Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:August:26 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2004/8/26 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:33149 Activity:very high
8/25    To the guy who keeps saying US is an empire in decline.  Consider
        the very vigor of political conversation in this country.  There is
        competition of ideas here, more so than in any other place on Earth.
        No empire in decline in history would have such vigor and such
        competition.  On a somewhat related note, Foucalt once remarked that
        americans go on pilgrimages to France the same way the
        french used to go to Italy in the 18th Century -- to see _a dying
        civilization_.  -- ilyas
        \_ I've never seen anyone write that statement, but I'd point to the
           "why do you hate america / if you're not with us you're with the
           terrorists" types to refute your political vigor comment.  That
           stuff (used non-ironically) really does make me worry.
           \_ Erm, America has lots of people, and America (due to its unique
              position in the world) is perhaps more loudly heard than some
              other places.  I don't think the percentage of idiots here is
              greater than anywhere else, but the above 2 things perhaps makes
              it seem so.  There are smart people who genuinely care about
              doing the right thing arguing with each other, in heated earnest
              here.  We take it for granted, but it's almost a unique feature
              of our culture -- other places seem a lot more homogenous to
              me. -- ilyas
                \_ The perception of being full of stupid people probably
                   partially stems from US media being fairly homogenous in
                   any given place compared to elsewhere--which leads to
                   some pretty undifferentiated opinions.  For a country
                   where a comparatively large %age of the population is
                   college educated, you do hear some fairly shocking views
                   expressed.  The metropolitan/university crowd that you and
                   I hang out with is no measure--the bulk of the population
                   lives in places like bumfuck Idaho and isn't quite as
                   cosmopolitan.  That, and American tourists have whiny nasal
                   voices.  -John
                   \_ That you would put forth the "we're smart and the other
                      guys are stupid bumfucks" steroetype as a serious point
                      is, at best, disappointing.  The bay area has just as
                      many closed minded stupid people who believe what
                      they're told without thought as anywhere else.  The
                      so-called metropolitan/university crowd is nothing
                      special.  Just how much of the rest of this country
                      have you visited and how deeply have you engaged in
                      conversation with those unwashed, uneducated, rural,
                      gap tooth hicks you think occupy the rest of the
                      non-Bay Area parts of the country?  I do agree with you
                      that our media is pathetic.
                        \_ I am not merely referring to the BA.  I hate to
                           say it, but rural populations tend to have less
                           access to differentiated media and education than
                           urban types.  It's the same in Europe, except that
                           most rural communities are far closer to some
                           metropolitan center, and hence have better access
                           to information (not always right.)  -John
                           \_ Rural areas have the same access to newspaper
                              deliver, TV, cable, the net, satellites, and
                              everything else a city dweller has.  This isn't
                              the 1850s.  You're also still stuck on the
                              "cities are full of smart people, rural people
                              are stupid bumfucks" stereotype.  I've met more
                              than enough closed minded morons here to assure
                              me that stupidity is evenly spread out.
        \_ Ilya, whether it is one or not, the US certainly exhibits a lot
           of symptoms of "empire in decline".  Losing grip on alliances it
           once dominated, military overextension, rise of both economically
           and militarily viable competition, brain drain (think stem cell
           research moving to the UK), currency no longer used as a peg of
           absolute value due to several factors including overspending
           domestically--I could go on.  I'm not doing a chicken little here;
           empires nowadays no longer collapse and get overrun by visigoth
           hordes, but the US certainly shows signs of moving towards a way
           more conservative pattern of international prominence in a lot of
           aspects.  -John
           \_ Diplomatically this is certainly true -- Europe is not fond of
              the current administration.  Of course, Europe doesn't need the
              alliance with the US, i don't think it's reasonable to expect
              a tight, Cold War style huddling for warmth.  To draw a comparison
              to 19th century, none of the great powers felt obliged to be
              particularly cozy with Britain -- they had their own interests
              to worry about.  Military overextension is also true, but only
              because we aren't on a war footing.  I think the fact that we
              fought two wars recently without any real impact on consumers
              (compare WWII) is actually kind of amazing.  There are some
              structural problems with the way americans borrow, but I am not
              an economist, and don't undestand the implications of that.
              It could be problematic a la the Spanish gold collapse.  To
              summarize, things are not entirely peachy in the US, but it's hard
              to separate short term issues of policy from long term trends.
              At any rate, long term negative trends to me seem like symptoms
              of a disease, and I don't feel a disease here. -- ilyas
                \_ Fallacy of equation.  These were not "wars", but rather
                   what was referred to as "police actions" in the 1950s.  And
                   remember, it's not just Europe--a lot of the world has
                   reached a level of political and economic maturity unheared
                   of during the cold war.  The imperial presence is
                   increasingly no longer needed.  As for the disease, as an
                   "outsider", I see a definite fraying of the healthy
                   relationship between "the government" and "the people".  As
                   for your parallel with Great Britain, they had two
                   imperial foci--the "great powers" game, and the rest of
                   the underdeveloped world.  We do not have this to anything
                   near such a degree.  As it stands, the US is making the
                   tragic mistake of pursuing a foreign policy which seems
                   almost calculated to piss off the unwashed masses around
                   the world, while not being seen as consistent and moral
                   enough to get away with it.  In any case, you bring up too
                   many points to address thoroughly, sorry.  -John
        \_ I am empire in decline guy, but John says most of what I would
           say, but better. Didn't England have a pretty vigorous
           political culture from 1890-1950, during its similar period?
           \_ England at the height of their power was weaker than the US
              is today.  An empire does not collapse because of 4 to 8
              years of short term policy the Europeans don't like.  The idea
              that the rest of the third world once loved us and doesn't
              now because of the current administration is just silly.  The
              third world never loved us.  We only sent them money because
              the Soviets did and vice versa.  When was this magical period
              in time when our allies were super close to us and did all we
              wanted?  When the Soviets were knocking on their door.  Without
              the ultimate military threat on their eastern boarder, of course
              they don't want to do what we say anymore.  They don't have to
              so why should they?  Countries don't have friends and allies,
              they only have self interests.  Without the Soviets, it is no
              longer in their self interests to go along with any of our
              policies unless it directly benefits them.  Iraq is a great
              example.  They made lots of money off Hussein and the Russians
              were still owed billions of dollars which they badly needed.
