| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2004/7/13 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers, Computer/SW/OS/FreeBSD] UID:32244 Activity:high |
7/12 I just upgraded to Firefox .9 on FreeBSD 4 using a binary package,
but it's got a ton of library dependencies on slightly older .so
files. Is there any way I can tell the linker to just "try your
best" and update the links to whatever's available? The only
thing that's ever worked in this case is installing from ports or
while (sane) ln -s libFoo-1.8.so.200 libFoo-1.8.so.201
\_ Dunno about "best try", but you could always do a make world
and portupgrade -a (assuming you installed that from ports.) -John |
| 2004/7/13 [Finance/Investment, Computer/SW] UID:32245 Activity:low |
7/12 dear csua finance expert, can I buy foreign securities without
ADR? Most local brokerage firm here(HK) disallow US persons to
open account, is it bec. they don't want to file to IRS
themselves? |
| 2004/7/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:32246 Activity:insanely high |
7/12 Joe Wilson's allegations were plastered over paper's front pages
for days and received extensive TV coverage. Wilson was identified
by NPR and the media as Kerry's de facto campaign spokesman. Now
that he's been proven a liar by the Senate and MI6 where is coverage?
\_ Proven a liar... You're pushing it a bit. Pat Robertson
\_ Proven a liar... You're pushing it a bit. Pat Roberts
opines in an appendix of the Senate Intelligence report,
and suddenly Wilson is a shameless liar. Never mind that
he was right.
\_ Ok you are right and MI6 and the senate are wrong. Any
other pontifications?
\_ MI6 is often wrong. Note that they just withdrew their
Iraqi WMD report because it was wrong.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=10596
As for the Senate... -John
http://talonnews.com/news/2004/july/0713_wilson_plame_intel.shtml
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB62OSSGWD.html
\_ News flash! Anonymous motd crank doesn't like Kerry!
\_ Attack the man, not the message. Good way to prove your
point and disprove any allegations. How'd you do in
Rhetoric 1A?
\_ As opposed to the hatchet job on wilson?
\_ It isn't a hatchet job if it's true. The seriousness of
the charge can not be so easily dismissed.
\_ Sure it can.
\_ what did he allege, i am not paying attention.
\_ this is the guy who went to nigeria to investigate iraqi
attempts to acquire uranium ore and the same guy with the cia
wife that got her ID exposed. he then lied about his work in
nigeria, his wife's role in getting him, a partisan democrat,
the job in nigeria, and a whole bunch of other things.
\_ Niger, not nigeria. The rest of your charges are all
unsubstantiated Right Wing smears.
\_ Ok you are right and MI6 and the senate are wrong.
Any other pontifications?
http://talonnews.com/news/2004/july/0713_wilson_plame_intel.shtml
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB62OSSGWD.html
\_ I don't know his politics, but previous to this mess, he
gave (unapologetically, like most people playing the system)
to both parties. (e.g. he have $1000 to both bush and gore
in 2000) -phuqm
\_ Don't forget the press crucifying Novak for stating his wife's name.
Now that we know she suggested him for the job and all the denials
were partisan, where are the apologies to Novak?
\_ Not for stating his wife's name, but for identifying her as a
CIA agent. federal offences deserve a little crucifixion. |
| 2004/7/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32247 Activity:nil |
7/12 My perspective as a Nader voter:
Bush: Pro Iraq War
Kerry: Pro Iraq War
Nader: Anti Iraq War
Bush: Pro Life
Kerry: Pro Life
Nader: Pro Choice
Bush: Pro Big Business
Kerry: Pro Big Business
Nader: Pro Little People
It goes on like this. Kerry is Pro UN, while Bush is anti UN and
Kerry would raise taxes on the rich to slightly higher levels than
Bush, but overall they're both 'Business As Usual' guys. As a Nader
voter how could I even consider voting for either of these men? They
are more similar than different. What does Kerry offer me other than
a lot of noise that he simply "isn't Bush" and "We hate Bush so vote
for the other guy! (me!)"? I hear nothing from the Kerry camp that
would make me want to vote for him. The entire message coming out
is "I'm not Bush!" which really isn't true anyway. --Nader'04! |
| 2004/7/13 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:32248 Activity:insanely high |
7/12 Yep, Fox News sure is unbiased:
http://home.comcast.net/~tmp123/mm.jpg
\_ Who would bother loading a jpg from a URL like that as 'proof'
of anything. I might as well post freeper links.
\_ I don't watch Fox News, but isn't this a shot from one of their
prime time editorial type shows? Of course that's biased,
that's the freaking point. It's like getting mad at the NYT
because the editorial page says Bush is a doo-doo head.
that's the fucking point. It's like getting mad at the NYT
because the editorial page says Bush is a shit head.
\_ msnbc ?= fox news?
\_ Hey, that's from an MSNBC show. |
| 2004/7/13 [Health/Disease/General, Health/Disease/AIDS] UID:32249 Activity:insanely high |
7/12 Good thing the FBI is protecting us from those dangerous Art
Professors.
http://www.caedefensefund.org
\_ Cue the motd brain damaged with all sorts of justifications for
this.
\_ Can someone save us from reading useless sarcastic URL descriptions
and just give a real link summary instead? No one has time to read
every stupid untitled URL on the motd.
