| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2004/10/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33868 Activity:insanely high |
10/1 What I would call an excellent deconstruction of the
1st debate
Kerry's Global Warming
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7190
\_ So this is what an irritated conservative whose guy just got
thumped sounds like! C'mon, we've let Dubya go on too long
without someone to take him on mano a mano.
\_ So this is what an irritated liberal who's been called a wimp
one too many times sounds like.
\_ C'mon, your guy lost. Own up!
\_ FFS, what's the problem with taking a differentiated approach
to issues? The moment someone actually tries to consider various
factors and make an educated decision, without seeing everything in
black and white, it's "waffling". And sorry, an intelligent person
is willing to change their opinion when facts change. Yes,
Kerry's not taken many stands, if any. But I hardly see how not
going at everything John Wayne gung ho my-country-right-or-wrong
style makes a politician teh gay? -John the not Kerry fan
\_ Kerry's problem is lack of presence, or maybe he lacks sufficient
speaking ability and intelligence to come across appropriately.
He mumbles and rambles, and doesn't answer concisely.
Consider Jefferson. Jefferson was a subtle guy, but no
propaganda machine would successfully paint him as a waffler.
-- ilyas
\_ Did we watch the same debate? Kerry was articulate, made
an impression, and answered concisely and thoughtfully.
\_ Sorry, I didn't watch the deba^Wpress conference.
I was talking about Kerry in general. Bush's problem
is _atrocious_ speaking ability. Bush, however, comes
across as much more personable. Another point in Bush's
favor is that he is vastly underestimated by his opposition
(Commander-in-Chimp, etc). -- ilyas
\_ Watch the debate^press conference and see the
difference. Unfortunately, I think most Americans are
not going to watch the debate, so the same old images
will prevail. Giuliani certainly thought so.
\_ Jefferson never had to deal with the concerted efforts of
the Conservative Revolution as led by DeLay and Rove. The
new GOP would have you convinced that Jefferson was pinko
socialist with Big Gubmint written all over him.
\_ You are thinking of Hamilton. -- ilyas
\_ No, I'm describing Jefferson as the GOP would have
painted him.
\_ That's a fancy counterfactual you got there.
I wonder if it's true. -- ilyas
\_ Ilya, your homework is to assemble an analysis of
whether Jefferson would have approved of and
joined the GOP as it now stands, and how and
whether the GOP would have attacked Jefferson if
he stood against them.
\_ Kerry's "waffler" image stems from political positions that
are honestly nuanced. For example, we know that politically,
appearing to support homosexuals doesn't seem to help win
elections outside San Francisco. By having Bush take a strong
stand against gay marriage, via constitutional amendment, he
can contrast that with Kerry who says he's against gay
marriage, but has opposed garriage-ban legislation that he
felt was problematic. Kerry's problem is that he is not slick
enough to distill the crux of his point of view into short
sound bytes. And in this gay marriage example that's pretty
much impossible anyway, ditto for some other issues. For
example the patriot act. He voted for it but criticizes it
therefore he's a waffler. He voted to give Bush authority to
attack Iraq, but criticizes it, waffle with butter on top.
With the honest positions he's taken, there's no way he can
avoid the waffle attack, and a Jefferson with the same
positions would suffer the same. Incidentally, Jefferson was
said to be a poor speaker and relied on writing. So he'd never
get anywhere in today's politics.
\_ Leadership requires making tough calls and sticking by
them, not playing both sides.
\_ I'm surprised the waffle line never came out on Gore.
It's the only line R's seem to be able to think of
when faced with an intelligent, articulate opponent.
It wasn't true of Clinton, and it's not true of Kerry.
\- that's fine. You do realize that 78% of the Americans
disagree with you? http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/13581.exclude.html
disagree with you? http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/13581.ex
clude.html
\_ that's fine. You do realize that poll has no validity
whatsoever don't you? -Kerry man
\_ Perfectly aware. 78% of the Americans are also wrong.
