Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:March:15 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2005/3/15-17 [Computer/SW/OS/Linux] UID:36694 Activity:low
3/15    I'm trying to install rpms and as I go down the dependency chain,
        it keeps saying "Failed dependencies:
  is needed by B
           C is needed by D"
        Now, I can go ahead and install C, but is a file within the
        RPM that already exists on the system. I can --force install, but
        I'm not so sure that this is such a good idea. What would you do
        in this case?
        \_ I would clarify the question.
        \_ Find out what RPM provides I think that rpm -qpl <file>
           will give you that info (look in the man page to get the
           correct options). Then you can decide if you want to remove
           the old and install the one in C.
        \_ Remove linux and install a real OS.
           \_ Why is Linux not a real OS?
              \_ because it works.
           \_ Yes, like Windows NT.
2005/3/15-16 [Computer/HW/CPU] UID:36695 Activity:high
3/15    It's been a while since I bought a notebook. Is there any reason to
        pay extra $100 to upgrade from XP Home to XP Professional? How about
        Intel Pentium M Processor 7x5, do they run at decent speed relative
        to say, P4? And what's the difference between 1) Crystal View XGA TFT
        and 2) SXGA+ non-crystal view TFT? ok thx
        \_ You definitely want a Pentium M for the power savings.
        \_ XGA = 1024x768, SXGA = 1400x1050
           CrystalView is just the name they gave to a better LCD; don't get
           the last gen LCD
           \_ Comparing a 1024 and a 1400 IBM screen, the 1024 is brighter with
              slightly slower refresh, and the 1400 has a very wide viewing
              angle, but less brightness when viewed Head-on.
        \_ Home has problems working with more than I think 5 computers on a
           LAN and has a bunch of other esoteric cripplings that make it
           unusable by most businesses.  For home use, 'Home' is fine.
           \_ How about dialing in and running VPN to access corporate network?
              Does Home work in this case?
        \_ Clock-for-clock, 7xx Pentium Ms do more work that Pentium 4s.
           The 7xx series also use a lot less power, which means better
           battery life and cooler thighs.  Pentium M is lower voltage, lower
           frequency, bigger cache, and shorter pipeline.
        \_ Generally, multiply the Pentium M frequency by 1.5 to get the
           equivalent Pentium 4 frequency.  So a 2.0 Ghz Pentium M is like
           a 3.0 GHz Pentium 4.
           Anyway, you definitely do not want a Pentium 4 notebook.
           Runs too hot, uses too much power, notebooks are too heavy, they'll
           break from all that -- it's a desktop CPU.
           \_ Pentium 4: Desktop CPU, very hot, high power and clock rate
              Pentium 4M: Pentium 4 at lower voltage and power
              Pentium M/Centrino/7xx: Different design philosophy, very low
               power, lower clock rate but more work per cycle.
              \_ FYI, they don't make the Pentium 4 Mobile anymore
                 Also, the Pentium M not only has a different design
                 philosophy, it was engineered from the ground up as a mobile
        \_ XP Home does not have IIS.  Pro does for development purposes.
           \_ M$ is really good at bundling things and defying antitrust laws.
        \_ My gf wants a cheap laptop(against my advice.)  Are there any
           significant difference between Celeron M 360 and Pentium M 725?
           Besides the cache I mean.  I'm mainly interested in performance
           and battery usage.
              Celeron M's are Pentium M's with half the L2 cache and no
              SpeedStep (always runs at the list frequency).
              See the article for more details.
              Pentium M > Celeron M >> Pentium 4
              \_ Cool.  Thanks for the link.  Her older celeron laptop was
                 dog slow, but this page looks good. -pp
2005/3/15-17 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:36696 Activity:low
3/15    Anyone know of something like spook.el that runs autonomously of
        emacs under Windows, and which can be used to append garbage sigs
        to Mozilla mail?
        \_ get a life.
           \_ Go fuck yourself.  Next?
              \_ Great, now he'll want to marry himself next.  Way to go.
