Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:November:08 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2004/11/8-9 [Computer/SW/Languages/Perl, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:34742 Activity:low
11/7    Is there a shell command that will unsort (randomize) a file,
        like the way sort does on a line-by-line basis?  I don't need any
        mathematical randomizing, just want to mix up my input lines
        occasionally. tia.
        \_ ~mconst/bin/shuffle
        \_ i have some short code to do this. if the file is "large" [+32k ll]
           it's somewhat tricky to do ... need a good random generator.
           like perl's default doenst have enough seed values. why do
           people ask stuff like this anonymously? --psb
           \- this looks really slow to me:
              /bin/time  ./rand-mconst.pl < /tmp/infile > /dev/null
              real       46.9
              /bin/time ./rand-psb.pl < /tmp/infile > /dev/null
              real        4.3
              \_ What do you expect?  One's an algorithm, one's a one line
                 hack.
        \_ my stupid shell script that works fine for small files:
           #!/bin/sh
           awk 'BEGIN { srand() }{ print rand(),$0 }' $1 \
             |sort|sed 's/^[^ ]* //'
             \-I dont think this is portable to "classic awk" ... but
               gawk is probably good enough. --psb
               \- btw, i just stumbled, er shuffled, on to:
                  perldoc -q shuffle  --psb
2004/11/8-9 [Computer/SW/Unix] UID:34743 Activity:nil
11/7    What are some good unrar programs on unix to use?
        \_ /usr/ports/rar , /usr/ports/unrar  -John
        \_ http://www.rarlab.com/rar_add.htm
2004/11/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:34744 Activity:very high
11/8    Religion of peace, though they look like La Raza
        Jihad at San Francisco State
        http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15855
        \_ All of these kids are definitely eligible for the Alec Baldwin
              \_ Hey, I'm not the one complaining about every little thing
                 that's wrong in the U.S. I didn't agree with the Iraq war,
                 but then I don't agree with a lot of things that the
                 government does. Does that mean I bitch and moan about
                 it all day and threaten to leave? No, because for all
                 its fault the U.S. isn't like a really horrible place to
                 life. If you think that, hey, you can leave, and I'm
                 willing to help defray your cost for leaving. Seems
                 logical to me. So what's your beef? -williamc
                 \_ So every time someone bitches and moans about it, you're
                    going to bitch and moan about them bitching and moaning?
                    Get a grip, son.  Let them vent their frustration without
                    adding to the useless din.
           Pledge Fund. I say we pool our money together and send the
              \_ Well, nobody is forcing anybody out of the country, but
                 a lot of people have expressed that they do want to leave,
                 so why not help them? Seems pretty damn logical to me.
                 I mean, if someone keeps complaining about the food in a
                 restaurant, then why do you keep coming back to it? It's not
                 like you HAVE to eat there. That's the wonderful concept of
                 free will. If you don't like it, you can leave. If you don't
                 like the U.S. and you're saying that everything sucks, then
                 there's like a whole other world to live in. So my question
                 is, why are you still here if you complain about it so much?
                 -williamc
                 \_ You know what, you're right.  Then again, the whole
                    concept of a free society is that you have the right to
                    try and change the things you don't like, and to mouth
                    off about that as much as you want, without people telling
                    you "if you don't like it, why not just leave?"  Note that
                    I use "right" not in its constitutional sense, but rather
                    in the common sense (as in "I have the right to not have
                    to deal with blithering morons.")  -John
                 \_ Uhm yeah.  I think very few people that actually say this
                    really want to do that; it's an expression of the general
                    turmoil in the nation.  The fact that you need this pointed
                    out to you is kind of sad.
           Palestinians back to Palestine and the rest to Canada.
           -williamc
           \_ William, I'm sure the ABPF would benefit greatly if you pledged
              to go with the exiles.
              \_ Hey, I'm not the one complaining about every little thing
                 that's wrong in the U.S. I didn't agree with the Iraq war,
                 but then I don't agree with a lot of things that the
                 government does. Does that mean I bitch and moan about
                 it all day and threaten to leave? No, because for all
                 its fault the U.S. isn't like a really horrible place to
                 life. If you think that, hey, you can leave, and I'm
                 willing to help defray your cost for leaving. Seems
                 logical to me. So what's your beef? -williamc
                 \_ Will, first of all you're perpetuating a myth that makes
                    leftie celebs like Alex Baldwin look like idiots. Stop.
                    They don't need any help doing that.  Second, the last
                    thing this country needs is lib-flight to the Great White
                    North; contrary to what ppl post on freep, we _need_ an
                    opposition here (including you, apparently), so stop
                    trying to buy tickets for people and start convincing
                    them to take up the fight right here.
                    \_ Well, I can't vouch for leftie celebs, I don't know
                       them. But if they make stupid statements like "I
                       will leave the country if XYZ gets elected" then
                       I call them like I see them. I generally have a low
                       opinion of most celebs, as I've worked in Hollywood
                       for a limited time and wasn't impressed with the
                       people in the system. I completely concur that we
                       need an opposition, and although I'm a fiscal
                       conservative I respect others for having a different
                       opinion. What I don't like is the defeatist attitude
                       that seems to pervade the left. The reason why
                       the conservatives (and in california I am pretty
                       much a conservative by context, although I have
                       no great love of fundementalism or creationism and
                       I do believe gay people should have rights) is that
                       we (meaning the conservative people that I associate
                       with on a daily basis who have similar beliefs as I
                       do) seem to have a more "can do" attitude. Maybe it's
                       because we've worked for what we have. Maybe it's
                       just that conservatives have faith in their religion
                       or themselves or both. Whatever it is, the left is
                       just shooting themselves in the foot because they
                       don't attract people like myself and my friends.
