Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:March:02 Wednesday <Tuesday, Thursday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2005/3/2-3 [Consumer/CellPhone, Consumer/PDA] UID:36476 Activity:low
3/1     Any recommendations for a Treo 650 case? I was looking at one
        named RhinoSkin, but I was wondering if there are better cases
        on the market. tia.
        \_ Maybe has one--I bought my case for the
           Archos Gmini 440 there and it's pretty nice.  They seemed to
           have some smartphone-type accessories.  Also look at
   Given that, does anyone know if
           Palm has any plans to lower the price on the things anytime in
           the near future?  -John
        \_ I have a Rhino Skin for my Palm Tungsten, it's turned out to
           be quite durable.
2005/3/2-3 [Reference/Celebration] UID:36477 Activity:nil 66%like:33383 66%like:34814 66%like:35110 66%like:39339
3/2     Happy birthday, Yahoo!!
        \_ Thanks!  How did you know it's my birthday?
           \_ It's posted on slashdot, you're very famous!
2005/3/2-3 [Recreation/Travel/LasVegas] UID:36478 Activity:kinda low
3/2     Breaking Vegas, interesting series on the history channel.
        I can't believe someone said that they cheat, yet the Casinos
        haven't prosecuted him.
        On a separate note, is card counting legal?
        \_ card counters say no, casinos say yes.  casinos also
           sign so if they think you're card counting successfully
           they escort you out.  it's pretty hard to successfully
           card count though so they are happy for the not very
           smart to come on down to vegas and spend all their money
           to try.
           \_ There are restaurants that refuse service to people who
              wear flip flops.  Does that make wearing flip flops illegal?
              What casino takes the official position that card counting
              is illegal (that is to say not merely refusing service to
              those who do, but instead having the card counter arrested
              for a violation of the law, as they would say a pickpocket)?
        \_ We've been over this. Yes, it is legal if you are just using
           your own brain. If you are successful at it you will be barred
           from the casino, but they cannot prosecute you.
        \_ Well, if you think about it, the Casinos are essentially
           cheating anyway. All the games are rigged in their favor,
           so technically speaking you're not really cheating, just
           undoing the House advantage. Obviously Casinos need to
           cheat to stay in business though.
           \_ Definitions of cheat all involve some concept of fraud or
              deception.  Insofar as the casino makes the rules of the game
              known to the player ahead of time, there is no fraud or
              deception, and therefore no cheating on the side of the casino.
              It is the player's choice to participate in a game governed by
              the albeit unfavorable rules enumerated by the casino.
              \_ Well said.
        \_ the cheat in one of the casinos is not a card counter:
2005/3/2-3 [Uncategorized/Multicategory] UID:36479 Activity:kinda low
3/02    I am looking for a DVD writer as a backup device for my Mac laptop
        (I don't have/want a superdrive).  I have never used a dvd writer
        before and would like to hear your recommendation.  tia.
        \_ Get a LiteON drive, easy firmware upgrades, reads/writes almost
           anything. If the LiteON can't read it, chances are nothing
           can. I also highly recommend the Pioneer, overall quality
           is very good, stable burns even on cheapie see-through media
           (don't expect it to last though).
           LiteON drives can be purchased online. Retail they're sold as
           \_ I respectfully disagree.  The NECs are much better writers
              than the Liteons.  I just use the Liteons since they support
              kprobe2 to verify the burns.
        \_ Pioneer. These are the most reliable and best supported.
2005/3/2-3 [Computer/SW/Languages/Java] UID:36480 Activity:nil
3/2     Java experts please help:  I have a class FooCanvas which extends
        java.awt.Canvas.  If I draw into FooCanvas is there any way to read
        the framebuffer of FooCanvas?  FooCanvas implements no pixel-reading
        methods of its own.
        \_ You could do your own double buffering: override
           update(Graphics g) to not paint directly into g, rather
           use the graphics context of a java.awt.Image internal to
           your object as the param to the paint call and call drawImage on
           the Graphics in update to actually get your canvas painted.
           You can then externally access what you have drawn through the
           image. -ciyer
2005/3/2-3 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:36481 Activity:very high
3/2     Interesting writeup on how Palestinian terror is fundamentally
        flawed, and must be abandoned.
                \_ " If the possession of an enormous stockpile of nuclear
             weapons does not make you a sovereign state, it is
             difficult to say what would."
        \_ Who is right and who is wrong? Here is something for you
           good Christians to memorize:
              good = Christians > Jews > Other Religions > Muslims
           In another word, Christians are always right. Any question?
           \_ Can't argue with the article, huh?
        \_ The whole article is filled with so many distortions and outright
           falsehoods that it is not worth bothering with. I suppose you
           think that the Palestinians should just all leave or die
           and give their land over to the Settlers. Because if they
           did not defend themselves, that is what would have happened.
           had not defended themselves, that is what would have happened.
           But I cannot argue with his conclusions, no matter how error
           filled and fallacious his argument is.
        \_ You don't need a whole article.
           If your side has suicide bombers blowing up civilians, you're
           on the wrong side.  This is debatable, but if you try to debate
           the legitimacy of suicide bombers blowing up civilians, I'd say
           you were also on the losing side of the debate.
           \_ If you are on the side of people taking other people's land
                and tearing down their houses, you are on the losing
                side of the debate.
              \_ If the two sides are:  Blow up civilians with suicide bombers;
                 and assassinating the leaders of those responsible for
                 the bombings with innocent lives (including children) lost
                 in the assassinations, and demolishing the homes of innocent
                 people who are related by blood to the bombers -- guess which
                 side is the losing side?
                 \_ Both sides.
                    \_ Okay.  But let's say you didn't have to ally yourself
                       with a side.  Let's say you were judging which side
                       is worse.  Which would it be?
                       \_ The PA is automatically worse because their goal
                          of destroying Israel is, and always has been,
                          fantasy.  If they had stated asked for a two
                          state solution, they would've had it years ago.
