12/23   Sorry, I warned you about selective nuking and now the whole thing
        goes. Total nuke till Christmas. Have a nice day.
        \_ This kind of thinking is bizarre.  Do you think this is some sort of
           deterrent?  Selective nukers are unlikely to care about the motd as
           a whole.
        \_ Restored.
           \_ Restored, again.
              \_ Restored, a third time.
                 \_ Restore away!  If I find who you are, I'll buy you a drink
                    at the establishment of your choice.
        \_ One day one of us will get you.  People might just care more about
           this forum than they do about the consequences of fucking with you.
           Gentlemen, start your scripts. Have a nice fucking day.
           \_ Why don't I get nice things? -- ilyas
              \_ I know as well as you do it's not you. Now why don't you make
                 yourself useful and help figure out who it is?
                 \_ (a) Perhaps you misunderstood the gist of my comment.
                    (b) Say you figure out who it is.  Then what will you do?
                    Try to get them squished?  Subscribe them to junk mail
                    lists?  Put a dead cat on their front porch?  Seriously,
                    get a life man. -- ilyas
                    \_ If I really knew who it was, I'd call up the Church
                       of Scientology claiming to be him, and ask to be
                       put on all their mailing lists.  Maybe go in and take
                       the Oxford Capacity Test under his name just to make
                       sure.
           \_ how about this proposal. Find out why he is nuking the entire
              motd, and listen to what he has to say. Maybe you guys can
              work out something reasonable. What you're proposing is like
              Bush solving problems with brute force.
              \_ Negotiate with a fucking terrorist?  When you put it like
                 that, you almost make me wish I voted for Bush.
                 \_ "Compromise, if not the spice of life, is its solidity.
                     It is what makes nations great and marriages happy."
                     \_ Be that as it may, in this case it's just two
                        terrorists fighting it out in our backyard.  Kill
                        'em both.  They ain't compromising.

12/23   Not too late to join the herd out of the dollar:
        http://csua.org/u/ahm (LA Times)

12/23   Vhet heppened tu zee gooy thet ves ilyeseeng zee mutd unteel
        chreestmes? Deed he-a joost geefe-a up, oor is thet seelliness
        steell gueeng oon? Bork Bork Bork!

12/23   Does anyone know how to fly one of these mini helicopters? would love
        to get e-mail from you. -ali.
        \_ Pilot some choppers in BF: Vietnam until people stop yelling at you.
           I will look for [MIT]CWO_aLi@soda
        \_ ali+muslim+RC heli+bomb. Hmmmmmm, not good.

12/23   More cameras... so it seems to be more about the lenses than
        the camera. Someone suggested looking at the 28-135 or 70-300 IS ones
        for Canon, those look great, nice and compact. Only the 28-135 is
        affordable for me though. The 70-300 is $1100 and no rebate. I would
        still get the kit lens for wide angle to save my finances. (so $1100)
        On the Nikon side, the 18-70 DX kit lens looks perfect but what might
        be a decent telephoto? thanks.
        \_ I think that person actually meant that 75-300. A COMPLETELY
           different lens. The 70-300mm is actually a pro lens even though
           it's not classified as L and costs $1200 while the 75-300 is only
           about $350. At the same time, the 75-300 is a really low quality
           lens. If you are using a non-full-frame DSLR I wouldn't even
           bother with it. The 28-135 is a great lens and will give you an
           effective zoom about equiv to a 220mm lens on a 35mm camera.
           My professional friends often carry a Canon 28-70mm 2.8L, a
           Canon 70-200mm 2.8L, and a 28-135mm IS during a shoot. These
           are people who make 100% of their income with this gear.
           \_ Still a problem with what to do for wide angles then.
        \_ if you have a DSLR, don't forget about the cropping factor of 1x
           to 1.6x.  that means a 28mm might become a 44 mm.
           \_ yeah but it's good for that telephoto: the 135 becomes 216.
        \_ First of all, allocate your money on lens *FIRST*.  After you
           buy the lens you wanted, then use the spare cash to buy the best
           camera you can afford.  *NOT OTHER WAY AROUND*
           Secondly, don't bother with zooms that is more than 3x.
           Third.  Digital SLR has a multiple factor, so, you really want to
           get somthing like 17mm  on the short end.  The long end number
           is much less important.
           \- unless you are talking about a pretty significant lens budget
              like stabilized or fast lenses or really wide angles, then
              dont worry about lens budget. the nikon 50/1.8 is $100.
              the decent 28-105 is also fairly cheap. it's more like when
              there is a $500 difference between some expensive nikon lens
              and a decent canon lens, this becomes significant. but if you
              are looking at modest lenses, this is not really a big deal.
              it's one thing to compare a $1400 vs a $800 lens, another
              thing to consider $30-$50 difference in say a 50mm or a 24prime.
              you should pick the body you like functionally at your capability
              level and budget. at the high end there are big price jumps
              like when i bought my N90, it was either that or the F5 ...
              $1000 vs $2500 ... the choice was clear. if you expect to
              buy a <$1k body and one ~20-100lens which is 3.5 or slower
              and one 100-200/300 lens which is 4.5 or 5.6 at the long end,
              dont worry about it. if you are also looking at some primes,
              a macro, a 2.8 big lens a really fast like 1.4 or faster short
              prime then worry about it. --psb