                       The radical agenda of the left is just so off
                       putting and defeatist. If the left wants to win
                       then stop whining and start putting up. Fight the
                       creationists, fight the anti-choice proponents,
                       fight the racists, fight ignorance. But if you
                       on the left continue to expound defeatist attitudes,
                       if you on the left fail to come together and find
                       resolve, then you are a truly doomed party. The
                       democratic party just doesn't reach out to people
                       in the middle anymore, and it gives off the impression
                       of liberal elitism that nobody is impressed with.
                       In addition, if I respect your views although they
                       are different from mine, I expect you to do the same
                       for me, and I have found very little tolerance from
                       the liberals for my conservative views on certain
                       subjects. That just makes me NOT want to deal with
                       whiny defeatist liberals. If you're going to leave,
                       then leave.
                       -williamc
                       \_ Okay, look.  The dems just lost a very acrimonious,
                          potentially impactful election.  If you think that
                          whining and 'defeatist attitude' is unique to the
                          Dems, then either you're blinding yourself, or
                          you're too young to remember Clinton's reelection.
                          As for the absurd generalization that 'lefties are
                          defeatest', I've worked and associated with both
                          sides and have found alot of that can-do attitude
                          (that you allege is only extant on the R side) on the
                          D side as well.  I've also found alot of rabidly
                          hostile and absurdly destructive whininess from the
                          R side.  Your one sided experience doesn't say so
                          much about the D/left side to me as it does about
                          your objectivity.  Deporting people because they're
                          upset isn't very can-do, IMO -- it's petulant and
                          stinks of puerile 'tit-for-tat'.  Either put up and
                          figure out how to address their problems and find a
                          way to make it work, or stop being part of the
                          problem by injecting more emotion and invective
                          into the mix.  Your attitude in this matter heavily
                          undermines your assertion about 'can-do-on-the-right'
                          btw.                  -POC
                          \_ Again, you are making sweeping assumptions about
                             what is stated. First off, I made no suggestion
                             that ANYBODY be deported. Deportation is the
                             forceful removal of individuals from this country.
                             I advocate no such thing. I merely say unto those
                             who state that they will leave the country for
                             greener pastures if so-and-so is elected that
                             they put their money where their mouth is and
                             follow through with their pledges. Second, I have
                             had extensive experience dealing with liberals,
                             having been involved as an ASUC senator for a year.
                             Basically everyone in Berkeley politics is pretty
                             far out liberal and there are very few middle of
                             the roaders or strict conservatives. The experience
                             has merely been reinforced in the "real world."
                             As for "tit-for-tat", it appears that YOU are
                             the one with the beef, not me. I have already
                             stated that I respect others right to differing
                             viewpoints, and I would welcome the input of those
                             on the opposite side of the fence. I have never
                             been and never will be a strict conservative or a
                             strict liberal. They are merely stupid labels
                             for the mentally incapable which you apparently
                             appear to be. Your defense of liberal defeatism
                             is also exceedingly weak. Boohooo, you lost the
                             election. Get over it, stop being acrimonious
                             because it's not working. It hasn't worked for
                             the past 10 years. Yes, both parties are at
                             fault for being acrimonious. I was there when
                             Limbaugh was king of radio, I was there when
                             Lewinsky-gate developed, I was there during the
                             Dole debates, hell, I was there when when Dukakis
                             stuck his head out of the tank. I was even
                             there when Geraldine Ferraro was running for VP.
                             So don't make assumptions that you can't back.
                             The point is that neither left nor right has
                             all the answers, and it is important to learn
                             how to work together on issues. So, stop being
                             so politically devisive yourself, stop pandering
                             to the leftist dogma or the the rightist dogma,
                             start using reason and common sense to come to
                             policy, stop towing the party line, and start
                             owning up to your words. All I ask is that
                             people do what they say and say what they
                             do, and all I can say is that from my experience
                             the moderates and conservatives seem a lot less
                             flaky to owning up to their words. -williamc
                             \_ Actually, I'm calling you a hypocrite, an
                                accusation which you've largely substantiated.
                                ASUC senate isn't representative of anything
                                real, as anybody with half a brain would
                                (or should, at any rate) know.  Yes: neither
                                side as all the answers, but from your rhetoric
                                it seems rather hard to believe that you
                                actually ascribe to that, rather than using it
                                as a lever to gain the moral highground.  Yes,
                                let's work together on the issues and stop
                                bandying about such absurdly undescriptive
                                binary labels as 'liberal' or 'conservative'.
                                It's interesting that, despite all your avowals
                                of moderate objectivism, you STILL continue to
                                inject divisiveness even as you assert your
                                superiority and ability not to be subject to
                                it.  I never defended the left's whininess,
                                which you'd have realized if you were paying
                                attention; I pointed out that it's NOT UNIQUE
                                to the left, counter to your earlier
                                assertions.  The point should be obvious,
                                namely that being in denial of this fact only
                                shows that you're likely part of the problem.
                                Again, if you'd been paying attention to
                                anything I said, you'd have also noted that I
                                was pretty clear about referencing that I've
                                seen positive attitude on BOTH sides, as well
                                as negative.  I suspect that both sides are
                                very large populations of people, and asserting
                                any facile generalization about behavior to
                                one side or the other is, at best, self-
                                serving.  Perhaps this conversation would best
                                be continued offline, since it's clear we're
                                just going to be wasting bits here.   -POC
           \_ YEAH!  USA!  #1!  If you don't like it, get the fuck out!  -John
              \_ Well, nobody is forcing anybody out of the country, but
                 a lot of people have expressed that they do want to leave,
                 so why not help them? Seems pretty damn logical to me.
                 I mean, if someone keeps complaining about the food in a
                 restaurant, then why do you keep coming back to it? It's not
                 like you HAVE to eat there. That's the wonderful concept of
                 free will. If you don't like it, you can leave. If you don't
                 like the U.S. and you're saying that everything sucks, then
                 there's like a whole other world to live in. So my question
                 is, why are you still here if you complain about it so much?