              What did we offer in return to replace that money for our allies
              if they joined us?  Feeling good about toppling a butcher?  We
              offered nothing and they did the logical thing in their own
              self interest.  The US may not last forever but it sure as
              hell isn't an empire in decline.  Even the word 'empire' is
              wrongly applied.  If this is an empire, then the world has
              never seen an empire like this.  We have tremendous economic,
              political, and cultural power.  So much so that anytime we
              sneeze the rest of the world quivers due to the great imbalance
              of power.  But we very rarely actively go out of our way to do
              anything with that power.  Compare to Rome, the British Empire,
              ancient Sparta, the Ottomans, the rise and fall of Islam, the
              communist Russians, China right now, and many others.
        \_ You error in finding public US political conversation vigorous.
           Americans have become more shrill as both sides rush to extremes
           and found sin in moderation. America is not an empire in decline,
           but one without vision. It's a land torn with selfrighteousness,
           selfassurance, and false humility, barely able to trust it's own
           council much less that of others, and blindly following a mutant
           dogma of "pure" Capitalism and psuedo-Christian ethics to justify
           it's lack of humanity and vision. The mistake of empires is not
           caused by it's own power, be political, economic, social or
           military, but by it's own inability to find the strength to change.
           In that, America has the advantage. It has redirected and rebuilt
           itself several times. The question lies in will it be able to do
           it again when the time comes.
           \_ The time is always now.  It is always changing.  You're looking
              too closely at the trees, ignoring the forest.  (Heh, I always
              wanted to jam that cliche into some conversation, thanks!)
2004/8/26 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33150 Activity:very high
8/25    Here's another poll for the $200 bet guy:
        http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/timespoll/la-na-poll26aug26,1,891368.story?coll=la-home-headlines
        Not looking so good for you but I admire you putting your money where
        your mouth is so early in the race.  I wouldn't have bet a dime until
        after all 3 debates.
        \_ I wonder if we'll be hearing that this is a very liberal poll,
           like we did when it had Kerry ahead by 8 or whatever...
           Anyway, the last LA Times poll was 48/46 Kerry, and now we
           have 49/46 Bush...still deep in margin of error territory. I'm
           with "polls are stupid at this point" guy, whoever he is, but
           I have an even stronger opinion - I don't think we're really going
           to know until the votes are counted.
                             \_ Haha!  Like we can trust the votes to be counted!!!
                     \_ Haha!  Like we can trust the votes to be counted!!!
                        \_ Uh yeah, like the military ones the dems tried so
                           hard to exclude?  Do you *really* want to get into
                           this again?  Your media went over the votes with a
                           fine toothed comb for 6 months.  If GWB could have
                           been made to lose they would have trumpeted it.
           \_ I'm "polls are stupid at this point guy".  I'm just helping out
              "I bet $200 way too early" guy.  :-)   Anyway, I believe the
              margin of error stuff is on a curve so the close one is to the
              margin of error the less likely the error is in play.  That's my
              understanding anyway.  I also don't like their polling method
              which was almost 2000 randoms, about 1500 registered voters, no
              information on likely voters or what the split was among called
              people about their registered party and who they voted for in the
              past.  For these and many other reasons I am "polls are stupid at
              this point guy".  --op
              \_ You know polling isn't exactly rocket science. Just because
                 they don't share their methodology with you doesn't mean
                 they don't know how to pick a representative sample.
                 \_ but to be taken seriously, they should.  some polls do,
                    most do not.  i take them more seriously when they share so
                    i can do that ugly thing known as 'thinking for myself'.
              \_ LA Times is considered to be a solid poll, but then again so
                 is Gallup and it was wildly inaccurate in 2000 (Bush up
                 something like 8 points in popular right before the election).
                 I think the fudge factor involved in the term "likely voters"
                 is pretty large.
                 \_ considered solid by whom?  what is their previous track
                    record at predicting elections and by how much?
                    \_ Argh, I had a link of some statisticians discussing
                       which polls were considered to have solid methodology
                       and which were not, but I seem to have misplaced it.
                       As I recall the "good" ones included Gallup, LA Times,
                       Quinnipac University, ABC/WaPo, FOX/Opinion Dynamics,
                       and Time.  They were suspicious of guys like Zogby and
                       Rasmussen Reports, and highly critical of SurveyUSA
                       and other "automated" or "Internet" polling companies.
                       They also thought that we were suffering from poll
                       overdose, but that's another topic.
        \_ So what does this mean?  Bush didn't win the popular vote in 2000
           anyways.
           \_ Note discussion above.
2004/8/26 [Uncategorized] UID:33151 Activity:high
8/25    Isn't attempted suicide hilarious!
        \_ Depends on who it is, doesn't it?
2004/8/26 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Ilyas, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:33152 Activity:insanely high
8/25    YERSOCOOL, you purged the motd of the one interesting thread.  Why do
        you hate ilyas and John?
        \_ It was, indeed, a good discussion, and I'm glad I got to read it
           before the AMOTDC deleted it. --erikred
           \_ AMOTDC has decided to sanitize the motd for the good of the
              rest of us. I forgot, we have a new class of freshman.
        \_ Easily restored.  The censors are wasting their time.
           \_ Thank you!  Helpful people on the motd, this isn't how its
              supposed to work!
              \_ Sorry, I could stop.  --motd anti-censor
2004/8/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:33153 Activity:nil
8/26    Indian tribes are underprivileged?  See how powerful they are:
        http://csua.org/u/8ri (Yahoo! News)
        \_ Um.  We killed almost all of them, wiped out most of their culture
           and language, and took all but the worst parts of their country
           from them.  Don't you think they deserve what they can scrape up?
           \_ Wouldn't Hobbes say we deserve their country?
              \_ And also that they deserve the power they've accumulated now
                 because they've learned to adapt and work the new system.
                 \_ No, no, no, American capitalism and the Free Market are
                    only good when they benefit rich, white Americans.
              \_ Hobbes said a lot of things.  He was kind of a dick.
                 \_ A veritable Leviathan!
        \_ Damned Indian outsourcing!