\_ Some prof. got arrested for using poor judgement when
dealing w/ some bacteria or something. The link is some
sort of propaganda page.
\_ He didn't use poor judgment. The bacteria were harmless
and he used them in art. He called the police because
his wife died (nothing to do with the bacteria) and the
police saw his lab, freaked out, decided he was a
terrorist, confiscated everything, etc. The really
sad thing is once they realized they had made total
fools of themselves they decided the best thing to do
was go full steam ahead and searched for anything they
could to nail the guy. Eventually they found that he
had misrepresented himself to get some of the supplies
(claiming he was a lab of some sort), supplies that
could not be used for bioterrorism BTW, and ended up
charging the guy with fraud. Wife dies, call police,
end up being charge with terrorism for you choice in
art medium. Yay america.
\_ What kind of an idiot makes art w/ a bacteria?
I can understand if you were a jr/hs bio teacher
and you had that stuff in your house, but the
dude was an art prof or something. Should have
had the common sense to stick to paint/pastel.
\_ Bacteria seems useful if your work is a critique
of biotechnology and genetic engineering.
This is art not in the sense of "something pretty
to hang on a wall" but art as social critique.
\_ Under the Bush Regime, artists will only
be permitted to use paint and pastels.
All others will be incarcerated.
\_ No really. You can't be that stupid, you're
just trolling.
\_ this guy is a genius, now that gives me an idea to put
small pox virus in my painting and send it as a gift to the
president.
\_ except for the fact the bacteria he was using were totally harmless
\_ Look, art has become so degenerate in the 20th century, thanks to
the liberal elites, that it no longer serves any moral purpose and
ceases to be understandable by people, including the artists
themselves. Whether a terrorist or not, I am glad this government
is finally trying to bring justice to arts and stop the outrage.
\_ You're trolling, right? Very little art has ever served a moral
purpose. It's purpose has been to make us think or feel a
way. Do you honestly think the government should be deciding
what art is allowed to exist? There's some guys in Afghanistan
who felt the same way...
\_ The guys in Afghanistan knew no art. They were all illterate.
Fiddling with bacteria is not an art. It is just lame.
Have you visited the national gallery in DC? That's art.
\_ While I'm no supporter of all the stuff that wack jobs produce,
art is about change. I think using bacteria as a medium could
produce some great art about life in the 21st century-- biotech,
genetic engineering, the fact that a tiny microbe could kill every
one of us. Have you ever met somebody who thinks his hammer*
is the only tool anyone needs? Same thing with art- you have to
use the medium that's best for what you're doing.
* You can substitute "programming language" or "Linux distro"
for hammer here if that helps.
\_ Wow, this is scary. I think I am going to move back to Singapore. |
| 2004/7/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32250 Activity:high |
7/12 My perspective as a Nader voter:
Bush: Pro Iraq War
Kerry: Pro Iraq War
Nader: Anti Iraq War
\_ To put Kerry and Bush in the same camp here isn't exactly fair
\_ Yes. It is. Kerry and Edwards both voted for it based on the
same info Bush had. It is 100% fair. -N'04
\_ Uhm, I don't think unilaterally pulling out of Iraq is a terribly
responsible thing to do. If that's what Nader espouses, then he's
an imbecile.
\_ It isn't. He wouldn't have put us there in the first place. -N4
\_ Doesn't matter, now. We are there. What solutions does he
offer for cleaning up the mess?
Bush: Pro Life
Kerry: Pro Life
Nader: Pro Choice
\_ uhh, where did you get the Kerry pro life bit?
Bush: Pro Big Business
Kerry: Pro Big Business
Nader: Pro Little People
\_ I'm pro little people too! Midget POWER!
It goes on like this. Kerry is Pro UN, while Bush is anti UN and
Kerry would raise taxes on the rich to slightly higher levels than
Bush, but overall they're both 'Business As Usual' guys. As a Nader
voter how could I even consider voting for either of these men? They
are more similar than different. What does Kerry offer me other than
a lot of noise that he simply "isn't Bush" and "We hate Bush so vote
for the other guy! (me!)"? I hear nothing from the Kerry camp that
would make me want to vote for him. The entire message coming out
is "I'm not Bush!" which really isn't true anyway. --Nader'04!
\_ If you live in a non-battleground state, your vote doesn't matter
anyway. There's no point in debating this in California which is
going to the dems anyway. Save your effort at soap box politics
and go do something constructive, like saving the whales...
\_ My vote always matters. If enough others who have the same
opinion as you showed up we'd make a good showing to establishing
the party for the future. The Republicrat party hasn't always
been the only choice. There used to be many parties in this
country. There can be again. --Nader'04
\_ Well, since you probably share all those positions with Nader,
why not just write yourself in? You have about as much chance
as becoming president, and are probably about as qualified.
Hell, if you post your name, i'll bet you could get a couple
poeple from the motd to vote for you also. Then you can say you're
voting "your conscience" without pretending you're actually
participating in our democracy.
\_ See my reply above about staying home. Same answer. --Nader'04
\_ Kerry is a lot better then Bush on a lot of issues, abortion, the
enviornment, international relations, civil liberties... He's not
a dream candidate, but voting for Nader will only help Bush win, and
I can't condone that. If we had a parlimentary system or instant
runoff voting, then I could see voting for Nader, but under a winner
takes all republican form of government, the pragmatic thing for a
liberal to do is vote for Kerry. Idealism is nice, but it put that
asshole in power last time around.