                          \_ The point is, if your side has suicide bombers
                             killing civilians with the goal being to kill
                             as many civilians as possible to help your side,
                             you're on the wrong side.
                             \_ Sooo... we have 2 different reasons why PA
                                is worse than Israel.  Will none stand
                                for the Palestinian cause?
                                \_ Maybe as soon as they stop with the
                                   organized suicide bombers blowing up
                                   And you know, who knows, that might happen.
                          \_ The PA's goal has not been the destruction of
                             Isreal for at least a decade now. What is your
                             excuse for assassinating the Palestinian
                             leadership and blowing up their civic institutions?
                             Oh yeah, you have no one to negotiate with. What
                             a dumbass argument. You kill all the leaders
                             of a group and then castigate them for not
                             having any leaders. It is hard to imagine
                             a more immoral policy.
                             \_ Which group are you talking about?  The
                                Palestinian people as a group or a subgroup
                                within in?
                                \_ PA stands for Palestinian Authority.
                                   \_ The question is, does the PA support
                                      suicide bombing?
                                      \_ Certainly not today. The official
                                         stance of Arafat was that he was
                                         opposed to them after 1982(?), but
                                         others think that he secretly supported
                                         them. A claim like that is hard to
                                         refute or prove, either way.
                                         \_ Did Israel assassinate Arafat;
                                            or other PA leaders not associated
                                            with groups that support suicide
                             \_ If the leaders being assassinated head a group
                                which supports suicide bombers, it's not a bad
                                idea to kill them.
                                If the leaders being assassinated oppose
                                suicide bombing, it's a pretty bad idea to kill
                                \_ Why not simply arrest them and bring them
                                   to trail? Why the need for extra judicial
                                   killing guaranteed to have collateral
                                   civilian casualties?
                                   \_ Why the need for suicide bombings against
                                      civilians which are guaranteed to have
                                      civilian casualties?
                                      Why not simply protest the occupation
                                      and hold demonstrations?
                       \_ Which is better, being blind or being deaf? Either
                          way, you lose. Better/worse here is semantics at
                          best, trivialization more like. Suicide bombings are
                          terrible and reprehensible; so's land grabbing.
                          Neither justifies or excuses the other.
                          \_ I doubt it.  You're the one who's arguing
                             semantics.  Clearly, suicide bombing is worse
                             in this case.
                             \_ Land grabbing is worse, cause the motivation
                                is greed.
                                \_ "Land grabbing" in general is bad.
                                   In the specific context of punishing the
                                   other side because they won't stop using
                                   suicide bombers -- suicide bombing is
                                   clearly worse -- and it should be obvious
                                   that the primary motivations are punishment
                                   and (perhaps) protection, not greed.
                                   \_ The land grabbing obviously came first.
                                      And is it worse to kill civilians via
                                      suicide bomber or rocket from a
                                      helicopter? They seem equivalent to me.
                                      \_ Okay, you land grab from my people.
                                         I start blowing up your people with
                                         suicide bombers.  I think the second
                                         part is worse.  A much more sane
                                         response is anything not involving
                                         suicide bombers.
                                         The Man is going to screw with you and
                                         your livelihood.  However, you are
                                         strengthening The Man by using suicide
                                         Killing civilians from a helicopter
                                         != killing civilians from a helicopter
                                            as a result of their being innocent
                                            bystanders while targeting the
                                            leaders of suicide bombers;
                                         Killing civilians from a helicopter
                                         ~= killing civilians with a suicide
                                         \_ If your argument is that using
                                            suicide bombers is impolitic,
                                            you have no quibble with me.
                                            If your argument is that the
                                            Palestinians do not have the
                                            same right to self-defence that
                                            everyone else in the world has,
                                            then we are going to have to
                                            agree to disagree.
                                            \_ "right to self-defence" does
                                               not include suicide bombing of
                                               civilians with the intent to
                                               kill as many civilians as
                                               \_ How do you feel about the
                                                  bombing of the King David
                                                  Hotel by Irgun?
                                                  \_ I am not answering your
                                                     question directly, but can
                                                     say:  If Irgun existed
                                                     today, and planned suicide
                                                     bombings in 2005 with the
                                                     intent to kill as many
                                                     civilians as possible, the
                                                     leaders of Irgun should be
                                                     \_ Why does it matter so
                                                        much to you what the
                                                        method of delivery is?
                                                        If it is wrong today,
                                                        it was wrong in 1946
                                                        and visa versa, in
                                                        my opinion.
                                                        \_ Anyways, thanks
                                                           for arguing with me.
                                                           This has led me
                                                           to think more about
2005/3/2-3 [Computer/Networking] UID:36482 Activity:high
3/2     If I subscribe to DSL, I can connect to the internet and talk on the
        phone at the same time.  Does that mean I can connect via DSL on one
        machine and connect via a dial-up modem on another machine at the same
        time?  Thanks.  -- yuen
        \_ Assuming you install the frequency filter they gave you, yes.
           \_ I hearby officially announce my ignorance on the subject.
              What is a frequency filter and how is it installed? It was
              expecting something like htonl for floats.
              \_ Non authoritative primer on DSL - DSL utilizes the same
                 copper that dial-up modem (traditional voice) does.
                 However, instead of an analog signal it sends over a
                 digital signal. DSL also does not utilize a modem, as
                 modulation and demodulation of a digital signal is
                 not required. DSL utilizes a very high frequency range
                 that is typically not used by traditional voice
                 communications. However, you can still hear the interference
                 from the high frequency, (probably due to the usual
                 frequency enhancing/cancelling/echoing/etc. which I
                 can't comment on) and so to prevent that from occurring
                 they've designed a frequency filter which filters out the
                 DSL signal. This allows you to talk on the phone without
                 having an annoying hiss in the background. I'm not
                 sure if the hiss will affect a dialup modem's signal
                 (it probably does), but you'll definitely want to install
                 one regardless.