2004/8/26-27 [Computer/Companies/Google] UID:33154 Activity:high
8/26    How big is your gmail folder? Mine's about 50 meg so far, still far
        from 1 gig...
        \_ I was up to 90% capacity, only because someone was sending me
           an episode of Macross Zero.
        \_ Since I don't put anything important on a beta platform....
           \_ I will personally pay you $100 if Gmail loses your data.
                    -- misha.
        \_ zero.  My mail server has 250gigs free and I can do anything I
           want with the mail, aliases, etc.  What do I need gmail for?
           \_ here, have a sandwich.
              \_ a stale sandwich is more useful than gmail.
                 \_ two stale sandwiches?
2004/8/26 [Politics] UID:33155 Activity:very high
8/26    Various random bullshit and dead threads deleted.  No politics pro
        or con anything went into the purge decision.  Just standard cleanup.
        \_ That's not what yermom was saying last night.
           \_ True.  She was pimping yermom out at a nickel a pop.
2004/8/26 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33156 Activity:very high
8/26    What is this "$200 bet" thing?  Did someone bet $200 on Kerry winning?
        \_ Yes.  I'm going to continue to post polls showing Kerry in a bad
           light and ignoring positive Kerry polls until the election in a
           weak attempt to amuse myself at the $200 bet guy's mild expense.
           \_ I bet $150 against Bush at 2:1 odds on TradeSports. I think
              it was a pretty good bet, especially since the odds have come
              down to almost even.
              \_ Are you the "polls don't matter this early" guy?  If so,
                 more power to you!
                 \_ Sorry, "polls don't matter this early" guy doesn't gamble,
                    but I think his 2:1 $150 bet wasn't a bad bet at the time.
                    3 debates, ignored vp debate, then we vote.  the rest is
                    bullshit and noise so the media can feed their kids.  Bread
                    and circuses.
2004/8/26-27 [Transportation/Car] UID:33157 Activity:very high
8/26    Don't bicyclists ever stop at stop signs?  I almost leveled one this
        morning when he didn't.  He had a stop, I didn't.  He didn't stop,
        I almost didn't also.  He almost died, I almost dented my hood.
        \_ I ask myself the same question when I drive around my new home,
           Bloomington, Indiana (aka "Breaking Away"). But bicyclists run
           this town, so I just take a couple extra seconds to watch the
           intersections. -elizp
        \__ He is supposed to stop.  But if you hit him you would have a lot of
           explanation to do because the justice system favors pedestrians and
           bicyclists over drivers.
           \_ Haha!  Yeah right!  The system promotes killing with impugnity.
           \_ If it takes a few dead cyclists to get them to understand that
              they should at least look before running the sign, it would be
              worth it.
           \_ you are full of shit. fuck you. please choke on a donut and
              die.
              \_ Wow, that was really useful commentary!  Thank you for
                 joining us today!  Where would the motd be without uber
                 geniuses like you to show us how to engage in meaningful
                 and civil discourse?
                 \_  I'm still waiting. eat yer fuckin' donuts.
                    \_ I'm still waiting for more useful and intelligent
                       commentary from you.  Thanks for being here!
           \_ This is a myth. Find a URL or back down. I've seen cops and
              judges react to cases involving bikes and saw absolutely no
              favor for the bicyclist when the bicyclist broke the law.
              I'll give that I cannot speak for pedestrians. The one case I
              saw a piece of before a judge, the pedestrian broke no laws.
                -- ulysses
              \_ Pedestrians effectively always have the right of way, whether
                 or not they're breaking a law.  Bikes are vehicles and must
                 respect all traffic signs and RoW rules.
           \_ Agreed.  But he'd be dead, and I would just have a legal hassle.
              He's still way behind on the deal.
        \_ I do.
        \_ I do.  It's a no-win situation.  Half the cars expect you to blow
           through the stop sign and refuse to go until you do.
           \_ OK.  Why is that a no win situation?  Stop, then, if others
              yield to you, go.
              \_ Either he hits a bicyclist or is made to wait for one.  It's
                 obviously terrible.
                 \_ That's not at all what he said.  He's trying to be a
                    responsible citizen, you're being an ass.
        \_ I have been biking around Berkeley for 5 years now and I find it even
           more appalling that many bicyclists seem to ignore the traffic lights
           even at very busy intersections. They seem to think that the same
           rules don't apply to the just because they're riding a bike.
        \_ I have been biking around Berkeley for 5 years now and I find it
           even more appalling that many bicyclists seem to ignore the traffic
           lights even at very busy intersections. They seem to think that the
           same rules don't apply to them just because they're riding a bike.
           \_ When I lived in berkeley, I found it appalling that cars
              wouldn't stop for pedestrians in a crosswalk!  -meyers
              \_ The fact that cars don't stop for pedestrians shouldn't
                 justify bikes not stopping at stops.
              \_ I don't drive in Berkeley anymore but when I did I sometimes
                 drove through because pedestrians would walk non stop in
                 trickles no matter what the lights said.  If a car didn't
                 push forward a bit in a pedestrian gap they'd be there all day
                 \_ I got a jaywalking ticket once (no traffic in sight) from
                    an overzealous motorcycle cop who'd passed a few seconds
                    earlier.  I had to appear in court (forget the details)
                    but couldn't, as I was on holidays abroad.  The bitch in
                    charge of Berkeley court menial stuff told my mom "but he
                    committed a crime, that's his problem."  Some interesting
                    priorities there.  -John
        \_ http://www.bclu.org/stops
           \_ STOPS SHOULD BE YIELDS FOR BIKES!  YES!!!
              \_ Stops should be yields for cars, too!  There should be no
                 laws or rules because they inconvenience me!!!
2004/8/26 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33158 Activity:insanely high
8/26    Why is there still this misconception?  Wouldn't everyone be better
        served if at the least the truth is known?  Quoting from below:
                           \_ "Your media"?  Anyway, some major news
                              organizations (NYT included, I think) did a full
                              manual recount of the state and showed that under
                              most recount rules if there had been a full
                              recount Gore would have won Florida.  Of course
                              this happened several months after the Supes
                              appointed GWB, so by then it was a moot point and
                              it didn't get a lot of press.