\_ Kerry said he believes life begins at conception. To then say
he thinks abortion is ok is to legally condone murder. He's
just trying to "position" himself politically. He has no real
conviction. He just wants to be elected and powerful, the same
as Bush and many others. He's no different. --Nader'04
\_ Nader has a history of lying to improve is position politically,
at the cost of "little people's" jobs. Wait, why would I want to
vote for him again? He screws things up enough even when he's
NOT in power. [reformatted - formatd]
\_ Yeah, like when he tried to ban RWD cars. That fucker.
\_ Lying? I'll accept that if you can come up with a real URL. -N'4
\_ Kerry is a moderate. Bush and his puppet masters are a dangerous
bunch who can mess up the country badly. I am surprised a
supposed Nader supporter cannot see the difference, and in
particular, the danger of another 4 years of Bush. I think you
are a Bush supporter in disguise.
\_ Kerry is just as beholden to his masters as Bush. There is no
difference. Kerry isn't a moderate, he's got the same hungry
power madness Bush has. 4 more years of power mad vs. 4 years of
power mad followed by a potential 4 more isn't useful. -N'04
\_ Kerry is a moderate? I suppose that's true compared to
Berkeley liberals, but to the rest of the US, he's pretty
dang far left.
\_ it doesn't matter. he will have to move to the center
if he isn't there.
\_ For the election rethoric, yeah. I'm more interested
in the 4 years that follow.
\_ congress is republican, and supreme court has
shifted to the right. whole democratic party has
moved to the center. thus no danger of kerry
moving things left.
\_ Kerry is pro-life? Is that why NARAL gives him a 100% rating?
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103
I am trying to figure out if you are a Conservative troll or
a seriously ill informed Nader voter. Please educate yourself
on Kerry's actual voting record in the Senate, not your
fantasy of it, and get back to me. According to the National
Review he is the most liberal member of the Senate.
\_ Is National Review one of those right-wing think tanks?
\_ No it is one of the more respected right wing magazines.
Sort of like The Nation, but for conservatives.
\_ Kerry can't figure out WHAT he is. I'm catholic, but I'm a
democrat and therefore pro-choice. Cognitive dissonance!
\_ That sounds like a whole lot of Catholics to me. They like
the Catholic Church, but think church doctrine has a lot of BS
\_ He didn't say he thought it was BS, he said, "I
oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I
believe life does begin at conception... I can't take
my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate
it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist..." That's
just stupid. To paraphrase, "I think you're all
murdering babies, but I wouldn't want to stop you from
murdering babies. That's your choice." Huh?
\_ Bullshit. This is the finest point of the separation
of church and state. He separates his faith from his
responsibility as a civil servant. As a father, he
may have prayed that his daughter would never have
to make such a choice. As a senator, he supports her
right to that choice.
\_ Thanks for tagging your post as Bullshit, since
that's what it is. The government makes all
kinds of laws based on morality. You know it's
against the law for me to murder you? That's a
morality based law. If he really believed that
life begins at conception, it makes no sense to
say that abortion is not murder. The fact that
he REALLY wants that not to be the case does not
change it.
\_ I submit that John Kerry, thankfully, has a
more nuanced view of the world than you do.
I further submit that you need to do some
growing up before treading into political
discussions.
\_ Wow, I never realized that nuanced was a
nice way of saying soft/non-logical
thinking! Thanks for improving my
venacular! Hey, if I get a "nuanced"
enough world view, does that mean I'll be
able to act without consequences too? Cool!
\_ You do realize that morality != religion, yes?
The entire assertion that morality based law
falls into the same category as religion driven
law is completely based on this fallacious
equivalency.
\_ Way to completely miss the point. The
point is that if you believe humans life
starts at conception, abortion is murder.
(Ignoring the possible out mentioned
later in this thread.) It doesn't matter
if that belief comes from religion or not. A
religious person's morality is defined by
their religion. Since Kerry is CLAIMING
that his morality is based in
Catholisism, he should think clearly and
vote accordingly. Since he doesn't, he's
either stupid or a liar.
\_ I'm a pro-choice atheist and I believe life begins
at conception. Abortion kills a unique human
life, but it is not murder because that life is
so undeveloped that it lacks all of the qualities
that make human life deserving of protection.
\_ That's fine if you're atheist, but if
you're Catholic the kid goes to hell for
eternity. Hence abortion is wrong.
\_ Catholic dogma is that unbaptized infants
go to limbo, and will be brought into
heaven when Jesus returns. -tom
\_ Kerry may have said he believes life begins
at conception, but did he say the soul
begins at conception?
I don't think Catholics believe all
unbaptized sould go to hell. I believe they
made a specific exception for the stillborn.
\_ I don't know. If he does think
that, he should state it clearly and
explain why abortion is wrong but
ok. Instead he's just trying to have
it both ways. I would be just fine
with that position, I would also be
fine with him rejecting the Catholic
belief that all unbaptized children
go to hell.
\_ D00D u r going to H3LL!
\_ You don't know many Catholics, do you?
\_ Yes I do, and it's true that many of them have the
same problem. Is that an excuse?
\_ This "problem" you speak of is common sense and
Christian compassion, not cognitive dissonance.