                 -williamc
        \_ Dude, relax, it's not like any of them will have jobs beyond
           "sales executive" after graduating from college.  -John
           \_ ...which is likely to mean they'll cause more trouble rather
              than less.
                \_ Erm, picture Al Bundy rioting.  -John
                   \_ I think there was a labor day episode about that.
                      And the beer tax episode.  In fact, Al Bundy riots
                      a fair amount.  -- ilyas
           \_ a joke?
        \_ THE AMERICAN LEFT HAS NO HISTORY OF VIOLENCE!
           \_ Boohoo, I got slapped by a 98 pound woman. I am going to cry
              and whine about how I am oppressed!
              \_ You go/went to a university where a guy can get busted because
                 some woman 'feels' you oppressed her but it's ok for her to
                 slug you and then jump you?  Okey dokey!  No double standard
                 there!  Good thinking!  Is it ok if she knifes you?  Clubs
                 you?  Shoots you?  You're a knucklehead.
                 \_ She did not slug the guy or jump him or stab him
                    or shoot him, she slapped him. Stick to reality please.
                    And you are a pussy if you think being slapped by a
                    woman is a big deal.
                    woman is a big deal. My guess is that you have never
                    been in a real fight or slapped by a real woman ever
                    in your life.
                    \_ She jumped him and had to have 3 cops pull her off.
                       If that is a-ok with you because it was a woman hitting
                       a man then please join william's org and find a new
                       country where it is ok to abuse someone because of
                       their gender and blame the victim and call the victim
                       names.  If it was a conservative woman, say Ann Coulter,
                       who hit a liberal guy, say you(!!!) then you'd be
                       screaming bloody murder and pressing every charge in
                       the book.  Hypocrite.
                       \_ Uh, no, actually if it was AC I'd happily beat the
                          living shit out of her and claim self-defense.  Oh
                          wait...I just proved ilyas point, huh?  Damn, I
                          better stop and reexamine myself or something.
        \_ 1) "a noisy and menacing mob"? The barbarians are at the gates!
           2) I thought an "entourage" needed someone to accompany.
           3) You couldn't find a freeper link for this?
           \_ 1) Huh?
              2) True!
              3) It's ok to attack people I don't agree with!
           \_ A quick google will turn up pleanty of webpages about what
              has been going on at SFSU.  If you don't like frontpage, you
              can read the same story a dozen other places.
              \_ I've got nothing in the news.  Can you point me to a reputable
                 source for these stories?  I'm not trusting FPM on this any
                 more than I'd trust Mother Jones on a labor conspiracy.
                 \_ This stuff has been going on at SFSU for years.  If you
                    don't know about it by now... sheesh.
                    \_ Does "sheesh" = "you must not go to SFSU"?
                 \_ That's true, it doesn't seem to have appeared in the
                    news.  I have to idea what you would consider
                    news.  I have no idea what you would consider
                    reputable, and I'm pretty sure you can google as well
                    as I can.  I found a couple of eye-witness accounts,
                    and an editorial on why the SFSU president did the
                    right thing in about a minute.
                    \_ Let's see: Jihad Watch, the Great Separation, and
                       Front Page Mag are the only ones I get via Google.
                       Share the ones you've found?  The editorial sounds
                       interesting.
                       \_ Hmm.. I made a mistake.  Most of these links
                          refer to an earlier incident.  Here's the stuff
                          about the earlier incident, I'll look some more
                          for this more recent one.
Cron: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/05/15/BA110132.DTL
Present professor: http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/05/128582_comment.php
Editorial :http://www.jewishsf.com/bk020524/comm2.shtml
                          \_ Thank you.  The Chron link was plenty, and,
                             all jokes about its epitaph "the Comical" aside,
                             this is an actualy news story.  That said, wtf?
                             this is an actual news story.  That said, wtf?
                             C'mon, SFSU kids, less aggro, more solutions.
                             \_ I had a class at Cal about the history of the
                                Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  Very fair,
                                interesting Israeli professor, students were
                                ca. 30% MSU, 30% IAC and 30% "other".  I can
                                definitely see these turds at SFSU as being
                                for real after that experience.  -John
                                \_ And 10%??? (MSU == MSA?)
                                   \_ Liberal arts, we're not real good at
                                      complex math.  It used to be called MSU
                                      as I recall.  They and IAC were the ones
                                      always screaming at each other at
                                      Sather gate.  -John
                                      \_ You're a liberal arts major?WTF?
                                         \_ Bite me. -!John
2004/11/8-9 [Computer/SW/Unix] UID:34745 Activity:low
11/8    Looking for a bin->iso converter on the unix AND pc, what are your
        recommendations? I tried WinISO but it keeps outputting a bad
        file. UltraaISO works but it costs money.
        \_ What's a "bin" file?
                \_ A type of CD image.  Try mounting it with Daemontools and
                   playing with it under Alcohol120%  STFW for 'bin iso file'
                   yields a bungload of tools, some of them free.  -John
2004/11/8-9 [Uncategorized] UID:34746 Activity:nil
11/8    so /var/mail is starting to fill up again - can we do something
        about this?
        \_ 100MB quota's!!!
        \_ there is lots you can do.  You can start with rm $MAIL... or
           donate new disk.
2004/11/8-9 [Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:34747 Activity:nil
11/8    Got XP Pro.  Tried to run "Repair".  When it started running, it
        said something like "37 minutes remaining".  Hours later, it was
        down to 32 minutes remaining.  It's been stuck on "Installing
        Devices - 32 minutes remaining" for about 12 hours.  What should
        I do?  Why isn't this working?
