Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:January:10 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2005/1/10 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:35628 Activity:nil
2005/1/10-11 [Health] UID:35629 Activity:very high
1/9     I would like to hear a good argument for the proposals to limit
        non-economic damages in medical malpractice suits to $250,000 as
        suggested by president Bush.  It seems to me that if a doctor is
        drunk, high, or otherwise clearly negligent and kills a family
        member, $250,000 is a paltry amount for punishment/compensation. Thanks
        \_ Fine.  Put the max at $500K then.  Or a mil.  Or two.
           \_ Would you adjust this for inflation, cost of living, etc.?
              Why not just let a jury decide or pass some guidelines instead
              of choosing a single number for all situations?
              \_ I was trying to figure out if the op is sensitive to the
                 level of a max or to the concept of a max altogether.  His
                 original post gave the impression he was questioning the
                 value of max but not the existence of max.
              \_ How about setting the max to (doctor's insurance coverage
                 + 5 years previous gross earning)?
        \_ What is the minimum amount of malpractice insurance required by
           law, if any?
        \_ A better proposal is to have all lawyers talk about Plato and Kant.
           And only yale law graduates + psb can argue cases before jury.
        \_ I'm fairly sure killing a family member has more economic damage
           than $250K.  Basically, punishing one doctor punishes *all* doctors.
           Doctors are people and they make mistakes.  If they're criminal
           mistakes, they shouldn't be allowed to work again in the field.
           That's pretty heavy punishment already.
           \_ If the family member is not working and had no plans to work
              I don't think you can claim economic damages.  For example,
              if it was your child that died, you can't claim economic damages.
                \_ Actually you may be able to get some damages based
                   on future earnings and loss of consortium.
              I agree that doctors are people too and can make mistakes.  Also,
              medicine is a practice not a science and sometimes things go
              wrong through no fault of the doctor.  The problem is that a
              small percentage of doctors are responsible for the
              majority of malpractice insurance payouts.  This is because the
              medical profession is self-regulated and doctors rarely are
              prevented from practicing even after gross errors.  For example,
              most state medical boards do not share information.  So if a
              doctor in Nevada screws up so bad to get his license removed,
              he can just move to CA and continue practicing.  It seems to me
              that politicians should focus on preventing bad doctors from
              driving up malpractice insurance rather than protecting them
              from facing the consequences of their mistakes.
              \- another approach to the problem is to allow punative
                 damages for negligence BUT the $ doenst go to the plaintiff.
                 he would only be compensated for his losses. he is not "owed"
                 that money, but the fines exist to incentivize correct
                 behavior. --psb
                 \_ That seems quite reasonable to me in principle.  I think
                    the only practical difficulty is that preventing $ from
                    going to the plantiff reduces the plantiffs ability to
                    hire lawyers.  While this may be good in the sense that
                    everyone seems to hate lawyers, our justice system is
                    definetly biased towards deep pockets.  Attorneys I know
                    have told me that they often try to bury the opposition in
                    paperwork.  If the opponent is poorer then they win, and if
                    the opponent is wealthy then the lawyers on both sides win.
                    Still, this approach seems worth debating while the
                    hard limit on punitive damages seems indefensible to me.
                    \-i have not been following the news about this closely
                      but i thought it was "emotional damages" not punative
                                           \-meaning non-economic but
                                             compensatory damages. like
                                             if a doctor accidentally gives
                                             you a penectomy you dont have
                                             to be a male ho to claim
                                             compensatory damages.
                      damages that were capped. i assume the guiding principle
                      that people should not be allowed to benefit from a
                      crime is still preserved. the other possibility is to
                      have "expert juries" in complex cases. some of the
                      testimony in the ford pinto case was pretty amazing ...
                      like there was a conversy over what one burned victim
                      said before he died in the hospital and ford clained
                      something like "his lips were too badly burned to have
                      said word X". i no longer have to energy to discuss the
                      incetive alignment problem. --psb
        \_ It all depends on where you focus. For the sake of argument
           lets focus on the doctor rather than the family. When a kid
           comes to a doctor and is in need of some procedure, do you
           want the doctor to think, if I do this procedure today this
           kids mom might sue my pants off b/c I took a sudafed this
           morning and the family lawyer will say that sudafed == high
           if something goes wrong? Or do you want the doctor to think
           about the kid and focus on the kids problem and how best to
           resolve the problem?
           If you don't cap non-economic damages (usually pain and
           suffering), you are likely to get huge jury awards even in
           cases where the defendants behavior wasn't all that bad.
           This acts as a disincentive to many doctors. They would
           rather not take action b/c of the fear of getting sued.
           This leads to lots of patients not getting timely care and
           suffering many complications that could be avoided.
           If you cap non-economic damages, doctors may take some risk
           in the care of patients which could result in many patients
           getting timely care and avoiding complications.
        \_ Why not limit the civil suit damages across the board and
           then expose perpetrators to the criminal justice system? The
           gross negligence resulting in death sound a lot like
           manslaughter to me.  If anything, the licensed doctor should
           be MORE guilty than the unlicensed practitioner, IMHO. (The
           latter can get hit w/ additional fraud charges). Put 'em in
           prison instead of suing their pants off.
2005/1/10-11 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:35630 Activity:high
1/9     I have a question.  I've heard at least 1 person on the motd refer
        to the military occupation of Palestine, or some similar term.