12/23   Dear jrleek and emarkp, now that we know you're hardcore
        Republicans, I'm wondering if you can give us some inputs
        so that we can understand you better.
        1) Was it a right decision to go to war in Iraq?
        2) Do you support the war in Iraq and why?
        3) Is privatizing SS a good thing, and why?
        4) What do you think about the Patriot Act?
        5) What do you think about the US policy?
        \_ Actually, I've got some of my own questions to liberals:
           1) Why do you think "tax and spend" is a good policy?
              \_ My god, man!  Are you really that brainwashed?  Taxing
                 is how governments raise money, and spending is what happens
                 to that money.  I can see saying that the government should
                 do less of both by being smaller, but to say you're against
                 both is eqivalent to being an anarchist.  Hell, even
                 libertarians admit having an army is useful.  Perhaps you
                 want an all-mercenary army paid for by donations from
                 corporations?  What the fuck?
              \_ because all the service we demanded come with a price.
              \_ why do you think "cut tax and spend" is a good policy.
                 The tax-and-spend label is STUPID, and you know it.
           2) Why did John Kerry vote for the war if he was against it?
              \_ he voted authorize the war, he assumed that Bush will go to
                 war would be last resort.  at the time, we need a threat
                 of force to back up our demands.
              \_ Have you read the resolution?  It was an authorization of
                 force in the event that all diplomatic recourse fails.  It
                 required that they be consulted again after such diplomatic
                 attempts failed.  Bush himself said that the resolution was
                 not a march to war, but a tool to leverage diplomacy.  He
                 lied to you, me, Kerry, and everyone in this country.
           3) Why should illegal immigrants get visas? Should we encourage
              breaking the law?
              \_ We could erect an American version of Great Wall equiped
                 with Machinegun tower.  Then again, California's agreculture
                 depend upon these slave labors, so, you make the call.
           4) Why do you continue to waste your energies on useless protests?
              They accomplish nothing and only serve to cause mainstream
              voters to be wary of you.
           5) Why do you continue to lose power in government? What do you
              actually plan to do to reconnect with the majority of Americans
              who obviously you don't represent?
           6) Why are you so against the average American? Yes, they might
              not be as sophisticated as you or has gone to the best schools
              or believe in what you view as outdated religions. Yes, they
              might be close minded. Does that mean they deserve your scorn?
              Don't you think it's important to talk to the average American
              and find out what their concerns are instead of calling them
              "Reddies" and mocking them? Do you actually believe that gets
              you any voters?
              \_ we are being hated because these "average americans" supports
                 our leader that does bad things.  We are worried because
                 eventually we will be, unfortunately justifiably, being
                 hurt and killed for the policies those "average americans"
                 support.  We are desperate to want to tell you the world
                 is not black and white.
           7) Why are you so vitriolic against people who have different
              general values than you do? Shouldn't you be the inclusive
              party? I find it somewhat ironic that you claim to be open
              minded but attack anyone who doesn't share your beliefs.
              \_ i thought conservative were the one who invaded another
                 country because they worship differnt god than we are.
              \_ Coming from the party of Coulter, Savage, Limbaugh,
                 Buchanan and Robertson, this is really a hoot.
           8) Why are you so against nuclear power? It's probably the
              most viable and safest alternative to fossil fuels. Why do
              you automatically connect nuclear weapons to nuclear power?
              \_ First of all, fuck you and your red herring about nuclear
                 weapons.  Second of all, I am a liberal who is not against
                 nuclear power and neither are a good sampling of my liberal
                 friends.  Third of all, I think you're wrong about it
                 being the best alternative in the longrun.  I believe that
                 new technologies will allow us to actually use solar
                 in a cheap, efficient way by the middle of this century, and
                 that nothing is going to be able to really compete with
                 hydrocarbons for the next decade or two on a large scale.
                 the sheer numbers of reacctors that would have to be
                 built would be staggering.
              \_ if you don't mind store nuclear waste in your backyard,
                 then, go ahead.  Nuclear power is not safe nor economical
                 if you consider the cost of dealing with waste.
                 \_ People always make this argument and it is always
                    stupid. You don't want a coal mine, a refinery, or
                    a windmill farm in your backyard either.
                    \_ Personally, I think having a nuke plant, a coal mine,
                       a refinery or a windfarm in my backyard would all
                       be pretty cool, but I guess I have unusual tastes.  I
                       live near a refinery and although I know it's not
                       healthy, I really love the smell, especially mixed with
                       salt air.  And for the record, I consider myself to be
                       pretty much a liberal.
           \_ Wow, do you actually believe what you are saying? Or are
              you just saying it for the sake of argument? I am not
              the op, and there are things about the democratic party
              I don't like, such as their view on death penalty,
              immigration, etc, the list is long. But overall I find
              them much in line with my belief than the republican
              party and what they are trying to do. I'd prefer a
              middle ground, but what I dislike about the democratic
              party and their policy far pales in comparison to my
