Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:April:15 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2005/4/15-16 [Computer/Companies/Google] UID:37198 Activity:nil
4/15    Google now has autocomplete:
        \_ This was mentioned on /. several months ago.
           \_ All the news way too late.
2005/4/15-17 [Computer/SW/Security, Computer/SW/Apps, Computer/HW/CPU] UID:37199 Activity:nil
        The lead author is a (recent) cal alum.
2005/4/15 [Computer/SW/Unix] UID:37200 Activity:very high
4/15    Unix Wizards, how would I sort a list like this in numerical order?
        I can't figure our the sort syntax.  I am not a programmer!
        \_ The regular "sort -n" will work, except you need to remove the
           plus signs first: tr -d + | sort -n     --mconst
           \_ I am trying to figure out how to sort in that format!
              Otherwise I will have to sort and then re-add the plus
              sign and that seems lame.
              \_ newsflash: you seem lame.
              \_ whine whine whine.
                 \_ OP already said he's not a programmer.
                    \_ and using unix utilities is not programming.
                       \-gee maybe we should give an awk test before
                         giving people sloda accounts.
                         giving people sloda accounts. obviously "not
                         programmer" = casual unix user. i've met people
                         who are technical people who never thought about
                         the fact you could "grep a web page" by doing
                         soemthing like lynx -dump | grep, so things
                         obvious to some arent necessarily immediately
                         obvious to others.
           \_ How about:  sort -t "+" +1 -n <filename>
              \_ Yeah, as long as the sign's always +, that's simpler.
                 (You could also do "sort -n +.1".)  --mconst
        \_ cat file.txt | perl -ne 's/^\+/ /g;print;' | sort -n |
           perl -ne 's/^ /+/g;print;'
        \_ sed 's/+/ /' file.txt | sort -n | sed 's/^ /+/'
           \- those are redarded. learn to use sort, if it is in a shell
              script and not already in a perl data structure or some such.
              \_ Oh fuck you.  Those handle negative numbers too.
                 \_ so does sort -t + +1 -n <file> | sort -t - +1 -n -s -r
                    \_ Wow, and I always know what the -s and -t options for
                       sort do.  Not to mention - and +
                       \_ That's what man pages are for, man.  sometimes it
                          does pay off to reinvestigate old tools....
2005/4/15-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37201 Activity:high
4/15    This is Bush's idea of a diplomat:
        \_ Why dont you just put a link to the DUmmies while you are at it?
           \_ Do you actually think sending a guy like this as UN ambassador
              is good?
              \_ "let alone such a critical posting to the UN". What?
           \_ eh?
              \_ Those DemocRATS, at it again!
                 [ channeling is now complete]
        \_ So what? Personally I think that Bolton chasing a bunch of
           UN losers around and hounding them b/c they are complete
           jackasses would be a good thing. The UN is a complete sham
           even being involved in it is a waste of US time and resources.
           \_ Didn't the UN help us get a coalition together for Gulf War 1?
              \_ Yeah, but they tried to stop us once, so now we must
                 all hate them forever.
              \_ So what? Once in nearly 50 yrs they were remotely
                 useful for America. Our involvement in the UN is
                 a complete and utter waste of time and money.
                 \_ Didn't the UN have inspectors in Iraq before Gulf War 2?
                    Didn't the inspectors say they haven't found anything yet,
                    and we went ahead and attacked anyway -- asking the
                    inspectors to leave because we didn't think they were doing
                    a good job?
                    Didn't we already know there was a big oil-for-food scandal
                    before we attacked, but cited "no doubt" of Saddam having
                    WMDs as the #1 reason for attacking?
                    Didn't the U.S. inspectors sent after the invasion say that
                    it was their judgment that Saddam destroyed his existing
                    WMDs and put to sleep all his arms programs?
                    WMDs and put to sleep all his WMD programs?
                    Didn't we spend MUCH LESS on Gulf War 1 than on Gulf War 2
                    because of direct contributions of cash, equipment, and
                    personnel from our partners, both Arab and Western?
                    \_ So what? Yes, there were UN inspectors in Iraq before
                       we invaded. Big Deal. They were doing a lousy job and
                       wasting US time and money.
                       Yes we knew about the oil-for-food scandal, but w/o
                       the UN diplo-nuts there would never have been a stupid
                       oil-for-food program in the first place.