        I've also seen signs that say, "End the Israeli Occupation of
        Palestine" around campus.  What are you suggesting when you say
        this?  That all the Israelis should leave Palestine?  A two state
        solution? -jrleek
        \_ There are a range of possible meanings depending on who is
           saying it. Some folks (most notably the group behind Internat'l
           A.N.S.W.E.R.) advocate no Israeli presence in Palestine at all. As
           you might guess, this is not very many people, even among poll of
           Palestinians. For most folks likely to say this, I believe this
           means a roll back to the pre-1967 border, including abandonment or
           at least, demilitarization of the settlements in the West Bank and
           the Gaza Strip. Israelis could remain. They would become citizens
           of the new state the way Arab-Israelis are citizens of Israel.
           That's my understanding, anyway. Does that help?-- ulysses
           \_ Yeah, thanks. -jrleek
           \_ Middle east is the land promised to the Jews by God, just like
              America is the land promised to Mormons by God.  Are you an
              \_ aaron, is that you?
                 \_ It might be an incredible simulation.
              \_ My grandma believes that (Middle East -> Jews)
           \_ I think we should rollback to when Great Britain controlled
              it. Wouldn't that be so much better and also historically
              appropriate? Look what happens when you give these people their
              own government. Hmmm. Maybe cede it back to Italy (Rome).
              While we are at it we should give California and Texas
              back to Mexico, or is that to the Native Americans?
              \_ Ah, let's just send all of these newcomers back where they
                 came from. Half of me can be sent to Denmark, while the other
                 two quarters can be divided equally throughout Ireland and
        \_ The BEST argument I've heard re the two state soln is that the
           the land belonged to the poor Palestinian and the EVIL JEWS took
           it from them in 1947. How would you like it if someone came to
           your house and took it from you I'm asked. However this view of
           history is quite wrong and overlooks the historic possession
           of Palestine by the Jews going back to the time of David (some
           3000 yrs ago). The better question to ask people who believe
           in no Israel or a two state soln is: If you were driven from
           your house and wrongfully imprisioned for a long time, when you
           finally made it back home and you found some squatters claiming
           that your land was really theirs WTF would you do? Leave them
           to it? I'll bet you would.
           \_ No I would slaughter them all and rape their women and feast
              on their goats.
           \_ But the fundamental difference is that the people who were
              forcibly ejected from their homes in 1947 are still around,
              or at least some of them are. Things that mythically happened
              2 or 3 thousand years ago can't be followed with a clear title
              claim. We can right the injustice of the wrong to an indvidual,
              but at some point, you have to let the past be the past. Do you
              think the US should give all its land back to the Natives, too?
              \_ Not only that but who knows but that some of those
                 Palestinians are also descended from some ancient Jews? And
                 In the Roman empire some Jews voluntarily moved around.
              \_ I think the point here is that the land belongs to the
                 Jews now because Britain, which conquered it, essentially
                 gave it to them. The Palestinians have no more claim to
                 the land than the Spanish do to Mexico. Just because
                 'they were living there' does not make it theirs. Jews
                 were living there, too.
              \_ If we are talking about title (and I was not), perhaps you
                 should consider that the current inhabitants have acquired
                 clear title via adverse possession.
                 I was simply pointing out that the argument of priority is
                 ridiculous and when taken to its logical conclusion it
                 yields as result not favorable to those who expouse it.
                 Personally I don't think that the US should give land back
                 to anyone and I don't think Israel ought to yield one single
                 inch either.
2005/1/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:35631 Activity:very high
1/10    As much as I like 24, I find its portraying of us liberals and
        the mention of moore interesting. Is the producer hard core
        republican? -curious 24fan
        \_ Is this from yesterday's episode?  Didn't you find that they
           played the Sec. of Defense as a caricature too (on the right)?
           Also, have the good guys stopped using Macs?
           \_ yes, macs are kind of non-mainstream now.
        \_ Has any past U.S. Defense Secretary been a non-republican?
           Trollish, but I'm also curious.
           \_ Harold Brown might have, president of Caltech at one time
              Director of Lawrence Livermore. Ph.D. in physics by age 21
           \_ Some of FDR's Secretary of Wars were Democrats. George Dern
              for sure. Louis Johnson, appointed by Truman must have been
              a Democrat, too.
        \_ Was Palmer rep. or dem.?
        \_ I never really watched 24 before last night. I thought the acting
           and drama was good but several things left a bad taste in my mouth.
           The stuff with the hacker "stealing software" was laughable. The
                                     \_ no, concluding that someone was
                                        "corrupting the internet" from looking
                                        at a scrolling series of hex numbers
                                        is laughable.
           defense guy's security was incompetent. The stuff with the
           terrorist's kid and his evil parents and the American chick was
           ridiculous. He wants to invite her over to kill her? Like that's
                       \_ how did you draw this conclusion?
                                \_ From the "scenes from the next episode"
                                   teaser they played afterwards.
           not gonna get noticed by anybody?
           \_ If you analyze it like that, then I am sure you'll find
              flaws. What I like about the show is the non stop
              suspense and twist and turns and the fact you have no
              idea what will happen next. A lot of shows are too
              predictable. I feel they've done a good job at 24.
              whether they are going up hill or down hill, hard to say
              at this point...
              \_ Yeah I said the acting and drama was good. I can't help
                 analyzing stuff but I can generally overlook it. It doesn't
                 take that much to appease me... if for example the feds put
                 up even a slight bit of fight instead of getting completely
                 wasted, or the hacker stuff was slightly plausible.
