Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:November:13 Saturday <Friday, Sunday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2004/11/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:34873 Activity:moderate
11/12   Bush up to 60 million votes!
        \_ and Bush only wins Iowa by 13498 votes.
           \_ how is that even closer that Bush's win in NM in 2000?
              \_ It's not.  My bad.
2004/11/13-15 [Uncategorized] UID:34874 Activity:nil
11/12   Faces of the fallen:
2004/11/13-14 [Computer/SW/Virus] UID:34875 Activity:high
11/13   I've run the latest version of Ad-aware and gotten rid of
        all the crap that it found.  But there is still some crap on
        my computer that shouldn't be there.  In particular, when I
        start up IE, regardless of what I set my home page as, a
        "Home Search" page comes up, along with a couple of pop-ups,
        before I do anything.  I went into Add/Remove Programs and
        found at least a couple of programs that shouldn't be there:
        "HomeSearchAssistent" and "Shopping Wizard" and a couple others
        that I'm nto sure of.  When I go to remove them, it says "Problem
        with Shortcut: Unable to open
        ""  What can I
        do to get rid of this crap?
        \_ AdAware doesn't find/remove everything.  There are a number of
           nasties that will reinstall themselves.  I suggest running
           several tools sequentially, including stuff like SpyBot Search &
           Destroy -- .  -John
        \_ Oh damn you got the Home Search krugerware. Kill it and comes
           back to life. It is going to take a while. But here:
           BTW, Spybot/Ad-aware are ineffective against krugerware.
           \_ Thanks.  I went and tried this and after spending most of my
              day trying to rid my computer of these viruses, I got
              nowhere.  I'm not trying to be sarcastic.  I really do
              appreciate the advice, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to
        \_ Google for "hijakthis"
        \_ begin by switching to Firefox. For extra credit, switch to linux.
           \_ I think I will switch to Firefox.  I have a dual boot with
              Linux and am using it right now since my Windows is so damn
           \_ More costly, but easier to implement solution: buy a Mac.
        \_ Reinstall is pretty brute-force and it works but you probably
           have a reasonable chance of getting rid of this stuff by hand.
           For starters, while you're cleaning up, do not run the compromised
           IE. Run Adaware, Spybot, Hijakthis, SpywareGuard, use BHODemon
           to disable any and all suspicious-looking BHOs. Get the process
           view utilities from to find the resident
           processes that have no business being there - google for any
           image name that looks weird. Some of them will have generic names
           like service.exe - find the location of the executable and look
           at the file date, if it's on or after your time of infection,
           it is likely bogus, even if it is sitting in system32. Run one
           of the many utilities that show startup-launched processes,
           disable anything that shouldn't be there. Same goes for services.
           After all this, try IE again, although you may want to downgrade
           yourself from Admin first. Check security settings of Trusted sites,
           remove sites that don't belong there, crank up Trusted sites
           settings to something similar to your regular Internet zone, fix
           your homepage, etc. As to linux, Macs, Firefox - these things
           can help but only in the short term, they are basically
           "security through obscurity" and you can be sure malware will
           get to them as well. Until systemic solutions appear (if ever)
           the only reliable defense is knowing what your environment
           looks like when healthy and knowing how to make it so. -pvg
2004/11/13-14 [Consumer/Camera] UID:34876 Activity:low
11/13   Can someone use Cal's fine library system and provide the goods on
        Dick Cheney?
        \_ thread removed.
2004/11/13-14 [Reference/Military] UID:34877 Activity:very high
11/13   I thought the purpose of the Marines is to get on the boat and
        land on the coast to secure a place for barge, equipments and
        for more reinforcements, like exactly what they did in D-Day.
        Why are there so many Marines inside Iraq, fighting non-water
        related battles?
        \_ marines do the initial battle to clear up for the
           army to maintain and hold ground.
