| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 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
assinine. |
| 2004/10/23-24 [Uncategorized] UID:34306 Activity:nil |
10/23 http://www.wolfpacksfortruth.org |
| 2004/10/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:34307 Activity:very high |
10/23 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/21/1440244 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 matters. \_ 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. http://prisonplanet.com/sudan_offered_to_arrest_bin_laden.html 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": http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/rca/rca_200111_88_2_eng.txt (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 http://www.he2004.com |
| 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. http://music.ign.com/articles/558/558234p1.html
\_ You obviously haven't watched the movie. |
| 2004/10/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Foreign/Europe] 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.
(normally)
\_ 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
catch.)
\_ 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 |