                 \_ The toughest part for me to overlook has always
                    been that the characters never seem to notice that
                    something cliffhanger-ish always seems to happen
                    every hour on the hour.  At some point you'd think
                    they'd look at their watches, see it's 9:59, and
                    brace themselves for something really really bad
                    to happen.  It's still a lot of fun though.
                    \_ The part that's always funny to me is the technical
                       stuff. Looking at hex scrolling by is an example,
                       maybe they thought we geeks can read machine code
                       or something. Or they are so fancy/advanced I go
                                   \_ you can't?
                       "you can do that?" Guess that's true with most
                       movies as well.
                       \_ I'm amazed at how quickly people can get from
                          place to place in LA.
2005/1/10-11 [Reference/Tax] UID:35632 Activity:very high
1/10    Flat tax: how does this make sense? If you make over $100k, 15% may
        not seem like a lot of money, but if you're making $25k, that 15%
        could be necessary for feeding a child or paying for health insurance
        that your employer's not giving you. Serious replies, please.
        \_ I think even in the proposed "flat tax" scheme it's not absolutely
           flat.  There is still some basic exemptions and deductions that
           everyone will take.  After those exemptions and deductions, a flat
           percentage number is applied.
        \_ I see where you are coming from, but on the other hand 40% of
           $x million is a buttload of money, right? It's not like that
           doesn't hurt a very rich person, too.
           \_ True, but it hurts in a different way. 40% of $xm still gives
              you 60% of $xm free and clear, which will still support a very
              generous lifestyle, whereas 15% of $25k could result in welfare.
              I agree that 40% may not be fair to the very rich, but I'm not
              sure a flat tax answers that.
        \_ Yes, flat taxes are regressive.  Yes regressive taxes are bad for
           society and bad for the economy.  Yes, the people calling for
           flat taxes don't give a damn.
           \_ Flat tax is not regressive by definition.  You are an idiot.
                -- ilyas
              \_ Everyone knows sales tax is regressive, even though it is a
                 fixed percentage.
                 So, is a flat federal income tax regressive, progressive, or
                 Neither, you say.  But, when a flat federal income tax is
                 combined with a sales tax, the overall system is regressive.
                 I think both of you can agree with the above.
                 \_ True, sales tax is regressive.  Flat tax is not.  I favor
                    a flat tax and abolition of all other taxes -- i.e. a
                    non-regressive, non-progressive system. -- ilyas
                    \_ This also includes eliminating all capital gains and
                       corporate taxes, right?
                       Finally, are you including eliminating all deductions?
                       \_ I would subject corporations to the same flat tax
                          as individuals, since corporations seem to enjoy
                          a legal personhood status, and can earn money just
                          like people.  I would eliminate deductions.
                          I would tax all effective income at the same rate,
                          which would include some form of capital
                          gains tax. -- ilyas
                          \_ I agree with this.  Even though my rate would
                             effectively go up (I have a mortgage, 2 kids, and
                             charitable contributions that are worth itemizing
                             under the current system). -emarkp
                             \_ What do you two think of a two-bracket
                                progressive system?  E.g., eliminate all
                                deductions and sales tax, but have an income
                                tax of 10% for < 30,000, and a rate of 40% for
                                > 30,000?
                                \_ Nope.  Any progressivism is bad IMO.  And
                                   where did you come up with 40%?  And why
                                   30K? -emarkp
                                   \_ Currently, wealthy people and
                                      corporations pay most of the taxes in the
                                      U.S.  Let's say they pay a 50% rate.
                                      Let's say the non-wealthy pay at a 25%
                                      rate.  If you have one rate, the
                                      loss in taxes from the wealthy is huge
                                      versus the gain you get from raising
                                      taxes on the non-wealthy.  Hence, "40%"
                                      for everyone.  These are guessed
                                      numbers, along with the 30K number, but
                                      the basic idea is as stated above.
                                      \_ That's the long way of saying you
                                         pulled them out of the air.  But
                                         thanks for answering. -emarkp
                                         \_ No.  The extra information here
                                            is that the wealthy carry most
                                            of the tax burden in the U.S.
                                            Since the wealthy are few, then
                                            if you have a flat tax rate,
                                            this rate will be closer to the
                                            high end, assuming no efficiences
                                            and the government stays the same
                                            size (whereas in the rest of this
                                            discussion, the assumption
                                            is you gain efficiences, and
                                            the government gets smaller).
                                      \_ Corporations have been paying less
                                         and less taxes year after year, now
                                         they only contribute a sliver to
                                         revenues.  About equal shares come
                                         from payroll and income taxes.
                                \_ I disagree with any non-flat tax on
                                   principle. -- ilyas
                                   \_ emarkp/ilyas:
                                      If you have one bracket, this means you
                                      increase taxes for the poor and decrease
                                      taxes for the wealthy.
                                      Perhaps this is the way it should always
                                      have been.
                                      Can either of you suggest something that
                                      would alleviate the additional burden
                                      on the poor?
                                      \_ I no more believe the poor should
                                         receive compensation for 'additional
                                         burden' of paying their share than
                                         I believe african americans should
                                         receive compensation for having to
                                         compete on equal footing for college
                                         admissions in CA, since the time
                                         affirmative action was struck down.
                                         I think the effects of smaller
                                         burden on the investors, along with
                                         the vastly simplified tax code would
                                         have a hugely positive, liberating
                                         effect on the economy overall
                                           -- ilyas
                                         (just as I think the lack of
                                         affirmative action
                                         has a positive effect both on the
                                         quality of the student body, and the
                                         academic performance of african
                                         americans).  -- ilyas
                                         \_ So you're saying if we move to a
                                            purely flat tax system, the
                                            efficiencies gained will be so
                                            great as to not create an
                                            additional burden for the poor?