                       Yes OUR investigators think that Saddam destroyed his
                       WMDs prior to the invasion, but if we had waited for
                       the UN to get its act together who knows what might
                       have happened? Clearly OUR investigators wouldn't be
                       there and the UN inspectors would have kept up their
                       keystone cops routine.
                       So what if we spent less for Gulf War 1? We didn't
                       finish the job. The UN was part of the problem, Bush
                       I was the other part. Bush I should have sacked
                       Saddam back then and not left it for his son to
                       complete the job.
                       BTW, how come pretty much ever UN operation is a
                       unmitigated failure (Sudan, Sierra Leone, Rwanda,
                       E. Timor, Angola, Bosnia, &c.)? The reason is
                       simple, the UN is filled w/ a bunch of jackassess
                       who are all about lining their own pockets and
                       don't give a damn about what actually happens.
                       \_ The UN does a great job all the time all over
                          the world. I am not going to bother trying to
                          explain it to you because your mind is already
                          made up. Just google for UNICEF and World Food
                          Program for dozens of hits and you will see
                          what I mean. Just because they don't grind
                          your ideological axe doesn't mean they don't keep
                          millions from starving every year. Most people
                          think this is useful. I guess you would rather
                          see these people starve.
                          \_ Even these so called "successful" programs
                             are so grossly mismanaged that hardly any
                             of the money actually reaches the people
                             who need it. When UN money reaches a 3d
                             world country it goes straight into the
                             pockets the local politicians and their
                             families and not into the hands of the
                             poor starving people who need it. Don't
                             tell me this is red-state non-sense.
                             My family is from one of those poor 3d
                             world countries and I've seen how the
                             programs are implemented first hand.
                             If the goal was to keep millions of ppl
                             from starving, then the UN would have
                             worked w/ local gov to implement self
                             sufficiency programs decades ago. The
                             UN bureaucrats don't give a damn about
                             ppl, they just care about themselves
                             and the nice new benzs they can buy w/
                             the money.
                       \_ We went into Iraq because we had "no doubt" Saddam
                          had WMDs.  I don't remember Dubya saying on the eve
                          of the invasion that we attacked because we weren't
                          If you really think Bush Sr. should have went into
                          Iraq, well, it's a nice thought, but the conversation
                          would have gone like this:
                          "Help us, we'll only do Kuwait."  [half a year later]
                          "Oh, y'know, we did so well, fuck you all, I'm going
                          in for the kill.  BTW, thanks for the dough, Bush1
                          p0wnZ U 4ll!1!"
                                \_ The conversation would have gone like this:
                                   Saddamn is out of Kuwait. He is on the
                                   run. The Iraqi ppl are rising against
                                   him. There will never be a better time
                                   to deal with him. Either we go in now,
                                   or you fools let him regroup, rearm and
                                   attack on a larger scale.
                          As for the other UN missions, I don't think you've
                          thought through these either, which is clear after
                          your Bush Sr. comment.
                          Whether you like it or not, and as much as you see
                          it as a failure and I do not -- the UN is here to
                          stay, especially now that the U.S. is overstretched
                          militarily and financially.  Bush Sr. knew HOW to
                          use the UN, and Bush Jr., not knowing how to use the
                          UN and seeing it in the same way you did, fucked it
                          up.  Thank God Condi is there now to resume Powell's
                          goal of international cooperation -- except this
                          time, Dubya really trusts Condi (to Dubya, Powell was
                          just daddy's good friend there to make sure Dubya
                          didn't fuck things up too bad).  We need
                          international cooperation for Iran and North Korea,
                          because we don't have the guns, the money, the proof,
                          or the people to do it ourselves.
                          \_ Not to mention the fact that Bush I didn't go into
                             Iraq because he didn't want to deal with all the
                             shit we're dealing with now.
                             \_ Saddam also actually HAD the WMDs at that
                                point, too.
        \_ Just FYI, there are much more sane and reasonable liberal blogs out
           there than the mixed nuts at Kos.  Try Josh Marshall or something.
           The Kossacks are just as bad as the Powerline nutjobs, but less
           influential.  --lib
           \_ Uh, Marshall will refer to Kos all the time.  If they're putting
              out verifiable, factual information, what's the problem?  Is it
              because they allow comments and Marshall doesn't?
              \_ They don't just allow comments.  They promote rabid comment
                 nuts into full time contributors to the blog.
