Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:September:08 Wednesday <Tuesday, Thursday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2004/9/8 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33410 Activity:very high
9/7     "Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women
        all across this country." -GWB
        \_ That's nice. Now move along.
        \_ Whats the problem? its an odd choice of words but
           grammatically makes sense.  Kind of funny though.
           Why no mention of Kerry referring to a local chef named 'Toy'
           as a 'he' when it was a 'she'?
           \_ Sheesh, when are you gonna get it through yer head?
              Democrat = good, Republican = bad.
              \_ Why don't you ever make the same comment when the
                 opposite happens (usually in the same thread) where
                 Republican = good, Democrat = bad (or hates America)?
              \_ Me? I just think it's funny to edit posts and insult
                 people.  I'm in 7th grade.
                 \_ Me? I think it's funny to attribute specious ideas to
                    people that don't hold such ideas, then complain when I am
                    taunted for my idiocy.
2004/9/8 [Science/Biology, Reference/Religion] UID:33411 Activity:high
9/7     It is time for MOTD's monthly evolution vs creationism debate:
        Serbia strikes blow against evolution,
        Creationism put on equal footing with Darwinism.
        \_ here's a challenge to you religious people.  which is more
           impressively godly, a god who has to construct everything in
           the universe individually, or a god who can write down a simple
           set of physical laws and then sit back and watch for several
           billion years as intelligent life evolves according to His
           plan?  do you worship brute force?
           \_ False dichotomy.  The really big problem with this whole
              discussion is that many religious people see their beliefs
              threatened by agenda driven research, or anti-religion spin put
              on science (and there is some truth to that--there are some
              atheists who will do anything to spin research).  Atheists cringe
              at any effort to "prove" god, since in their opinion he obviously
              doesn't exist and anyone who disagrees is just deluding himself.
              *Real* scientists shouldn't care one way or another unless claims
              (pro- or anti-religion) are testable and falsifiable.  Then there
              are believers who try to show other believers that science is not
              a threat to *good* religion and wish both sides would stop
              misrepresenting the other.
              \_ false dichotomy! agenda-driven science! consensus science!
                 activist judges! liberal homosexual agenda!  w00t!
        \_ I would support it if only they would also give equal footing
           to the study of witchcraft. No one has disproved witchcraft.
2004/9/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33412 Activity:high
9/7     Hmmm apparently the Japanese word for Poop needle is Kancho!
        (Guy #2)
        This one's about organ donataion.  The first and third ladies are
        pretty funny.
        Best one yet!  First lady wants to be Bush's "Monica Lewinsky!"
2004/9/8 [Computer/HW/Printer] UID:33413 Activity:nil
9/8     Lexmark recalls some laser printers:
2004/9/8 [Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:33414 Activity:nil
9/8     1000!
        \_ Any prediction on when it'll reach 2000?  3000?
2004/9/8 [Reference/Religion] UID:33415 Activity:very high
9/7     Why is it that religious ideas are not a legitimate subject for
        debate or questioning?  It's as if all intellectual concepts are
        open to criticism, but as soon as you say you believe something
        "because of your faith," its beyond the pale to question it.  This
        seems particularly pertinent today, with Islamic fundamentalists
        trying to kill us because of their beliefs, and Christian
        fundamentalists at home trying to derail science.
        \_ Check out 'The End of Faith' by Sam Harris --aaron
        \_ Who said that religious ideas are not a legimitate subject
           for debate?
           \_ Here's an extreme example.  If someone claims to be able to talk
              to ghosts, we think they are crazy and they are marginalized.  If,
              however, someone believes that the Bible is the literal revealed
              word of God, that we are ruled by a giant heavenly father in the
              sky, etc. etc...then we elect them President.
              \_ So Newton and Maxwell were crazy then? Anyway, not all
                 conservatives are bible thumping kooks:
        (Washington Post, George Will)
                 BTW, I agree that many people are closed minded kooks,
                 but that doesn't stop long held religious beliefs from
                 being overturned: the birth of Buddhism in 500 BC Hindu
                 India, the conversion of Rome to Christianity, the
                 Protestant reformation, the reforms in Hinduism btw
                 700 and 1300 AD. Some consider the Enlightenment and
                 the restoration of the Greek ideals of Science and
                 Mathematics to the forefront of human thought as the
                 latest religious movement.