              disgust with the lies and corruption that is current
              with the Bush administration. So you believe NOT issuing
              visa to illegal Mexicans is more important than waging
              an unjust war? While we are on the topic of social
              security, do you know what the effect of dumping
              billions of dollars into the stock market will do to
              Bush and Cheney and most republican's portfolio? Do you
              think they give fuck when it crashes down like it did in
              2000 and people on social security is out of money to
              feed their kids?  There are things I do agree with the
              republican party, like welfare, crimes, and things like
              that, but what I disagree far outweighs what I agree
              with them. I find it hard to believe people would value
              their $xxx in tax return more than the innocent lives of
              people in other country. But I guess this is what is
              expected, after all, republican's "survival of the
              fittest" is all about themselves. If country X cannot
              defend themselves against an US invasion, then they only
              have themselves to blame. Well, just don't go fucking
              cry about it when the orphans in Iraq grow up and
              retaliate.
        \_ Now that you've decided to start your own bizarre motd crusade
           targeted at two individuals I'm wondering...
           1) Why the hell you don't just email them.
           2) Why you've decided to single them out among all the republicans
              on the motd.
           Aside from emarkp's formerly itchy delete key, I find him and
           jrleek to be among the least loathesome of the motd conservatives.
           I'd still like to know who that fucking swiftboat troll was.
        \_ 1)2)3) yes 4) it's just great 5) spectacular.
        \_ Actually, I didn't see jrleek respond to that thread at all.  At any
           rate...
           1) Yes
           2) Yes, see #1
           3) Yes, for many reasons including: a) higher expected rate of
           return, b) ending a governmental ponzai scheme, c) owning the
           account so that if you die early you can pass it on to your
           children.
           \_ Of your reasons, c) seems to be the only one that holds up under
              scrutiny.  Could you explain some of the factors that would
              contribute to a)?  Also, could you explain how a private ponzi
              scheme based on people throwing their money at the stock market
              and praying is an improvement over the current state of affairs?
              -dans
           4) Some of the scariest legislation ever, yet necessary IMO.  I'm
           glad that it requires regular congressional oversight.
           5) Eh, I think foreign policy is doing well, but I'm not happy with
           the expansion of Medicare, nor with both parties throwing our
           borders wide open, nor with the energy policy (we need to free
           ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, and fossil fuels in
           general if we can). -emarkp
           \_ I think Bush should get more credit for the hydrogen fuel cell
              funding.  I think this is a great investment in improving the
              way energy is bought, sold and used which is beneficial for the
              economy, the environment and energy security, and that Bush
              has gotten hozed as far as credit goes because most liberals
              are blinded by hate and most conservatives(present company
              excepted) are neandrathals about energy policy.  I let out a
              big war whoop when I heard that in the SOTU address. Also, I
              believe that Bush's support of the national nanotechnology
              initiative will pay off in the longrun in energy policy.  The
              technology required to have a sound energy policy has not
              yet been invented.  I don't think energy policy is anywhere
              near Bush's weakpoint.  -liberal
              \_ Hydrogen is a neat energy STORAGE technology, but it is not an
                 energy SOURCE.  On its own, hydrogen fuel cells actually make
                 our energy dependance worse because they require a lot of
                 electricity, much of which comes from fossil fuels.  If we
                 ever switch to renewable, non CO2 emitting energy sources for
                 our electricity production, THEN hydrogen will be great.
                 The problem is that's very pie-in-the-sky and simple things
                 like improving fuel efficiency could make a lot of difference
                 right now, but are not being pursued for political reasons.
                  -liberal, who knows science
                  \_ I never implied otherwise.  The point of the research is
                     to make hydrogen practical in situations where the
                     internal combustion engine presently dominates,
                     particularly cars.  If cars were on hyrdogen, first of
                     all it would take away a major urban concentration of
                     pollution, and second of all it would mean that we
                     could gradually move off of fosil fuels, with cars reaping
                     the benefits the whole time.  The automotive applications
                     alone make it worth it.  And when you keep pointing out
                     the obvious fact that hydrogen is storage technology and
                     not an energy source, and hence implying that everyone
                     around you is totally ignorant, you just end up looking
                     like a jackass.
        \_ FOr #3, why is it never mentioned this is OPTIONAL????
           \_ because even if it is optional, it's a raid on the funds
              of the system.  As is, the system's viability is continually
              extended because our economic growth exceeds the extrememly
              conservative assumptions built into SS's metrics.  The money
              you put in now is not the money you will receive later.  SS
              is not an investment.  It's an insurance policy with a guaran-
              teed payout.  The question is not whether or not to privatize
              it.  It's whether we have it or not.
        \_ I might be interested in talking about this at a later date,
           but I don't have time now.  What makes you say I'm hard core
           republican?  I always kinda considered myself a right leaning
           libertarian.  Of course, I don't agree with emarkp on
           everything either. -jrleek