                                            \_ I am saying the additional
                                               burden on the poor is something
                                               I am willing to live with,
                                               since it's only a burden in
                                               comparison to the current system,
                                               which I view as unfair.  As a
                                               completely separate comment,
                                               I think the positive benefits
                                               of flat tax are vastly under-
                                               estimated. -- ilyas
                                               \_ I understand now.  The
                                                  wealthy and middle class are
                                                  are being forced to subsidize
                                                  the poor through a
                                                  progressive tax system.
                                                  Such charity should be
                                                  voluntary, not government-
                                                  This is speaking from the
                                                  viewpoint of fairness.
                                                  Economically speaking, you
                                                  think a flat tax system will
                                                  have a hugely positive,
                                                  liberating effect overall
                                                  for the reasons you
                                                  \_ Yes, this is correct.
                                                       -- ilyas
                                                     \_ See, we CAN have
                                                        a reasoned discussion
                                                        on the motd!
                                                        \_ Unfortunately, it
                                                           all only works in
                                                           theory.  Like all
                                                           the big libertar-
                                                           ian ideas.
                                                           \_ As if anyone
                                                              ever tried this.
                                                              I wonder if
                                                              any monarchist
                                                              nobles who
                                                              read up about
                                                              read up on
                                                              governments in
                                                              Plato wondered:
                                                              sounds nice in
                                                              theory, but it
                                                              would never work.'
                                                                -- ilyas
                                                     \_ Oh, and I agree with
                                                        ilyas. -emarkp
           \_ Okay, I've probably been trolled but I'll ask anyway.  So you're
              for revoking tobacco taxes?  Sales taxes?  Social Security (I
              love how that's been renamed "payroll tax")?
              \_ This is one of the things I think is funny.  If we were
                 really in favor of reducing taxes on poor people we'd
                 lower tabacco taxes and eliminte the lottery.
                 \_ Exactly.  Also, poorer people tend to die sooner, so
                    private SS accounts would allow them to have some
                    inheritance to give to their children.
           \_ *All* taxes are bad for the economy. Progressive taxes, too,
              if not more so. As for society, I am not sure. Lots of people
              address the poor by proposing a negative income tax along
              with a flat tax. I actually think a flat tax might be a
              better idea, since our current 'progressive' system has so
              many loopholes that companies like MSFT pay nothing. Just
              have them pay 15% flat with no deductions and you might get
              some money from them. Charge them more and watch them leave
              the US.
              \_ While MSFT pays nothing (or rather, a lot less than its size
                 suggests it should), in order to qualify for all of those
                 deductions it has to spend an inordinate amount of money on
                 charities, non-profits, and the public sector. While some of
                 that money may go to questionable causes (i.e., toward
                 increasing MSFT's market share), it's still money spent on
                 the public good; taxes are supposed to be collected for
                 similar reasons (although, of course, Joe Taxpayer doesn't
                 get to decide where his tax money actually ends up). A Flat
                 Tax would seem to remove the need to spend all of that money
                 on charities and other social programs; the money could
                 instead be hoarded and passed on as dynasty (cf. the repeal
                 of the Estate Tax).
                 \_ While many large companies do spend money on charities
                    and whatnot, most of the deductions are because of
                    capital depreciation, capital losses, stock options,
                    and so on. I don't think this money is going to
                    charities, since that's not a big allowed deduction
                \_ oh my, 100 million dollars worth of Windows XP donated to
                   schools. How generous!!! Thank you Bill Gates.
                   \_ would you rather they run Linux?  MacOS ain't free either
               \_ No, *all* taxes are not bad for the economy. If this
                  idiotic belief were true, then countries like The Congo
                  would be booming economically. Taxes are necessary for
                  roads, armies, police and the functioning of a safe
                  and sane society. Take your libertarian BS elsewhere.
                  \_ I didn't say taxes were unnecessary, just that they
                     are bad for the economy. This is not me talking, but
                     Nobel Prize winners in Economics who have studied
                     \_ I understand that taxes may, on their face, be bad for
                        the economy, but the benefits reaped from the proper
                        application of collected taxes can create the
                        infrastructure to actually boost the economy. Cf.
                        Roosevelt's CCC programs and their effect on
                        transportation, et. al.
                        \_ Perhaps, but then you are saying that people
                           do not recognize the value of such investments.
                           I believe that the free market will provide
                           infrastructure if it really is an economic
                           benefit. A tall $30 million bridge serving a
                           remote part of Wyoming is not really a benefit,
                           but the Bay Bridge is. If you believe that the
                           free market will not provide those things truly
                           of benefit then, yes, you need to tax.
                           \_ Let's just say that I believe the current system
                              holds the best chance for properly allocating
                              funds for the greater good, insofar as it holds
                              within itself the means of reform. The free
                              market has the properties you've mentioned, but
                              the deficits are very difficult to overcome.
        \_ Most taxes, other than income tax, are regressive. See Social
           Security, sales tax, use fees, etc, so no, I think replacing
           income tax with a flat tax would be unfair. If all taxes
           were replaced with a single flat income tax (with a largish
           deduction), that would be fine with me. It sure would put
           a lot of accountants out of work. -ausman
        \_ under progressive tax where the rich pay more, they will
           suffer at a disproportionally rate. Imagine you making
           5 million dollars a year and you get 50% tax. Now you'll
           only make 2.5 million dollars. That means you'll only be
           able to buy a LearJet 4 instead of LearJet 5 (plus pilot and
           maintenance and storage), or you can get a LearJet 5 but
           you may have to fly it yourself. Progressive tax is unfair
           and flawed.