                 \_ Actually, yes Newton was crazy.  His primary scientific
                    love was alchemy and the mercury appears to have done him
                    \_ I think Newton is a good aguement for the "it doesn't
                       any practical difference to a scientist" point of
                       view.  I am a scientist, and most of my friends are
                       scientists.  I would say that about half or maybe
                       more than half of the people I work with are
                       religious.  Some are catholic, some are protestant,
                       some are jews and some are muslims, and as far as
                       I can tell it makes *zero* difference in anything
                       they do as scientists.  I would also point out that
                       kooky random beliefes like alchemy are pretty
                       common among scientists.  A good scientist has
                       an open mind, but even the best sicentist can only
                       have a knowledge of a limited number of subjects, which
                       can lead to beliefs pretty far from the mainstream.
                       \_ Yeah, but do they believe in the bible as the
                          literal word of God or the inspired word? It
                          makes a big difference.
                          \_ If it's not literal, then it's imperfect. You
                             allow all sorts of things to be open to wide
                             interpretation. At what point does it fall into
                             the same category as Greek mythology?
                 \_ It wasn't meant to be an attack on the current President,
                    by the way - I was just pointing out that it is nearly a
                    requirement these days that a candidate mention "God"
                    in order to be elected.  My point also wasn't that Newton
                    was crazy, but that religious beliefs and their relative
                    merits are not allowed as a subject for debate - any
                    sentence beginning, "I'm a Muslim, so..." automatically
                    makes any debate an "attack on their faith."  If anything,
                    religion was MORE likely to be a subject for genuine
                    intellectual thought in Newton's day, or even around the
                    time of Saint Thomas Aquinas.  Note that I do not consider
                    myself to be an atheist.
                    \_ I guess we were talking about different aspects.
                       Certainly I agree w/ you that the current use of
                       one's religion as a sheild against any arguments
                       is very disturbing.
                       The worst manifestation of that (imo) is the trend
                       in some courts to allow a defense of religion or
                       culture to serious crimes. (My religion said that
                       it was okay to rape that woman, &c.).
                       Personally, I'm mostly a deist. I think that there
                       might be an impersonal force (Einstein's God if
                       you will) whose intention is manifest as the laws
                       of physics, &c.
                       \_ I guess we aren't in disagreement about much then.
                          What's wrong, this is the motd!!!  Anyway, I'd
                          put myself in a somewhat similar undecided camp,
                          although their are certain strains of Eastern thought
                          I've found very appealing - i.e., the Bhagavad Gita's
                          appeal to reason as a guide, rather than "because
                          the sky god said so."
                       \_ Impersonal force eh? What's the point of that? I mean
                          what's the practical difference between "some extra-
                          universal force designed everything" versus
                          "everything just happens to be as it is"? The story
                          with the deity doesn't explain the deity itself, so
                          you're not better off.
                          \_ These are very different ideas.  Belief in an
                             impersonal force which refrains from direct
                             interaction with the universe admits for the
                             possible existence of other metaphysical
                             constructs, such as an afterlife.  If you deny
                             the existence of anything metaphysical, you are
                             stuck with just the physical.
        \_ It's like the zero-th commandment, the one implied but never
           actually stated: "thou shalt not question"
           \_ That actually reminds me of how I heard one priest interpret the
              story of the garden of Eden.  God doesn't punish man because he
              disobeyed God or attained knowledge.  God punishes man because
              man took the word of someone else over the word of God.
           Search down to "harsh on religion"
           \_ Nice link, thanks.
2004/9/8 [Politics/Domestic] UID:33416 Activity:nil
9/7     So is the Democrat version of "why do you hate America":
        "How dare you question my patriotism!" ?
        \_ no
        \_ "Which would you rather burn, the Constitution or the flag?"
        \_ "The UN will save us!"
2004/9/8 [Computer/SW/Security, Recreation/Shopping, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:33417 Activity:very high
9/8     What are some wedding registry web sites to use?
        \_ handles the registries for most
           of the major stores, including Macy's, Williams-Sonoma, Pottery
           Barn, Crate & Barrel... etc. Even REI!
           \_ The most popular. Does what most people want to do. But of
              course, if you do it with Wal-Mart (and I think Target too),
              you get to walk around the store scanning whatever the hell you
              feel like...
              \_ You can also walk around with a scanner at a Williams-Sonoma
                 or Pottery Barn store.
                 \_ You can't scan catfood, cigarettes, and t.p. at WS or PB.
        \_ It's really more a question of what store(s) you're registering at
           isn't it?
2004/9/8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33418 Activity:high
9/8     I didn't delete the escaping from Iraq troll, but 63% of Americans
        say the war in Iraq was worth fighting.  Like I wrote, you don't need
        other countries to help, but we don't have enough troops ...