12/23   Does the US president need to get a visa, like normal
        tourists, to countries that require visas?
        \_ No, because they're heads of state. Heads of state are
           invited to other countries, so visas don't generally apply.
           You need a visa if you're not invited specifically to a country.
           That's like 99% of us.
        \_ It was said that Bush would have to get special permission to
           visit Canada, thanks to his prior DUI.  But we'd probably invade
           if they actually made him do it.
        \_ I would assume he gets a diplomatic passport from
           the US State Department. Diplopats are above the law.
                \_ Do you think the reverse situation works the
                   same (i.e. foreign president visiting the US)?

12/23   What's a good program to convert an mov to an MP3?

12/23   I'd like to install WinXP Pro in my VMware virtual machine.
        What's the cheapest way to get a legit version of WinXP Pro?
        \_ If you bought the box as a whole and got an OEM copy, or if from
           someone who installed unix and doesn't use their license.  Otherwise
           on ebay.  I'm not familiar with the arcana of US software licensing
           laws, but if it's not legal to install a paid-for (bought or OEM)
           copy of software xyz on _a single box (regardless where) then who
           gives a flying fark.  -John

12/23   What's a good program to convert an mov to an MP3?  I've tried
        Alive Video Converter and Audio Commander.  Audio Commander
        says "processing file" and then does nothing.  Alive Video
        Converter says that something is wrong with the mov file.  It
        plays fine in Quicktime, though.  I tried another mov file that
        also works fine in quicktime.  Alive Video Converter is using most
        of my CPU for quite a few minutes, but is still stuck on 0%
        complete.
        \_ ffmpeg --dbushong
        \_ iTunes

12/24   How can I switch between different tabs in firefox 1.0 under OS X?
        Does anyone know of a way? Thanks.
        \_ use the mouse to click on the tab
        \_ command-<number> --aaron
                \_ thanks, I'd been searching for awhile!

12/23   emarkp, thanks for your answer (and bravery). Here's my new set of
        questions. Do you think the war in Iraq has made the world safer,
        and why? What do you think about the worldly perception of the
        US, from Western European nations, Asia, Africa, and others?
        Also, what do you think about Darfur, and do you think it is a good
        idea to install democracy there the same way we're doing in Iraq?
        How about Iran and Syria, don't they deserve democracy as well?
        Thanks, just trying to get more insight         -moderate
        \_ - Yes, I think the war in Iraq has made the world safer, because:
             - Saddam was personally financing Palestinian suicide bombers
             - Saddam's regime had state-sponsored rape, etc.
             - Saddam's control of huge oil reserves allowed him tremendous
               influence over the world
             - Saddam was willing and able to pursue nuclear and biological
               weapons, and ties were being establishing with Al Qaida.
             - A side effect was Libya's disbanding their WMD program.
             - Iraq was the most viable target after Afghanistan, and creates
               pressure on its neighbors to either eliminate terrorism or face
               similar consequences.
             - An Iraqi democracy can increase its oil output and hence
               decrease the worlds dependence on other terrorist-supporting
               regimes like Saudi Arabia.
           - I don't care much about world perception of the US.  The right
             thing to do is sometimes unpopular.  Frankly I find the UN
             obsolete and unwilling to act.  I think if the UN is to be useful
             it should expel all non-democracies.
           - Darfur pretty much proves the UN as useless and that the world in
             general doesn't give a rip about humanitarian aid.  I don't see
             any good guys there that we could support to sustain a democracy.
           - Iran and Syria are definitely next on the hit list.  Hopefully
             with a democracy on their borders, the people of Iran can bring
             about change.  Syria will most likely have to be changed by force.
             -emarkp
             \_ THANK YOU emarkp, thanks for sharing your thoughts in a
                well-mannered, non-typical-liberal-cursing style. I now
                understand the psychology of Conservatives better, and
                hopefully I can use those ideas for my agendas    -moderate

12/23   When I used wget to fetch files form a particular site, it immediately
        gave me a 403 forbidden (before it even get to load robots.txt).
        I can view the web page using a browser, and I have set the user
        agent to be 'Internet Explorer.'  So what's wrong?
        \_ You probably neglected to set the referer.