        \_ Sounds like a bad device driver that XP is trying to salvage
           on the repair. The system might be so badly damaged that
           it's better to just do a reinstall. What you want to do
           is do an upgrade on top of your existing system, not a clean
           install. That will take care of all the system files and
           it will save your current settings. -williamc
        \_ The only repair on XP is reinstall.  Get a new hard drive,
           reinstall, then try to recover your data.  To be fair, Linux is the
           same.
           \_ You don't really need to do this if you're careful. Hosing
              WindowsXP doesn't mean you hosed your hard drive partition.
        \_ Why are you trying to run repair on it?  http://Sysinternals.com has a lot
           of cool toys/fixes for this sort of crap.  -John
2004/11/8-9 [Computer/SW/Editors/Emacs] UID:34748 Activity:nil
11/8    In emacs21 under Windoze, when I press and hold, say, Ctrl-V and emacs
        can't keep up with the scrolling, it skips redrawing the screen until I
        release the key.  Is there a way to disable this behavior so that it'll
        keep redrawing the screen the way emacs20 does?  Thanks.
2004/11/8-9 [Uncategorized] UID:34749 Activity:low
11/7    Whoa.  Aaron on craiglist:
        http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/nyc/47785163.html
        \_ Who was this?
           http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/por/47755650.html
           \_ Related:
              http://lyrics.rare-lyrics.com/P/Pete-Seeger/Draft-Dodger-Rag.html
2004/11/8-9 [Computer/Domains] UID:34750 Activity:high
11/7    For whatever reason, I got interested in registering http://weresorry.com
        only to discover that http://buydomains.com already owns it and won't sell
        it for less than $688 and possibly more than $10k.  What the hell?
        How long has this been sort of business been legit, and does a
        company like this actually make any real money?  weresorry.info is
        still available for a mere $16 at http://godaddy.com
        \_ every time I search for a domain name that ends up available,
           the next day it is taken and then owned by http://buydomains.com
           so don't search their website for available domains until
           you are sure you want to buy it.
        \_ Time for a class action lawsuit of some sort. This practice
           should be illegal.
                \_ Or you could just write a script to search for all sorts
                   of crazy <DEAD>495252349assmonkey1231244.com<DEAD> domains
                   \_ Then might as well just get a static IP without a domain
                      name.
                      \_ I think the idea was, assuming http://buydomains.com has
                         some sort of automated BUY script, you could
                         trick it into buying all sorts of stupid domains.
                         \_ Ahh, I see.  Good revenge.
        \_ I just searched for <DEAD>humaninnards.com<DEAD> on buydomains, and it's
           available.  We'll see in a few days if it's still available.
        \_ http://weresorry.com was registered 8/29/04.  When were you searching
           for that domain name?
           \_ Today, and I didn't use http://buydomains.com until after I'd discovered
              they'd bought it.
        \_ I just searched for buydomainsnow2004|5.com and it's available.
           Let's see if it's available tomorrow. You guys, feel free to
           add to this list. As of Monday, they don't yet exist:
           <DEAD>buydomainsnow2004.com<DEAD>
           <DEAD>georgebushdomain.com<DEAD>
           <DEAD>freerepublicworld.com<DEAD>
           <DEAD>republicanheaven.com<DEAD>
           <DEAD>republicandoll.com<DEAD>
           <DEAD>republicanbelle.com<DEAD>
           \_ I wonder whether they only register domains after a number of
              searches are done on them?  -John
           \_ The problem with your experiment is that some nut on the
              motd might just decide to pay for all those domains now just
              to fuck with you.
           \_ No match for "BUSH2024.COM".
              All the ones up to 2024 are taken though.
        \_ <DEAD>jennabushfanclub.com<DEAD> still available, let's see tomorrow
2004/11/8-9 [Transportation/Car, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:34751 Activity:nil
11/7    Rubber tends to crack with age (you know, esp the ones that
        seal gaps in cars, or in electronics, pdas, watches, etc).
        What materials are best to protect rubber? Veggie oil?
        WD-40? Vasoline?
        \_ Silicone spray, go to Home Depot/Ace Hardware/Pep Boys
           and ask for it. Spray once a year. Do NOT use WD-40, it will
           destroy the rubber.
        \_ food grade silicone.  veggie oil, wd-40, and vasoline
           will all break down rubber.
           \_ how about Armorall? I've been using that...
2004/11/8-9 [Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:34752 Activity:moderate
11/7    Anyway I can print a PDF that has been locked with Printing set
        to "Not Allowed"? thanks.
           ghostscript is one way.
        \_ I assume: ^I can^can I
           Unlock it.  If you can't, it's trivial to break PDF security.
           ghostscript is one way.
        \_ Elcomsoft has some toys, albeit commercial.  I'm sure you'll find
           a way.  -John
           \_ Didn't they give it away after the whole Dmitry Skylarov thing?
              Or did other people "liberate" it for them?
                \_ I don't know.  I don't think you can get commercial
                   software, such as Windows XP, without buying it.  -John
        \_ Call whatever moron locked it and tell them to send you the doc
           again without the stupid lock.
        \_ pdf2ps --> ps2pdf (for giving the PDF to a Windows user)
2004/11/8 [Reference/Religion] UID:34753 Activity:high
11/7    The Founding Fathers and Deism
        http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=29
        Of course Paine rejected Christianity in the later stages of
        his life.
        \_ Interesting, thanks.
        \_ The author of the article gets the definition of "deist" completely
           wrong.  A deist is one who believes there is a (Christian) God, who
           created the world, but left it alone after that.  Most deists
           believe in rational explanations for the miracles described in
           the Bible.
           The author would do much better just to use the term "agnostics",
           "atheists", or separation of church-and-staters.
           http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
         http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=deist&x=0&y=0
           http://www.bartleby.com/61/44/D0104400.html
           \_ Amusingly, you got the definition of 'deist' wrong also.
                -- ilyas
              \_ And the right definition is?