                              \_ Actually, you are exactly wrong.  The study
                                 you referred to (done by the National Opinion
                                 Research Center, commissioned by NYT, CNN,
                                 etc.) showed that Bush would have won by
                                 493 votes had there been a recount.  And, no,
                                 it didn't get a lot of play in the media.
                                 http://csua.org/u/2b5
                                 \_ Good article and thank you. Your single
                                    statement from it is exactly true but
                                    the article says a great deal more. I
                                    suggest people read it. -- ulysses
                              \_ This NORC???
               http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/CarolASThompson/NORC.htm
        \_ Rehashing the recounts is pretty pointless, I'll agree.  But the
           larger concern is Florida's continued registrar shenanigans.
           \_ There is a lot of anger over the recount that is unjustified,
              given the above link.  We can argue over politics, but I hope
              we can all agree there should be more civility in our
              argument.  These kinds of misconception make civility impossible.
        \_ The misconception about how the votes went down in Fl'2k is still
           being perpetrated because the more you tell the big lie, the more
           people will believe it and get mad because they won't do their own
           research into the truth which is that in all the ways the votes
           were being counted and recounted, Gore lost, no one was appointed
           President and it pisses off the left to no end.  Had Gore only won
           his own home state, it wouldn't have mattered what happened in Fl
           anyway.
           \_ You are precisely a victim of the kind of propaganda you decry.
              Read the NORC link above.
              \_ I read it before posting, thanks.  What next?  You're going
                 to tell me that there was a huge conspiracy across Florida
                 between Jeb Bush, the police, and the dog catcher's union to
                 prevent blacks from voting?
                 \_ I would sincerely hope that a Cal CS student would know
                    what precision of measurement is. The above link very
                    clearly shows that Bush won under some methods of
                    counting and Gore under others. Which you still deny,
                    even though the evidence is right in front of your face.
                    You are either 1) insane, 2) lying or 3) unable to
                    read and comprehend English at a 12th grade level.
                    I suspect #1, actually.
                    \_ Gore did not win under any method that was actually
                       being proposed to count ballots.  He won only under
                       a method that neither side suggested which was
                       fabricated by the media counters so people like you
                       could claim there was bizarre circumstance under which
                       Gore won.  Bush won under all the ways the votes were
                       being counted.  By the courts.  Not by the media who
                       was making up more ways to do it, although Bush won
                       under some of those methods as well.
                       \_ This is false as well. By the standards set
                          by the Florida Supreme Court: "one in which there
                          is a clear indication of the intent of the voter"
                          Gore would have won, due to the overvotes that both
                          marked him clearly and had his name written in.
                          This was what the State of Florida law required,
                          but the US Supreme Court ruled that there was not
                          enough time to conduct this recount. Remember that
                          the Bush team did everything it could, both
                          legally and illegally, to delay that recount.
                         http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
                          Just admit that the vote was "tied" by any
                          reasonable interpretation of the results. In
                          our legal system, "ties" go to the courts to
                          adjudicate. This one belonged in the Florida
                          State Supreme Court, but in a maneuver so suspect
                          that even they claimed that it was not precedent
                          setting, the USSC took it away from them. That's
                          \_ Would you have preferred the method of the
                             1876 election?  Then Bush would have won.
                          the breaks, I say, but it is Constitutionally
                          suspect and the reason there remains a cloud
                          over the results. The Bush Administration from
                          the very start believed that they didn't have
                          to answer to the rule of law. Thanks for
                          reminding me all all that, btw, I am going to
                          donate another $100 to the John Kerry campaign.
                          \_ A Federal election is a state court issue..
                             huh!?  Read article 2 and Amend. 14, the
                             implication is obvious.  The legislature has
                             plenary, manifest authority over the choice of
                             electors - period!  What provision of
                             Federal or Fl. state stature talks about
                             'ties go to the courts' - that statement
                             tells me you have no understanding of
                             the law or intent of the Const. authors.
                             This has been discussed an nasaeum, the
                             decision was 7-2 and Bush won under every
                             possible scenario except the bizarre one you
                             promote.  If one extrapolated these absurd
                             scenarios far enough you could probably make
                             Buchanan win too - he should have sued!!!
                    \_ I would say that the article showed that Gore would
                       have won under the most permissive interpretation of
                       ballots, and Bush under more generally accepted
                       methods of interpretation.
                       \_ Are you the same guy that claims that "in all the
                          way the votes were being counted and recounted
                          Gore lost"?
                          \_ Nope.  I'm the Gore-would-have-won-under-the-
                             most-permissive-interpretation-and-Bush-
                             everything-else guy.  The in-all-ways guy is
                             someone else.
2004/8/26 [Politics/Domestic/President, Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:33159 Activity:very high
8/26    Kill me now.  This is incredibly stupid.
        http://csua.org/u/8rv
        \_ Old news.  My dad (public high school teacher) was grading in green
           ink 10 years ago to avoid irate parents and administrators saying
           he was psychologically scarring them.
           \_ The funny is the stupid psycho babel the use the justify
              purple as the perfect pen color for corrections.  I prefer
              green myself.
        \_ Soon they'll do away with grades, since they're so scarring.
           Why are American kids such wimps?
           \_ I had no grades until middle school and I did fine, by all
              accounts.
           \_ Your mistake is blaming the kids.
                \_ OK fair enough. It actually IS the adults, for
                   considering the child's complaint int he first place.
        \_ RED INK!  RED INK IS THE STANDARD BITCHSLAP!
           \_ In Hong Kong all school teachers use red ballpen to grade.
2004/8/26-27 [Computer/SW/Security, Computer/Domains] UID:33160 Activity:moderate
8/26    So I just transfered from http://register.com to http://godaddy.com. I filled out
        a few simple forms and http://godaddy.com says "You have successfully
        accepted the transfer of the domain." Isn't there anything I have
        to do on the http://register.com side?
        \_ A couple weeks ago, I transferred a .org from http://register.com to
           http://000domains.com and learned that the loosing registrar has 5 days
           to acknowledge or deny the transfer. If, after 5 days, the
           loosing registrar (in this case http://register.com) does nothing, the
           transfer will automatically happen.
           transfer and it happend moments later. What TLD is your domain?