                 \_ DSL utilizes frequency above the voice band.  The filter
                    /hybrid is used to filter out the high freq noise for
                    your phone.  In adsl, digital data is modulated
                    through a IFFT/FFT.  Signals are then converted to analog
                    and blasted through the copper wire through a transceiver.
                    \_ So the $19.99/mo "DSL" that SBC Yahoo sells is actually
                       ADSL, right?
                 \_ sorry, DSL uses modems.  the modulation standard is, for
                    example G.lite, and occupies a different spectrum so
                    that this trick w/ a low-pass filter allows the line
                    to be shared with a POTS signal that has its own specific
                    band-pass characteristics.  what's interesting is that
                    the DSL modem can tolerate the high voltage ring indication
                    without any disruption of service.
              \_ It's simple, they give you a bunch of filters, you install one
                 on each of your phone outlets EXCEPT the DSL one.
              \_ I like to point out that, despite the filter, it somehow fried
                 one of my Panasonic fax machine twice. If I connect my fax
                 to my normal line, it will operate fine. If I connect to DSL
                 line with filter, after a few weeks, the machine will act up
                 weired, after a few months, it stopped working. It was during
                 warranty period, so they replaced the whole board. But after
                 a few weeks, it started to act weired again. So now I have
                 comcast and the fax works fine. I think the filter is far from
                 \_ Would daisy-chaining the filters for the fax machine help?
                    -- yuen
2005/3/2-3 [Uncategorized] UID:36483 Activity:nil
3/2     Is there a standard network format for floats?  Perhaps the IEEE
        network standard?
2005/3/2-3 [Reference/Religion] UID:36484 Activity:very high
3/2     I just found out Knuth is a Lutheran.  So do the anti-religion folks
        here now think Knuth doesn't use his brains? -emarkp
        \_ For such a smart guy, why are you so eager to resurrect this
           ad hominem trollish conversation?  If the tone starts out so
           hostile, do you really think you're going to change his mind?  Did
           his sophomoric arguments really get to you that badly?  I'd think
           that a deeply religious person would have developed much thicker
           skin than that going to an institution like UCB.
        \_ I am "anti-religion". Does Knuth use his brains? Obviously he does.
           So what? This is the "appeal to authority" fallacy. A lot of famous
                    \_ No it isn't (it would be an appeal to authority if I
                       said "sine Knuth believes, so should you").  It is a
                       counterexample to the claim that religious people don't
                       use their brains. -emarkp
                       \_ Obviously what's meant is in the context of religion.
                          We have no way to know how Knuth thinks about
                          religion and no reason to even care.
                          \_ Then how is this "appeal to authority"?  -emarkp
                             \_ you're holding up someone known for brains in
                                CS as an example of using brains on religion
                                \_ Well, he /has/ used his brains on religion.
                                   His lectures show precisely how. -emarkp
                                   \_ Ok I know nothing about this. But in
                                      general his CS studies don't give any
                                      weight to whatever religious ideas he
                                      might have.
                                      \_ (sigh) I /know/ that.  I wasn't
                                         claiming they did.  The point isn't
                                         that anyone should believe exactly
                                         what Knuth believes.  The point is
                                         that you can't dismiss (say) all
                                         Christians as not using their brains.
                                         \_ But you can dismiss them as having
                                            faulty reasoning.
                                            \_ Why is everyone on motd so
                                               fucking binary?
                                            \_ Why?  You're begging the
                                               question. -emarkp
                         Why not? I haven't seen his reasoning. _/
                         Every other attempt to reason belief in Christianity
                         I've seen has been flawed IMO so I doubt he's
                         different. Anyway I'm not the one who made the
                         "don't use brain" assertion and I'm not willing to
                         defend it on its face.
                         \_ "reasoning belief" is practically a contradiction
                            in terms.  some people are fine with this
                            contradiction.  some are not.  some people find
                            solace in faith. as long as they don't impose on
                            others, i'm just fine with it.
           people were (at least ostensibly) religious. They may be
           distinguished in their own field of study but they have no more
           insight than anyone else when it comes to religion. And not long ago
           it wasn't wise to admit atheism or even non-Christianity. Actually
           I still don't feel comfortable admitting that as a rule, I still
           come across a person occasionally who will find that shocking and
           think I'm corrupted by Satan or whatever. Or for example politics
           which requires all candidates to assert faith in God repeatedly.
           I believe many churches are "evil" entities, in that they are greedy
           and out to increase their power. This was clearly the case with the
           Catholic church. Even today the Catholic church is obscenely rich.
           \_ It's "clearly the case" with the Catholics?  Yeah, that greedy
              bastard the Pope...surely you can back that up? -emarkp
              \_ Look, just do some research into the gory details of the
                 Catholic Church. It's a long history and far too much for the
                 motd. That doesn't mean the current Pope is some greedy evil
                 bastard. But they still extract a LOT of money from their
                 worldwide membership. Who controls this power? It's pretty
                 complex now. But if you look at the early roots of all these
                 religions you can see how priesthoods directly profited.
                 The priests described in the bible were the masters of their
                 tribe, receiving cuts of the holy sacrifices, delegating
                 power to the kings etc.
                 \_ Oh, I know the Catholic church has a sordid history.  We're
                    talking about here and now though. -emarkp
                 power to the kings etc.
                 \_ Priests in the bible?  The only priests described in the
                    bible are Jewish priests, not Catholic ones.  Are some of
                    these Jewish priests corrupted.  Yes, one is involved in
                    putting Jesus on the cross.
                    \_ I was talking about the general setup. The priest class,
                       regardless if it was corrupt, ran the show.
                       \_ Yes, that was why Jesus was against the Pharisees,
                          and why Martin Luther was against the Catholic
                          Church.  However, Jesus did not reject having a
                          church (i.e. "organized religion").  Just because
                          some churches get corrupted doesn't mean we should
                          not have a church, which, in its purest sense, just
                          means a group of Christians worshipping together.
                          church (i.e. "organized religion").
                          \_ You really don't know if he did. What you think
                             you know about Jesus is what's provided by the
                             church. There's no real record of what he said.