           \_ Boy, you really have NO idea what you're talking about, huh...
           \_ Yes, comrade. We should divide all assets equally among
              the citizens.
           \_ Fair or not, very high income taxes for the rich reduce their
              incentives to invest money into riskier business ventures
              potentially hurting the economy.
              \_ Unless, of course, you offer tax deductions for investments
                 in certain key industries. Taxes and loopholes can be a
                 powerful tool to guide an economy; they can also lead to huge
                 abuses of power.
                 \_ I'm against that; I don't think the tax system is the right
                    place to provide such incentives. It makes the system too
                    complicated and seems hard to manage. Incentives for e.g.
                    better environment-friendly tech. can be handled under a
                    different umbrella, and new-industry development done
                    through competitive research grants and other stuff.
                    \_ So're Bush and most of the super-wealthy. They'd
                       prefer to keep the goods for themselves. Estate taxes
                       help ensure that their money reenters the general pool
                       now and then, and the current tax system makes them more
                       likely to do something with what they've got rather than
                       just building up legacies; as the adage goes, spend it
                       while you've got it, and you'll know where it goes.
2005/1/10-12 [Computer/SW/OS/Linux] UID:35633 Activity:low
1/10    Someone please suggest a nice STABLE version of Fedora? Thanks.
        \_ As stable as what? The whole point of Fedora is that it is
           a development base for RedHat.
        \_ FC3 seems pretty good. FC2 was not bad either. For customers
           who can't afford RHEL or won't try SuSE we usually ask them
           to install FC3.
           \_ If RHEL is what they want but they don't want to pay, why
              not tell them to use White Box Linux/CentOS etc.?
2005/1/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:35634 Activity:very high
1/10    John Fund explains some of what happened in Washington's recent
        race for governor.
        \_ Restored.
        \_ He omits that Rossi won the first two machine counts and
           only after a hand recount only in overwhelmingly Dem.
           King County did Gregoire come out ahead.  The Dems. have
           refined their election stealing skills since 2000.
           \_ Source?  Everything I've read indicated that the dem led
              in all the recounts, which was why the repub. wanted a
              \_ Are you kidding?  I've never read anything like that.
           (5th paragraph)
                 Also just search on
              \_ Seriously, where did you hear this?
                 \_ I suspect he just mis-read the articles.  Since they
                    usually just use the names of the canidates, it could
                    be easy to mix up.
            \_ They recounted the whole state. Pretty funny to watch
               the Republicans whine when the shoe is on the other foot.
               Want some cheese with that whine?
               \_ And pretty funny to see the Dems who were all worked up
                  about making sure everyone got their vote be suddenly
                  silent in the face of ACTUAL fraud.
                  \_ You mean like all the Florida fraud in 2000? Admit it,
                     you are just a big fat hypocrite.
                     \_ Honestly, I was out of the country during that
                        time, and I completely missed the whole 2000
                        controversy.  I don't know how that makes me a
                        hypocrite, but you're welcome to try to come up
                        with something. -jrleek
                     \_ I read the full report about FL.  There was absolutely
                        zero evidence of fraud.
                        \_ You don't know how to read then:
                           "After carefully and fully examining all the
                            evidence, the Commission found a strong
                            basis for concluding that violations of
                            Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA)
                            occurred in Florida."
                            \_ You don't know how to read the whole thing:
                               \_ Did you say "zero evidence of fraud" or not?
                                  There is certainly plenty of evidence.
                                  \_ Um, no there isn't.  There's a lot of
                                     handwaving, but no evidence. -emarkp
                                     \_ Wow.  You know how to present the
                                        dissenting opinion and claiming it's
                                        fact.  I think I remember you posting
                                        the same link before.  From now on,
                                        I'm going to live life according to
                                        the body of law made up by Clarence
                                        Thomas's dissents.
                                        \_ I see you haven't read the dissent.
                                           Show me in the conclusions what the
                                           evidence was then. -emarkp
                                           \_ There are none so blind as he
                                              who will not see. It is right
                                              there in front of your face.
                                "It is impossible to determine the total
                                 number of voters turned away from the
                                 polls or deprived of their right to vote.
                                 It is clear that the 2000 presidential
                                 election generated a large number of
                                 complaints about voting irregularities in
                                 Florida. The Florida attorney general?s
                                 office alone received more than 3,600
                                 allegations 2,600 complaints and 1,000 letters"
                                              Here is a whole bunch more
                                              evidence you can deny ever
                                              \_ Error 404
                                      \_ Facts are such inconvenient,
                                         stubborn things.
                                         \_ Yes, especially when made up.
                                            \_ So your contention is that all
                                               the people who claimed that
                                               they were turned away and not
                                               allowed to vote are lying?
                                               \_ Hey assmonkies! Why don't
                                                  we let the politicians and
                                                  pundits shout at eachother
                                                  about who "committed fraud"?
                                                  Us techies should be sticking
                                                  to a single message: "voting
                                                  in America is innacurate."
                                                  It can be fixed with common
                                                  sense, better laws, technology
                                                  and hard work.  Claiming that
                                                  the "other guy", whoever
                                                  he is, is at fault really
                                                  helps nothing. Both sides
                                                  did that for four years, and
                                                  in 2004 the voting was just
                                                  as broken.  Sure, there was
                                                  a clear winner, since he won
                                                  by such a large margin, but
                                                  the system is still broken,
                                                  and shouting like
                                                  children/pundits helps
               \_ I don't know if John Fund is a Republican, but he his
                  pretty famous for being an expert on voter fraud.  He's
                  pretty bi-partisan in that area.
