8/14    Inside Al-Qaeda's HD:
        http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/print/200409/cullison

8/14    I demand that we squish tom and unsquish kchang!!!
        \_ I second that nomination. Here are my reasons:
           tom: petty, insults people, hogs up he wall, deletes motd,
                and is squish-happy (in regard to kchang and paolo)
                                        Is paolo squished also? _/
           kchang: provides entertainment by making stupid comments,
                archives motd, and drives tom crazy (big bonus)
        \_ I demand that we squish all the anonymous psychopaths.  Don't
           worry, it'll all get better when you graduate college. -John
           \_ What does anonymity have to do with it?  Why not just squish
              psychopaths?  As if being a non-anonymous psycho is ok?
                \_ I've known Tom for ~12 years, and can say fairly
                   confidently that (a) he's not a psycho, (b) he tells
                   idiots that they're idiots, flat out, and (c) he has
                   the guts to sign his name to statements telling idiots
                   that they're idiots.  The above is just another example
                   of "hey, I'm a lame coward, squish xyz".  -John
                   \_ read Federalist Paper.
                      \_ You should learn this: http://tinyurl.com/w158
                   \_ You misunderstand.  I'm not saying tom is a psycho.
                      I'm questioning what you think anonymity has to do
                      with anything.  I don't think anyone needs to be
                      squished and the ones we have seen to date should
                      not have happened.
        \_ We can't squish tom.  He's our living example that being unpopular
           isn't the only reason we squish people.  As unpopular as tom
           might be, he hasn't been arbitarily squished.  Everyone else
           gave good reason for their squishage.
           \_ Is that the only reason he's still here?  As an example of our
              collective goodness?

8/14    Norman Podhoretz, "World War IV: How it Started, What it Means, and
        Why We Have to Win". http://www.commentarymagazine.com/podhoretz.htm
        The reason I post this is not because I believe or disbelieve his
        historical world view.  The reason to read this is to get an all-in-one
        -place summary of every terrorist attack going back to the 70s.  I
        found the number of attacks shocking.  I knew about each one but I have
        never seen them together like this.
        \_ Good article, a few serious errors though (ex.: Khomeini's
           motivation to not have the Soviet embassy stormed--USSR was not
           a major sponsor of the Shah.)  Also, he makes a common mistake--
           "sneers and jeers" are not directed at the Bush speech use of
           "good" and "evil", but rather at ham-fisted and faulty (and
           dishonest and ineffective) response to these.  -John
        \_  You haven't read the 9/11 commission report, have you?  read it.
            everything in your article is covered in much greater detail, and
            without the partisan noise.  Pundits love to trash the 9/11
            report because if people actually read stuff like that they'd
            be out of a job(which they should be.)
            ok, i retract my attack on your article; it's actually pretty
            interesting.  Everyone should still read the 9/11 report.
            \_ I didn't read the report, true.  Is there a historical summary
               of events section?  It's not my article.  I'm just posting for
               the historical summary part.  I don't accept or deny the rest
               of it.  -op
               \_ read it. seriously.  All the pundits are trying to spin it
                  as being useless because it doens't trash the politician
                  they hate(be it clinton or bush), but just sticks to the
                  facts.  It gives all the historical background on the
                  attacks in your article, all kinds of background info
                  on al qaeda, lots of relevant information on how the structure
                  of our government is or isn't set up to deal with terrorism,
                  and some basic American history that everyone should
                  know but probably most people don't.  And that's just from
                  the first five chapters i've read so far.  It also gives
                  a blow-by-blow narrative of *exactly* what happened on 9-11-01
                  that I don't think you'll find anywhere else.
                  http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911
        \_ Good article, thank you. -- ilyas
        \_ [ troll gone ]
        \_ "What Clarke for all practical purposes did--both at the hearings
           and in his hot-off-the-press book, Against All Enemies--was to blame
           Bush, who had been in office for a mere eight months when the attack
           occurred, while exonerating Clinton, who had spent eight long years
           doing little of any significance in response to the series of
           terrorist assaults on American targets in various parts of the world
           that were launched on his watch."
           Clarke did blame Bush, but the rest is flat-out wrong.  You guys
           should all know this when you read it.

It's so sad that Americans still don't get it.  What
           happened to

8/14    [ PUH-LEASE find a new rightwing troll.  ok tnx. ]

8/14    What's the best cheap source for 128-bit SSL certs?
        \_ I just bought one from http://freessl.com. So far so good. They
           even have like a free ~5 day cert that you can use to
           even have like a free 30 day cert that you can use to
           get your site setup and test w/ various browsers.