                 \_ I don't think he can legally marry himself -- so I guess
                    you could say he has the same rights as everyone else.
2005/3/15-16 [Recreation/Dating, Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:36697 Activity:very high
3/15    A few months ago, the East Bay Express had an excellent article
        profiling six same-sex couples who got married during the time SF
        was issuing licenses.
        If you can read this article and still oppose gay marriage, you have
        no soul.  These are human beings, just trying to live their lives.
        \_ I hate gays because they have subverted so many English words like
            "gay". And "fruity". And "queer". Fucking homos.
            "gay". And "fruity". And "queer". And "pirate". Fucking homos.
           \_ I thought it was my fellow het's who did this.  ashamed.  --het
        \_ I can probably find equally convincint stories about father/daughter
           brother/sister mother/son.
        \_ if they can share the pain of going thru  child birthing together
           then okay..
           \_ i guess couples with fertility problems are not okay.
           \_ or couples over age of 60.
        \_ Ah, tom.  Always the paragon of tolerance.  "If you don't agree
           with me, you have no soul!"
           \_ Ah, anonymous coward with the ad hominem attack.  Did you read
              the article?  -tom
              \_ I read it when it came out.  I never said if I was for or
                 against gay marriage did I?  I'm just pointing out that
                 your statement is stupid on it's face.  BTW, that's not
                 ad hominem.
                 \_ There is something karmic about an obvious grammar error in
                    a clause which begins with "your statement is stupid". -tom
                    \_ Same sex marriage always results in the Best Motd
                 \_ Dude, someone just called tom a "stupid face".  Apparently
                    the CSUA is allowing junior high school students to join.
           \_ So, your whole argument is "tom sux." Could you just post that
              and save us all the drama? --erikred
        \_ tom, why are you wasting your time convincing us that same sex
           marriage is not evil? Almost everyone on motd is liberal and
           tolerate same sex marriage. The exception would be the religious
           Christians and Mormons, and you can't possibly convert them. So
           why waste your time.    -evil satanic liberal who agrees with tom
           \_ BTW, Mormons are Christians. -emarkp
              \_ Only Mormons think this.
                 \_ Oh, Mormons are Christians...they're just wrong.
                        -Snide Catholic Troll
                    \_ Now that's more like it. -emarkp
                 \_ Sign your name troll. -emarkp (And this is a false
                    statement you're trolling with.)
                    \_ It's a false statement to you because you are
                       Mormon. Do any non-Mormons think this?
                       \_ I work with several non-Mormon Christians in my
                          office, and they have told me that they consider me a
                          Christian.  Since we talk about the Bible and Christ
                          as a group a lot, I'm not surprised. -emarkp
           \_ I posted it because it is the best portrayal of the reality
              of the issue that I've seen; that gays are not trying to subvert
              the institution of marriage, or overthrow society, but are just
              trying to enjoy some of the same rights that the rest of us
              take for granted.  And that one of those rights is the right
              to get "married," not "civil unionized."  I think there are
              still reasonable people who believe that gay marriage is not
              OK but civil unions are; I think that's a cop-out position.
              [For the record, I'm neither gay nor married.]  -tom
              \_ Remarkably, I don't think gays are "trying to subvert the
                 institution of marriage, or overthrow society."  But the
                 argument "they're just trying to get the same rights as
                 everyone else" avoids debate and trivializes the issue.  It's
                 the equivalent of "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"--just the
                 other side of the issue. -emarkp
                 \_ I don't see your point.  They *are* just trying to get the
                    same rights as everyone else.  How is that avoiding
                    debate or trivializing the issue?  I think the issue is
                    totally fundamental.  -tom
                 \_ I've heard that "Adam and Steve" crap since I was a little
                    kid at the Christian school I went to.  You are a fucking
                    bigot Mark.
                    \_ Huh?  Try re-reading the post.  He says that's a
                       stupid thing to say.  Sheesh.