           \_ my domain ends on Sept. 1. I just transfered today. Does that
              mean when it expires it should transfer? What is TLD and how
              do you contact http://pir.org?
              By the way I just disabled SafeRenew Automatic Renewal Service
              on http://register.com, is that the same as "locking"? Thanks. -op
              \_ TLD is Top Level Domain. Each TLD has one registry.
                 http://pir.org (Public Interest Registry) is the .org registry.
                 Example TLD's:  com, net, org, biz, be, us, cc, to
        \_ Unless you have locked the domain, no. If you have locked it
           you have to inform the losing registrar.
           \_ Be careful and make sure they haven't been 'helpful' and locked
              it for you.  That happened to me and was a nightmare.
2004/8/26-27 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:33161 Activity:kinda low
8/26    How to write a best selling fantasy novel
        http://members.ozemail.com.au/~imcfadyen/notthenet/fantasy.htm
        \_ Diana Wynne Jones did this much better in her "Tough Guide to
           Fantasyland"
2004/8/26-27 [Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:33162 Activity:high
8/26    I had to re-install a sibling's PC yesterday because of a failing HD.
        Anyways, I installed Windows XP SP2, and there are a couple of neat
        things.  (1) After SP2, there were no critical updates to download,
        and only three recommended updates (journal viewer, .NET, HighMAT).
        (2) When using IE, you no longer get a dialog box asking if you
        want an ActiveX control installed; instead, it renders the page without
        loading it, and pops up a 1-line tooltip at the top of the browser
        which you can click on to install the ActiveX control; then you can
        reload the page.
        \_ There's a Microsoft VM paatch already.
           \_ I didn't have to download one last night; you might have a
              different WinXP CD from the one I have.
        (2) When using IE, you no longer get a dialog box asking if you
        want an ActiveX control installed; instead, it renders the page without
        loading it, and pops up a 1-line tooltip at the top of the browser
        which you can click on to install the ActiveX control; then you can
        reload the page.
        \_ Also, wireless reception seems to somehow improve.  Don't ask me
           how.  -John
        \_ RIDE BIKE!
           \_ WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?
              \_ USE LINUX!
                 \_ TIRED JOKE!
           \_ Use FireFux.
                    \_ NOT JOKE!  YOU: NOT GETTING IT!  NO.  HUMOR.  INTENDED.
           \_ Use FireFox.
2004/8/26 [Uncategorized] UID:33163 Activity:nil
8/26    Dude! Kerry's initial is also JFK! JFK v.2! That is so cool.
2004/8/26 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33164 Activity:nil
8/26    Kerry is a hero:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-rood22aug22,1,6879016.story
        \_ Since http://latimes.com require registration, might you provide a
           better summary or a login/password pair?
           \_ csuamotd/csuamotd still works, until Insane Motd Sociopath
              changes it that is.  Anyway, the article is a reprint of the
              William Rood article from the Chicago Tribune.
2004/8/26-27 [Computer/HW/Memory] UID:33165 Activity:moderate
8/26    Can anybody else here clarify what this boinc quote means?
        "We fixed the bogus URL bug and all servers are back up. If your
         cache is empty of all valid workunits and you have any of the
         bogus workunits, then reset the project."
        How does one "reset the project"?
        \_ It sounds like some internal company lingo.  Good luck!
        \_ not that i've ever used boinc, but based on hearing that it
           allows other projects besides seti@home, i'd assume it means
           zapping the data files or whatnot for whatever project you happen
           to be running.
2004/8/26-27 [Consumer/GPS] UID:33166 Activity:nil
8/26    Anyone have a GPS handheld device?  How often do you use it?
        Why do you use it?
        \-i have  garmin. i orginally got it partly for "cool" factor
          and prtly for altitude information on hiking/trekking trips.
          i dont use it much because the current generation eats batteries
          to fast and the signal amplification isnt good so even moderate
          tree kills your signal. --psb
        \_ I have a garmin eTrex. It got it for my birthday several years
           ago and have used it on and off over the years. I used to use
           it when I was walking/running every day to keep track of my
           milage (tried to cover at least 6 mi a day). I used it when I
           was traveling in Ireland/UK mostly to prevent getting lost.
           The main problem w/ the eTrex is the recv'r. It is pretty weak
           so you will loose signal when you go under moderate tree cover
           or in between tall buildings w/ overhangs. The other problem
           is the accuracy, it ranges from 30 ft to 130 ft.
           If you are thinking about getting a GPS, I would wait till 2005.
           They are coming out with the new signaling standard that should
           make it easier to get/keep a signal and give you greater accuracy.
2004/8/26-27 [Computer/SW/OS/FreeBSD] UID:33167 Activity:low
8/26    OpenBSD 3.6 now available for pre-order. The release date
        is Nov. 1. 3.6 has lots of new features including SMP
        support (yay!).
        \_ Yeah, whatever.  After years of no SMP and then they switched
           binary formats with no upgrade path and before that stopped
           letting people download ISOs, I simply gave up.  Freebsd + pf
           port is all I need, thanks.
2004/8/26-27 [Politics/Domestic/President] UID:33168 Activity:nil
8/26    Lincoln Night Vision Guy: AFAIK, it is Kennedy that has
        night vision, not Lincoln. I've seen it in use and it is
        only moderately useful if you live in a place without a lot
        of street lights (say highway 9 or something). Basically,
        it is just a gimmick.
        \_ I take 4 to Pittsburg in total darkness, very useful. Also
           my nightvision is totally fucked so I see 50% less than most
           people.
2004/8/26 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33169 Activity:high
8/26    Read Kerry's 1971 book The New Soldier.  Covers features
        hippies and an upside down flag mocking Iwo Jima
        http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=NewSoldier
        \_ Ah, I get it.  Since the Swifties have been utterly discredited,
           the next step is to simply attack his anti-war activism.  Good work
           guys.  You've done a fantastic job of distracting a good segment of
           the press from reporting on the dismal presidency of George W. Bush.
           \_ If they're so discretied then why are Kerry's poll numbers
           \_ If they're so discredited then why are Kerry's poll numbers
              dropping and they're more in the news now than ever?
              \_ Ugh.  The debates will help settle down the poll jitter.