                             Bible stuff was written long after he died, if
                             he ever existed. Martin Luther has no authority..
                             how could the Catholic Church be wrong? It was
                             a product of the apostolic succession etc.
                             \_ Everything Jesus said is so obviously from
                                the viewpoint of Heaven, that I am convinced
                                it is true.  No mortal could have come up
                                with what Jesus said in the Gospels.  Also,
                                it's not as easy as you think for your
                                supposed corrupt church to fake everything.
                                There are multiple sources, many manuscripts,
                                etc.  Don't forget during the early years
                                Christians were fed to lions.  For a long
                                period of time, there isn't a centralized,
                                powerful church, and I don't think they can
                                easily erase and fake things later on.  If
                                the bible is edited by people bent on greed,
                                it wouldn't be as it is today, which reminds
                                me of an Abe Lincoln quote:
                                "If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this
                                \_ right. multiple sources that conflict,
                                   sources that appeared hundreds of years
                                   later, etc. Let's look at your other
                                   assertions: no mortal could come up with?
                                   Why not? There are plenty of other examples
                                   to draw from. What about Buddha? He's not
                                   considered holy by Xtians yet some of Jesus
                                   stuff sounds like Buddha. There's also the
                                   previous scripture for them to draw from,
                                   that sets the tone. All I can say is, try
                                   to study the early Christian history from
                                   unbiased sources and you'll find that it
                                   is absolutely possible.
                                   \_ If you wish to think of it as one big
                                      conspiracy theory, that's your choice.
                                      I am going to go eat dinner, and then
                                      read the bible before I go to bed.
                                      Good night.
                                   \_ Siddhartha does have some good stuff,
                                      but he isn't Jesus.  There is a book
                                      called Lotus and the Cross by Ravi
                                      Zacharias written as a dialogue between
                                      Jesus and Buddha.  It's not a bad read.
                             \_ Obviously he's talking about "as far as we
                                know".  Also, IIRC Clement of Rome was a
                                contemporary of Peter and historical accounts
                                leave little doubt that Jesus /existed/.  The
                                question is how accurate the Gospel accounts
                                are. -emarkp
                                \_ There is plenty of doubt that Jesus existed
                                   as one person. There were a number of holy
                                   guys running around and stories of miracle
                                   workers etc. We /still/ have stories about
                                   miracle workers. Nobody says they're Jesus.
                                   There were lots of religious cults, the
                                   Christ cult grew up as just one of many, and
                                   many years after the supposed events.
           The LDS church follows the same path. Thankfully due to long
           \_ Please show how the LDS church is "greedy and out to increase"
              it's power.  And of course show how an organization has a will of
              its own. -emarkp
              \_ organisations can't have a will? the nature of organised
                 churches is they have authority figures dictating things.
                 all organisations have leaders who direct the organisation.
                 As for LDS, it's designed to extract money from membership
                 and members are directed to proselytize. Mormons are supposed
                 to do those conversion missions. LDS church is very wealthy.
                 \_ How is it designed to extract money?  Who benefits from it?
                    Yes, members are directed to proselytize, but we believe
                    the teachings to be true, so why wouldn't we? -emarkp
                    \_ Obviously, the clergy benefit from it. Brigham Young
                       had 27 wives. Haha.
                       \_ How do they benefit?  You think having 27 wives is
                          only a benefit?  Having many women to sleep with
                          might sound great to you now, but keep in mind he had
                          over 40 children.  Furthermore, polygamy in early
                          Utah was not restricted to the leadership. -emarkp
                          \_ They get money and power and respect. Young
                             wasn't working 9-5 and changing 50 diapers.
                             \_ Well, he was farming his land, which wasn't
                                exactly a cakewalk. -emarkp
           struggle, resisting the church now doesn't mean severe hardship
           or death. But if you live in a religious community then you'd still
           feel "cut off" from the club and so forth. Religions take advantage
           of this sense of belonging, and comforting tales of the afterlife,
           to perpetuate themselves.
           \_ Non sequitur.  If the LDS (say) church really is true, they're
              not taking advantage of anything.
              \_ What? They take advantage regardless if it's true.
                 \_ So I'm taking advantage of you by telling you not to jump
                    off a cliff?  -emarkp
                    \_ i said "take advantage of xx to perpetuate themselves".
                       not sure what you're trying to argue about.
                       \_ The consequence of jumping off a cliff is that you
                          get injured or killed.  The consequence of sin is
                          spiritual death. -emarkp
                          \_ So they take advantage of people's fear of death.
                             They're not just standing there saying not to
                             jump off cliffs. There's a whole apparatus set
                             up.. they're saying unless you are part of their
                             organisation you're doomed. That's quite different
                             from merely telling someone not to jump.
                             \_ So now it's just "fear of death"?  If the
                                resurrection /will/ happen, then telling people
                                to prepare for it isn't "taking avantage" of a
                                fear, but simply giving people good
                                information.  If the spiritual consequences of
                                sin are in fact as dire spiritually as jumping
                                off a cliff is physically, then there's no
                                difference. -emarkp
                                \_ The difference is the organizations like LDS
                                   or the CC that are run more like powerful
                                   \_ What does this even mean?  And what does
                                      this have to do with the above? -emarkp
                                      \_ I'm saying you don't need a powerful
                                         organisation to tell people not to
                                         jump off cliffs. They aren't "telling"
                                         people to prepare. They are saying you
                                         have to join the group.
                                         \_ But if it's true that you have to
                                            join the group, then they're not
                                            lying or levereging, etc.  And was
                                            does it even mean "to be run like a
                                            corporation"? -emarkp
                                            \_ It's obviously not true. Jesus
                                               never said you have to join some
                                               church. His supposed apostles
                                               who started Jesus, Inc. said it.
                                               Jesus said whoever believes in
                                               him will have everlasting life.
                                               This has never panned out.
                                               Everybody kicked the bucket.