        \_ I'm confused. CNN shows that 60% thinks that the war made the world
           less safe while 60% supported the war. I just don't get it.
           \_ I wish people would stop treating polls like they're scientific
              evidence.  Polls are as biased as anything else - its all in
              how you phrase the question.
              \_ Which do you support, inaccurate polls or eating babies?
        \_ OOPS, my bad, that 63% figure is from August *2003*!
           The current figure is 49% worth it, not a mistake 57%. -op
        \_ I wonder what the poll will say when we reach 2000 casualties.
2004/9/8 [Uncategorized] UID:33419 Activity:nil 50%like:35285
9/8     What are your favourite Chopin pieces? I'll start:
        \_ the 4 Ballades. It's almost like Strauss's programmed music
        \_ Fantasie Impromptu in C# Minor & Nocturne No.1 in Bb Minor
           \_ C# minor is almost as blase as Beethoven's 5th symphony  -snob
              \_ I think I like it because it's impossible for me to play.
                \_ it's actually not one of the harder pieces by Chopin.
                   I played it in HS, but still have problems playing
                   Etudes. Ballades are hard too.
              \_ If you were a real snob, you would know how to use the word
                 "blase" correctly.
2004/9/8 [Reference/Military] UID:33420 Activity:nil
9/8     The thread got nuked, but I am still hoping for a defense of current
        gun control (banning scary looking guns) from someone.  Surely among
        the faithful liberals here on soda _someone_ actually believes this,
        rather than just closing one's eyes to another unsavory thing the
        Democrats push through? -- ilyas
        \_ Ilya, it's not a question of banning guns, or of democrats vs.
           republicans.  Restricting who gets guns (criminals, the insane),
           making people wait a bit of time between application and permission
           to buy, ensuring that people understand gun safety and handling,
           and possibly, although I'm not prepared to argue either side of
           this, heavily restricting fully automatic weapons ownership, are
           all generally good things.  -John
           \_ Sure, but that's not what I was asking about.  I was asking
              about the bans on 'scary looking guns,' like the Dragunov for
              example.  Crazy people and criminals shouldn't have guns, of
              course, etc. -- ilyas
              \_ so why do you?
                 \_ Because a criminal gives up his rights by commiting a crime.
                    A 'crazy person' has legal restrictions on their rights,
                    which I think is as reasonable as restricting rights of
                    children (i.e. a good thing).  I fall into neither category.
                      -- ilyas
                      \_ Hmmm, so someone like Marth Stewart should be banned
                         from carrying a gun because she's been convicted.
                         Interesting line of thought. -williamc
                         \_ I think it goes without saying that it depends on
                            the crime committed.  It would be boring to argue
                            exactly where the line is, but it surely exists.
        \_ This isn't an answer to your question, because I don't believe in
           that sort of law and don't have a defense.  I just wanted to say
           that both parties have boatloads of unsavory things that they
           try to push through in order to please this or that constiuency
           or to raise x dollars for campaigns.
           \_ I am not sure.  I think DiFi isn't pleasing anyone.  I think
              she really believes in this stuff. -- ilyas
        \_ ilyas, you may possibly be the biggest dipshit in the universe
           \_ but the stars might be bigger dipshits
        \_ The scary looking assault-rifle guns are easier to use and
           are designed to have a higher rate of fire with magazines etc.,
           making them more deadly. They may be equipped or modified to
           have things like silencers, folding stocks, large mags, etc.
           Barrel grips allow rapid fire without burning your hand, and
           facilitate shooting from the hip. The stocks make it easier
           to conceal. The idea is that they want to ban "assault weapons"
           and full vs. semi auto is not the only factor there.
           \_ Yes, banned weapons tend to be easier to use.  My question is,
              why ban weapons that are easy to use?  What favorable effect are
              we looking for here?  The criminals will not have easy to use
              guns anymore?  Do you really think ergonomics have any
              effect on crime rates?  Also, as I pointed out before, a
              higher rate of fire does not imply deadliness, in fact it's
              usually the reverse. -- ilyas
              \_ The poster above gave you a URL. I suggest reading it.
                 \_ I am very familiar with  Favorite line:
                    "So there is a good reason why these features on
                    high-powered weapons should frighten the public."
                    Go get that soccer mommy vote!  Btw, what does
                    'high-powered' even means?  Most assault rifles fire a
                    smaller calibre than most hunting rifles.
              \_ A high ROF entails a higher rate of stray-bullet casualties.
                 \_ Do you realize that the net effect of a high ROF on
                    fatalities is negative?