It's happened before. Anyway, my comment wasn't about
Kerry, but about a phenomenon in general. -John
\_ In America we decide most political questions by
what the majority believes. It might not be right,
but that is how Democracy works.
\_ Kerry was clearly the better speaker and more in control
of himself during the debates. Do you seriously challange
that?
\_ Kerry did well sticking to his talking points and
avoided providing answers with any substance. It was
standard motd style "republican:evil, democrat: good"
smear. Of course you think Kerry did well. He could
have picked his nose on TV and you'd say he was just
appealing to the nose picking constituency but is really
just nuancing the personal grooming issue.
\_ Err, you may wish to get out of that bubble you're in.
Pretty much everyone thinks Kerry won.
\_ When I watched part of the debate the first time I was impressed
by Kerry's style. Then I watched again after thinking
about things that were said, and completely changed my mind.
The policies Kerry put forward are suicide, and are well
outlined in this article.
\_ What's with the selective deletion, punk-ass? |
| 2004/10/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33869 Activity:nil |
9/30 <DEAD>www.democrats.org/support/kerry.html?dsc=NETHAM1<DEAD> I'm drafting a chain letter asking people to donate just $10.00, do you guys have suggestions? \_ Chain letters are evil. Are you trying to help Bush? |
| 2004/10/1 [Computer/Networking, Computer/SW/OS/FreeBSD] UID:33870 Activity:moderate |
9/30 how do i make my 3com wireless card work with freebsd?
\_ First, find out what the chipset is (google is your friend.)
Then, some cards are only supported under 5.x (32 bit cards.)
Find out what driver supports that chipset, compile it into
your kernel, and voila. -John |
| 2004/10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33871 Activity:very high |
10/1 Kerry clearly won the first debate. Pretty funny watching
the Bush supporters trying to change the subject.
http://csua.org/u/9a7
And this is Bush's strongest subject.
\_ No, changing the subject is Bush's strongest stubject. Just watch.
\_ Kerry clearly stuck to DNC fax talking points, had no substance
and is going to seriously fuck up NK and continue insulting our
troops and our allies around the world if the people make a
horrible mistake and elect his elitist, out of touch ass to
anything outside his home state.
\_ Mmm, echo chambers...
\_ Hahahaha out of touch? That's rich. "The American people are
safer!" Hahaha keep saying it maybe it'll make it true.
\_ He was definitely the better speaker. The difference though was the
ideas, not so much the presentation.
\_ Kerry finally opens his mouth and for the first time doesn't
self-destruct. And you're getting excited about this?
\_ Er, Bush self-destructs every time he opens his mouth. I think
you may want to get out of that echo chamber...
\_ If I were voting for president of the
the debate club, on style I'd probably choose Kerry.
Since the President must be an effective leader,
especially during war, and on policy, I choose Bush.
Honestly, build Iran a nuclear power plant, end research
on bunker busters, a "world test", and referring to
'glory' days when France revered us!? - bizarre.
Maybe Kerry can debate the terrorists to death and impress
the French and Germans with his elan
\_ How can you be an effective leader if you can't even speak in
complete sentences, or tolerate dissent without going into fits
of rage? Honestly, its amazing that folks around here put so
much value on intelligence, wisdom, and "clue," yet when these
traits are clearly lacking in their leader, they turn a blind
eye. There is a difference between leadership and blind folly.
[restored]
\_ Actions not words. Bush gave a somewhat poor performance, but
it was better the second time I watched. Also he showed alot
of restraint and was not aggressive the way Kerry was.
I've seen Bush be much more effective, I don't think he
does well in the evenings as he gets up early.
\_ So you support the president who says, you can't have nuclear
weapon, but we are developing more nuclear weapons, you just
can't because I said so. You honestly don't see a problem with
this logic? Talk about sending mixed signals to the rest of the
world! You must abid by the rules you set out that you want the
others to follow! |
| 2004/10/1 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Religion] UID:33872 Activity:kinda low |
10/1 "Olive Christian, 48, Steve Christians wife, told reporters:
"We all thought sex was like food on the table."