                 \_ I think the salient feature of Deism is the claim that
                    the existence of God can be rationally deduced.  Such a
                    God may or may not be Christian and may or may not
                    have left the world alone after Creation.  I notice
                    some web definitions support your 'left it alone'
                    thing, but to me that's a pretty arbitrary distinction
                    to make for an 'ism.' -- ilyas
                    \_ Uh, I think all three links support what I wrote, and
                       I do think what I wrote is more accurate than what
                       you added.
                       Most deists also speak from a Christian heritage.
                       I wouldn't say what I wrote was the "wrong" definition,
                       but rather that it CAN be independent of Christianity.
                       The point was that the author of the article got
                       it nearly completely wrong, whereas I essentially
                       got it right.
                       \_ Maybe you should ask deists, rather than dictionaries
                          what they think deism means (for instance http://deism.com).
                          The author of the article may have meant
                          'non-atheists.' -- ilyas
                          \_ Frankly, I value Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster, and
                             the American Heritage Dictionary more in this
                             case.
                             \_ Seriously though, if you don't think http://deism.com
                                is a credible source, ask someone on campus
                                who studies deism.  Dictionaries are often
                                a lame source for technical definitions.
                                  -- ilyas
                                \_ You also need to get off your FUCKING HIGH
                                   HORSE, ilyas.  What the fuck is "Amusingly,
                                   you got [it wrong] also" and then waiting
                                   for me to ask you what the right one is?
                                   You know you come off as a dick?
                                   \_ Ok, dictionary boy.  Btw, did you know
                                      your beloved wikipedia claims Cheney is
                                      a neocon?  Heh.  Honestly, dictionaries
                                      are great for capturing common use, but
                                      they get technical terms wrong ALL THE
                                      TIME, which isn't surprising if you
                                      consider how dictionaries get written.
                                        -- ilyas
                                      My favorite recent example was a
                                      dictionary defining a 'byte' to be a
                                      'collection of bits.' -- ilyas
                                      \_ Tell us about simpson's paradox ilyas
                                         \_ Yup, I was wrong about it applying
                                            in that case.  Do you feel better
                                            now? -- ilyas
                                      \_ But Cheney's a member of The Project
                                         for the New American Century.  So,
                                         how is he *not* a neo-con?
                                         \_ Hmm, ilyas didn't respond, I guess
                                            this means he was wrong.
                                            \_ My problem with the term
                                               'neocon' is that the test for
                                               membership in this elite group
                                               seems to be everchanging.  I
                                               was called a neocon on the motd
                                               once.  You seem to think
                                               membership in PNAC is the same
                                               as being a neocon.  Someone
                                               else might think it's some sort
                                               of ex liberal jew hawk.  Maybe
                                               you should all get together and
                                               decide what, if anything, this
                                               word means.  As for my wrongness,
                                               you hereby have an official
                                               pass, signed by me, which
                                               says you are right, and I am
                                               wrong in this, all previous,
                                               and all subsequent arguments
                                               we ever have.  Maybe then you
                                               can find another fish to trawl.
                                               If both me, and Cheney are
                                               neocons, then the term is
                                               meaningless.  -- ilyas
                                               \_ Are you Chinese?  Do you
                                                  understand the effect the
                                                  opium trade had on China?
           \_ How can you have a "Christian" God who leaves the world
              alone after creation?  That doesn't jibe with, well, Christ.
              \_ Right.  Jefferson, a deist, did not believe in the divinity
                 of Jesus Christ.  It's not really a "Christian" God, in this
                 sense, as you've noted.
                 \_ But he owned slaves!  Are you Chinese?  Do you understand
                    the effect the opium trade had on China?
2004/11/8 [Transportation/Misc] UID:34754 Activity:kinda low
11/7    I just got a Segway!!! How do I join the Segway Polo club?
        \_ Have fun falling.
        \_ why the heck is it 80 pounds? Is it the battery?
           \_ Any lighter wouldn't be enough to make others scream when you run
              over their feet.
2004/11/8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34755 Activity:moderate
11/8    So Powell wants to go, Condi wants the position of Defense secretary,
        and Rumsfeld still ain't finished yet.  What is Dubya, Moron-in-Chief,
        going to do?  The only decisions he makes -- as ultimate delegator --
        are appointments.  (He actually doesn't make any decisions himself, he
        follows the advice of the person in charge, and blames them if
        something goes wrong.  The only mistakes he's made are in who he has
        appointed, according to him.)
        \_ that's what a good president does, you want a dictator?
           \_ See, just add in the great speechwriters, and any good American
              can be President!
              - Iraq WMDs:  Blame and fire CIA Director "Slam Dunk" Tenet
              - Iraq post-war:  Blame "catastrophic success"!
              - Abu Ghraib:  Blame Rumsfeld!
        \_ Wait!  I thought he was this manipulative evil genius?  I'm so
           confused!  What are the ABB talking points today?!  -confused lefty
           \_ Dummy!!  Karl Rove is the evil genius.  Dubya is the slack-jawed
              idiot.  Get your evil org-chart straight!
              \_ If Cheney were to die, Bush might become President.
        \_ that's what a good president does, like Reagan.
           \_ See, just add in ...
          \_ "The buck stops here." -H. Truman.
        \_ Dubya will have to ask Cheney for permission about any cabinet
           changes.
2004/11/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34756 Activity:very high
11/7    So does anyone really believe anymore that Bush lied about WMD?  The
        Duelfer report proved 2 things:
        1) Iraq didn't have WMD's
        2) Had we infiltrated Saddam's top level of generals, we still would
           have though he had WMD's.
        \_ He sure as hell didn't tell the truth. Look up the word "lie"
           in the dictionary and I think it is obvious that he lied according
           to definition number 2. It is what is called in linguistics as a
           "contested case" though, so I don't really expect you to admit
v          "contested case" though, so I don't really expect you to admit
           that the word has multiple definitions.