                 Unfortunately they're both so uncharismatic, it's hard to
                 handicap what will happen.
                 \_ I think Bush is charismatic but a poor speaker while
                    Kerry is uncharismatic but speaks well
                    \_ I hate hearing Kerry speak.  His speechifying is really
                       annoying.  Why can't he just, ya know, speak?!
                       \_ I don't know what you're talking about.  I've
                          heard Kerry's speeches and they're fine, just like
                          Clinton, HW Bush, and Reagan's.
           \_ They haven't changed their position and most of their
              accusations have not be rebutted in any way whatsoever.
              \_ You haven't been paying much attention.  "I was in Cambodia"
                 "I wasn't in Cambodia" "I support John Kerry in his Senate
                 run" "John Kerry is unfit for command" "We have no connection
                 to those swift boat people" "Our legal counsel and a couple
                 of campaign event organizers are quitting because they are
                 the swift boats' counsel or APPEARED IN THE DAMN COMMERCIAL"
                 You're a tool.  Wake the fuck up.
                 \_ As opposed to Kerry who has been so consistent on his
                    Vietnam record once challenged?  If Kerry would just sign
                    Form 180, he'd bury them.  If he's telling the truth.
              \_ "have not be rebutted in any way whatsoever [sic]"?
                 http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=231
                 There's some rebuttal for ya!
                 \_ Your link is stupid.  However, some additional evidence
                    has finally come out about the Rassman PH, but this is
                    not it.  Link = worthless information, they don't
                    even understand the allegations.
                    \_ Your post = stupid / worthless information.
                       Write down what "most of their accusations have not been
                       rebutted in any way whatsoever" refers to, and I will
                       rebut it.
                       (Factual rebuttals have been posted to the motd over
                       the last several weeks, so I assume you have just been
                       igoring those and criticizing the non-fact-based
                       rebuttals, which would be incredibly dishonest of you.)
        \_ I read it.  It's almost entirely:
           (1) Short statements from individual vets, and
           (2) John Kerry's 1971 statement before congress
           It's pretty boring really.  The quotes are similar to senior quotes
           in high school yearbooks.  There are at least some claims that some
           vets in the VVAW weren't actually Vietnam vets, but I don't know if
           anyone has verified that the quotes in the book are all from Vietnam
           vets.
           \_ I like where he criticizes the VFW and American Legion calling
              them irrelevant.
2004/8/26 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:33170 Activity:high
8/26    To the guy who was saying "rural people have the same..yada yada"
        Try picking up a NYT or FT in the boondocks.  Honestly, try it.  It's
        not a stereotype, people in cities _do_ have access to more
        information.  That's why they live in cities.  And no, I nowhere
        implied that they're all smarter.  -John
        \_ NYT is on the Internet now. You might be surprised at who you find
           in the boondocks. I was in rural Alabama once and lots of
           people there had lived in Germany, France, and other places.
           They were well-traveled and educated. Yes, there are towns full
           of yokels but this is true in LA or SF Bay Area, too.
           \_ no, this can't be true.  they trend heavily republican so they
              must be stupid, gap toothed, black teethed, unwashed, uneducated,
              morons and raging assholes who won't vote against bush after
              seeing F9/11.  they don't have newspaper delivery, they don't
              have the net, electricity, running water, or sanitation
              services.  mostly, we allow them to stay in our country so we
              have someone to laugh at but we shouldn't let them vote or
              express their useless opinions. oh yeah, there's lots of xtians
              there who home school their kids instead of putting them in the
              superior and well functioning public schools.  that alone is
              solid proof they're ignorant and should be caged.
              \_ Nice attempt at satire, but it just comes across as hateful
                 and spite-filled rather than funny.
                 \_ hurts, huh?  you'd find it funny if it wasn't self
                    descriptive.  i learned to talk that way right here on soda
                 \_ Yeah, agreed with the guy above, this really sounds like
                    the kind of crap soda's Liberal Goonsquad (tm) vomits out.
                    Yet somehow it's never called spite-filled or hateful.
                    My recent favorite was aaron wishing liberals could
                    gangbang a freeper 50 to 1.  You can't make that stuff
                    up.  -- ilyas
                    \_ Ilya, have you ever read freerepublic?  Aaron is mild
                       compared to some of those guys.  Also, it is
                       possible to be both (reasonable && disagree with ilyas).
                       Anyway, my point above was that if you want to satirize
                       someone, its far more effective if you can actually be
                       funny.
                       \_ Yeah, good job guys, you are behaving slightly better
                          than folks on freerepublic!  *sigh*. -- ilyas
                       \_ yo, this isn't the free republic.  there's only one
                          person here who reads it and i suspect he posts links
                          from it just to tick you off.  how about you compare
                          the hateful spite and bile from the left to the other
                          soda users who have a different political philosophy?
                          you don't see us posting how you're all stupid ass-
                          holes and pure evil because of what you believe.
                          check the mirror.  you are the very thing you claim
                          to hate most.
                    \_ aaron is the only one I see with the bubbling anger like
                       that. He at least is not anonymous, unlike Swiftboat
                       Troll for example.
                       \_ whatever.  read the wall for a daily dose of raw
                          hatred and poison.  flip the targets around and
                          apply the same words to yourself or your beliefs and
                          see if you'd find it ugly and vicious and lacking
                          common decency.
                       \_ Swiftboat Troll isn't angry though.  Stupid, yes, but
                          not angry.
                          \_ Well right wingers don't have much to be angry
                             about as such. After all their party is in power.
                             They can work themselves up about Michael Moore
                             though.
                             \_ Yes, winning is more fun than losing.  We had
                                40 years of leftist agenda bullshit and since
                                1994 we've taken the country back and we're
                                not giving it back so easily.  Does that anger
                                you?  How dare we fight back?!  Bastard evil
                                Republicans are plotting to win again in 2004!
                             \_ Tell Ann Coulter and Michael Savage that.
                                \_ or Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrinch or
                                   Kenneth Starr or Richard Mellon Scaife
                                   or the Coors Family or Richard Nixon or
                                   Chuck Colson or Joseph McCarthy or...
                                   The right-wing has had the monopoly on
                                   vitriolic hate for so long.  Its only
                                   now that the liberals are so pissed off
                                   that they are (stupidly) adopting the
                                   tactics of the other side.