\_ http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/109111/1/.html
also on bbc
\_ the nice thing about pitcairn is that you can go to their web site
and they list all their inhabitants and their relations, so you
get a more personal feel for the story. -ali
\_ 50 inhabitants and they rape each other. Oh my... it is both
kinky and disturbing at the same time.
\_ So basically half the males on the island raped 13 of the
island's females starting from ages as young as 5? Is that
the gist? |
| 2004/10/1-2 [Computer/SW/Unix] UID:33873 Activity:moderate |
10/1 If i want to awk '{print $2+}' is there a way to do that without
looping, or am i being TOO lazy?
\_ perl
\_ probably. what are you trying to do in not-awk-speak?
\- you can use this loop. there might be a range operator
in some versions of awk, but not in generic awk. --psb
awk '{for(i=2; i<=NF; i++) { printf " "$i } ; printf "\n" }' |
| 2004/10/1-2 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:33874 Activity:very high |
10/1 Let me ask a stupid question. Why can't NK and Iran have nuclear
weapon and nuclear power plant? The answer is obvious, because
they are terrorists! Well, by that logic, the majority of the
world (by population or number of country) right now view the
united states as the biggest threat to world peace, does that
mean we shouldn't have nuclear weapons too? So you say NK have
weapons aimed at SK that will level it in a few minutes. What
about the weapons we have in our stockpile that are aiming at
every major country in the world? I agree this would not make
a very interesting voting time topic, but everyone one of
these things we are going around telling NK and Iran they
can't do, we are doing it 10 times more. If you are NK or
Iran, what the fuck would you do? Do you really expect them to
reason with you? If you want other smaller countries not to go
nuclear, you need to at least show the rest of the world that
you will not consider nuclear yourself. But what do we do? We
are willing to use nuclear weapons on really really soft
targets like Iraq, I mean they can't even stand a chance
against us face to face, yet we want to use nuclear weapon on
them. You people voting for Bush honestly don't see something
wrong with this approach?
\_ Ah yes, moral equivalency. We are people, they are people. We
have certain weapons, they should be ok with the same weapons.
How about this one? My friend has two legs and drives a car, so
my child who also has two legs should be driving a car. The rest
of the world only understand raw raked power. They do not respect
anything else. Neither do we. It's what people are. You see the
world differently because you have been raised under the protective
umbrella of the most powerful military to ever exist on the planet.
It is easy to look out on the world from behind your barriers and
bunkers and proclaim peace in our time, if only everyone had the
same weapons we had, or better yet, we unilaterally disarmed to
show the world how friendly and nice and peaceful we are. Show
the world some love and they'll love you back, right? The rest
of the world respects weakness. Right? I won't reply further.
I think you're a troll but in case you're not, that's the reason.
\_ I don't think we should disarm, but I don't think we should
actively pursue new nuclear weapons at times when we tell
others to not pursue nuclear weapons. You view of the rest of
the world is twisted. Perhaps you should get out of your shell
in texas once in a while. -op
\_ The last nuclear warhead built was in GHWB 41 admin.- he issued
a order to stop making W88. In fact, we only test them thru
computer simulations.
\_ No!! Truth!! I'm melting... MELTING!! -Berkeley Liberal
\_ Just because you're only doing simulated weapons testing
doesn't mean you're not designing new weapons. True, they
aren't building new huge bombs like the W88, but they are
working on designing new smaller bombs that there will be
less political resistance to using. Computerized bomb
tests are just as much proliferation as real ones, it's
just more politically acceptable and clean.
\_ I guess you've never seen the W88.
\_ They aren't working very hard on it. As I understand
it, Bush was talking about starting to design the
smaller weapons you speak of, that doesn't mean
anyone is actually being paid to do so. Most of the
simulations are used for "stockpile stewardship."