                    \_ Wow!  pp really hates gay marriage!  emarkp says
                       the phrase about "Adam and Steve" is dumb, and this
                       guy calls him a bigot! Bravo!
                    \_ Bad comparison (my fault).  The typical response is that
                       they do have the same rights as anyone else.  A gay man
                       can marry a woman just like a straight man can.  Now
                       can we both agree that your statement and this
                       counterstatement are equally useless?  -emarkp
                       \_ No we can't.  The response is a stupid response.
                          As was mentioned before the argument could be
                          rephrased to deny mixed race (for the commonly
                          used version of race) marriages because then
                          everyone has the same rights, the right to marry
                          a member of the same race.
                          \_ I concur.  -tom
                          \_ But then the pro-SSM side argument can be disputed
                             by pointing out that not everyone else can marry.
                             We have restrictions on who can marry left and
                             right (close relatives, adults/minors, etc.).
                             \_ So the debate is more Pro: "Gays
                                should have the same rights as heteros."
                                Anti: "No they shouldn't."  The problem
                                when put in those terms it is hard for the
                                Anti side to keep pretending it isn't being
                                prejudiced, and so the anti side conviently
                                tries to pretend there are other issues at
                                stake.  Embrace your true nature and just
                                admit that you don't think gay people deserve
                                the same rights as everyone else.
                                \_ They do have the same rights. I can't marry
                                   someone of my own gender and neither can
                                   \_ Hello Mr. Trees, you seemed to have
                                      missed the forest for yourself. -dans
                             \_ I used to think this argument was just
                                hypothetical.  But I forgot that Mormons
                                actually hold out hope that they can marry
                                their brothers/sisters, have sex with their
                                daughters, etc.  So, good point emarkp.
                                \_ Woo!  Where would we be without the
                                   clueless anti-mormon troll?
                           \_ The response is not stupid. The comparison
                              btwn gay marriage and mix-race marriage is
                              flawed. The denial of marriage rights to a
                              mix-race couple was based on a false concept
                              of race. The denial of marriage rights to
                              gays is not based on any such false concept.
                              Gays want more rights than other people in
                              society and there is no compelling reason
                              to grant them these rights.
                              \_ What more rights?  You will have the
                                 right to marry the same sex as well.
                                 And mix-race marriages were illegal because
                                 it was against the laws of nature.  We don't
                                 do that sort of thing.  Ick!  Oh my god
                                 that is wrong and an abomination.  That is
                                 for the same reason you oppose gay marriage.
                                 \_ You really don't understand the
                                    arugment do you?
                                    My opposition to gay marriage has
                                    nothing to do with the law of
                                    nature (by these I'm assuming you
                                    mean something like maxwell's laws
                                    or the uncertainty principle,
                                    which couldn't care less whether
                                    a person is gay or not).
                                    My opposition to gay marriage is
                                    based on the fact that there is
                                    no basis on which to claim that
                                    these people have been denied a
                                    right that all other people w/
                                    their same real characteristics
                                    have. (Mixed-race is irrelevant
                                    to the discussion b/c race is
                                    not a real characteristic, please
                                    go read some human evolutionary
                                    studies, if you think that race
                                    is really a true concept).
                                    If two gay people are allowed
                                    to marry, then why should a
                                    schizophrenic not be able to
                                    marry herself and claim a dual
                                    tax deduction? What about a
                                    person and his imaginary best
                                    BTW, I don't want more rights,
                                    I'm perfectly happy w/ the rights
                                    I have.
                                    \_ including, apparently, the right to
                                       be a complete fucking moron.  -tom
            \_ If anyone but tom had posted this, it would have slid by with
              no comment. Oh, wait, ilyas, John, and emarkp have their
              tormenters as well.