8/15    Motd Photo Experts: I ended up buying a used 28-105 for my
        Digital rebel. Thanks for your help. Here are some photos
        I took using that lens (1600x1200, 180dpi, ~ 1mb each):
        link:tinyurl.com/4msb7
        link:tinyurl.com/4a32l
        link:tinyurl.com/46enp
        If anyone has some pointers on what I can do to improve
        my photos I would appreciate it. tia.
        \_ composition
           \- this is not the kind of picture you should ask for help
              with. photographing birds is hard and much of the
              variables are out of your hand ... you have to shoot
              fast, maybe cant get closer, maybe cannt change angle
              etc. you dont want advice like "go buy this $3000
              lens ...". --psb
           \- if you want to photograph birds go to say costa rica. --psb
             \_ The digital rebel is basically my first real
                 camera, so I'm looking for pointers on general
                 photography, not necessarily shooting birds.
                 Stuff like when to try different iso speeds,
                 exposures, &c. will help me. One reason I
                 photograph  birds is that they are colorful,
                 and plentiful (lots of them in my backyard
                 every evening and they mostly stay put even
                 when I get pretty close)
           \_ What exactly does this mean?
              \_ very clear pictures, but I agree, composition:
                 Example URLs:
                 http://www.silverlight.co.uk/tutorials/toc.html
                 Look at the composition section.
                 \- this WEEB site re-enforces my point ... you cant move
                    the bird, you cant ask it to move, and your ability
                    to move is constrained ... it's hard to get level or
                    closer to a bird 20 feet above you in a tree. as for
                    "filling the frame", as i imply above, long fast zooms
                    are expensive. with the 105 you may still be able to
                    handhold but at some point you will need stabilization.
                    i go agree some photogrtaphers make the mistake of
                    i do agree some photogrtaphers make the mistake of
                    trying to put too much in the frame ... "here is a
                    picture of my wife on the pont alexander iii ... let me
                    try to get the whole bridge in the picture ... and the
                    eiffel tower in the back, and the boat on the river".
                    eiffel tower in the back, and the split on the river".
                    some shots simply dont work at all, sometimes you are
                    contstrained by the lenses you have. --psb
                    \_ But the OP can try to follow the Rule of Thirds as
                       described in the above website, which should be easy
                       even with the constraints in this case.  Just point the
                       lens at a slightly different angle.  To the OP: if you
                       don't have a reason to put the subject at the dead
                       center of a particular frame, don't, and go for the Rule
                       of Thirds instead.  AF-lock is your friend.  I don't
                       know Canons, but you might need to use AE-lock too.  As
                       for filling the frame, you can always crop it in
                       Photoshop afterwards if your lens is not "long" enough.
                       Some purists consider post-processing cheating, though.
                       --- yuen
                       \- yes, it is possible to take even worse pictures.

8/15    A must-read for emotionally starved sodans, only 1 copy left.
        http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1879967111
        \_ "Many doctors refer to Gary Griffin as the Ralph Nader of penis
           enlargement."  Well, that just says it all, doesn't it?
           \_ He is advocating a mean of sexual indepenence from foreign
              object, much like energy independence from foreign oil.
        \_ Gosh, some sodan alraedy ordered that copy.  Now you must wait
           1-3 weeks for the publisher.

8/14    Watch O'Neill debate Kerry in 1971 on CSPAN right now.
        Even back then Kerry was a very effective negotiator,
        for the North Vietnamese.
        http://www.cspan.org
        \_ LBJ was wrong, Kerry was right.
           \_ What was Kerry right about and LBJ wrong about?
              \_ Prosecuting the Vietnam War.
        \_ Thanks for the heads up.  I got to see for myself Kerry predict that
           there would *not* be a bloodbath if we pulled out of Vietnam.
           O'Neill cited previous North Vietnamese actions as evidence that
           there would be.  History hasn't shown Kerry as very good at
           prediction.
           \_ Kerry, right again.  There was no bloodbath caused by the
              pullout, as Kerry indicated as more likely.  The bloodbath
              occurred during the war, from the carpet bombing.  There were
              political assassinations as Kerry predicted.  There was also
              widespread migration out of Vietnam - the refugees.  The
              dominoes also didn't fall, which was our original reason for
              going to Vietnam.
                \_umm, no.  The pullout did result in a bloodbath.  Try
                  try searching for "Fall of Saigon" and "bloodbath".  If you
                  want to learn about some serious blood spilt after americans
                  left the area, add "cambodia" to your search.
        \_ Thanks for reminding me about the 1 million Vietnamese soldiers
           killed and the 4 million civilians.  I forgot how many civilians
           died in the war.

8/15    How to use -o (-or) flag with find? that is the question.
        find ./ -name hi -o -name there -print, for example, does not
        do it. (only finds "there", but not "hi")  help tnx,
        \_ How do I, damnit.  HOW DO I.  Not how to.  You are
           intentionally refusing to learn this aren't you?
           \_ it could also be shorthand for "Can anyone tell me how
              \_ It's not.  Train harder, grasshopper.
              to ..." Why don't you just get the fuck over it? CS
              is all about abbreviations and shorthand anyway.
              \_ "How do I" is two whole characters more and doesn't make
                 you sound like a total moron.
              \_ That's about as stupid as people asking questions
                 in the form of urlP. I've been on other message
                 boards before and nobody asks questions starting
                 with "How to".
              \_ No, actually it isn't.  If you're sloppy and lazy then
                 there may be some truth to this, but generally no.
              \_ And this is also the reason why (EE)CS majors
                 are known for their poor social skills.
                 \_ What about "what is cheeseboard?"
        \_ find . \( -name hi -o -name there \) -print
           there's an implicit -and between the "-name there" and the
           "-print"  I'd assume some order of operations precedence
          skips the -print
                \_thanks

8/15    Vote for the smiling big oil monkey.
        \_ Who's that?
        \_ Shoot yourself in the head.
        \_ yermom's a big oily monkey
        \_ Ok.  I will.  Thanks for the voting advice.

8/15    So how long until we see the Puerto Rican Basketball Association?
        \_ Is it me or isn't Puerto Rico a part of the U.S.? Why do they
           have their own Olympic team? And how the hell does the US
           team lose to a small island?
           \_ The US players are suffering through withdrawal
           \_ Hong Kong has its own Olympic team also.
        \_ we should start bombing puerto rico.
           \_ But we only just stopped last year. Do you mean "resume bombing"
              PR? -- ulysses
           \_ More American: Fully incorporate Puerto Rico so we can
              get their best athletes
              \_ so that I got more of my tax dollar and s.s. robbed?  No way!
                 If they have any good athelete we can hire them individually.