That is, making sure the bombs still work and
refurbishing old bombs.
\_ bush got 6 million last year to begin work
on smaller conventional nuclear weapons. true
it's not 6 BILLION but i think it's still very
very evil.
http://www.electricityforum.com/news/nov03/nukes.html
- danh
\_ Why does an oil-rich nation like Iran need a nuclear power plant?
\_ America = Good, furriners = Evil. Might makes right.
\_ You are right. It is a stupid question.
\_ Consider that the average N. Korean is ~ 5 feet tall.
Any guess as to why? Here's a good article for you:
North Korean Gulag
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596
\_ So they fit better in artillery barrels?
\_ Fat arrogant americans deserves to be nuked.
\_ yeah sure, lets give everyone nukes and go for peace through
'mutually assured destruction'. You know this doesn't scale,
because it only takes one madman with his finger on the button to
knock down the whole house of cards for everyone. Dr Strangelove,
anyone?
\_ Which is exactly why letting "We will die for Allah" Iran have
them is a bad idea....
\_ You know, I am all for it, if we start to arrest all those
fucking drug dealers and fuckers in east palo alto or
oakland. Why don't we arrest those fuckers but wait for
them to commit a crime? I am all for it, if we apply the
same rules to domestic violence and crimes! If not, then
FUCK OFF!! -pissed off.
\_ Can anyone understand what this guy is saying? I can't.
\_ pissed off is making a comment about the assumption
of guilt of Iran because they are fundamentalists.
\_ What assumption? They DO fund terrorism, and
they DO send people of suicide missions, and
they're even proud of it. Is it ok to let the
criminally insane have assault weapons too?
\_ By that logic the US should give up its
nuclear weapons, being the only nation
to have ever used them, why should we
be trusted.
\_ What I am pissed off is we treat criminals here
like god (if you ever lived in a bad
neighborhood, you'll start to wonder why the
laws don't seem apply to them) and we treat
citizens of other countries like shit, blow
them up when we want to, kill them when we
pleases. And the worst part is, the very
fundamental laws and rules we are so proud of
(innocent until proven guilty), that we claim
is the best in the world, we throw it all out
when it does not work in our favor (preemptive
strike when we see fit) and we invent a new set
of rules. In fact, we invent/apply different
rules for different people. So there's nothing
so fucking great about our rules in the first
place because what we are doing only means it
sucks. That's the part I am really really
pissed about the current government. We tell
others you can't have nuclear weapon, we are
developing more nuclear weapons. The simple
fact is, most of the rules that we apply to
other countries because we can, because we have
bigger guns, we simply can' t apply it to
ourselves. Because we violate a lot of it.
There's a reason we have UN and international
laws and the like, precisely so that countries
don't just go about do their own business, just
like we have laws that governs what you and I
can and cannot do. If you believe our
government is doing the right thing, then you
should take justice into your own hands
whenever you wanted and just forget about the cops.
\_ Is there some kind of award we can give this guy?
How about an ASCII graphic of a shovel?
\_ Before you reply, remember what you said, it's
the idea that counts, not the language/debating
skill. |
| 2004/10/1 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:33875 Activity:insanely high |
10/1 One more selective deletion, and I'm going to get all ilyas on your
ass. Either that, or flood the motd with cows.
\_ I got adjectived? -- ilyas
\_ Not to mention verbed.
To ilyas:
To cooly and calmly nuke a motd thread in reponse to selective
To coolly and calmly nuke a motd thread in response to selective
To nuke a motd thread in a fit of rage brought on by selective
deletion of thread responses.
[Happy now, ilyas?]
\_ No, you misspelled coolly and response. -- ilyas
\_ Typos fixed.