                 People want to ban the weapons that are seen as favored by
                 criminals.  This included sawed-off shotguns, fully-automatic
                 rifles as well as very cheap pistols.  Whether these weapons
                 are better suited for criminal vs. legitimate use is subject
                 to debate of course,  The fact remains that they are seen by
                 the public as primarily having criminal uses, which makes
                 people want to ban them.
                 \_ It makes _some people_ want to ban them, but not others.
                    I didn't realize laws in this country were subject to
                    majority rule directly.  Shouldn't bans be based on
                    principle and sound data rather than opinion polls?
                      -- ilyas
                    \_ You made precisely the opposite argument with regard
                       to the death penalty.
                    \_ We live in a democracy, not a technocracy.  Deal.
              \_ One-shot deadliness isn't what concerns people so much.
                 It's the spectre of a skilled nut shooting at many people,
                 or people engaging in combat with law enforcement or gang
                 warfare. Sure there is also some psychological comfort
                 going on here. I'm not what you're looking for to defend
                 this though, I just looked this stuff up this morning.
                 I don't think it's right to say this is a clear republican
                 vs. democrat issue.
                 \_ I am not a republican, but I can't think of any republican
                    sponsored gun control measure I didn't agree with.  The
                    democrats, on the other hand... -- ilyas
        \_ A sensible argument might be to outlaw any gun that can penetrate
           a typical Type IIIA police vest.  But that would really drive the
           pro-gun lobby insane, since they would argue, and it is a reasonable
           point, that it gives too much control to a government police force
           and is overly restrictive.  Then again, you don't want to make
           all such weapons legal, since this would put too much power in
           civilian hands.  So, liberals work the periphery, making
           "obvious" assault weapons illegal.  Taken in this context, the
           current gun-control laws make sense as to how they arose, even
           if the laws themselves don't make sense (why ban "scary looking"
           guns when you get can a legal one that kills people better?
           Obviously liberals would like to ban those too!) in a vacuum.
           Also, keep in mind that a gun being semi-automatic or automatic
           makes it kill people better, in that you can kill more people
           faster, but you already knew that. -liberal
           \_ A full auto gun can kill faster in some situations (crowded rooms
              while in others a single shot is more effective (less recoil
              drift).  At any rate, are you in the business of reducing net
              deaths per year?  Why not legislate more dangerous things like
              cars instead? -- ilyas
              \_ wow I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt for
                 a while but you are truly an idiot.  cars may be dangerous
                 but they provide tangible economic benefit, guns
                 just rip large holes in people and increase our health
                 care costs.
                 \_ Economic benefits don't stop things like drug legislation
                    (legalized drugs would be a tax windfall).  It's not about
                    that at all.  Incidentally it shouldn't be 'our' healthcare
                    costs, it should be 'mine,' 'yours,' etc.  If I pay for
                    my own doctor who are you to tell me whether I want a gun
                    or not. -- ilyas
              \_ Are you kidding me?  Liberals legislate on cars all the time.
                 \_ BAN SUV!  RIDE BIKE!  LEAVE GUNS ALONE!
2004/9/8 [Reference/RealEstate, Computer/SW/SpamAssassin] UID:33421 Activity:nil
9/8     Can someone please explain the following spam that I just received:
        "Any prime minister can bounce apartment building beyond marzipan, but
        it takes a real freight train to sheriff living with.Any short order
        cook can seek related to satellite, but it takes a real bubble to
        toward midwife.And befriend the dark side of her philosopher."
        ??? What is this an advertisement for?
        \_ umm, that's just some random text to fool spam filters. the real
           pitch is probably an html attachment or graphic or something.
           \_ Nothing was attached.
        \_ It's most likely an address miner.  It didn't get bounced, so it was
           sent to a valid address.
           \_ No need to send any text in that case.
2004/9/8 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:33422 Activity:very high 66%like:33429
9/8     Stop selectively nuking the frigging motd!
        \_ Your 'cure' is worse than the disease.
        \_ Log shows nuke from the bottom up, with no skipping in the middle.
                \_ ok I just bottom up nuked the motd.
                   \_  next time nuke from the side.
                       \_ Awesome idea, thanks! -- motd terrorist
                       \_ PLEASE don't do that.
                       \_ cat /etc/motd.public > /tmp/motd
                          cut -c 1-40 /tmp/motd
                          mv /tmp/motd /etc/motd.public
2004/9/8-9 [Uncategorized] UID:33423 Activity:kinda low
9/8     What's a good tld to use for a family email/website?