                                   \_ Why are you leftists so sensitive,
                                      yet there is tyrant inside everyone
                                      of you?
                                      \_ While I don't necessarily agree with
                                         what you said, I can try to address
                                         a related question 'why do sweet,
                                         emotional people have a tyrant
                                         inside them?'  Lewis Carroll in Alice
                                         made up the archetypal Red Queen to
                                         bring this observation into focus.
                                         I think it's the nature of human
                                         emotionality to be double-edged in
                                         this way, which is why the Red Queen's
                                         flip-flops between megaton sweet and
                                         megaton nasty are instantly
                                         recognizable -- ilyas
                                   \_ Who was spitting on returning Vietnam
                                      vets?  They weren't Republicans....
2004/8/26-27 [Finance] UID:33171 Activity:high
8/26    Tipping for sport instructors (hang gliding, scuba, white water rafting
,
        etc.): yes or no?  In what cases?  tia
        \_ watch Along Came Polly, that girl really tipped the scuba instr.
           \_ s/tipped/tupped/
        \_ here is what I think about tipping. If you can afford it, tip
           as much as you want. If you're a poor ass student, don't tip.
           No tip no shame. Tip however much you want. US/UK are the only
           countries that tip. Go figure.
           \_ Tipping in the UK is rare..
              \_ Tipping in Hong Kong is standard.
                 \_ only in fancy restaurant.  otherwise, just some spare
                    changes is enough!
                    \_ That's incorrect.  10% tip is automatically charged to
                       the bill.  Where do you get your information?
                       \_ The 10% is mandatory "service charge".  The
                          voluntary-but-standard tip is in addition to the 10%.
                       \_ What an idiotic situation. Automatic, compulsory tip?
                          That's not what a tip is, and defeats the point.
           \_ Always tip 15% before tax in a restaurant in the U.S., higher
              if you want.  Include this in the cost of the meal.  Don't use
              the student excuse, even for delivered pizza, although that's 10%.
        \_ http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/summer_tipping
           \_ hey thanks! but i dont see barber/salon on here...
              \_ 15%, same for masseuse, but because skill matters more, it's
                 really between 10-20%.
           \_ so basically it says tip the extreme sports guys.
              tennis/swimming/golf, no.  I'm kind of skeptical on the first
              part, so I would ask the admin people.
        \_ I tipped my golf pro $10 after a couple lessons. Hey, why not?
           Most of these folks aren't getting rich off their job, it doesn't
           hurt to put a good finish on their day.
              \_ fuck that.  I tip them what they deserve.  In my mind
                 standard service is 20%, crappy but not insulting is 10-15%,
                 crappy and it's because they're just born dumb is 5-10%,
                 crappy because they're lazy is 0$, and genuinely good is
                 30%.  It's up to the costomer to provide an  economic
                 signal to the waitstaff that rewards good work and
                 punishes bad work.  If everyone were like you, all waitresses
                 would get paid the same, which is stupid.  A good diner
                 waitress can make 20 dollars an hour on the same shift
                 as a shitty one who makes 10 an hour, which is how it
                 should be.
                 \_ thank you. -guy who grew up in Europe and doesn't really
                                give a damn about tipping
2004/8/26-27 [Reference/Tax] UID:33172 Activity:insanely high
8/26    Question for motd conservatives:  what do you think about the following
        argument for progressive taxation?  The practical value of money does
        not grow linearly with the amount of money you have, but faster than
        that.  For instance, you can't live in LA on 50 dollars a day.  On
        50000 dollars a day, not only can you live well anywhere, but bend
        the fabric of society around you for your own benefit, like a star bends
        spacetime.  Progressive taxation then is meant to compensate for this.
          -- ilyas
        \_ Why does there need to be any compensation for having more money?
           If you want to redistribute wealth and thereby destroy it, then
           just do that and don't hide behind 'funny' terms like
           "progressive taxation" which are just buzzwords for what the
           left really means.
           \_ Capitalist system tend to concentrate wealth. Wealthy tend to
              bend rules of law for their benefit, thus, generate more
              wealth.  People who inheirt this wealth won't need to do
              anything.  By protecting their constant stream of income, they
              destroy opportunities for others.
              Soon or later, you will have a few wealthy people,
              may be 1-2% of population who lives very well-off, and 90%
              of people who can barely fed themselves regardless how much
              they work. If you reach that point, then, bloody revolution
              occures.  Progressive taxation is just one of way to slow down
              such process.
                \_ Don't forget that the wealthy can now pass laws to prevent
                   any future uprisings from having any chance of succeeding.
                   New York won't even let the people protest this weekend,
                   to "protect the grass."  -rollee
                   \_ If I were wealthy enough to do so, I would certainly
                      try to use any influence I could muster to prevent
                      redistribution of _my_ wealth.  It's _my_ money, not
                      the money of the collective.  Taxation is about
                      people paying for their fair share of goods and
                      services, not out of some dipshit communist principle
                      of preventing the accumulation of wealth out of pure
                      spite.  -John
                \_ No, inherited wealh diminishes over generations.  It is
                   taxed, divided, spent, and gone.  It is very rare that the
                   next generation ends up with more than the generation that
                   created it.  Only if there's a growing and successful
                   \_ False. Try again.
                   family business, in which case, the next generation has
                   earned their wealth by successfully running and growing a
                   business.  I also object to your bit about the wealthy
                   making laws for themselves which generates more wealth.
                   That is opinion and conjecture.  As a salaried person I pay
                   more than half my income in various taxes.  After working
                   \_ Wages are heavily taxed. Asset income is not. The
                      Republican rich are laughing at you, wage slave. --aaron
                   for 15 years I have a mortgage and less than year's post-tax
                   income saved.  How come I'm not making my own laws and
                   creating a legacy of vast wealth on a salary yet I pay such
                   a huge amount of my income in taxes?  This is bullshit, but
                   thanks for trying to make an honest effort to justify your
                   redistribution and destruction of wealth plan.
                   \_ Because you're a wage slave dupe who doesn't
                      understand the wage-unfriendly tax system.
                       Read "Perfectly Legal" by David Cay Johnston.