           \_ Everyone knows what "lie" means.  We don't need you to help us
              parse what the definition of "is" is.  Thanks.
              \_ Au contraire. I have posted the definition of it and
                 had people insist that it was wrong or inapplicable
                 in this case. The op is trying to do this right now.
                 Do you admit that Bush lied?
                 2. A fiction; a fable; an untruth. --Dryden.
                 \_ In other words you're upset that Bush was 'wrong'.  All
                    the claims about lying did not use this definition but the
                    one where the lie is to intentionally deceive.  Are you now
                    saying Bush didn't intentionally deceive anyone?
                    \_ No, all the claims did not say that Bush intentionally
                       decieved. You just decided to read it that way.
                       I have no idea if Bush deliberatly decieved. I know
                       that he spoke with reckless disregard for the truth,
                       in that he claimed certaintly when he had no business
                       doing so, but I doubt that he knew he was uttering
                       a falsehood when he did so.
                       \_ Um, his claims about WMD's would have been verified
                          by Saddam's own generals.  They were confirmed by
                          every intelligence organization in the world.  If you
                          define this as lying, you're a fucking moron.
                          \_ Except for all those intelligence organizations
                             that said they didn't have them, oh and the
                             WEAPONS INSPECTORS.  You know, the guys who
                             were responsible for KNOWING THIS STUFF.  But
                             hey history is hard, lets make up facts later.
                             The fact is Bush and his administration gave
                             solid data about where and how many WMDs were
                             in Iraq and it was ALL WRONG.  But rather than
                             let weapons inspectors do their jobs they
                             insisted we go to war right now, and look
                             where that got us.
                             \_ If you read "Plan of Attack", you'd find that
                                Dubya's people were telling him that Blix was
                                pooching the WMD hunt.  Dubya's people were
                                convinced Saddam had WMDs -- and Dubya wasn't
                                going to take the chance of Blix reporting
                                Saddam didn't have anything, especially when
                                Tenet said he had them for sure.
                          \_ No they were not confirmed by every intelligence
                             agency in the world. Either you are badly
                             misinformed or simply lying, it is hard to say
                             which. Every intelligence agency in the world,
                             including the CIA, said that they did not have
                             enough information to tell one way or another.
                             And I see no evidence that Saddam's own generals
                             believed that he had WMD. Is this another one
                             of your fantasies? Here is the relavent quote
                             from your own source: "ISG found no credible
                             evidence that any field elements knew about
                             plans for CW use during Operation Iraqi Freedom."
                             It is amazing to me that in your twisted
                             view of reality Bush telling an untruth
                             is actully him telling the truth. You are truly
                             a brainwashed sheeple. War is Peace?
                             \_ "The whold world thought we'd find stockpiles"
                                - GW Bush
                                Dubya could be lying right here, but I don't
                                remember Kerry ever having challenged him on
                                this sentence.
                                this sentence. -Depressed Liberal
                                \_ Yeah, hence his downfall. But then again,
                                   the only politician I remember being
                                   outspoken in oppositiion to this was
                                   Barbara Lee and look what happened to her.
                                   \_ Yeah, and you wonder why Edwards didn't
                                      take "no doubt" Cheney quotes and roast
                                      him on those during the VP debate.
                                   \_ She got re-elected?
        \_ Bush was responsible for knowing more about the Iraqi military
           capabilities than the Iraqi generals before invading.  No more blood
           for big oil!  And no more posting quots from Clinton, Gore,
           Albright, various UN officials, or any other foreign leaders who
           said the same things Bush said about Iraqi WMD.  Bush lied!  Men
           died!  No more war for oil!  Down with the moronic bible thumping
           pig fucking red neck Republicans! AAAAAAUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!
           \_ Another trash talking anonymous Republican troll.
              You are pathetic. -ausman
              You are pathetic. You can't even shut up for a minute,
              as even President Bush has asked us to do, to try and
              help bring the country back together. -ausman
           \_ Wow an anonymous taunting Republican coward on the motd.
              What a novelty. Both Bush and Kerry have asked people to
              try and bring this country together, but you just can't
              help yourself, can you? -ausman
           \_ A salute Bush for not caring what his critics in the
              reality based community say. - danh
        \_ Please.  The man wanted to invade Iraq so much that he pressured
           the CIA to provide intel to support his plans.  All contradicting
           evidence was ignored.  He lied.
           \_ But the bi-partisan reports said that the "pressure" did not
              alter any of the CIA's opinions.
              Summary:  The CIA thought Saddam had WMDs -- they even thought
              the aluminum tubes were dual-use at least (though clearly wrong
              in hindsight).  The State and Energy departments were the ones
              who didn't think the aluminum tubes were nuke related.  But,
              for Dubya at least, CIA trumps State Department where
              intelligence is concerned.
              \_ With Rumsfeld breathing heavily in his ear, Dubya was bound to
                 discount anything Powell had to say; why do you think the
                 invasion was executed with blatant disregard for the Powell
                 doctrine?  The Pres. wanted what he got, and he got what he
                 wanted.  It's hardly a leap of logic to see that Henry II was
                 responsible for the death of Sir Thomas a Beckett even though
                 Henry never actually told anyone to kill him.
                 \- What if he actually said "Who will rid me of this
                    troublesome yeast?" ? --psb
                    \_ Then they killed the wrong prelates; Chimay is on the
                       other side of the Channel.
                 \_ If the topic is:  "Post-war Iraq, why didn't Dubya follow
                    the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force?", well, Rumsfeld
                    was right about Afghanistan even when all the generals were
                    telling him he was wrong.  The same generals were saying
                    the "same" thing about Iraq.  You're Dubya.  Who do you
                    believe?  (Yeah, it's a specious argument, but this at
                    least provides "plausible deniability" -- which is PLENTY
                    for the True Believers.)