Not all Catholics hold all tenets of Catholic
dogma, and this is _not_ a problem.
\_ Yes. They're trying to do the right thing while working
within a shitty system (calcified Catholic leadership).
\_ No, in typical soft-thinking fashion, they're
trying to avoid making hard choices and to have
things both ways. |
| 2004/7/13-14 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:32251 Activity:very high |
7/12 In the news...
"Continuing security problems have eroded Internet Explorer's
popularity; the market share for Explorer has dropped by more than a
percentage point from 95.48 percent to 94.42 percent..."
Gee that's gotta hurt! Poor MS.
\_ Although if you read a report that said non IE browsers have gained
20 percent marketshare you'd be pretty impressed.
\_ While it's a tiny change in IE market share it does represent rather
strong growth in Moz and Firefox. You can't expect them to go from
3 to 30% in one quarter, can you?
\_ Didn't IE grow enormously fast in the early days? I remember
back in the days of Netscape 2, IE was comparatively fast
and stable and people downloaded it in droves.
\_ IE3 sucked so much ass. I thought IE4>NS4, but it was debatable.
\_ I don't remember that at all. During the days of NS2 I think
IE was still basically just an extension of Word (Yes, folks
IE started out as an embedded HTML renderer in MS Word). I don't
think IE became really popular until Win98 when it was bundled
(read shackled) into the OS.
\_ Back in the days of NS 2, IE wasn't on the horizon at all.
Most users seemed to use IE only for the purpose of downloading
Netscape. I considered NS3 to be the best web browser at the
time but once NS4 and IE4 came out, it became clear that IE is
better option (on Windows at least, we Unix users were mostly
stuck with NS4 until Mozilla 0.9.x came out)
\_ When NS4 and IE4 were both new, they were roughly the same in
terms of usability, speed, etc. IE5 came out and NS didn't
do jack shit and the people voted for the better product.
\_ I use NS 7.1. Is it considered a Mozilla browser?
\_ It is based on a not so recent version of Mozilla, so yes,
but you should really switch to Mozilla 1.7.1
\_ Possibly off topic, but why is the OSX version of Mozilla
so painfully slow?
\_ OSX is bloated.
\_ Hater. It's also wicked fast on my 15" PB
\_ Mozilla is slow on any platform. Try FireFox.
\_ Is Mozilla 1.7.1 a stable version? Also, I found that
NS 7.1 on NT is much more memory hungry than NS 4.8. Is
Mozilla 1.7.1 even more memory hungry than NS 7.1? Thx.
\_ you guys have forgotten that IE only became popular when it starts
to be bundled with Windows 95. Same for MSN Messanger, only start
to gain market share significantly when it is bundled with XP. |
| 2004/7/13 [Uncategorized] UID:32252 Activity:kinda low |
7/12 Does anyone know where to get more Advantage-S and Advantage-24?
They have a superb product but it seems like the product is
discontinued :( |
| 2004/7/13 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:32253 Activity:very high |
7/12 Are there browsers out there that can change the size of fixed size
fonts? -annoyed guy
\_ firefox + webdev extension
\_ mozilla (control-equals and control-minus)
\_ you can also set the minimum font size. Try that.
\_ Opera's zoom scales the whole page, including images, etc. |
| 2004/7/13 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32254 Activity:high |
7/12 My perspective as a Nader voter:
\_ I stand in awe of your trolling prowess. This has got to up on the
top fifty fastest-growing threads I've seen. The bullet list o' bile
is an admirable innovation I shall emulate in my future efforts.
\_ BTW, during the 2000 election Nader stated "There is no difference
between Gore and Bush" ... I haven't seen him admit that was totally
wrong, but I did see him being interviewed stating that "anyone is
better than Bush, Bush is horrible (paraphrasing)".
\_ We already discussed before how you're severely deluded. Nader is a
bad choice for many reasons, and he won't win either. So do what you
want, it's not really worth discussing anymore and you're not
persuading anybody to support Nader. Your idealistic enthusiasm is
cute though.
Bush: Pro Iraq War
Kerry: Pro Iraq War
Nader: Anti Iraq War
\_ To put Kerry and Bush in the same camp here isn't exactly fair
\_ Yes. It is. Kerry and Edwards both voted for it based on the
same info Bush had. It is 100% fair. -N'04
\_ That doesn't mean the same thing. While I agree that
Kerry's voting for for the resolution was stupid and
troubling, he wasn't the guy pushing for the war at any
cost. Nor was he the one making up intelligence to give
to congress/the american people as proof we needed to
invade and that sactions/inspections weren't working.
That being said I suspect you are a troll, but hey...
\_ Uhm, I don't think unilaterally pulling out of Iraq is a terribly
responsible thing to do. If that's what Nader espouses, then he's
an imbecile.
\_ It isn't. He wouldn't have put us there in the first place. -N4
\_ Right, and you know factually that Kerry would have? Prove
it.
\_ Doesn't matter, now. We are there. What solutions does he
offer for cleaning up the mess?
Bush: Pro Life
Kerry: Pro Life
\_ You do know that you can be pro choice and still abortion is wrong,
you just let other people make the decision instead of taking it
away from them, right?
Nader: Pro Choice
\_ uhh, where did you get the Kerry pro life bit?
Bush: Pro Big Business
Kerry: Pro Big Business
Nader: Pro Little People
\_ I'm pro little people too! Midget POWER!