           \_ Is anyone else coving this specific story from this woman?
              Kos was breaking this one this morning when I posted it, so
              they had the best info. I would post (have posted in fact)
              Drudge when they were breaking news. Let the Right Wing Nutjobs
              blow it off because they don't like the source. They will just
              be that much more surprised when it blindsides them.
2005/4/15-16 [Reference/Tax] UID:37202 Activity:kinda low
4/15    Happy tax day.
        \_ April is the cruelest month.
        \_ When my first company was located on Shattuck, we had an outing
           where on every April 15th at around 11pm, we grabbed donuts and
           coffee and headed down to the post office on Allston and watched
           procrastinators rushing to mail the forms.  A lot of them wore suits
           and looked like accountants.  We cheered and applauded and they
           usually liked it.
           \_ That sounds pretty entertaining, actually.
           \_ It makes sense to file at the last possible minute if you
              owe money.
              \_ I get a net refund every year, yet I still procrastinate.
           \_ InktomiP
              \_ No.  Geoworks.
2005/4/15-17 [Reference/Tax] UID:37203 Activity:insanely high
4/15    So does anyone object to the so-called (love those names) "fair tax"?
        Replacing all federal tax with a 23% sales tax?
        \_ Poll, Yes: ........
        \_ Worst. Idea^H^H^H^HTroll. Ever.
        \_ If you're rich, you love it.
           \_ No seriously, why would you believe this?
              \_ Uh, because they could accumulate wealth unhindered by
                 ANY taxation.  How much does any one person need to spend
                 in a year, even to live (VERY) well?  a few hundred thousand?
                 so you pay the tax on that amount of consumption, and the rest
                 is gravy.
                 \_ So what?
                    \_ So, because you're wealthy you get to enjoy the freedoms
                       and protection of this country while paying less into
                       this country than everyone around you. That sounds fair?
                       \_ Are you seriously suggesting that the rich, under
                          either a sales tax or under the current system,
                          somehow pay "less into this country" than the poor?
                          40% of Americans pay NO income tax at all, and the
                          top 20% pay over 80%.
                          \_ Yes.  Under a sales tax, the rich would pay less
                             than they currently do, and far less proportionally
                             to the rest of the people.  That 40%, under a flat
                             tax, would pay pretty much 23% in your sales tax.
                             A person in the top 20% can afford to save and
                             invest.  They would be hard pressed to spend their
                             entire $250k or so on sales-taxable goods.  They
                             would pay a far lower percentage of their income
                             in this tax.  Are you intentionally being daft?
                             \_ Don't change the subject. You didn't say
                                 "paying a lower percentage of their income
                                 into this country". You said "paying less into
                                 this country". That's very different.
                                 \_ And you're an obtuse little bitch.  In
                                    a discussion like this, the "fairness"
                                    point pretty much always refers to
                                    proportions.  DUMBFUCK troll.
                          \_ consider that roughly 25% of the population is
                             below the age of 15 (2000 census numbers).  Are
                             you including all those newborns and kids who
                             can barely get a work permit (at least in CA)?
                             \_ He is talking about top 20% of taxpayers,
                                not about kids and unemployed. --dim
                          \_ You are just making up numbers now. No way does
                             the top 20% pay over 80% of all taxes.
                                Top 20% pays 81.4% of federal income
                                taxes. Top 1% pays 38.8% alone. If you
                                include payroll taxes, the share of the
                                top 20% drops to 60.8%. However, you can
                                see following the chart that the least
                                wealthy 60% also only have 5% of the
                                wealth. --dim
                                \_ Compare the pre-tax income shares versus
                                   the federal tax share.  It's very slightly
                                   progressive.  Note that this was in 2000.
                                   Now that comparison is basically flat.  For
                                   all intents and purposes, W has given y'all
                                   the flat tax y'all wanted.  We'll see how
                                   long until it all crumbles..
                             \_ wtf?  You didn't know that?
                                You better be some bored undergrad.
                       \_ Since the rich don't pay less than less wealthy,
                          you're full of shit.  Since "wealthy" is undefinable,
                          you're just arguing that THEY SHOULD GIVE MORE,
                          WAHHH!  Shut the fuck up you retard.
                          \_ This is about as incoherent as you could get.
                             We're talking about proportions, not absolute
                             values, you twat.