\_ See how easy it is to make me happy? :) -- ilyas
\_ Happiness is a warm gun. Bang bang shoot shoot. |
| 2004/10/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:33876 Activity:high |
10/1 Why does everyone harp of North Korea as a failure of the Bush
administration? It was Clinton/Carter who gave them the technology
and time to make it. Kerry rails against unilateralism, but seems
to be for going into NK alone w/o the Chinese or Japanese. The point
no one seems to understand that even w/o WMD, Pyongyang has over 1K
artillery pieces aimed at Seoul and will level it in two hours. Arty
is and has been the real killer in any conventional war until OIF.
\_ No, it is not Clinton's fault. He sent his coke head brother
over there on a magical musical tour. Madeleine toasted them
with champagne. It's obviously all Bush's fault.
\_ What's OIF?
\_ "operation iraqi freedom" woud be my guess. -- ulysses
\_ Why haven't mortar attacks caused more casualties than they
have? It seems lots of our losses have been IEDs and gun
fights. I'd expect shelling the 'green zone' would be a lot
easier.
\_ Mortars are short-range weapons and not that damaging.
There are 'mortar shelters' constructed all over the
place as well. IEDs are effective since there is no
way to guard against them except vigilance. RPGs are
a bane of the soldier's existence as well.
\_ Mortars are damaging, but not accurate. An infantryman
is terrified by mortars shells precisely because they
hit somewhat randomly, and there's the nice sound as they
are coming in, of course. The insurgents use mortars
because this weapon is ideally suited for a hit-and-run
attack. You drop the shell in the tube, and run as it
becomes airborne. By the time any sort of sound of
the incoming shell is detected, the mortar team is
long gone. -- ilyas
\_ Because Republican: stupid/evil, Democrat: smart/good. |
| 2004/10/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:33877 Activity:nil |
10/1 Dear democrats, please don't delete this. I want stimulating
intellectual exchanges, not personal shout matches. I want to
point a few things out and hear from you guys on each and every
point. In the format of "if A is bad, how come B isn't bad?",
I ask you:
A:Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq
B:Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia
A:Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq
B:Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia
A:Bush killed a lot of innocent Afghan/Iraqi civilians
B:Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian
terrorists
A:Bush bombs terrorist camps
B:Clinton bombs Chinese embassy
A:Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit
B:Clinton commits felonies while in office
A:No WMD found Iraq
B:No mass graves found in Serbia
A:Economy on upswing under Bush
B:Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton
A:Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden
B:World Trade Centers fall under Bush
A:Clinton says Saddam has nukes
B:Bush says Saddam has nukes
A:Bush imposes regime change in Iraq
B:Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq
A:Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan
B:Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton
A:Saddam turned over for trial
B:Milosevic not yet convicted |
| 2004/10/1 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33878 Activity:moderate |
10/1 fuck you narrow minded liberals who have to resort to selectively
nuking when you can't make intelligent counter arguments. Expect
more mass deletion from now on.
\_ I can counter-argue anything you'd like, but if you ask me to debate
20 points with you, I'll just give you the finger. FWIW I did not
nuke your "debate". -dgies
\_ why don't we outsource the nuking of motd the same way GWB
outsourced killing bin Laden to Afghan warlords?
\_ You mean they'll ask for lots of $100 bills and then let the motd
escape? |
| 2004/10/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:33879 Activity:moderate |
10/1 So what do Kerry supporters think of the whole "draft is coming"
misinformation campaign?
\_ The Bush Administration has reinstated the draft as a "backdoor"
draft already. People whose terms of duty in the military are being
required to continue to serve. Reservists are being shipped out.
Reservists, by and large, signed up thinking that they would only be
used in the direst of dangers to the US. Bush's using them like
normal combat troops, for which they are untrained, unready, and
unfit.
\_ While this may be a legitimate concern (though what I've read
doesn't support this entirely), that wasn't my question. I'm
referring to MTV's "Rock the Vote" and emails going around saying
that Bush will reinstate the draft after the election.
\_ So what do you think, as a Bush supporter, of the RNC mailers
going around Arkansas saying the Democrats want to ban the
bible?