\_ I love little people. It's like Thailand without AIDS.
It goes on like this. Kerry is Pro UN, while Bush is anti UN and
Kerry would raise taxes on the rich to slightly higher levels than
Bush, but overall they're both 'Business As Usual' guys. As a Nader
voter how could I even consider voting for either of these men? They
are more similar than different. What does Kerry offer me other than
a lot of noise that he simply "isn't Bush" and "We hate Bush so vote
for the other guy! (me!)"? I hear nothing from the Kerry camp that
would make me want to vote for him. The entire message coming out
is "I'm not Bush!" which really isn't true anyway. --Nader'04!
\_ If you live in a non-battleground state, your vote doesn't matter
anyway. There's no point in debating this in California which is
going to the dems anyway. Save your effort at soap box politics
and go do something constructive, like saving the whales...
\_ My vote always matters. If enough others who have the same
opinion as you showed up we'd make a good showing to establishing
the party for the future. The Republicrat party hasn't always
been the only choice. There used to be many parties in this
country. There can be again. --Nader'04
\_ Well, since you probably share all those positions with Nader,
why not just write yourself in? You have about as much chance
as becoming president, and are probably about as qualified.
Hell, if you post your name, i'll bet you could get a couple
poeple from the motd to vote for you also. Then you can say you're
voting "your conscience" without pretending you're actually
participating in our democracy.
\_ See my reply above about staying home. Same answer. --Nader'04
\_ Let me make this a little more clear. If i had to choose
between some random dick on the motd and Nader, I would
actually vote for the random dick on the motd.
\_ Kerry is a lot better then Bush on a lot of issues, abortion, the
enviornment, international relations, civil liberties... He's not
a dream candidate, but voting for Nader will only help Bush win, and
I can't condone that. If we had a parlimentary system or instant
runoff voting, then I could see voting for Nader, but under a winner
takes all republican form of government, the pragmatic thing for a
liberal to do is vote for Kerry. Idealism is nice, but it put that
asshole in power last time around.
\_ Kerry said he believes life begins at conception. To then say
he thinks abortion is ok is to legally condone murder. He's
just trying to "position" himself politically. He has no real
conviction. He just wants to be elected and powerful, the same
as Bush and many others. He's no different. --Nader'04
\_ Nader has a history of lying to improve is position politically,
at the cost of "little people's" jobs. Wait, why would I want to
vote for him again? He screws things up enough even when he's
NOT in power. [reformatted - formatd]
\_ Yeah, like when he tried to ban RWD cars. That fucker.
\_ Lying? I'll accept that if you can come up with a real URL. -N'4
\_ Kerry is a moderate. Bush and his puppet masters are a dangerous
bunch who can mess up the country badly. I am surprised a
supposed Nader supporter cannot see the difference, and in
particular, the danger of another 4 years of Bush. I think you
are a Bush supporter in disguise.
\_ Kerry is just as beholden to his masters as Bush. There is no
difference. Kerry isn't a moderate, he's got the same hungry
power madness Bush has. 4 more years of power mad vs. 4 years of
power mad followed by a potential 4 more isn't useful. -N'04
\_ Kerry is a moderate? I suppose that's true compared to
Berkeley liberals, but to the rest of the US, he's pretty
dang far left.
\_ it doesn't matter. he will have to move to the center
if he isn't there.
\_ For the election rethoric, yeah. I'm more interested
in the 4 years that follow.
\_ congress is republican, and supreme court has
shifted to the right. whole democratic party has
moved to the center. thus no danger of kerry
moving things left.
\_ Kerry is pro-life? Is that why NARAL gives him a 100% rating?
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103
I am trying to figure out if you are a Conservative troll or
a seriously ill informed Nader voter. Please educate yourself
on Kerry's actual voting record in the Senate, not your
fantasy of it, and get back to me. According to the National
Review he is the most liberal member of the Senate.
\_ Is National Review one of those right-wing think tanks?
\_ No it is one of the more respected right wing magazines.
Sort of like The Nation, but for conservatives.
\_ Kerry can't figure out WHAT he is. I'm catholic, but I'm a
democrat and therefore pro-choice. Cognitive dissonance!
\_ That sounds like a whole lot of Catholics to me. They like
the Catholic Church, but think church doctrine has a lot of BS
\_ He didn't say he thought it was BS, he said, "I
oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I
believe life does begin at conception... I can't take
my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate
it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist..." That's
just stupid. To paraphrase, "I think you're all
murdering babies, but I wouldn't want to stop you from
murdering babies. That's your choice." Huh?
\_ Bullshit. This is the finest point of the separation
of church and state. He separates his faith from his
responsibility as a civil servant. As a father, he
may have prayed that his daughter would never have
to make such a choice. As a senator, he supports her
right to that choice.
\_ Thanks for tagging your post as Bullshit, since
that's what it is. The government makes all
kinds of laws based on morality. You know it's
against the law for me to murder you? That's a
morality based law. If he really believed that
life begins at conception, it makes no sense to
say that abortion is not murder. The fact that
he REALLY wants that not to be the case does not
change it.
\_ I submit that John Kerry, thankfully, has a
more nuanced view of the world than you do.
I further submit that you need to do some
growing up before treading into political
discussions.