        \_ Marines are the toughest of the regular services. Their
           physical standards are held to a higher standard and their
           boot camps is longer than the typical Army GI. BTW, D-Day
           had more Army units doing amphibious assaults.
                \_ That still doesn't answer the question, though. !op
                   \_ if you need it spelled out... marines > army
                      \_ Except for the airborne. -ausman
                         \_ Ah.  People who get paid to run up beaches at
                            machine guns vs. people who get paid to jump out
                            of planes on top of machine guns.  Great.  -John
           \_ marine(adj)-- 1 a : of or relating to the sea <marine life>
              b : of or relating to the navigation of the sea : NAUTICAL
              <a marine chart> c : of or relating to the commerce of the
              sea : MARITIME <marine law> d : depicting the sea,
              seashore, or ships <a marine painter>
        \_ On perhaps a related note, does each branch of the military
           (navy, army, airforce, etc) have a documented responsibilities?
           I mean, what's the difference between them, and where is it
           actually written out and defined?
           \_ Yes you guessed it, they have turf wars all the time. -- ilyas
           \_ The Marine Corp and Navy have their own air forces as
              does the Army to a lesser degree. Every force except
              for the marines has their own ground troops: the Marines
              are supposed to be the Navy's ground troops, but don't
              tell a squid that. I don't think the Air Force has too
              many ships, but I wouldn't be surprised to discover that
              the Army does. -ausman
              \_ Army's only ships are contract prepositioning ships.
                 \_ Not quite -- .  You can see
                    an ACoE ship in SF Bay sometimes.  -John
        \_ As someone pointed out above, the Marines are simply better
           and more comprehensively trained and better equipped for
           rapid deployment than most Army units. One can view the name
           as largely historical and the fact that they remain a separate
           branch as a testament to their effectiveness and perhaps
           more importantly the PR and political skills of their leadership
           over the years. The classical amphibious assault itself is
           arguably an obsolete tactic - the last significant US amphibious
           assault I can think of is McArthur's landing in Inchon in
           late 1950, during the Korean War. In addition, the Marines
           are generally less specialized than the more elite Army units
           such as Airborne and the Rangers - unlike the Army, they have
           their own fixed-wing ground-support aircraft, their own UAVs,
           their own armour (including M1 tanks) and can more easily execute
           a "combined arms" operation (up to a certain scale, of course)
           on their own. This makes them an attractive option for military
           planners in difficult but constrained engagements such as in
           Fallujah. This of course, has its price - Marines are often
           disporpotionately represented in the casualty figures when
           serious fighting takes place. -pvg
        \_ As I recall, the Marines were originally for boat-to-boat
           combat.  I could be wrong though.
           \_ They were just a warship's military contingent.  They guarded
              ships and watched prisoners, so the whole ship-to-ship thing
              kind of naturally evolved.  And instead of having to carry
              a bunch of seasick army guys around to go beat up on some S.
              Pacific natives, it was easier to just have your on-board
              security detail do it.  That's where the beach invasion force
              bit comes from; because warships were also the first on the
              scene in faraway places, marines were usually the guys you
              had guard colonists and embassies, just because they were
              easiest and quickest to get there; that's also the reason why
              they're the most mobile bunch, and it's historically why you'll
              be more likely to find them blowing up stuff in faraway places
              than the regular army.  -John
              \_ To get mildly pedantic, historically, marines were not
                 so much a security unit but  what the name
                 implies - a ship-borne group of soldiers. Their 17th
                 century Royal Navy name - "Maritime Regiment of Foot"
                 pretty much tells the story as does the "Gibraltar"
                 on Royal Marines insignia, a reference to a 1704 battle
                 where their role was neither primarily that of ship-to-ship
                 combat nor protective detail. -pvg
                 \_ "security" includes preventing guys with swords from
                    climbing on your boat :-)  -John
        \_ so based on the above they should change the name Marines -/
           since it has nothing to do with water nowadays
           \_ Absolutely! And while at it, one might decimate all instances
              of such wildly inappropriate naming! Sure, Airborne jumps from
              planes but when's the last time there was a significant airborne
              operation? Rename the 10th Mountain, all units designated
              "cavalry" and british fusiliers, grenadiers, etc. Wait, and
              the word "decimate" doesn't really mean "reduce to a 10th of"
              so excise that from dictionaries as well. And stop calling
              computers and other equipment "digital" since it has nothing
              to do with fingers nowadays. -pvg
2004/11/13-14 [Industry/Jobs] UID:34878 Activity:low
11/13   Top 10 Degrees:
        \_ chemical engineers make the most:
        \_ I wonder how "dropout from tech major in top university" measures
           up as a major.  I'm guessing it would be in the top 20, above
           most humanities majors.  Can anyone find numbers on this?