\_ No matter who's in the white house, if the president decides to
"Stay the course" or increase our commitment, there will have
to be a draft as our "volunteer with an asterisk" army is
starting to really show the strain and lack of manpower:
http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_9_24_04.htm
-nweaver
\_ This link is so biased and ill-informed, it's almsot useless.
The national guard and the reserves are military units with
expectations and training commensurate with soldiers in the
US Army, because, well, they ARE in the army. The whole
article seems to miss this basic point. Enlisting in the
Gaurd or the reserves with the expectation that you won't be
sent into combat is just fucking stupid. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE
THERE FOR.
\_ Considering that William S Lind is politically VERY
conservative and militarily brilliant (after all,
he literally wrote the book on Maneuver Warfare, which
became the basis for Marine Corps tactical doctrine),
he is probably one of the best commentators on this
whole mess. -nweaver
\_ If he's one of the best, then field as a whole must
suck. The article is couched in phrases that go a
long way toward undermining its credibility.
Perhaps this brilliant man has a better article
which you can reference to make your point.
\_ There's no problem with calling up the reserves. The
problem is with calling up the reserves for multiple tours
of duty which they're NOT for. And calling up the IRR
(individual ready reserve) which is a system whereby an
enlisted soldier can be called to serve AFTER the term of
their enlistment expires. The IRR is intended only to
cover emergency mobilizations, not a long-term elective
war planned a year in advance. How would you like it if
you served your term in the army and they call you up YEARS
afterwards and order you to return. Wouldn't it feel like
a draft to you?
\_ Unfortunately, the link does a poor job articulating
this, instead focusing on sensational comparisons to
Soviet Infantry regiments, and silly statements
such as: "Most Guardsmen enlisted expecting to help
their neighbors in natural disasters" as if this has
any relevance. When you sign up, the contract is
pretty clearly stated: it's NOT about natural
disasters or repairing roads four miles from your
home; it's about going to war as unit of the US
Military WHEREVER and HOWEVER the US Military sees
fit. It's a crime that the tours are being extended
the way they are, but at least find a more objective
link to make your point.
\_ I think the draft is coming, no matter who wins the election.
There is a severe manpower shortage. We have not activated
the IRR since Vietnam and when we did, the draft followed
the next year. -Vet |
| 2004/10/1 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:33880 Activity:nil |
10/1 Your post will be restored when you return the motd to its state before
you replaced it.
\_ I don't know wtf you're talking about but I'm restoring it to what
it was when I found it.
\_ And now your post is restored. Nice doing business with you.
\_ And now your post is toast again. Way to be an asshole.
\_ "I actually restored the motd before I deleted it" |
| 2004/10/1 [Uncategorized] UID:33881 Activity:moderate |
10/1 Dear democrats, please don't delete this. I want stimulating
\_ I deleted it. You're dumb. I put the rest of your
post in /tmp/motd.troll - danh
\_ It was an excellent set of questions. Deleting it shows
intellectual weakness. Signing that you deleted it doesn't
prove anything.
\_ I just read your "questions" where danh put them. He did you
a favor.
\_ plus posting something to the motd that is 120
lines long is lame. - danh
\_ If you want a discussion, ask one or two questions. What you posted
was just a bunch of jabs. If people actually responded to the whole
thing it would be a post-overwriting, ill-formatted 500-line mess in
about 5 minutes. |
| 2004/10/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:33882 Activity:very high |
10/1 I'm new to politics, can someone tell me which media favors
which party? I'll start with what people tell me:
Fox: conservative
Washington times: liberal
LA Times: ??
NY Times: liberal
CNN: ??
\_ great troll. not that clever but very effective based on #
of responses
Fox: conservative
\_ FAIR AND BALANCED!
\_ Conservative doesn't begin to describe it. They're a direct conduit
for the RNC.
