Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:October:23 Saturday <Friday, Sunday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2004/10/23 [Uncategorized] UID:34304 Activity:kinda low
10/22   hey ilyas, you are a spazmo and you smell like a butt.  -!aaron
        \_ I don't generally agree with ilyas or appreciate his POV, but
           this is fucking stupid.
        \_ Did ilyas cut his hair yet? fucking hippie freak.
        \_ this sounds like some chick trying to flirt with him
        \_ Love how you're too chickenshit to say this "on the record".
           Has ilyas ever attacked you in such fashion?  --PeterM
2004/10/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:34305 Activity:low
10/23   I'm reading my Official Voter Information Guide, and it seems to
        me that almost every argument against any proposition is, "This
        proposition is great, but doesn't go quite far enough, so vote
        no!"  Is there any clearer way to write, "I want this proposition
        to pass, but they paid me to write this counter argument." ?
        What kind of crap is this?
        \_ The counter arguments written by that one lawyer sound positively
2004/10/23-24 [Uncategorized] UID:34306 Activity:nil
2004/10/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:34307 Activity:very high
        Interview with Robert Scheer, LA Times reporter, on a CIA report
        that was completed in May/June this year.
        "... what I reported was people who have knowledge of this saying
        they're stalling the report until after the election, so, it won't
        adversely affect Bush's chances ... And Porter Goss ... is the one who
        is currently stalling it. So, here is a study on what happened at 9/11
        demanded in December of 2002 -- 2001 by Congress -- 2001 by Congress.
        An eleven-man committee at the C.I.A worked on that question for
        almost two years; and it hasn't been turned over. ... My understanding
        is that this report is explosive because it says the Bush
        administration was asleep at the wheel before 9/11 and it fixes
        responsibility on individuals quite high up, and that it says the
        administration covered up after 9/11 by not holding these people
        accountable. So there it is."
        \_ Yeah, yeah, yeah... and cruise missile diplomacy used by Clinton
           really worked.
           \_ It went something like:  "Hey Dubya, I pissed off Osama by
              blowing up his base and almost getting him - you better watch
              out, he wants revenge.  Dubya:  Wut??!"
              \_ Translation, "That chick with the cum stained blue dress was
                 out there trying to ruin my legacy, so I wagged the dog,
                 destroyed an aspirin factory, killed a few camels, and
                 whipped up a hornets nest.  I never did jack about bin laden,
                 never made a major effort to do anything about terrorism,
                 never really did anything but try to create my legacy by
                 forcing Israel into dealing with terrorists and we know how
                 that worked out.  The first WTC bombing, the Cole, the 2
                 African embassies, and the rest... it's a criminal issue for
                 the FBI to arrest and prosecute individuals."
                 \_ This is all true, which is why Clinton did NOT tell Bush
                    "Terrorism will be your most important issue and watch
                    Bin Laden" during the transition, which Bush promptly
                    ignored since his neocons were busy planning an Iraq
                    invasion.  Isn't it funny how the same people who
                    criticize Clinton for launching missiles at enemy
                    terrorists who attacked our embassies and ships as
                    "Wag the Dog" praise Bush for invading a country that
                    did not attack us, totally wrecking our standing and
                    reputation all over the world?
                    \_ This post is odd.  You're confused because people
                       who criticize Clinton for not doing enough praise
                       Bush for doing a lot?  That's not confusing to me.
                        \_ No, people criticize Clinton for doing something
                           (Wag the Dog) and praise Bush for royally fucking
                           everything up.
                           \_ An apirin factory and a dead camel is doing
                              something but wiping out thousands of terrorists
                              is royally fucking everything up.  I'm guessing
                              you describe their actions and results in the
                              opposite terms I do because you pray east a few
                              times a day.  I can't think of another reason
                              why thousands of dead terrorists is bad and
                              doing nothing is good.