                    \_ The True Believers don't even need that.  They still
                       believe that Saddam had WMD, and they still believe that
                       Saddamn was directly responsible for 9/11.  See, they
                       believe these things because the President said as
                       much, and they will continue to believe him until he
                       tells them otherwise.  You don't need a conspiracy
                       theory to understand the immense charisma and its
                       deletorious effects on the ability of his followers to
                       to see the truth.
                    \_ Rumsfeld was not right about Afghanistan.  The US
                       lucked out pretty heavily on that one, for one, by
                       having Germans and Poles ready to pick up some of the
                       slack while we went on an (unsuccessful) Osama-hunt
                       through the south.  The country has barely managed to
                       hold together, the central government has little
                       authority beyond Kabul, opium production is up due to
                       lack of central control, and people seem to be putting
                       up with the status quo simply because there's at least
                       a smidgeon of hope that things will get better.  You
                       simply can't have an invasion with the minimum amount
                       of force required to win the military victory without
                       planning for the aftermath, which, in Afghanistan, can
                       best be described as "amateurish".  -John
        \_ I think it doesn't do much to condemn Dubya as knowingly (1) having
           lied or (2) misled the American people -- without smoking gun
           evidence (tapes) of deceit from him.  I do think Dubya should be
           held accountable for losing world respect from there not being
           weapons, Abu Ghraib, and the post-war quagmire.
           "The Buck Stops Here".
           Of course, everyone who voted for Dubya in 2004 would rather have
           Dubya as President than Kerry -- and that's 59 million and counting
           -- but that's how democracy works. -liberal
           \_ So who was responsible for Omaha beach?  And where did that buck
              stop?
              \_ I am stupid.  I compare everything to WW2.  Kill me now.
        \_ As if infiltrating Saddam's generals is as easy as flipping a
           light switch, or putting on a hat. Saddam fed living people into
           *plastic* *shredder* *machines*.  Sometimes head first, sometimes
           feet first.  Most who slam Bush for removing Saddam don't mind
           abortion either, so I guess torture and mass murder are O.K.
           \_ The American people wouldn't have supported Saddam sending
              our boys to take out Saddam if he had no WMDs.
              Anyways, we're there now, and Dubya supporters want to look
              forward, not back.
           \_ And the US has already killled 100,000+ civilians. Do you
              think the grieving widows care if their husband died in
              a shredder or in an air raid?
              \_ If it means a safer America, 59+ million Americans think it's
                 worth it!  Anyway, it's probably only 10-40,000 civilians.
                 Ask Iraqis - they still think it's worth it!
                 \_ No, probably 100,000+
            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html
                    And do the Iraqis still think it was worth it?
                    I know the latest poll has 97% of them wanting
                    us to leave. And most Americans no longer
                    believe the fable that the Iraq war has made
                    us safer.
                    \_ "These numbers seem to be inflated" - Human Rights Watch
                       in the URL you posted.
                       Yeah, Iraqis want us to leave, but the question was
                       whether the war was worth it.
                       You're right about most Americans thinking it didn't
                       make us safer, but most Americans also think going into
                       Iraq was the right thing to do.
2004/11/8-9 [Industry/Jobs, Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:34757 Activity:nil
11/8    MS Search job available in Redmond: http://csua.org/u/9vd
        mfw@microsoft.com if you're interested --dbushong
2004/11/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34758 Activity:very high
11/7    Isn't it funny that all the multi-billion dollar eye-in-the-sky
        surveillance program that you and I paid for... the SR-71, the
        U2, and the spy satellites... can't tell you with certainty
        that Sadam has WMD or not? So much for our smart, all electronic
        "intelligence"
        \_ we have the tech to see someone give us the finger from 60k ft
        \_ you can go underground.  You still need human intelligence.
        \_ You obviously never served.
                \_ and you have?
           \_ Are you Chinese?
           \_ Are you Yiddish?
        \_ You can directly blame Jimmy Carter for starting this all-tech,
           no-people nonsense.  Yet another legacy of his utter failure.
           And yes, he was also the first President to say nukular, so you
           grammarians can add that to your list, as well as the need to
           invent terms like "double-digit inflation" and "stagflation" and
           showing Islamic psychos that the US can be cowed with terrorism.
           \_ First "nukular" president was Eisenhower.
           \_ Not to mention being responsible for the oil shock, the Yom
              Kippur war, Leonid Brezhnev and the Iran hostage crisis.  He
              is also directly accountable for the unraveling of the Bretton
              Woods dollar/gold exchange system, the Vietnamese invasion of
              Cambodia, and the Polish military crackdown on Solidarnosc.  In
              fact, the evil bastard wimp is probably the reason why the
              middle east will be destabilized for generations to come.  And
              did you know that he also started the China opium trade?  -John
              did you know that he also started the Yiddish holocaust?  -John
              \_ You're right, John.  Carter was a great President.
                 \_ No, I'm just trying to provide a counterpoint to my stated
                    conviction that he was THE ANTICHRIST who is single-
                    handedly responsible for all the world's ills.  -John
              \_ You forgot disco and the death of Jon Bonham.
                 \_ JOHN B ONHAM IS NT DEAD YUO FUKCING COMMUNIST.
                 \_ And John Lennon.
              \_ Yeah, but I hear he swings an awful lot of pipe.
                 \_ Must be all those peanuts.
2004/11/8 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:34759 Activity:high
11/7    OSC surprises me again with an original take on a current event:
        Osama bin Laden's recent video probably had little effect on our
        presidential election. But that wasn't his goal.
        Remember, Osama doesn't actually care who wins our election. He's
        worried about his own campaign to be Caliph of all Islam -- sort
        of the Pope and Augustus Caesar rolled into one.
        And in his campaign, that videotape was a no-lose proposition.