Washington times: liberal
\_ No. The Washington Times is owned by the Moonies and is very
conservative. You must be thinking of the Washington Post, which is
much more reputable and is fairly mainstream.
\_ Hehehehehehehehehehe. "Much more reputable and fairly mainstream"
is another word for "flaming liberal bias" these days. Is
Reuters mainstream too?
\_ You honestly think WaTimes is on the same level as WaPo for
legitimacy? Can I have some of what you're smoking?
LA Times: ??
\_ Historically conservative even up through Nixon (Harry Chandler
hated the Democrats), but lately moving to the left. Couldn't say
how far left though, but it's by no means a conservative paper
any more. --recently read _Privileged Son_ by Dennis McDougal
\_ LA times editors these days are slanted liberal. There was this
scandal in LA recently when Arnie was running for governor about
the LA times dedicating like 20 reporters to digging dirt on Arnie.
Meanwhile the head editor guy has a quote on record saying how
LA times "doesn't do those kinds of stories" when asked about
why they didn't dig for Davis' dirty laundry when he was running.
Having said that, they do conservative-favorable stories every
now and again, so they aren't as bad as something like Reuters.
-- ilyas
NY Times: liberal
CNN: ??
\_ CNN used to be liberal, but due to trying to compete with Fox News
they have become a bit conservative.
\_ I think Ted Turner selling CNN might have had a lot to do with
their increasing rightward bent, in addition to the Fox effect.
\_ CNN, MSNBC, WSJ, WAPO, LAT, ABC, CBS - all liberal
PBS, NYT, SFX - leftist commies (who hate America)
PBS, NYT, SFChron, Micheal Moore - leftist commies (who hate America)
Washington Times, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh - moderate
The Free Republic, Ann Coulter, Hannity - slightly conservative
World Net Daily, Pat Robertson - True Americans
The Free Republic, Ann Coulter, Hannity - moderately conservative
World Net Daily, Pat Robertson - True American Patriots
\_ I keep thinking that this was intended as satire, but then
I remember there are a lot of people that think like this. |
| 2004/10/1-4 [Computer/SW/OS/Windows, Computer/SW] UID:33883 Activity:nil |
10/1 So I downloaded the gdi scan tool from: http://isc.sans.org/gdiscan.php and it detected a problematic gdiplus.dll for a 3rd party app. How do I fix it? \_ Bug the 3rd-party developer to fix it, or be very careful about viewing untrusted content with that App. If *any* program can view a 'questionable' JPEG, then the JPEG is not infected. All infected JPEGS are corrupt. \_ Well FYI it's Paint Shop Pro 9. Buyer beware. \_ To give an example of programs where you would least likely expect GDI+ to be used, I know that QuickBooks actually uses it, and they haven't replaced the GDIPLUS.DLL yet. In fact, they knew absolutely NOTHING about this security issue, and I had to IM a former co-worker there to tell him to get that shit patched ASAP. I'm glad I got the hell out of there. -phale \_ I was never too much of a l33t QuickBooks user, but where would you be opening some arbitrary jpegs with it? Designing a form layout? \_ Yah, designing a form layout for an invoice or something. But you can also download a form layout that somebody else has created, which will cause QB to open up any JPEGs that have been embedded inside of that form layout datafile. Granted, it isn't too likely this would happen, but I've found out the hard way never to underestimate the stupid things people do with their computers. -phale \_ But if the JPEGS are viruses, no benign user could embed them in the layout file (because it would crash). You'd need someone to construct a Quickbooks layout file virus. \_ Actually, no, you could create the file without QB opening up the JPEG during creation. It just does a simple copy into another datafile. But when the new file is opened by another user, the JPEG gets opened up. Short answer is that is possible, and I actually tried it already on one of my windoze 2000 boxes. I think I will leave it at that, as I've probably said way too much already. -phale \_ What the hell is Microsoft Ink, and why does it have an unpatched .dll on my machine? \_ Who is general failure, and why is he reading my disk!? \_ It's all the fault of General Protection. |
| 2004/10/1-2 [Finance/Investment] UID:33884 Activity:nil |
10/1 Why does the stock market react the way it does to changes in
interest rates?