        \_ us cc be to org com
           \_ Something wrong with com?  It's really totally generic.
              \_ And so is my surname.
        \_ .biz
        \_ <yourname>
           \_ Bonus points for family names like wang or johnson.
        \_ .fam
2004/9/8 [Science] UID:33424 Activity:nil
9/8     OK, I think daylight-saving time is kinda stupid, but i thought of
        *one* benefit in modern times.  During the summer, electricity demand
        spikes during the day as people run their air conditioners.  There is
        also an evening spike as people come home and turn on TVs, lights and
        ovens.  By setting clocks forward in the spring, it makes people get
        home later in the 'solar day' when it is cooler.  This way the 2 demand
        peaks overlap less and it reduces the amount of electricity required
        at peak.  Anyone have some thoughts?
        \_ if you can't think of any other benefit, you're a moron
           \_ Jeez!  Who pissed in your coffee?
              \_ just go with it, dude.  if this guy can start a two page
                 flamefest about daylight savings, i'll be deeply impressed
                 (not to mention entertained.)
        \_ Doesn't setting the clock forward make people go home earlier?
        \_ Here's my 2 cents on why I think we use DST (something I wrote to a
           friend a few years ago): /tmp/daylightSavingsTime.txt.  --- yuen
2004/9/8 [Science/Physics, Politics] UID:33425 Activity:nil
9/8     Resurrected:
        \_ These are very different ideas.  Belief in an
           impersonal force which refrains from direct
           interaction with the universe admits for the
           possible existence of other metaphysical
           constructs, such as an afterlife.  If you deny
           the existence of anything metaphysical, you are
           stuck with just the physical.
           \_ So you're just kind of hoping for an afterlife. No real
              reasoning behind it. I guess my point is: what's the meaning
              of this possible afterlife? It seems like people just project
              the existential questions of this mortal life into this
              afterlife, and that settles that. But what do you do in that
              afterlife? And if you believe that the universe is running
              purely on physics then your life is tied to the physical
              processes of your body anyway (a soul is not physical).
              Of course, evidence tells this anyway (physical changes
              to the brain and brain chemistry directly affect people's
              minds). Personally I think the human race has the theoretical
              capacity to create "heaven" right here on Earth, and elsewhere.
              We just aren't quite advanced enough, don't focus all our
              energies toward it, and most of us complacently accept the
              standard religious placebos that avoid the question. I like
              to think that we ourselves collectively hold, in some measure,
              the power of our own salvation.
2004/9/8-9 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany] UID:33426 Activity:high
9/8     We blame Hitler for the extermination of Jews, but shouldn't it be
        Himmler that we should blame at? I mean, Hitler didn't personally
        order all the gory evilness that went on in the concentration camps.
        It was Himmler who architected everything. We're barking at the wrong
        \_ Hitler didn't?  Read a book.  And even if he didn't directly
           personally order such a thing (which he did) he would still be
           responsible for it.  Trollboy, don't try to say Hitler didn't know
           that 6 million people were killed in the camps or how Jews were
           treated in the ghettoes.
        \_ thank you for using "architect" as a verb, so everyone can tell
           you're a moron
           \- What exactly is wrong with verbing this noun? In some cases
              poor grammar leads to confusion over intended meaning.
              In this case, I dont think "designed" is any less vague.
              Actually distinguishing between someone responsible for
              philososphy vs implementation is useful, but that is a different
              criticism than rote repeition of "dont use architect as a verb".
              In the SW industry, I think "to architect" is just as specific
              as "software deisgn" ... and possibly can come do be distin-
              guished from a "software engineer". In the building architecture
              business perhaps there is a productive distinction between
              someone responsible for the aesthetic design and the actual
              building of the building. Do object to using "deliverable" as
              a noun, when it should be an adjective? How about "accessorize"?
              That is another example of something that has a specific meaning
              in the context of say women and clothing rather than generic "to
              make an accessory of". If you cant explain the reason for an
              objection such as this, you're as much a "defender if the faith"
              as Henry VIII was. Are you the foolish Canute or the wise one?
        \_ "Hitler was not sent to you. Hitler was created by you. He arose
           out of your Collective Consciousness, and could not have existed
           without it... If you float a crazy idea, and 10 million people
           agree with you, you might not think you're so crazy."  -CWG 2.
        \_ This is just because the holocaust never really happened, it is
           all just a jewish plot to garner sympathy.  Kill all the jews!
           -Islamic Militant.
2021/06/24 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:September:08 Wednesday <Tuesday, Thursday>