\_ Wow, I never realized that nuanced was a
nice way of saying soft/non-logical
thinking! Thanks for improving my
venacular! Hey, if I get a "nuanced"
enough world view, does that mean I'll be
able to act without consequences too? Cool!
\_ The real world that real people
live in is not black and white.
Maybe someday you will understand that.
You have never changed your mind about
any moral issue? You have never been
conflicted about any decision you have
ever made? You have never been able to
see both sides of an issue? You must
be very immature.
\_ No, he's just a geek. Geeks don't
understand any sort of politics
beyond the Mr. Spock sort (IF x THEN
y ELSE z).
\_ You do realize that morality != religion, yes?
The entire assertion that morality based law
falls into the same category as religion driven
law is completely based on this fallacious
equivalency.
\_ Way to completely miss the point. The
point is that if you believe humans life
starts at conception, abortion is murder.
(Ignoring the possible out mentioned
later in this thread.) It doesn't matter
if that belief comes from religion or not. A
religious person's morality is defined by
their religion. Since Kerry is CLAIMING
that his morality is based in
Catholisism, he should think clearly and
vote accordingly. Since he doesn't, he's
either stupid or a liar.
\_ Catholicism is a very big tent and
includes plenty of room for varying
viewpoints. Which you would know, if
you knew anything about Catholicism.
\_ Your premise "humans life starts at
conception, abortion is murder." is flawed
precisely because of the 'out' that a
Christian can plausibly argue that the
human soul does not begin at conception.
By focusing on the start of life you are
mis-framing the debate. Few medicine-aware
abortion supporters would disagree that an
embryo is alive, but the point of contention
is whether they have souls and whether that
sort of philosophical question should be
made a matter of public policy.
\_ I'm a pro-choice atheist and I believe life begins
at conception. Abortion kills a unique human
life, but it is not murder because that life is
so undeveloped that it lacks all of the qualities
that make human life deserving of protection.
\_ That's fine if you're atheist, but if
you're Catholic the kid goes to hell for
eternity. Hence abortion is wrong.
\_ Catholic dogma is that unbaptized infants
go to limbo, and will be brought into
heaven when Jesus returns. -tom
\_ Kerry may have said he believes life begins
at conception, but did he say the soul
begins at conception?
I don't think Catholics believe all
unbaptized sould go to hell. I believe they
made a specific exception for the stillborn.
\_ I don't know. If he does think
that, he should state it clearly and
explain why abortion is wrong but
ok. Instead he's just trying to have
it both ways. I would be just fine
with that position, I would also be
fine with him rejecting the Catholic
belief that all unbaptized children
go to hell.
\_ D00D u r going to H3LL!
\_ You don't know many Catholics, do you?
\_ Yes I do, and it's true that many of them have the
same problem. Is that an excuse?
\_ This "problem" you speak of is common sense and
Christian compassion, not cognitive dissonance.
Not all Catholics hold all tenets of Catholic
dogma, and this is _not_ a problem.
\_ Yes. They're trying to do the right thing while working
within a shitty system (calcified Catholic leadership).
\_ No, in typical soft-thinking fashion, they're
trying to avoid making hard choices and to have
things both ways.
\_ A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Good troll, by the way. |
| 2004/7/13-14 [Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:32255 Activity:very high |
7/12 What is the etymological connection between Anglo-Saxon (English)
and Anglo-Franks (French)? -history dumb
\_ There is no such thing as Anglo-Franks. Anglo-Saxon refers to
the descendents of the bilingual Vikings who hacked their way to
Britan, who later also hacked their way to this country.
\_ I think they sailed.
\_ Rather long and complicated, but the gist is that English is based
on Germanic roots rather than Roman roots so English and French are
in reality from completely seperate linguistic families. However, because
of the constant invasions and migrations of peoples through the
British isles English has become a mishmash of Germanic and Romance
languages, hence the weird spelling of certain words and the usage of
certain French terms that are only found in English.
\_ Case in point. In English, words for livestock are native, while
words for livestock meat are French. The reason: during the
Norman invasion, the gentry were all French, while the peasants
were English. The peasants grew livestock, and the gentry ate
it. -- ilyas
\_ wow I never noticed that, that is really interesting.
tell us more ilyas!!!
\_ obTellusaboutthestarsilyas!
\_ obw00t!
\_ Isn't it also why the English words for things are
considered dirty (i.e. fuck)?
\_ Va t'enculer.
\_ The history and etymology of 'bad language' is an
interesting subject. I think it's an oversimplification to
say 'fuck' is only bad because the prissy normans didn't
like the short stubby anglo words for things. 'Fuck'
comes from German 'Ficken' I think, which means to
bludgeon. The word is 'bad' perhaps because it implies
intercourse is a kind of violent act. -- ilyas |
| 2004/7/13-14 [Recreation/Dating] UID:32256 Activity:high |
7/12 Why do people ask the motd for sex advice?
\_ The question below is really more of a technology question than
a sex question.
\_ living vicariously
\_ It's the only sex sodans get.
\_ MOTD needs more "Dear Penthouse Forum..."
\_ It's their only link to the outside world.
\_ Boredcast Message from 'coganman': Thu Jul 27 12:33:03 1995
this is funny, masturbatory soda geeks discussing sex.
it's like colorblind people arguing over who has the pretties
rainbow
\_ I'm married and I still masturbate a lot.