        If Kerry won, then he could tell his followers that Americans had
        chosen Kerry because they feared the mighty hand of Islam and
        they only need to continue on the present course to achieve
        complete victory.
        And if Bush won, he could tell the Muslim world that the American
        people had chosen to keep with their satanic leader, so now the
        American people deserve to be murdered.
        \_ what's OSC and why is this original
           \_ Orson Scott Card?
        \_ Link, man!  Give us a link!
2004/11/8-9 [Computer/SW/OS/Solaris] UID:34760 Activity:low
10/8    On solaris, what do the two flags [+-] between the username and the
        #blocks used represent. Sample...
                      Block limits
        User        used   soft   hard           timeleft
        foo    -- 2104304 5000000 10000000
        bar    +- 21538656 20000000 220000000    2.4 days
               ^^
        \_ Could they mean you are over one quota but not the other???
           Doesn't the man page answer this?
           \_ The plus I believe does mean over soft quota.  I am guessing
              the second plus would mean time has expired.  Not in manpage.
2004/11/8-9 [Computer/HW] UID:34761 Activity:high
11/8    is this supposed to work: open a WinXP remote desktop connection from A
        to B, and from B remotely open one back to A?
        \_ Probably not.  Why would you do this?
        \_ You want it to recursively draw the screen?
        \_ You can go A -> B- > C -> A.  Not sure why....
           \_ How does the screen look like???  Does it recurse infinitely?
              \_ It *very* quickly turns into a blur.  There's only so many
                 pixels.  Since the system has to reduce pixel count on each
                 iteration/display you very quickly get to the point where
                 it only uses a pixel to represent an entire screen.  I guess
                 you could go into full screen mode, get rid of the task bar
                 and other stuff that takes up a static amount of space but
                 I've never bothered.  Go get 3 machines and let us know.
                 \_ When you are sitting in front of A and have connected
                    A->B->C, and you try to connect A->B->C->A, shouldn't it
                    lock the whole screen as soon as you've entered the
                    password for A since A is now being accessed remotely from
                    C?
                    \_ But... but C is remotely controlled from A?? The
                       universe will explode! Actually I think I'll try this
                       experiment with my cubicle neighbors.
        \_ Dunno about remote desktop but VNC certainly will let you link a
          client to a machine listening to the client.  I did it once.  was a
          somewhat amusing ride. -ERicM
        \_ FYI: the reason I asked is because from home i wanted to make sure I
           could remotely connect from work through my firewall etc. So I went
           through the VPN and remote'd to work, from there remote'd to home,
           and it would get to the login screen and then my VPN died, every
           time. Something wasn't happy.
        \_ The remote desktop server in WinXP is a trimmed down of full-blown
           terminal services.  The main difference is that the WinXP RDS only
           supports one connection at a time.  If you connect to a computer,
           it locks the console and takes control of the desktop session.  If
           the system was already under the control of a remote desktop
           session, the new session will take over the old one.  Therefore it
           is impossible to create an infinite loop of desktops within WinXP.
           I'm pretty sure that the same goes for full terminal services
           (except that you can't kick off the console user, instead it creates
           a new desktop under terminal services control).
2004/11/8 [Uncategorized] UID:34762 Activity:nil
11/8    Was there a noticeably affect or a noticeable effect on the speed?
        \_ Huh?  If this is a grammar question, "affect" usually is used as
           a verb, and "effect" usually is used as a noun.
2004/11/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34763 Activity:low
11/7    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/08/watson.policy/index.html
        Alright since when did CNN switch to the right side? Frigging
        traitor, I'm going back to the good 'ol CBS liberal news.
        \_ The behind-the-scene look at the campaign by the Newsweek embeds
           is a pretty good read.  Not terribly flattering to the Kerry camp.
           http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6407226/site/newsweek
           \_ Nice of them to fail to report any of this until after the
              election.
              \_ I assume holding off reporting till after the election is
                 part of the deal that got the campaigns to allow the embeds
                 access in the first place.
                 \_ If the press has real news that would make a difference
                    to the way people vote we should know about it.  If the
                    reporters in the Bush campaign saw the same things, they'd
                    be leaked all over the place.  I want everything from both
                    campaigns equally.  I want the truth.  If you can't get
                    the truth from the media in a timely manner that would
                    make a differnce what the hell good are they?
2004/11/8-9 [Uncategorized] UID:34764 Activity:nil
10/8    Any recommendations for software similar to gallery but:
        a) distinct namespace for each user's albumns
        b) more intuitive and attractive UI/ navigation
2004/11/8 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:34765 Activity:nil
11/8    http://csua.org/u/9vg (New York Times)
        American-led large-scale assault on Falluja has begun
        "They'll win if it's bloody; we'll win if we minimize civilian
        casualties." -Marine
        A Falluja resident who tried entering the city on Monday said he had
        found no way through the seal. The resident said the situation was
        much different from the situation in April, when Americans battled the
        Falluja insurgents before withdrawing and when there were many gaps
        that gun runners could exploit to keep the insurgents supplied.
2004/11/8-9 [Uncategorized] UID:34766 Activity:moderate
11/8    Does anyone know of a reliable plastics shop/dealer in the LA area?
                \_ other than TAP, since TAP is only in the Bay Area.
                   \_ I'd try TAP.
        \_ I bet BUD DAY knows where to find a reliable plastics dealer in the
           LA area.
        \_ <insert obligatory 'The Graduate' joke>
           \_ I'd TAP yer mom in a heartbeat!
              \_ nice.
2004/11/8-9 [Computer/SW/OS/FreeBSD] UID:34767 Activity:nil
11/8    FreeBSD 5.3 is out:
        http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.3R/announce.html
2004/11/8-9 [Computer/SW/Database] UID:34768 Activity:nil
11/8    Hello, new 500 list: http://www.top500.org/lists/plists.php?Y=2004&M=11
2017/09/24 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/24    
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:November:08 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>