                                \_ Clinton could have wiped out Bin Laden
                                   & the entire royal family of UAE in one
                                   shot ... He chose not to create a
                                   diplomatic disaster, plus his hands were
                                   tied.  Bush, thanks to 9/11, has way more
                                   options open to him than Clinton, but he
                                   ends up invading a country which has little
                                   to do with 9/11, islamic fundamentalism,
                                   funding/harboring Al Queda, etc.  That's
                                   what royally fucking up means.  Plus,
                                   anti-Americanism is at an alltime high
                                   in Islamic countries, you can be sure that
                                   whatever number of terrorists Bush has
                                   killed, 3X replacements have been recruited
                                   since Bush is Bin Laden's poster boy for
                                   new terrorists.  It probably doesn't bother
                                   you that thousands of innocent lives have
                                   been lost in the Iraq war either, since
                                   all brown people are terrorists anyhow.
                 \_ Clinton:  Tried to get bin Laden after he killed hundreds
                              in two embassies, almost got him, even with
                              Monica on his cock.
                              \_That's nice you forgot to write Sudan offered
                                him and Clinton turned it down.
                                \_ Wrong.  Sudan was begging the Clinton admin
                                   to take him and did so at least three times
                                   that we know of publicly but Clinton didn't
                                   because they decided they didn't have the
                                   legal authority to do so.  They should have
                                   asked Al Gore who would have told them there
                                   is no over riding legal authority on such
                                   \_ How is that essentially wrong? Clinton
                                      didnt see what we did to Noreiga? U.S.
                                      can damn well arrest anyone we please!
                                        \_ They hate us because of our freedom!
                                   \_ This is just a bald faced lie.
                                      Stop getting your "information" from
                                      Right Wing propaganda sites.
                    Dubya:  Ignored fact that bin Laden wanted revenge after
                            we blew up his base and almost killed him.  Let
                            bin Laden get away, attacked Iraq instead.
                            \_ That's nice you forgot to include the part
                               about why the base was blown up.
                               \_ The base was blown up because bin Laden
                                  was responsible for attacking two U.S.
                                  embassies, killing hundreds, and because
                                  Bill had information that bin Laden was at
                                  one of the target sites at that very moment
                            \_ Almost killed him?  Bullshit.  Let him get away?
                               Is this the Tora Bora lie?
                               \_ We were moving troops out of Afghanistan
                                  and into Iraq.  Tommy Franks expressed
                                  displeasure with this, but made do with
                                  what he had, and bin Laden got away.
                                  "Almost killed him":
                                  (this was pretty well known back then, but
                                  I guess you've been drinking the Konservative
                                  Kool-Aid a bit too much)
2004/10/23-24 [Reference/Military] UID:34308 Activity:moderate
10/23   How do fighter jets "escort" a civilian plane exactly?
        \_ They get real close to it, keep a lock on it, and let the
           pilot know any funny bussiness means kablowie.
           \_ I was under the impression they fly up to them and say
              "w3 pwn j00!!"
        \_ or, if doing a protective escort, make it clear that others
           are not to fuck with the civilian plane.  there's also the
           guidance escort where the civilian plane is shown where to go
           When foreign acrobatic squadrons come into the US, they may
           be unfamiliar with how things work in US airspace or not
           the avionics required by the FAA.
2004/10/23-24 [Uncategorized] UID:34309 Activity:nil 53%like:34521
10/23   Home Entertainment 2004 in SF Nov 4-7
2004/10/23-24 [Computer/SW/SpamAssassin] UID:34310 Activity:nil
10/23   Okay, I'm now getting a couple of spams per week offering me deals
        on Rolexes.  Wtf?  The guys at the gas stations bought computers?
2004/10/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Uncategorized/Profanity] UID:34311 Activity:high
10/23   AMERICA!  FUCK YEAH!!!
        \_ YOU FUCKING DICK!
        \_ It's "TEAM AMERICA: FUCK YEAH!!!!"
           \_ No.
           \_ You obviously haven't watched the movie.
2004/10/23-25 [Politics/Foreign/Europe, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:34312 Activity:very high
10/23   What does everyone think about prop. 69 (The DNA database one).
        The arguments against in my Voter Info Guide sound kinda tin-foil
        hat, but I can see where some problems might exist.  For example,
        does anyone know what kind of testing they're planning on using?
        I doubt it would be full-sequencing, but the against argument
        hints at that.  (I think.)
        \_ Probably RFLP typing. Easy, fast, done in a couple of hours
           at most and doesn't require a high resolution gel. I can show
           you how to do one in a half day.
        \_ GATTACA.
        \_ CUAAUGU.