              \_ And funny enough, I don't think any of "us" take them at all
                 seriously.  Frankly, I'm a bit worried about both ChiCom
                 Troll and heil cherman john guy--I hope they're ok, I haven't
                 seen them around.  After all, an integral part of being a
                 responsible troll farmer is paying good attention to your pet
                 trolls' well-being!  That said, I think both ilyas and
                 emarkp are occasionally full of shit, but there seems to be
                 an interesting tendency for people who stand behind their
                 arguments and who sign their names to attract morons.. -John
                 \_ And speaking of motd regulars, where's BDG to rant for half
                    a screen about how gay marriage will allow gay people to
                    ruin the lives of other gay people?
                 \_ I discovered you are actually a closet commie, so I no
                    longer troll you   - Chicom Troll
              \_ Well, there's a price to be paid for being a consistent
                 asshole. I don't give a shit about tom being a fag. I have
                 fags for friends. tom's just an asshole. If I ever met him
                 I'd pound his face into the street, clear and simple.
                 Being a gay misanthrope doesn't excuse him of anything.
                 \_ I'm usually the last one to say this, but post your
                    name, tough guy. --erikred
                    \_ use kchang's intellicrap.
                        \_ the what? what does it do?
                           \_ blames ilyas for everything.
                 \_ This is pretty funny.  Run it through b1ff for it to be
                    taken extra-serious!  -John
                 \_ Vell, zeere's a preece-a tu be-a peeed fur beeeng a
                    cunseestent esshule-a. I dun't geefe-a a sheet ebuoot tum
                    beeeng a feg. I hefe-a fegs fur freeends. tum's joost un
                    esshule-a. Iff I ifer met heem I'd puoond hees fece-a intu
                    zee street, cleer und seemple-a. Beeeng a gey
                    meesunthrupe-a duesn't ixcoose-a heem ooff unytheeng.
            \_ I don't oppose same-sex civil unions, but I think marriage
               is a religious institution and should not be in the dominion
               of the government. A priest can already 'marry' two gay
               people. We're talking about the government, in which case
               I think 'marriage' is the wrong term to use. --dim
               \_ In which case, we should abolish the use of the term
                  "marriage" in any secular description of a contractual
                  binding of two consenting adults. Go ahead and start that
                  movement, then report back on how that works for you.
                  \_ Well, then failing that I am opposed to using the
                     term 'marriage' to describe same-sex unions.
2005/3/15-16 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:36698 Activity:high
3/15    Are they going to grill Michael Jackson as well or is he just
        going to sit behind his army of lawyers and let them do all
        the talking?
        \_ it is extremely unlikely they'll have jackson take the stand.
           \_ why? how can he not?
              \_ because putting nutjobs on the stand is a good way to get
                 them exposed as nutjobs.  -tom
                 \_ Yes, but nutjobs often don't listen to their lawyers.
                 \_ I know why they don't want MJ to take the stand.
                    What I am asking is can they do that? This is all
                    about fair and balance, how can he not take the
                    stand? (or rather, why would the law allow him not to
                    take the stand?) If you grill hard enough on any rape
                    victims, you are bound to find some thing. This just
                    seems a little strange.
                    \_ It is fairly common for criminal defendants not to
                       testify on their own behalf.  I've known some public
                       defenders who routinely advise their clients not to
                       testify.   -tom
               \_ Because of the 5th Ammendment of the US Constitution.
                  "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
                   witness against himself..."
                  \_ Ah, that nonsense...
                  \_ I do believe he should be required to take the
                     stand, and can say "I have nothing to say about
                     that" for all questions. But required to take the
                     \_ The prosecution can call him as a hostile witness
                        if they want to, but that would probably be seen as
                        a grandstanding ploy.  -tom
                     \_ he'll plead the fizzif.  one two three four fiiiiif!
                \_ because of 5th amendment, prosecution can't really force
                   him to testify, so only reason he might testify is if his
                   defense lawyers thought was a good idea.
                   \_ This is the same thing as the "self incrimination" thing
                      that we hear from cop dramas, right?
