24 [Uncategorized] UID:31001 Activity:nil |
6/24 When seti@home is finished transitioning to BOINC, will they make
a final update of each user's total "classic" work units, or will they
just keep the snapshot taken on May 14th? |
| 2004/6/24-26 [Computer/SW/Languages/Perl] UID:31002 Activity:moderate |
6/24 I defined a function in Perl
sub myPrint {
&print;
}
And perl complains that it main::print is undefined. How do I
refer to the builtin print?
\_ print;
\_ But according to the camel book, &print; should pass the current
@_ to print while print; does not (I have tried).
\_ I don't believe that works for builtins
\_ Right, and it's deprecated even for functions. Just
say what you mean: print @_;
\_ Isn't the whole spirot of PERL that there is > 1 way
to code what you want? |
| 4/15 |