2005/1/10-11 [Computer/SW/OS/VM] UID:35635 Activity:kinda low
1/10    VMware question for VMware gurus only. I've installed a WinXPsp1
        on top of WinXPsp2. How do you do the followings:
        1) transfer data between the two machines? I've tried mounting
           raw partition from WinXPsp1 but when I disable write, it
           doesn't boot up anymore (WinXP insists on writing)
        2) communicate between the two machines? I can ping WinXPsp1
           from WinXPsp2, but not the other way around.
        3) Say I install VNC on WinXPsp1, how can I make it so that
           VNC ports go directly to it, instead of the host machine?
        Thanks for any help.
        \_ What do you mean 'on top of'? You are running WinXPsp2 natively
           and WinXPsp1 in the VM?
          \_ yes that is what I mean.
        \_ 1. Easiest way is to do it through a network share.
        \_ 1. Easiest way is to do it is through a network share.
                \_ I did that, but it is slow upon connection. It waits for
                   user/password, then hangs 10 seconds. Windows XP bug?
                   \_ Probably.
           2. Well, how do you have your network configured?
                \_ well right now I have two IPs, each going to diff machines
                   \_ So the guest is using bridged networking with a static
                      IP address?
                        \_ yes it's bridged with static, is this the best
                           configuration? Or you have another idea?
           3. Not a VMware issue.  You need to get something to do port
                \_ thanks I configured my router to forward to the right one
2005/1/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35636 Activity:high
1/10    No mention of the CBS firings here? Well here:
        Read it for yourself. Find out on page 153 they cite Freerepublic!
        Woohoo! At least the Democrats can say they are winning at the
        box office as a consolation.
        \_ Actually, they can't even say that, unless you consider Shrek2
           or Spiderman 2 to be Democrat movies.
           \_ I am talking about NOW. Meet the Fockers, Streisand and
              the so-called People's Choice Awards for Moore F9/11.
              \_ Please, "Mett the Fockers" is a sequel to a very funny movie.
              \_ Please, "Meet the Fockers" is a sequel to a very funny movie.
                 It has absolutely zero competition.  I won't see it because I
                 can't stand Streisand.  Oh, and because reviews of it suck (a
                 whopping 39% on rottentomatoes).  Did they miss The Passion at
                 the awards?
                 \_ Mmm.. why don't you do a little research.  they gave it
                    the best drama award.
                    \_ Um...that was the point.  How did the lefties miss that
                       one and claim the lead?
        \_ This is how a professional organization deals with mistakes.
           Too bad the White House promotes people and gives them
           medals when they screw up.
           \_ Tenet was what?
              \_ Already on his way out.
                 \_ So who was given medals? General Franks screwed up?
                    \_ All right, Tenet and Bremer screwed up.  Franks was
                       smart enough to get out of TMTA^H^H^H^HDubya's
                       administration while the getting was good.
                       \_ Actually, Franks was replaced for offering a candid
                          assessment of the situation on the ground.
                          \_ That was Shinseki. Franks retired because he
                             promised his wife he would. He was offered
                             Shinseki's job as CoS of the Army. Get it right!
                          \_ URL please.  Everything I read was that he got
                             out while the getting was good.
              \_ Didn't he and the proconsul get a Medal Of Freedom?
2005/1/10-12 [Uncategorized] UID:35637 Activity:nil
1/10    Jabber people, which Linux client do you use? There's about 27 of them.
        \_ Gaim.
2005/1/10-11 [Uncategorized] UID:35638 Activity:nil
1/10    Update on google scholar Erdos number calculator request.
        I got an automated reply, which I translated as 'no.'  Ah well.
          -- ilyas
2005/1/10-11 [Politics/Domestic, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:35639 Activity:very high
1/10    This is so fucking childish. What's next, they going to register
        the potential democratic presidential candidates? (Yahoo News, link substituted,
        \_ Bah! Both sides do this.  Realistically, if I had any kind of
           polical aspirations, I would have registered mynameforoffice.uld
           five years ago.  His dumbass fault for not doing it.
           As long as the Forces of Good have
           I'm not going to complaign.
        \_ Oh the horror! A Republican might win in MA! Last time that
           happened was Weld, but he was a RINO.
        \_ This will be deleted by one of the censor happy conservatives.
           \_ I agree with the op (that it's childish).  Why do you think
              conservatives will censor it? -emarkp
              \_ Because they censor anything that criticizes the Republican
                 Party. I get at least one motd post censored every day.
                 \_ I think you might be wrong in assuming that everything
                    critical of the Republicans which is censored is censored
                    by conservatives.  Think about it. -emarkp
                    \_ Well I considered the possibility that it is just
                       someone who hates politics in general, but stuff like
                       the CBS firings entry stays up for at least a day.
                       \_ And yet I had to restore the John Fund reference.  I
                          suspect the majority of deleted posts are simple
                          mistakes. -emarkp
                          \_ by dipwads like you who don't use motdedit?  -tom
                             \_ Fuck motdedit.  In the ear.
                             \_ Possibly by others who don't use motdedit.
                                However, I don't value people by whether they
                                use 'motdedit' or not.  My editor complains if
                                the motd has changed while I was editing.  I
                                copy my changes, reload the motd and paste the
                                changes back in. -emarkp
                             \_ who died and made motdedit the standard?