\_ When interest rates go up, it makes interest-bearing investments
more attractive, which takes money our of stocks. Plus, it makes it
more expensive for comsumers to borrow, which reduces spending, and
it makes it more expensive for companies to borrow, which reduces
*their* spending on expansion, among other things.
\_ Plus it makes paying off your variable-rate mortgage or credit
card bills more attractive than investing in stocks. |
| 2004/10/1-4 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33890 Activity:low |
10/1 http://democrats.org - check out the faces of frustration video. I guess I don't blame Karl Rove for not letting Bush do press conferences. \_ Dan Quayle rapid response team on standby! \_ Yeah, have you seen the RNC Kerry flip flop video? The DNC puts out a flash and whiz video showing facial expressions. The RNC puts out a video showing Kerry's words and numerous flip-flops including flip-flopping about flip-flopping. Kerry didn't do a press conf. for what? about 6 weeks? Hello? Anybody home?! Not logic or facts, that's for sure. Send out Kerry to talk more about how he voted for and against everything and then lie about it. His latest comments on that was that it was late night and he was tired but it was 11am and his first speech that day. Whatever. Don't let the facts get in your way. \_ Yeah, I don't know which idiot campaign manager guy told Kerry to say that, but it was REALLY dumb. \_ Most of those aren't true flips. But yeah, notably on the Iraq war rhetoric it's a problem, esp. compared to how he campaigned against Howard Dean. However the actual policy is consistent: he gave Bush war authority and believed in confronting Saddam, however he also believes Bush admin. misled us about WMD threats, and about the war and force as last resort. Kerry consistently distinguished "threat" from "imminent threat", as RNC propaganda does not. \_ The Iraq war rhetoric is only a "problem" if you believe Bush's meme that "disarming Saddam" is the same thing as "Overthrowing and occupying Iraq". \_ Not a problem for me. -- anti-Lurch \_ I think you mean Herman Munster, son. \_ Kerry and Bush had the same intel on Iraqi WMD and Kerry is \- Bus got gets a intelligence briefing everyday. Kerry isnt even on one of the intelligence committees. How do you figure they had the same access to intel? --psb on record multiple times prior to the invasion that invading was the right thing. Facts, not spin. Thanks. If Kerry had showed at more of the intelligence committee meetings he has skipped 70% of then maybe he'd be in a better position to discuss his opponent's successes and failures. \_ Yeah, he personally misled us. Keep saying it and it'll be true. \_ I think he did to some extent. He's in the top job and the deliberate rhetorical blurring of al qaida and saddam, the push for wmd "intel" and presentation of cautious info as hard fact, and cheney's continuing bullshit about nukes and vote for bush or get blowed up, counts as misleading. \_ Did you read the 9/11 Report? It is *chock full* of foot notes on the connections between Saddam and Al Q. They note that reporting on those connections was not part of their job but they felt so strongly about the importance of it they did some of that work anyway. READ THE REPORT! You can probably find it online. I found the book version, and it *is* a book, at B&N. \_ Did you read the report? In the conclusions, it says that SH and AQ had no significant connections. "But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the US." \_ I'm not the above guy; I'm a democrat and I loathe Cheney, but this business about how voting for Bush will cause another attack is the same media bullshit that happened with Al Gore inventing the internet. Read the full quote in context. He was saying that *if* there is another attack, there is a danger that Kerry would react to it differently (worse, in his opinion) than the Bush administration. Like with the Al Gore quote, all the pundits spent hours discussing it without bothering to see whether he really said it. |
| 2004/10/1 [Recreation/Computer/Games, Recreation/Sports] UID:33895 Activity:nil |
10/1 Game over for Peoplesoft. |
| 3/15 |