                                               \_ Oh, it's obvious.  Glad
                                                  that's settled.  So you
                                                  reject the biblical account
                                                  of the apostles, but accept
                                                  the biblical account of what
                                                  Jesus said?  That really
                                                  doesn't make much sense.
                                               \_ Matthew 16:18 and Matthew
                                                  18:17: Jesus talking about the
                                                  church.  Jesus also goes to
                                                  the synagogue to preach, and
                                                  chase merchants out of the
                                                  temple, saying they have made
                                                  the house of his Father a den
                                                  of thieves.
                                        \_ I've read some similar sites.  If
                                           someone wants to view things
                                           through cynical lenses, I am sure
                                           they can come up with a lot of
                                           theories.  But the message of the
                                           bible speaks for itself.
                                         \_ Just remember that the bible didn't
                                            drop out of heaven in a miracle. It
                                            was written by human hands in human
                                            languages over centuries and had
                                            revisions and additions.
                                            \_ We believe that the bible was
                                               written by many hands but all
                                               under the guidance of the Holy
                                   \_ Before becoming a pastor, our church's
                                      pastor was a derivative trader making
                                      a 6 figure salary.  Now he is making around
                                      pastor was a derivative trader making a 6
                                      figure salary.  Now he is making around
                                      $30k per year.  He is the only person
                                      receiving a salary at our church.  Please
                                      tell me how my church is run like a
                                      powerful corporation.
                                      \_ I never claimed every church is.
                                         \_ You didn't even define it. -emarkp
        \_ You really don't get it, do you?  I can't speak for the other
           "anti-religion" people on the motd, but I have nothing against
           religion or religious people as long as they don't try to force
           a religious-based morality on the rest of society through law.
           Also, when I see a politically conservative religious person trying
           to enforce their beliefe system on the rest of us, I don't think
           they're "not using their brain", I think they're evil.  That's
           \_ You're not "anti-religion" then.  I'm referring to people who say
              that anyone who is religious is stupid.  I knew a number of them
              when I was in school.  And someone posted just below:
              "the same reason that people believe in organized religion:
              because they don't use their brains."
              \_  Ah, see now you're adding the word "organized" to religion.
                  I'm not strictly anti-organized religion either, but I
                  certainly view it with a lot more skepticism than pure
                  religion in the sense of a personal belief system.  The
                  "not using their brains" part seems like bullshit to me
                  as far as that goes.  I've known too many religiously devout
                  scientists who were as smart or smarter than me to buy that
                  one anymore.  That sounds like pompous sysadmins blowing off
                  \_ What is your objection to organization?  -emarkp
                     \_ In principle? Nothing. In practice, I think organized
                        religions are generally forces of evil in the world,
                        particularly when coupled with political power.
                        When Islam just means praying towards Mecca, eating
                        Halal food, reading the Koran, and claiming that
                        Muhammad was a prophet, I have no objection...but
                        throw in a few Clerics who claim Allah wants people
                        to kill Americans and Jews, and you have one of the
                        greatest forces of evil in todays world.  Western
                        Christians are no longer as evil as that because of
                        several hundred years of struggle by liberals against
                        the power of established churches, but qualitatively,
                        they all lead toward the same evil.
                        \_ Interestingly, Islam is a problem precisely because
                           it /isn't/ organized.  There's no central authority
                           to say "hey guys, killing innocents isn't ok".
                           \_ Sorry, not to engage in emarkp bashing, but
                              you're only partially correct--there may not be
                              any "central authority" in islam, but there is
                              quite a bit of decentralized authority in the
                              form of imams and muftis, some of whom are more
                              respected than others based on reputation or
                              family background.  Obviously an imam of a huge
                              mosque will carry more weight than another one.
                              Al-Azhar and al-Quds also lay claim to strong
                              academic "authority".  And shi'ism has a concept
                              of ranks among ayatollahs--if a grand ayatollah
                              yells about martyrs, that's some pretty central
                              authority there.  -John
                              \_ Yes, I know this (and I don't consider
                                 disagreeing with me civilly to be bashing),
                                 but if there was a single central authority,
                                 he could denounce the behavior.  Alternatively
                                 if he supported it, we'd know it was a holy
                                 war, period. -emarkp
                                 \_ There doesn't have to be a single central
                                    authority for it to be a holy war--this
                                    would also not insure the absence thereof,
                                    as with bishops objecting to the crusades,
                                    or even sects of christianity who do not
                                    recognize, say, the pope.  -John
                                    \_ Good point.  I think it would help
                                       though, and that Islams largely
                                       decentralized leadership is a detriment,
                                       not a benefit. -emarkp
                                       \_ Mmh...think "pope Ahmed Yassin", or
                                          "pope Khomeini".  Consider the
                                          consequences.  John Paul II is a
                                          tired old mysogynist who's got some
                                          strong convictions and has done some
                                          good and some bad things, but he'd
                                          be largely ignored if he told the
                                          world's catholics to go start a holy
                                          war.  -John
                           \_ Uh...right.  You mean like how Christian leaders
                              used their leadership to stop the hollocaust in
                              Europe when Christian Germany was trying to take
                              over the world for the master race?   How about
                              the moral authority of the perpetrators of the
                              Inquisition?  I'll say it again: that level
                              of evil has been largely eradicated from the
                              Christian world largely in *spite* of, not
                              *because* of church leadership.
                              \_ Martin Luther was a liberal?
                              \_ Um, the Inquisition was several centuries ago,
                                 and the anonyomous poster said that organized
                                 religions ARE (as in currently, not several
                                 centuries ago) forces of evil.  You'll note
                                 that the Holocaust was organized by Hitler,
                                 not any church. -emarkp
                                 \_ Nice double standard.  You claimed that
                                    a problem with Islam today is the lack
                                    of some central moral authority who could
                                    stand up and say "terrorism is against God,
                                    so you have to stop."  My point was that
                                    the organized church did nothing to stop
                                    a Christian nation from commiting
                                    crimes against humanity in the recent
                                    \_ The Holocaust wasn't done /in the name
                                       of religion/.  Islam terrorists are.