                      \_ 5th Amendment
                         "No person shall be held to answer for a capital,
                         or otherwise infamous, crime, unless on a
                         presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except
                         in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or
                         in the militia, when in actual service, in time of
                         war, or public danger; nor shall any person be
                         subject, for the same offence, to be twice put in
                         jeopardy of life or limb;
                                                   nor shall be
                         compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness
                         against himself;
                                          nor be deprived of life,
                         liberty, or property, without due process of law;
                         nor shall private property be taken for public
                         use, without just compensation."
                         \_ About not being tried twice for the same offence,
                            what if the subject was found not guilty, and then
                            some new evidence is found later showing that he's
                            \_ That's the idea.  The prosecution has to hold
                               off on bringing charges until they think they
                               have enough to convict.  Otherwise you could
                               have someone on trial over and over again for
                               the same offence as prosecuters keep
                               'discovering' evidence they should have
                               presented at the first trial.  Now if new
                               evidence of a similar but distinct crime turns
                               up, then you can be retried.
                               \- unless the new evidence points to a "new
                                  crime" it is over. so in theory
                                  you could even confess once you have been
                                  found innocent. however there are some not
                                  very self-evident details about what
                                  constitutes the same crime, there may be
                                  state/federal issues, you can still be
                                  sued in tort possibly etc. you can also\
                                  read about "jury nullification", directed
                                  verdicts, with/without prejudice dismissal.
                                  oh and obviously this doenst apply in the
                                  case of a mistrial. the double jeopardy
                                  issue was run around in the OJ case.
                            \_ Uh, it's still double jeopardy.  How did all
                               you people who've never heard of the fifth
                               amendment get into Berkeley?
                      \- If you are talking about the Miranda warning, the
                         decision of Miranda v. Az is sort of procedural rather
                         than substantive decision. The essence was "you have
                         to let suspects in custody know what their rights are"
                         rather than an expansion of the right against
                         self-incrimination. This is in contrast to a more
                         subtantive decision like Gideon v. Wainwright, which
                         says the right to counsel include an obligation for
                         the state to provide counsel for indigents. There
                         are a lot of intersting cases relating to self-
                         incrimination. YMWTGF: christian burial speech. --psb
                         \_ I'm surprised the racist-against-Mexicans guy isn't
                            frothing at the mouth and posting another anti-
                            immigration freeper storm in response to this
                        \_ tnx for the suggestion (re "christian burial"). An
                           interesting case which I hadn't seen before.  As
                           usual, I think the dissent has it right. -crebbs
                           \- somewhat interestingly, there are two brewer v.
                              williams cases. the first one involves the
                              "appeal to conscience" issue, and the second
                              one promotes the "inevitable discovery" doc-
                              trine. the evolution of the exclusionary rule
                              is also pretty interesting. --psb
        \_ It's called "Pleading the 5th".
2005/3/15-17 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:36699 Activity:nil
3/15    tell me if you want pointers to foreign bond (long
        and short) fund, foreign reit fund, foreign utility fund,
        foreign inflation indexed debt fund.
        \_ I am interested in this. -ausman
          \_ same here, please tell us how. I don't want to keep money
             in useless US Money Market account since US dollar sucks.
          \_ ditto -nivra
        \_ No need to be mysterious. Just buy Dodge and Cox international.
           6% YTD. Average return of about 12% since 1968 or so.
        \_ Here you go:
           The above article talks about has BGT, MFD, IGR, EGLRX
           The above article talks about BGT, MFD, IGR, EGLRX
           Interest rate rises (US? / internationally?) could be bad for
           utilities and reit though, so I only bought BGT.
           Two foreign bond funds: RPIBX, BEGBX
           Like poster above me pointed out, Dodge and Cox ain't bad.
           You may also want to look into:
           You may also want to look into these int'l funds:
           BJBIX (8.76% since 11/22/05 not including dividends)
           TAVIX (6.44% since 12/27/05 not including dividends)
           BJBIX (8.76% since 11/22/04 not including dividends)
           TAVIX (6.44% since 12/27/04 not including dividends)
           I also like some of the Matthews Asian Funds for
           exposure to asia:
           exposure to asia. I think Asia excluding Japan
           has room to rise, but if PRC and Taiwan starts a war ...:
           EUROX for exposure to Eastern Europe and Russia (risky?)