\_ How much is a lot? Does that cause any health problems?
\_ Every other day or so. No health problem -- I'm not blind
yet.
\_ Will you have any health problem if more than once
a day?
\_ Thanks for sharing.
\_ That's 'cause you're married.
\_ Does your wife masturbate a lot?
\_ And if so, post pics!
\_ Yes, but the difference is that she masturbates in front of
me. |
| 2004/7/13-14 [Computer/SW/Apps, Computer/SW/Security] UID:32257 Activity:high |
7/12 I have a pdf file that is somehow corrupted. I want to recover
its first page. What tool can do that? This is an image only pdf.
\_ try opening it with illustrator. I've seen that work.
\_ Elcomsoft has a cool toy for breaking pdf security and saving
the result as another file. Maybe it can read it. -John |
| 2004/7/13 [Recreation/Dating] UID:32258 Activity:high |
7/12 So I bought the sponge from Canada and tried to insert it into
my gf, but the sponge is so big that she can't fit it.
Does anyone have this problem? Thanks.
\_ I'm not sure why this got deleted. Your problem is that in Canada
they use the metric system, so the sponge is metric, while your
gf's pussy is almost certainly calibrated in the English
system of measurement.
\_ Er, I wish I had your problem.
\_ The sponge is supposed to squish down into a little ball, and
then it should be able to fit up there. If she can insert a
tampon or even a diaphragm, she should definitely be able to
fit a sponge in there (although it can be annoying, but not any
more annoying or uncomfortable than a diaphragm). If she is
uncomfortable with inserting tampons and/or diaphragms, the sponge
is not the right b.c. method for her. --chris
\_ um, you're telling me that you can squeeze a 3" ball into
a .5 inch ball? YOU SURE??? -op
\_ just like a scientist. the sponge is squishy, it fits
when folded up. if you doubt me, practice on your ass. --chris
\_ you never got those little pills that turn into dinosaur
sponges?
\_ the sponge is squishy, it fits when folded up.
if you doubt me, practice on your ass. --chris
\_ thanks chris. Which one is better, Today or Protectaid?
\_ I only know about Today. --chris
\_ RealDolls don't need contraception.
\_ But it makes "her" easier to clean.
\_ If a sponge doesn't fit -- you may want to check to make sure
she's not a man.
\_ Try an SOS pad instead.
\_ There is some special techniques that you have to learn by
waching. I will demo it on your gf.
\_ You read the instructions, right? Are you tall enough to have sex
or a gf?
\_ Give me her address. I'll make her hole bigger.
\_ Sure thing: http://csua.org/u/85j -john
\_ Funny, I don't seem to be having that problem with your g/f.
\_ How big is your penis? |
| 2004/7/13-14 [Uncategorized] UID:32259 Activity:high |
7/12 Cedar Rapids fire department blocks plan for Church book burning.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Midwest/07/12/no.book.burning.ap
Ah shucks. First they take away our book burnings, then they'll
take away cross burnings, and then who knows what next?
\_ Maybe they'll take away your right to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded
theatre! Where has my America gone? Oh, woe!
\_ "Breedlove said a city fire inspector suggested shredding the
offending material, but Breedlove said that wouldn't seem
biblical. 'I joked with the guy that St. Paul never had to
worry about fire codes,' Breedlove said." I don't seem to
remember book burning in the Bible. Let alone in Acts, can
anyone site a scripture? -jrleek
\- mr. leek: i assumed that was a reference to
RAV v. St. Paul. although i was surprised that
the chuch person would know the case ... maybe it
was more memorable in the midwest. ok tnx. --psb
\_ I thought book burning was more of a Hitler-style thing than
a Jesus Christ Superstar thing.
\_ Consider that before the printing press was invented and
common, books were made by hand and were illustrated works
of art, not the commonly available throw away paper backs
we have today. Book burning would have been insanely
expensive, hard to get enough in one place anyway, and since
most people were illiterate, simply stupid and silly.
\_ [2 Peter 3:10] But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in
the night; in which the heavens shall pass away with a great
noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth
also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. |
| 2004/7/13 [Uncategorized] UID:32260 Activity:high |
7/12 What is the link to that flashlight pussy product?
\_ fleshlight
\_ is there a store around here that carries it? |
| 2004/7/13 [Computer/SW/OS/Linux] UID:32261 Activity:nil |
7/12 What preprocessor are defined for Linux that identifies linux
platform? __LINUX__? Thanks.
\_ __linux__ |
| 2004/7/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:32262 Activity:moderate |
7/12 Interesting study of Campaign Character i http://csua.org/u/86a (journalism.org) Despite media reports that constantly characterize Kerry as being "out of touch" with the common man and Bush being "down to earth," only 20 percent perceive Kerry as a "wealthy elitist" compared to 27 percent for Bush... \_ But the majority think Kerry's a wuss. \_ When's the last time he fell off his bike? |
| 2004/7/13-14 [Reference/Law/Court] UID:32263 Activity:high |
7/12 How do some cases go all the way to the Supreme Court, and not others?
What's the deciding factor there?
\_ It's appealed, and four justices grant or deny a writ of certiorari
depending on constitutional scope.