                                       You don't see the difference?  Also, you
                                       said that they ARE forces of evil.  Not
                                       that they failed to stop forces of evil.
                                       [reinserted after someone removed it]
                                    I'll go further and say that you are
                                    exactly wrong about Islam today.  I know
                                    American Muslims who go about their
                                    business as good, moral people in spite of
                                    the idiocy perpetrated by their fellows in
                                    the middle east, in my opinion *because*
                                    they don't have to listen to some
                                    hatemonger from Saudi Arabia to be a
                                    \_ I know some too.  I also know Saudi,
                                       Lebanese, and Egyptian muslims who do
                                       the same.  Most of my muslim friends,
                                       though, are far more likely to fly into
                                       a frothing rage than my non-muslim
                                       friends over sensitive religious topics
                                       and these are educated people.  -John
                                    \_ You have no way of knowing that.  It is
                                       just as likely that the leader of Islam
                                       would rebuke them and tell the
                                       equally valid to assert that  the leader
                                       of Islam would rebuke them and tell the
                                       membership to shun terrorists. -emarkp
                              \_ Martin Luther was a liberal?
                              \_ Do you know MLK is a pastor?
                              \_ Abe Lincoln.  Nuff said.
                              \_ Many of the top universities and hospitals in
                                 asia (and elsewhere?) today were founded by
                                 christian organizations.
                              \_ missionaries in England spearheaded the
                                 movement that stopped opium trade in China.
        \_ News flash, Einstein was a Jew, a JEW!
           \_ The Germans claim he was German, and the French claim he was a
              citizen of the world. -- ilyas
           \_ But AFAIK he didn't believe in a personal God.  He used the term
              "God" to refer to the universe. -emarkp
              \_ Actually, Einstein supposedly wanted to become a rabbi
                 when he was young. That obviously changed latter. I doubt
                 you can attribute to Einstein's personal religious beliefs
                 or his own personal beliefs of God (nobody can). Anyway,
                 how devout is Knuth as compared to Einstein? Did you now
                 that Darwin was and remained an Anglican?
                 \_ I found this out because of the book "Things a Computer
                    Scientist Rarely Talks About", which is his 6 lectures he
                    gave at MIT in 1999 about God and CS.  He did a personal
                    project in 1985-6 called "3:16" which was an analysis of
                    translations of the Bible, which came from his teaching a
                    Bible class in his church.  I'd guess he's as devout in his
                    faith as I am in mine. -emarkp
        \_ people aren't perfectly rational, even smart ones. but i'd be
           interested in seeing how many science/math/eng people adopt
           religion later in life rather than being born into it.
           \_ my personal guess: plenty, easier than say people in the
                humanities and social sciences.
        \_ I'm not anti-religion, as long as I can hang out with THESE
2005/3/2-3 [Health/Sleeping] UID:36485 Activity:moderate
3/3     What's a good way to buy a new mattress for cheap? I went to a
        Macy's, but they're kinda expensive. Also, I only need a mattress
        (without a box spring), so I can't take advantage of any special
        sales, which usually sell both together. Is online shopping
        efficient for mattresses? I'd like a major name brand, too.
        \_ Costco carries mattresses.
        \_ Costco?
           \_ Yes, the warehouse.
        \_ How about Mattress Discounter? Or Mancini Sleepworld?
        \_ How about Mistress Discounter? Or Mancini Sleepware?
           \_ Or European Clitworks at Adeline and Ashby?
2005/3/2-3 [Transportation/Car] UID:36486 Activity:nil
3/2     For those interested in engine braking, check out Jake Brake:
        \_ This is impossible to retrofit into the standard overhead camshaft
           \_ Yeah, it's mostly for big-rigs.
2005/3/2-3 [Finance/CC, Industry/Jobs] UID:36487 Activity:nil
3/2     I signed up for a credit card with a retail chain. There is an
        arbitration provision in the agreement and I can reject that provision
        alone by writing them a rejection. I am not planning to sue them
        unless they tries to screw me. Supposedly accepting arbitration makes
        me vulnerable, but would they mark me as a bad customer if I reject it?
        \_ If I were them I'd just reject your application.
           It's not like they're hiring you as a software engineer and
           you're disputing the anti-compete clauses.
           \_ Well, it was an online application and I already got the card.
              \_ Do they really allow you to reject a clause just by writing
                 them?  The usual practice is, if you don't like the terms,
                 then don't sign up (or renew) - take it or leave it.
                 Do they have to accept your rejection?
2005/3/2-3 [Recreation/Celebrity/MichaelJackson, Recreation/Humor] UID:36488 Activity:kinda low Cat_by:auto
3/2     What does Michael Jackson looks like before all the face
        surgery? His current face is like a ghost everytime I look at it.
        \_ I remember seeing pictures of his early days, and he looked like a
           normal black person with dark skin and African complexion.  Nothing
           as scary as how he is today.
           The complete horrific history.
           \_ Why does anyone give a shit about Michael Jackson now? The 80's
              are over, folks.
           \_ Wow, there's a new entry since last time I looked.
              That's... disturbing.
2005/3/2-3 [Recreation/Dating] UID:36489 Activity:moderate
3/2     Yahoo! News - Hermaphrodite Frogs Linked to Pesticide Use:
        Maybe this is the reason for the rise of homosexuality these days.
        \_ rise?
        \_ Uh, what do hermaphrodites have to do with homosexuality?  I think
           you might be a little confused.
           \_ I thought if the pesticides is able to tip the hormone scale of
              individuals to grow sexual orgains of the other sex, it'd be
              enought to make the individuals grow affection on the same sex.
              \_ You are confusing two things that have little if anything
                 to with each other.  In case you haven't noticed, homos
                 have the same equipment as the rest of us.