           IFN for India (risky?)
           BHP for exposure commodities (but this has gone up quite a bit
           BHP for exposure commodities
           PBR for oil (risky?)
           MPGFX (my favourite US fund)
           US growth stocks starting to look tasty again, please fall some
           \_ Yeah, I already have 70% of my portfolio in international
              funds, mostly ETFs but I am curious about the REIT, utility
              and inflation indexed bonds. I have most of my 401k in MRIVX.
              \_ The only foreign fund my 401K offers is an EAFE index fund.
                 Yes, I thought BGT, MFD and IGR are interesting choices
                 to know about.
2005/3/15 [Computer/SW/Compilers, Computer/SW/OS/Linux] UID:36700 Activity:high
3/15    Anyone know what I'm doing wrong?
        "In file included from fusd/test/zero.c:39:
        /usr/include/linux/config.h:5:2: #error Incorrectly using glibc
        headers for a kernel module"
        Which correct -I path should I include in the compiler? -ok thx
        \_ <kernel src dir>/include --jwm
            \_ so actually I'm using /home/user/linux-2.6.10/include
               which I downloaded from the web.
               \_ use -nostdinc
2005/3/15-16 [Reference/Military, Consumer/PDA] UID:36701 Activity:moderate
3/15    Anyone know what the big plot is next week for 24? who's the army
        \_ I can't believe I actually watch this horrible show, but...
           I don't think he's an army dude. He's a terrorist who's going
           to disguise himself as an airforce pilot and they're going to
           rub out/kidnap an actual airforce pilot and take the real pilot's
           place. My guess is that this pilot is supposed to be the pilot for
           Air Force One who's going to relieve the current pilot of AF1.
           All of the plots are related. Plot to kidnap senator was so they
           could insert the trojan to enable the override. Using the override
           to cause nuclear meltdown was to keep AF1 in the air so that they
           can eventually do the pilot switcheroo.
           \_ How is it horrible?
              \_ every female character is either a total bee-yotch or a
                 pathetic weakling for starters
                 \_ I think you should watch Alias instead. ;)
                 \_ I think you should watch Desperate Housewives.
                 \_ I'm watching Quantum Leap!
        \_ Who knows?  Who cares?  Just wait a week instead of spoiling it.
           \_ I can't, I can't!!!!
        \_ All you need to know to appreciate 24, which is horrible but
           amusiing nonetheless, is this: Kiefer Sutherland does something
           crazy each episode, and usually crazier than last season/week.
2005/3/15 [Uncategorized] UID:36702 Activity:high
3/15    Would you watch the 49ers if Aaron Rodgers plays with them?
        \_ The who if the what now?
           \_ CS geeks are not sports geeks too?
        \_ I don't think Rodgers will succeed if he goes to the 49ers, but
           not to worry, I think it's highly unlikely the 49ers draft him.
           (They'd have to pay #1 QB money).  -tom
           \_ they will have trouble trading down in this draft.
              Rodgers will do well in two years.
              \_ not without an O-line or defense.  The 49ers have much more
                 pressing needs than QB.  -tom
                 \_ It'd be kind of cool if he ends up on the Dolphins.
                    They have a lot of the same problems on the o-line as the
                    49ers, but at least they have a decent coach and an owner
                    who'll shell out the bucks if need be.
             \_ I want Rodgers to go to the Niners so we can watch him
                play in person.  O-Line will be improved.
        \_ I think Rodgers needed one more year under Tedford. I see him almost
           like Kyle Boller, struggling for awhile.