\- the USSC has original jurisdiction in a couple of areas
see 28 USC 1251. these dont "go all the way to the sup ct"
but start there. --psb
\_ this response is irrelevant to the question asked, as
well as the reply it is replying to. --aaron
\- this wasnt a "reply to the reply" but an elaboration.
by any reasonable criteria, since the person didnt
specifically ask about the appeals process or how
cert. works, the OP was asking "how do cases arrive
at the sup ct". one means is the fed and state appeals
process. the other are the OJ cases. didnt take your
medicine today? as for the deeper question of when/why
to the justices grant cert, given the first part of the
Q,i didnt think that was what was being asked, at least
at first cut. --psb
\_ my question is what prevents Supreme Court Justice, who is
appointed for life, accepting bribe and doing other nasty things
for personal gain?
\- Not just SupCt judges have life appointments. You may wish
to google for "Abe Fortas" --psb |
| 2004/7/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:32264 Activity:high |
7/12 So for those afraid that Bush will declare himself Caesar (stealing a
line from Jon Stewart) by postponing the federal election, what would
you like the government to do if San Francisco and NYC got hit with a
dirty bomb on election day?
\_ Women and minorities would be hit hardest.
\_ Go to the polls and vote like a proper democracy and not be
cowed like a bunch of fucking maggots. Although in Florida's
case it'd probably cause weeks worth of bitching about lost
vote results. -John
\_ First of all, the answer to your question doesn't change whether
the city hit with a dirty bomb votes mostly Democrat or mostly
Republican. Second, the concern isn't that Bush is lengthening
his term (this part is just a joke), but that postponing the date
might benefit him -- seeing as how the elections in Spain favored
the liberal party after their terror attacks (a real and
contemporary example) -- because if Bush couldn't protect you, then
why not try Kerry? Third, the Bush administration is looking at
changing the date if a terror attack occurs arbitrarily close to
election day -- it does not have to occur on election day.
\_ This doesn't answer the question.
If a major attack happened the day of, or shortly before the
election, what do you think the gov't should do?
\_ The question is flawed, as explained above, but to answer
your question: If Houston or SF got hit with a dirty bomb,
the government should -- before the terror attack occurs --
have a policy in place on the question of whether or not to
postpone the election, and it should be bi-partisan. Also,
assuming the above, the election should not be postponed so
far out that it extends Bush's term, as much as it can be
helped. Bi-partisan is the key word here.
\_ So early inquiries about the legality of the possibility
didn't deserve the flak it got in the press? People having
fits about Bush as president-for-life need to get a grip?
Yeah, that was my point.
\_ They had fits because it was discovered that Bush
was looking into this unilaterally. If, on the
other hand, Republicans and Democrats announced they
were studying this issue in a joint press conference,
it would be ENTIRELY DIFFERENT.
\_ That's just plain stupid. The initial inquiries were
about the legality of the possibility, which is a
logical first step. The next step would be to have a
committee work on the specifics.
\_ If you don't tell the other side you're looking
into it, it looks like you're trying to postpone
the election, to your own benefit, using
terrorism as an excuse.
Here's a question for you: If President Gore did
this, what would Republicans say?
(Do you see my point yet?)
\_ This is pure fantasy. Why would they hit the Bay Area? That
only be slightly more likely than them bombing Tehran.
\_ Why not hit any major city where people aren't expecting it?
\_ Insert-your-favorite-metro-area there then. |
| 2004/7/13-14 [Computer/SW/Languages/C_Cplusplus] UID:32265 Activity:high |
7/12 Someone please explain the following?
((size_t )& ((SomeVar *)0)->Field);
\_ It's a hideous abuse of C++ syntax and results in undefined
behavior. It appears to be an attempt to find out the offset of the
member "Field" in the class/struct type SomeVar. Ow, ow ow.
\_ This is actually not undefined, in C or C++. It is hideous,
though; it would be nicer to #include <stddef.h> and just use
though; it would be nicer to #include and just use
offsetof(SomeVar, Field). In C++, you might also be able to
use a pointer-to-member (&SomeVar::Field), depending on what
you're trying to do. --mconst
\_ You're saying that dereferencing a null pointer is not
undefined? -emarkp
\_ Right. In C99, you're allowed to dereference a null
pointer as long as all you do is take the address of
it afterwards; see 6.5.3.2p3. In C++, it's not very
well stated in the standard, but the current view of
the committee is that you're allowed to do anything
with a dereferenced null pointer as long as you don't
trigger lvalue-to-rvalue conversion or try to write
to the memory; see http://csua.org/u/86c --mconst
\_ Fascinating. I usually follow Herb Sutter's articles to
keep me up-to-date. Thanks for the info. I just wish
they'd add a typeof operator and ditch the nonsensical
syntax of calling a static member function though an
instance (requiring T::func() instead of allowing T x;
x.func(); ). -emarkp
\_ Although 6.5.3.2 states that &*E is legal, it does not
address the issue in the original question, which
involves an additional structure member access. I
believe that it is implementation-dependent. It is
the compiler vendor's responsibility to provide an
offsetof macro in stddef.h that works with their own
implementation, but it need not be portable. --jameslin
\_ You're right, I take it back -- the original
statement is actually undefined in C99. It works
for arrays, but not structs. (It is still valid
C++, although it's not guaranteed to produce the
value you want.) --mconst
\_ So shouldn't your "SomeVar" be "SomeType" for clarity? That
confused me for a bit. |
| 3/15 |