2005/3/2-3 [Health, Health/Skin] UID:36490 Activity:nil
3/2     I got a splinter in my finger about a month or 2 ago.  Since
        it wasn't particularly bothering me, I just ignored it.  It's
        still not particularly bothering me, but I can feel it when
        I put pressure on the exact spot of the splinter.  Since
        it's been almost 2 months, does that mean that it's moved
        deeper into my skin and will be difficult and/or painful
        to remove?  Is it advisable or silly to go to the doctor,
        have them numb it, and then remove it?
        \_ Pin, disinfect by holding over a lighter, shot of booze for the
           pain, start digging.  Minor risk of infection and finger falling
           off--be a real man and disregard.  -John
        \_ If it's not infected (and it doesn't sound like it is)
           then it's probably ok, and you don't need to see a doctor.
            \_ So if I do nothing, will it eventually dissolve, or will
               it just be deeper under my skin so I can't feel it,
               or will my finger just be a sensitive to pressure on
               that spot for the rest of my life? -op
        \_ if you have insurance just go to a dermatologist. they'll
           prob just take care of it in the office in like 5 minutes.
           if not, dont worry unless it gets infected discolored painful
        \_ I had a broken-off cactus needle embedded under my thumbnail
           for about 5 years before it finally disappeared.  I wouldn't
           worry yourself overmuch.
           \_ It worked its way into your heart or your brain now. That's
              why you can't see it.
2005/3/2-3 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:36491 Activity:nil
3/2     Today's features a "How Firefox Works" page!
2005/3/2-3 [Science] UID:36492 Activity:kinda low
3/2     emarkp, I can't wait till we have ET contact. I hope they come down
        and use their superior technology to convince us that their
        religion is better than all the religions on earth.
        \_ Then run SETI@@Home with your idle CPU cycles.
2005/3/2-3 [Recreation/Humor] UID:36493 Activity:nil
3/2     Why do foreigners especially E Europeans and Russians insist on
        insulting people using their funny commie accents? Why don't they
        listen to themselves on tape and make attempts at improving
        themselves?                                           -- !ilyas
        \_ Why do Westerners especially Americans insist on insulting people
           using their funny American accents? Why don't they listen to
           themselves on tape and make attempts at improving themselves?
2005/3/2-3 [Uncategorized] UID:36494 Activity:nil
3/2     BTW, about the Knuth lectures about CS & can still listen to
        them free online:
2005/3/2-4/26 [Uncategorized] UID:36495 Activity:nil 66%like:36465 60%like:36526
3/2     [anonymous troll deleted] -emarkp
        \_ Eerr.. that wasn't exactly anonymous. -jrleek
           \_ It wasn't signed, and the link it went to takes any string.
              Looked anonymous to me. -emarkp
2005/3/2-3 [Computer/SW/Unix] UID:36496 Activity:high
3/2     Is there a way to do "grep p1 file | grep p2" with one grep without
        piping? ie, "grep p1&&p2 file"? Thx.
        \_ use egrep?  man egrep.  Look for egrep -e
           \_ Can I write an alias where I can say "mygrep p1 p2 p3 ... file",
              where I can specify variable number of patterns, with the last
              one being the filename?
              \_ egrep -e '(p1|p2|p3)' filename
                 not sure about the exact syntax
                 \_ are you sure about that? the original poster wants the
                    conjunction rather than the disjunction of several patterns
                    (i.e. all of them, not "any one of"). i don't see how
                    any grep options including those you listed would allow
                    that in a single grep. -alexf
                    \_ you are right, alexf.  I think you can use some
                       regular expression do an AND.
        \_ Can you use sed rather than grep?
           $ sed -n -e '/[pat1]/h' -e '/[pat2]/h' ... -e '/[patN]/p' [file]
           I'm not sure this will work w/ all versions of sed.
        \_ In gnu grep at least you can do:
           egrep -x '.*(p1.*p2|p2.*p1).*' file
           ..though this is tedious and doesn't work for overlapping patterns.
           I usually just pipe grep to grep.  --dbushong
2005/3/2-3 [Computer/SW/Database] UID:36497 Activity:high
3/2     Lets say you are running a website connected to a database.  The
        website stores all sorts of time sensative info in the database,
        like order timestamps, keeping track of various states of stuff,
        etc.  When we go on or off daylight savings time, doesn't that totally
        mess up things that deal with spans of time? How do you deal with that?
        And how do you display things to the user when they happen right around
        the switch-over?  How about people living in regions like Arizona or
        Hawaii, who don't have daylight savings time?
        \_ Your server needs to have a notion of timezone. Certainly it
           should know its own, and most likely that of its users as well (if
           it doesn't, the users are much more likely to be confused by
           consistently wrong-timezone timestamps than by the 2-hours-a-year
           DST problem). Once it does, you should store dates internally
           either in a timezone-insensitive format (read the time(3) manpage,
           i.e. "man 3 time"), or in a timezone-sensitive format with the
           timezone stored as well (although the former is recommended).
           The standard notion of timezone encodes the DST status as well.
           If you store dates in GMT, GMT is completely DST-free. If you store
           them in, say, Pacific, it will have timezone PST for normal time
           and PDT for daylight saving time. So the date that gets displayed
           as "Sun Apr  3 01:18:19 PST 2005", and is stored internally as
           1112519899, is one hour earlier than the date displayed as
           "Sun Apr  3 03:18:19 PDT 2005" and stored internally as 1112523499.
           This is obvious when you deal with the internal representations:
           1112523499-1112519899=3600. -alexf
          \_ UTC
                \_ I guess my related question was, what if someone changes the
                   the time back 1 hour ... Or on a real server would no one
                   do that ever.
                   \_ Use UTC for everything. Use NTP to keep it synchronized.
                      UTC only changes by one leap second every few years.
            \_ Gah, fine, UTC, not GMT, I stand corrected. Nitpickers. -alexf
               \_ If, for some reason, you want to know a *lot* more about
                  the history of UTC, GMT and precision time keeping in general,
                  you might enjoy reading "Splitting the Second", by Tony Jones.