        \_ Think of it this way (disclaime--I don't like the idea):
           -all legal structures with the potential to screw you (the private
            citizen) either through a tyrannical government or through misuse
            by someone unscrupulous start life as something relatively
            harmless, sold to you as a measure to improve security ("so what
            do you have to hide?")  Such measures rarely stop at the first,
            innocent step used to sell it to the public
           -Governments almost never give up the ability to collect/maintain
            potentially misused information on you, even when it's proven that
            said information serves no purpose
           -Arguments against such measures are almost invariably made to look
            like crackpot straw men
           -Even if strict auditability and oversight laws and structures
            exist, do you trust them entirely?
           Note that I'm not making any specific arguments against this, just
           giving you something to generally think about.  You may also note
           that in European countries, where this has been done to some
           degree, the only supporting successes are generally individual,
           high profile cases (i.e. not a general reduction of crime) while I
           can point to a number of pretty hard-core fuckups resulting from
           DNA collection.  -John
           \_ As a data point, they used to say that UK's CCTV cameras would
              only be shown to well-trained security types and they'd never
              leak; now the "Real TV"-type shows are filled with tapes of
              couples making out with a voiceover of cops making fun of them.
           \_ Yes, we should be careful about this one. A DNA database of
              this sort could be pretty bad if the wrong hands get to it.
              Think insurance companies, think "no coverage," think corrupt
              gov't lab workers who are willing to sell the information.
              Hey, you have a tendency for CF? Well, the carrier is going
              to drop you when your wife gets pregnant. Scary stuff.
              Another reason why we should have state sponsored health
              care like virtually ever other civilized country in the
              world... -williamc
              \_ Have you ever been in a National Health hospital in the UK?
                 It's like that scene in the insurgents' bunker in the 2nd
                 Terminator movie.  -John
                 \_ I've been to County in LA. Same thing. -williamc
                    \_ Did a terminator bust in guns blazing?
              \_ You're assuming the DNA finger printing method they use
                 would reveal this.  If it's the same as the one they
                 used for crimes when I was in HS, (RFLP) it wouldn't.
                 Since so far all the counter arguments are based on it
                 being one of the (super expensive) full sequencing
                 methods, I was curious if anyone actually knew which type
                 they were using.  The second poster also thinks it's
                 probably RFLP.
                 \_ Sorry, I was the second poster. RFLP is commonly used
                    to reveal information like this, i.e. if you are
                    a carrier for a certain disease like CF. Probably
                    you need to do a review on RFLP and how it can
                    be used as a marker for diseases. - williamc
                    \_ That's true if you break on certain sequences.
                       They don't use those sequences in crime work.
           \_ Maybe you could relate some of those horror stories.  So far
              the only ones I've heard have been "mixing up the DNA at the
              lab" which, to me, seems pretty isomorphic to mixing up the
              fingerprints at the office.  (Although a little harder to
                \_ There was a case in .ch where a group representing
                   health insurers accidentally was given access to a DB
                   of HIV patients' DNA (including their identities)--and this
                   country has very strict privacy laws.  There was also a
                   case in the UK of wrongful identification of a criminal
                   based on a DNAsample, even though the chances were
                   something like 1 in 2 million.  They've since switched to
                   using more identifiers, but the point holds.  These are
                   isolated flukes, but when they do occur, they give rise to
                   a similar problem to that of using PIN codes for credit
                   card auth instead of signatures--The technology's pretty
                   good, hence trusted, hence you have little-to-no chance of
                   non-repudiation IF something horrible goes wrong.  -John
        \_ My wife and I like 69.
           \_ So does yermom
              \_ menage trois!
                 \_ manage trolls!

You have new trolls.
                    \_ mangy trolls!
                 \_ "menage a trois", or actually "ménage à trois".
           \_ You sick!! -sexless sodan
2004/10/23-24 [Computer/SW/SpamAssassin] UID:34313 Activity:kinda low
10/23   Oh great... now I'm getting tinfoil spam from both the left and
        the right.  All of you please die.  Thank you.
        \_ Didn't CAN-SPAM (or something similar) have some provision allowing
           for "informative messages" from politicians?  Tee hee.  -John
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:October:23 Saturday <Friday, Sunday>