2004/11/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:34879 Activity:moderate
11/13   Scott Peterson should have hired Johnny Cochran. Then he would
        have been acquited based on 1) the possibility that black cops
        were racists and contaminated evidence to frame a white guy
        2) moving the trial to a predominately uneducated, white
        supremacist neighborhood who feel threatened by the minorities
        3) that the gloves/whatnot don't fit, and if the gloves don't
        fit, you must acquit. It just goes to tell you that expensive
        lawyers are in fact better lawyers.
        \_ Please explain why so many people on the motd or in the world
           at large seem to give a shit about this murder case.
           \_ I find it really puzzling also. -- ilyas
              \_ Are you a hoser?  Do you have any idea the effect of
                 ilyasing the motd??
           \_ because the lawyers are crooks, the minority jury is dumb, and
              the OJ case proved just that. The fact that the case is in
              San Mateo a predominantly white/educated town, proved just
              that again.
           \_ The media decides you should care. They see a dramatic situation
              that has the right parameters for mass consumption and just
              run with it.
              \_ I guess we consume different media.  I first heard about this
                 on the motd, and only found out about media coverage by
                 googling.  Maybe it's because I don't live in the bay area
           \_ I refer you to the only intentionally funny line in "Traffic":
              "I have actually dreamed about this... about busting the top
               people... the rich people... you know, white people!"
               \- the original BBC version of TRAFFIK is much much better.--psb
2004/11/13-15 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:34880 Activity:high
11/13   Schwarzenegger to run ads to urge changing the constitution to
        allow foreign born citizens to run for Presidency:
        \_ Hither came Conan, the Cimmerian, sword in hand, destined to wear
           the jeweled crown of Aquilonia upon a troubled brow.
        \_ Did you even read the article? He's not running them himself.
           "Schwarzenegger, 57, has said he would consider running for
            president if the Constitution allowed but has not pushed
            for a constitutional change."
            \_ I bet you think Bush/Cheney had nothing at all to do with
               the Swift Boat ads.
            \_ "She (Morgenthaler-Jones) is ...... major Schwarzenegger
               campaign donor who is helping pay for the ads and created a
               companion Web site."  Would you consider Arnold running the ads
               himself only if he makes a personal appearence in them?  Oh,
               even if he does appear, he's still not running them himself
               because he's just hired as an actor.  He is an actor afterall.
               because he's just hired as an actor.  He is an actor after all.
               \_ Who cares, it's a good amendment. After all, who cares where
                  you were born. If you are a U.S. Citizen you should be able
                  to run for President. Dump the second class status of
                  naturalized citizens. After all, it's a well known fact
                  that naturalized citizens are better than native born
                  citizens in terms of work ethic and patriotism.
                  \_  I strongly agree with you on all counts.  Unfortunately,
                      the Arnie factor is likely to make this a partisan issue
                      in the coming years, which it really shouldn't be.
                  \_ That's simply not true. Many first generation Americans
                     have mixed loyalties, hence the need to put the
                     Japanese in containment camps in WWII.
                     \_ 'need'?  I think you're whipping up a major shit-storm.
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2004:November:13 Saturday <Friday, Sunday>