        \_ In practice, you don't have to worry about this.  Use your database
           server's native DATETIME (mysql) or TIMESTAMP (everyone else) data
           type.  Store the current time using SYSDATE (oracle) or NOW()
           (everyone else).  When you access it formatted, you'll get it
           in the local time format.  So you have to worry about fucking with
           your clock, by not about changing time zones.
2005/3/2-3 [Computer/SW/Security] UID:36498 Activity:kinda low
3/2     I can read mail through CalMail or BearMail but can't POP. Anyone else
        having this problem?
        \_ You probably shouldn't've ignored the 3 (or was it 4?) warnings
           that the CalMail people sent out in the past month that vanilla
           POP3, being blatantly insecure by way of transmitting passwords
           in cleartext, will be (and now has been) permanently disabled
           as of 03/01/2005. Set up your mailer to use secure POP (or SIMAP),
           on the default port, 995 (or, respectively, 993). -alexf
2005/3/2-3 [Reference/Religion] UID:36499 Activity:insanely high
3/2     I just took the Christianity test on Worldview - a sort
        of barometer that determines how Christian you are - and in my case,
        evidently, given my liberal background, I thought I'd be classified
        as a pagan, but in fact, I scored -26 out of a possible 170 points,
        which classifies me as a:
        "Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Secular Humanist Worldview Thinker"
        How about you guys, what did you get?
        \_ Loaded, incorrectly phrased and combined questions.  Test is
           invalid.  Next?  -John
           \_ They also tell you what the correct answers are at the end, so
              you can study to do better next time. -- ilyas
           \_ obviously, you're a bad Christian and you're going to hell.
              \_ Thank god for that.  -John
                \_ John is a Heil Nazi German, he's going to hell regardless
        \_ Well, yeah, obviously. What a fucking waste of my time.  After
           reading emarkp debate, I was just starting to think co-existing
           with religious conservatives might actually be possible, since
           he seems like a reasonable guy.  Thanks for bringing me back to
           earth.  I got a -47, and if I'm a Communist/Marxist, well, I just
           don't know what to say--that's beyond stupid.
           \_ well, it's a Christian site. You're either a Christian, or
              not in which case they categorize as "Communist/Socialist/Secular"
              I'm sure you've heard this before-- You're either good, or evil.
              You're either with us/them, or against us/them. That's the
              mentality of many religious folks.
        \_ I only got a 95/170, and I got pretty irritated at the questions.
           \_ But Mormons aren't really Christian, so that's okay.
              \_ That was the funny part.  I got irritated about the focus on
                 the Bible and politics and was thinking "where's the focus on
                 God?". -emarkp
        \_ That thing is a complete waste of time. "George W. Bush is the
           president" ? :rolleyes: I got -21.
           \_ He stole the presidency.
              \_ In 2004?
           \_ Rolling your eyes: -10
        \_ Your classification is:
           Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Secular Humanist Worldview Thinker
           Heehee.  I am a godless communist! -- ilyas
           \_ how many points?
              \_ -15.  I left a lot of things at 'No Opinion' (agnostic view).
                 I agreed with the fundies the most on social issues and
                 education, not surprisingly.  We want the same things for
                 different reasons. -- ilyas
                 \_ ilyas wants to kill the homos?
                \_ dear religious person, I got a -10, which means that I'm
                   either 5 points more Christian or 5 points less pagan
                   than Mr. Libertarian ilyas. Does that mean
                   probabilistically, I'm going to a slightly lesser hell
                   than ilyas?
                   \_ Is Hell a Graduated concept? Answer is in "God For
                      Dummies", page 2532 3rd paragraph
                      \_ Dante seemed to think so.
        \_ -20
        \_ Damn. I got the highest score so far out of anyone who's not
           emarkp. 0. That's scary.  Too much yoga. -nivra
           \_ I got a -170 but then again I didn't answer a single question.
              I guess I must be going to hell because I have no opinion
              whatsoever. By the way I like how they give you all the
              correct answers. Now I can study for it in case I ever need
              to infiltrate into the Christian ring to check out hot chicks.
        \_ I got a 27 or 17%. I am a Socialist Worldview Thinker! You can
           rest easy now nivra. -ausman
           \_ woot. I'm no longer the only socialist worldview thinker.
        \_ -31 (-18%). I think CAL and a childhood in Soviet Russia got to me
           \_ ilyas, is that you?
              \_ Reading comprehension >>> you. -- ilyas

<<<<<<< Other Changes Below
        \_ I got 69, which makes me "Secular Humanist Worldview Thinker" --dim
2005/3/2-3 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:36500 Activity:insanely high
3/2     Motd is 50K long, go motd go! Go motd go!
        \_ Why do people say "Go motd go!"?  Why not just "Go motd!"?
           \_ "Go Johnny go go go!"
           \_ I'm going to guess that it has something to do with what you
              heard as a child. Take the famous Inspector Gadget cartoon
              song. It just sounds better when you sing it as "Go Gadget Go!"
              But yeah I agree that all languages [that I personally know
              of] have numerous examples of redundant verbiage.
              \_ While "Go Gadget Go!" was in the theme song, the more
                 memorable phrase was "Go Go Gadget X". I always though
                 the Go X Go! was a homage to Speed Racer, "Go Speed
                 Racer, Go!"
                 \_ I think the lines in the theme song are "go gadget go":
                Inspector Gadget..
                Oo Hoo..
                Inspector Gadget.
                Inspector Gadget..
                Oo Hoo..
                Inspector Gadget.
                Go gadget go!
                Go gadget go!
                Inspector Gadget..
                Oo Hoo..
                Inspector Gadget.
                \_ Ha! You don't think about it as a kid, but now that
                   I'm grown up, the lyrics are STUPID!!!
                   \_ Here he comes
                      here comes Speed Racer (ooh, ahh! ooh, ahh!)
                      Here he comes
                      here comes Speed Racer, he's a demon on wheels
                   \_ I'll get you next time, Gadget...
2019/08/23 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:March:02 Wednesday <Tuesday, Thursday>