                          \_ Since this mostly happens late at night when
                             there is little editing activity going on, I
                             doubt it. But you might be right.
                       \_ Where is outcry on the DDOS attacks on the
                          littlegreenfootballs blog that helped bring down
                          Rather going on at the moment?
                             What part of "stop it guys" don't you
                             \_ HA! A blog to "watch" a blog. Police ur own.
                                Esp. with the suggestion the writer killed
                                \_ Obviously a joke.
2005/1/10-11 [Reference/History, Reference/History/WW2] UID:35640 Activity:high
1/10    Was there a real Trojan War?
        \_ Yes. -- ilyas
        \- google(schliemann, troy). Well, you can also read say MI Finley:
           World of Odysseus ... I believe some of the scholarship here is
           not quite up to date but it is pretty readable and should be
           fine for the basic stuff on the "world of the trojan war".
           The composition and authorship questions surrounding the Iliad
           has more uncertainty and is more interesting Q, IMHO.
           \_ An good books re Iliad/Oddessy authorship that you would
              \- if you live in berkeley, particularly if you are a
                 student, there are some good classes/teachers who
                 will cover the iliad, particularly say mark griffith.
                 i dunno if western civ 44a is still taught at berkeley
                 but that class gave a really fine introduction to homer,
                 attic drama, the peloponnesian war etc. of course the
                 reading list [of priamry material] was about 1.5ft high.
                 BTW, you may see this book prominently displayed in
                 bookstores: Avoid it at all costs.
                 Well, if you know your stuff and want to get angry it may
                 be worth reading. The author says some really foolish
                 things and is basically unqualified to write on Homer.
                 I began a BLOGORANT on this in Aug'04 and will try to
                 finish it in Feb'05. Ok tnx. --pater andron te theon te
        \_ Perhaps. There is some evidence that Meleaus was a real Spartan
           king and that Agamemnon of Mycenea was powerful enough to have
           raised a fleet to sail to the Dardenelles. However there doesn't
           seem to be any proof that Helen (queen of Sparta) existed or
           that the Greeks sailed to the Dardenelles to recover her.The
           evidence seems to point to some sort of trade dispute. There
           is some proof that the Greeks won the war w/ Troy b/c there
           are mentions of slaves (mostly women) being brought from the
           near east to Sparta circa the time of the Trojan War. WRT the
           fall of troy as described by Homer, the Greeks were probably
           not responsible for the destruction of Troy 6 (Troy of the
           Sloping Walls), which is the city that existed at about the
           time that the Trojan War is supposed to have occured. An
           earthquake was probably responsible, though some believe that
           when Homer mentioned the power of Neptune as destroying Troy
           he ment an earthquake. As for Troy 7, it appears that it may
           have been under seige for some time and was finally sacked.
           Troy 7 seems to have been sacked some 100 yrs later than the
           Trojan War. If you are really interested in this but don't
           have time to read a book on the topic you can get a 1985 BBC
           documentary by Michael Wood. It is available on DVD (NetFlix
           has it).
           \_ good suggestion.  thanks.
              \- the michael wood show was also turned into a book.
                 um, maybe this is a persinal bias but i'd learn the
                 two works well first and then worry about the anthropology
                 and philology. a lot of the technical discussion involves
                 knowning greek. many of the translations of the iliad and
                 odyssey have good enough introductions about the homer
                 question, notes on composition technique [the use of
                 epithets for metrical fits, ring composition, the work
                 of milman parry etc]. after reading the poems 3 or 4 times
                 you might look at Nagy: Best of the Achaeans and maybe
                 Jasper Griffin: Homer of Life and Death. A ton of stuff
                 Jasper Griffin: Homer on Life and Death. A ton of stuff
                 has been written on Homer ... from ancient commentary
                 to endowed lectures at berkeley. As Jasper Griffin writes
                 in the intro to the book mentioned above, "nobody who
                 writes on homer has read everything ... that has been written
                 about the poems" and that you need to pick what to read
                 based on your interest ... the works are so rich. if you
                 have some particular matter you are interested in, i may
                 have a more specific reference. [i dont know ancient greek,
                 so i am not familar with techical stuff that is language-
                 heavy]. --psb
                 \_ Have you read Lombardo's Iliad translation? I liked
                    it but I was wondering if there were better/more
                    accurate ones.
                    \-I have never heard of the Lombardo trans. I own
                      Lattimore, Fagles, Fitzgerald, Mandelbaum(Ody),
                      and Pope(Iliad) among poetry translations. I have
                      some prose ones too [including one by T.E. Lawrence
                      (of Arabia)] but I would read one of the verse ones.
                      I dont think you can go wrong with any of those listed.
        \_ Trojan vs. Spartan.  Which is better?
           \_ Spartans. Hoplites were fearsome warriors.
           \_ Better at what? In fighting? Homer would probably go with the
              Spartans. In art, architecture, nobility, honoring the gods?
              Homer would have awarded that hands down to the Trojans.
           \_ I think neither can beat Kimono.
2005/1/10-12 [Academia/OtherSchools] UID:35641 Activity:nil
1/10    So why did Gordon Moore donate $600 million to Caltech and nothing
        (AFAIK) to Cal?
        \_ CalTech is the best. (iirc Moore has given several million to
           Cal for EECS and MSE).