2005/3/15-17 [Computer/Companies/Yahoo] UID:36703 Activity:nil
3/15    Lots of jobs in Yahoo! Search:
        \_ permissions
        \_ yahoo-search: Permission denied
           \_ top hiring priority: unix systems administrators
        \_ I think you mean: /csua/pub/jobs/yahoo-search -dans

           \_ po-tay-to, po-tah-to, it's still the same thing
2005/3/15-16 [Finance/Investment] UID:36704 Activity:moderate
3/15 now has bar charts linked in from the front page with before
        and after annual benefits comparing (1) the current system and (2)
        a new system with 4% of wages contributed to private accounts and
        indexing of minimum benefits to prices rather than wages.
        For a person born in 2005, the guaranteed benefit of a low-income
        individual would be $3,000/year, compared to $15,500/year under the
        old system!  (Yes, this assumes that Mr. Loser invests all of his
        private account into "approved mutual fund gone broke".  Guess who
        will be supporting Mr. Loser and his failed private account?  I guess
        his kids or some private charity.  Yay!)
        Granted, the $15,500/year figure assumes we don't change the system
        at all, which doesn't make sense if there isn't enough money to cover
        all payments starting in 2042.
        Any bar charts should really be comparing (1) The Democratic Proposal
        vs. (2), so people should really start providing graphs for (1).
        What is the Democratic Proposal?  Raising the retirement age by a year
        from 67 to 68, or increasing the income bracket taxed for SS.
        Hmm, actually, that would make the graph look like (1) the current
        system, wouldn't it?
        \_ Does the system actually go broke in 2042 or does it simply pay
           less benefits?
           \_ Depends on how you look at it, but I guess "less benefits"
              is better.
              \_ I think in the classic bankruptcy definition there's a big
                 \_ the wording has been updated -op
2005/3/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:36705 Activity:moderate
3/15 (Washington Post poll)
        Question 24:  56% of Americans still think Saddam had WMDs.
        Question 9:  56% of Americans support private accounts, 56% of
        Americans also support taxing all income for Social Security instead of
        the first $90K.
        What does this tell me?  Americans want to be able to invest part of
        their Social Security payments into the stock market and reap
        increased yields.  Americans also want the gubmint to cover their
        asses if the stock market goes south.  Yay!
        \_ Heh (pro/against), Korea (47/34), Vietnam (24/69), Gulf (82/15),
           Afghanistan (93/6), Iraq (48/51). You know, in every major
           conflict known to mankind, soldiers bring back beautiful local
           hotties back to their vatherlands. I wonder how long before US
           soldiers bring Viet^D^D^D^DIraqi hotties back to the States.
           \_ iraqis not so hotties as iranian
              \_ Apparently you like the female mustache?
2005/3/15-16 [Uncategorized] UID:36706 Activity:nil
3/15    Brian Nichols worked eight years for Hewlett-Packard, making roughly
        "six figures" annually. "He's a smart person."
2005/3/15-17 [Computer/SW/OS/Linux] UID:36707 Activity:nil Edit_by:auto
3/15    Does anyone have the Tablet PC? Pros/cons? Linux-friendly? Comments?
        \_ I've used a friend's for a while and the thing that makes it worth
           a couple hundred more than a standard PC is the pen input and
           good support for that in the OS and applications.  WinXp tablet has
           overall pretty good support for pen input and handwriting
           recognition.  I don't know anything about Linux support, and perhaps
           someone else can comment on it, but if I had to guess I'd expect it
           to be far inferior to Windows-land.  User interfaces and esoteric
           peripheral support are not areas where Linux is known to shine.
2005/3/15-17 [Computer/SW/Editors/Emacs] UID:36708 Activity:nil
3/15    Partha and/or emacs guru, how do I make my cursor blink?
        \_ Is it really so hard to M-x apropos and search for blink?
           \- i usually run emacs in a terminal so this is a
              non-issue. you can look for kyle jones' package
              for frame-based modes. His packages are of good
              quality, e.g. crypt++, VM, filladapt etc. --psb
        \_ My emacs21 in XP, SunOS5 and Linux all have blinking cursor by
           default.  I didn't do anything special to turn it on.
2019/01/23 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:March:15 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>