                   \_  This seems like opinion and conjecture as well.  Have
                       you seen that HBO documentary "Born Rich"?  If most
                       of the inheritance is in real estate, then there's
                       not even the necessity to earn the wealth, since the
                       returns from real estate can be so rediculous.
                       BTW, if you are working for a salary, you are not
                       truly wealthy.
                       \_ I'm not truly wealthy.  I made that clear.  If I'm
                          not truly wealthy then why am I getting ripped apart
                          by your progressive taxation/theft system?
                          \_ You're not even close to wealthy. You're part
                             of the 19% of the population that mistakenly
                             thinks they are in the top 1%, probably.
                             http://www.lcurve.org
                          \_ Because you've reached the top of a heap that
                             should be higher. Those making more than you are
                             paying the same percentage income tax as you,
                             essentially it's a "flat tax.". It's no longer
                             progressive in your favor. Add on property tax
                             on your house and POOF, 50% gone. If those who
                             raked in 5x or 10x paid a higher percentage, it
                             would allow the easing of the tax burden on you.
                             Ah such is the curse of the upper middle class...
        \_ tell us about the... ah forget it.
           \_ darn, you beat me to it
              ilyas:  Please remove the part about the stars, it is honestly
              distracting.
              \_ Hey at least now you asked, rather than (rudely) doing it
                 yourself.  I appreciate that (really).  -- ilyas
              \_ But it sounds so dramatic! Inspiring, really. I can only bend
                 a crappy apartment around me for my benefit.
        \_ How progressive is progressive enough? -emarkp
           \_ Separate question.  Assume we are able to establish the precise
              curve for 'amount of money I have' vs 'practical value of said
              money.'  Just have the progressive schedule make that curve
              linear.  The question isn't about the specifics, but whether
              the argument itself is good. -- ilyas
              \_ It's not a separate question, it's fundamental to the issue.
                 Who decides how much more valuable my property is? -emarkp
                 \_ I just proposed who (or rather what) decides -- the curve
                    decides.  You can either say 'yes I accept this curve is
                    a good measure' or 'no I reject this curve for reasons
                    x, y, z.'  -- ilyas
                    \_ I reject this curve because if I earned it then I
                       should keep it.  If tax rates were flat, I'm still
                       paying more for the same basic services while not
                       using more of them.  Then you want me to pay more on
                       top of that so I not only pay a greater absolute
                       amount but a greater percentage of what I earn.
                       Just take it all and be done with it.
                         \_ Regardless of where the wealth comes
                            from, our judicial system and law enforcement
                            allows you to keep the wealth that you have
                            "earned".
                            \_ *laugh* wtf?  Yes, and?  You would prefer a
                               system of total anarchy?  A system where I don't
                               like what you posted on the motd so I drop by
                               your place and shoot you?  Ok, you're right, we
                               have cops and courts and jails, so we should
                               have a brutal tax rate to match.  That makes
                               sense.  That way if I object to my insanely
                               high tax rate I can be processed.  Thanks.
                       \_ Alright, do you agree that the relative usefulness
                          of money is a superlinear function of amount?
                          \_ No, I don't.  Who determines "relative
                             usefulness"? -emarkp
                             \_ The magic rocks in my hat determine it. --aaron
                                \_ Hi troll!
                                   \_ I'm just reminding emarkp why he has
                                      no credibility.
                          If so, what's wrong with a 'flat % of usefulness tax'
                          versus a 'flat % of money earned tax?'  Yes, I am
                          familiar with the standard flat tax arguments, you
                          do not need to reproduce them here.  I am curious
                          where a typical conservative's worldview clashes
                          with the above observation, that's all. -- ilyas
                          \_ It clashes anytime a salaried guy making 6 figures
                             who doesn't own any new gadgets or spend a lot on
                             much of anything has less than a year's income
                             saved and pays out over 50% of his income on
                             various taxes every year.
              \_ I agree with emarkp here.  It's hard for me to understand
                 the question if you just say "The right amount of money
                 will be taken." Communists would say this is all the
                 money that puts you above average, so everyone make
                 $50,000 (or whatever).
                 \_ Yes, thank you.  We all know what communism means.  This
                    is in no way pertinent to the discussion.  If you want to
                    play in the real world, call us when your clue arrives.
        \_ The real problem with the tax system is that 40% of Americans pay
           no income tax at all (33% of all tax filers have no tax liability).
           Thanks, Bush tax cuts!
2004/8/26-27 [Reference/History/WW2/Japan, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan] UID:33173 Activity:very high
8/26    How come nihon is spelled as Nippon?
        \_ Both are used in Japanese; "nippon" is the older and more formal
           pronounciation.  --mconst
        \_ Both are used in Japanese; "nippon" is the more traditional and
           formal pronounciation.  --mconst
        \_ I heard that "Nihon" was a modern (informal) creation to soften
           the "harsh" sound of the original word. --dbushong
           \_ The Daijirin dictionary dates both back to before 1200 AD.
              --mconst
        \_ Hiragana -> romanji is not a 1-1 mapping. -- ilyas
           \_ Actually, it is 1-1 mapping... except for the fact that there
              are more than one mapping.  Most commonly used mapping now is
              Hepburn system.  Either way, kana->romanji mapping has nothing
              to do with the OP's question.  "Japan," written as "day/sun"
              "main/true/book" is read both ways.
                       \_ romaji
                          \_ Heh, the word 'romaji/romanji' is the instance
                             of the same problem.  I have seen it spelled both
                             ways by Japanese.  Not a 1-1 mapping. -- ilyas
                             \_ I've seen intelligent educated people confuse
                                they're and their.  Your conclusion is
                                questionable.
                                \_ I don't know if I'd be so mean about it but,
                                   yes. "Romaji" is a Japanese word and it's
                                   spelling in kana could not be reasonably
                                   transcribed as "romanji" in English.
                                   -- ulysses
                                   \_ Except by Tokyo-ites, who have the
                                      annoying habit of adding a nasal sound
                                      before voiced consonants.  "chigau"
                                      (meaning "that's not right") often
                                      becomes "chingau," and some people will
                                      spell it that way in romaji. --erikred
2017/09/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/20    
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:August:26 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>