        \_ Gordon Moore was Cal alumnus of the year a few years back. He's
           given lots of technical money (see above, also maybe go look at
           the nice plaque in Hearst Mining with his name high up there), and
           he's the main guy behind funding the UC Moorea research station as
2005/1/10 [Recreation/Dating] UID:35642 Activity:very high
1/10    When girls say "I don't care (whether you are the 'best' or not)"
        and "I just want to be with you", are they serious or they are
        just saying it to be nice? I know girls don't put as much
        importance in sex as guys do, but it's hard to imagine if they
        can "not care", I mean obviously this depends on the girl, but
        how often does a girl stay with someone who's not that great
        in bed in real life? I mean all guys would want to believe
        they are great in bed, but just like anything, some guys are
        better than others, and I can't quite imagine why girls would
        settle with someone being only OK in bed rather than someone
        who gives them mind blowing experiences... so what happens in
        real world? How much do girls care about sex? -silly sodan, not troll.
        \_ Women vary tremendously in the importance they place
           on sex. Much more so than men, in my experience.
           Unless I had a good reason to think otherwise, I would
           believe her on this. -sodan with lots of experience
           \_ Also, you can always work on getting better.  Talk with
              her about what she likes and what you like.  Be creative.
              Be communicative.
        \_ Would you dump a kind, attractive, compatible woman you really
           got along with just because she was bad in bed? Or, what if
           she was good in bed and then something happened (e.g. an
           accident)? When we choose life partners (or just potential
           life partners) there's a lot more important than if we have the
           best sex ever. That is, OK is OK if everything else works. I
           doubt most women would want to stay with their best fuck ever.
           I know most men wouldn't, since good sex equates to lots of
           partners in many cases and many men freak out when they find out
           women aren't virginal (or even close by a mile).
           \_ Is this due to gene or society? -serious question
           \_ How is an attractive woman bad in bed?  I mean, you're a dude,
              \_ Dude, there's *a lot* more to good sex than mounting and
                 thrusting; not only interms of enthusiasm, but in terms of
                 what she's willing to do, and whether it's pleasant when
                 she does it, or just damn painful.  It also matters what she's
                 willing to let you do, and whether she can figure out how to
                 make it more comfortable and enjoyable for you.  Otherwise,
                 you're better off fucking a sack of potatoes, since they
                 don't ask for dinner afterward and will at least stay moist
                 from beginning to end.
                 \_ Sack of potatoes?  Jeez, you could at least come up with
                    an inanimate object for which it's physically possible.
                    Your metaphore is dumber than a wet donkey with one sail
                    in the water.
                    \_ heh, wet donkey with one sail in the water....that
                       cracks me up.  I'll have to remember that one.
              \_ Well if she doesn't seem to enjoy it that would turn me off.
                 Of course you could say that's not the chick's fault.
              \_ Hahahahaha, u are funny man.
              \_ This was a joke, but imagine if that woman was horribly
                 disfigured. If she'd still be worth a fuck then she's
                 good. If not, she's just a living fantasy.
                 \_ Would I dump a kind, horribly disfigured, compatible
                    woman who was good in bed?  Doh!
           \_ I prefer women with experience for that very reason. -swloe
        \_ At least when Anna Nicole Smith said "I don't care", she really
           meant it.
2005/1/10-12 [Industry/Jobs] UID:35643 Activity:moderate
1/10    How soon after you start working at a new place is it reasonable
        to ask for a raise?  (assuming you had already been a contractor
        for them and so it's not a case of "well you didn't know how
        damn awsome I was before I started."  'Cause they did.)
        \_ 3 months. At most big companies they will have a 3 month
           peformance review. It is reasonable to discuss a raise w/
           your supervisor during that review.
           your supervisor during that review (provided that you are
           doing much more work than was initially expected of you).
        \_ At a smaller place 1 year is typical.
        \_ Raise?  My company is just laying off people.
           \_ Peoplesoft, huh?
              \_ Nope.  Different company.
        \_ Right after you blow the CEO.
           \_ This is something Carly might actually be good at, but I
           \_ This is something Carly might actually be good for, but I
              doubt it.
              \_ Carly is hot enough to give you a "raise"?
2005/1/10-11 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:35644 Activity:high
1/10    This is sad. An equivalent will be someone renting out a room
        for 1 million $ in the US to aid workers. This is a country
        where $5000 can last you years.
        "While thousands live in makeshift camps, residents not
         affected are renting out homes for $5,000 a month or more to
         the hundreds of aid workers flowing in."
        \_ In China these people will be put in jail. Man I wish East
           Palo Alto and Oakland were part of China, then those black
           fuckers will get what they deserves, nothing less will fix
           the problem. -pissed off living in these areas
           \_ whee.  chicom turns teeth-gnashingly racist!
              \_ Are you laughing from your rich neighborhood? -aap
           \_ Why don't you just move idiot?
        \_ Why do you hate the free market?  This is ilyas' dream!!
2005/1/10-17 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:35645 Activity:nil
1/10    Unix Sysadmin and Storage Admin positions in SF in the financial
        industry.  /csua/jobs/BarclaysGlobal   -ERic
        (what happened to my original post?  Are jobs listings now not
        appropriate for the motd?)
         \_ The motd will never be the same after four years of Dubya
            and four more to go.
2005/1/10-12 [Computer/HW/Memory, Computer/SW/OS/VM] UID:35646 Activity:nil
1/10    I have VMware 3, how do I get around the 896M RAM limit?
        \_ I don't think you can.  Isn't it a technical limitation?
           Upgrade to Workstation 4.5.
           \_ Workstation 5 is available in beta. Release date?
2019/01/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:January:10 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>