                       \_ Here's a nice game to play with your friends. Go
                          ask them "do you think the rich should pay more in
                          taxes". Then ask them "what percentage of all taxes
                          should the top 20% of taxpayers pay?" Then have
                          some fun asking them to reconcile their answers
                          to these two questions.
                          \_ We don't all have stupid friends.
                          The larger issue here is that it will be very
                          dangerous for us as a country when a substantial
                          fraction of the electorate pays no taxes (40% now)
                          and thus realizes they can vote in any government
                          program (say, prescription drug benefit) without
                          having to pay a dime for it.
                          \_ Yeah, it would be much better to tax them into
                             the debtors' prisons.  We could have so much cheap
                             labor if we could bring those back.  Those people
                             who you see as freeloading are the ones who make
                             the economy happen.  They spend their paychecks
                             like good consumers.  They produce the goods that
                             they turn around and buy.  Without generous
                             exemptions on a sales tax for the lower end, our
                             economy would grind to a halt.
                             \_ Don't put up the strawman of debtor's prisons.
                                My point is that I feel it is bad public
                                policy to have a substantial fraction of the
                                population pay no income tax.
                                \_ you're right.  So what are you doing to
                                   increase their income?  -tom
              \_ Because the amount of money you spend on taxable items
                 becomes a smaller and smaller percentage of your income
                 the more money you make. A person making $1 million might
                 have a $100K car, whereas a person making $50K might have
                 a $25K car, for instance.
                 \_ So what?
                    \_ So that's why a sales tax is a regressive tax.
                 \_ Are you insane?  A $50K/yr schlub can't affort a $25K car.
                    \_ Well, actually -- if you have a decent credit rating,
                       you can buy a $25k honda with only a $3-4k down.  The
                       payments might be rough, but financing over 48-60mos
                       makes this very reasonably affordable.  Welcome to the
                       real world, son.
                    \_ Wow, you're a DUMBFUCK.  Are you the same DUMBFUCK
                       from yesterday?
                    \_ $25K barely buys a Honda Civic EX these days.
                       Plenty of people making that kind of salary drive
                       $25K cars whether or not you think they can afford
                       to. Let's change it to $90K salary and $40K car
                       then (real numbers from BMW). Same difference.
                    \_ With that logic who the fuck can buy a house.  It's
                       called LOANS.
        \_ "Reagan's 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act is recognized as the most
            significant tax policy change in modern history. The bill
            significantly reduced the marginal income tax by roughly 25
            percent over a three-year period, lowering the top rate from 70
            percent to 50 percent, the bottom from 14 percent to 11 percent."
            Proportionally, Reagan still beats Bush. Why aren't you guys
            bitching at him instead of Bush? I know why. Because Reagan is
            good looking and charming and irresistable ON TV.
            \_ And, uhm, not the current president for almost 20 years.
                \_ The fact that he's no longer President never seems to
                   stop the Republicans from blaming everything bad on Clinton.
                   \_ Oh that's easy.  Clinton is an unperson.  Reagan is our
                      Glorious Hero.  Get it straight, Comrade.
                                      \_ Reagan was a cold warrior; shouldn't
                                         that be 'Citizen'?
        \_ I'm in favor. I think our current tax code is broken and far too
           cumbersome. For an income tax, I'm against flat income tax.
           \_ Since the poor currently pay a fairly small percentage of their
              income in taxes, how would you reconcile that with the new
              system?  Either you just accept you're giving the poor a massive
              tax hike, or you need some system of exemptions, deductions or
              refunds and you're right back to everyone having to file taxes
              \_ One way is to tax more heavily on luxury items and waive
                 tax on essentially items.
              \_ The plan is for an automatic rebate to cover the taxes up to
                 a floor level of consumption. Such a rebate is nothing like
                 the current income tax situation.
                 the current income tax situation. And it means that it's
                 possible that the rebate ends up being more than some people
                 actually pay in taxes. Also, wealthy people do consume more;
                 they don't just sit on their cash and live like a poor sap.
                 It's not a massive tax hike when you consider the massive
                 overall benefits to the economy.
                 \_ The wealthy consume more, but on different things and
                    in a different way. As a percentage of income and net
                    worth they consume far less. Most wealthy people I
                    know bought a lot of property, which contributes to
                    property taxes but not to the IRS. Lots of money also
                    does get 'sat on' in the form of investments.
        \_ What happens when you buy a $500k house?  Pay $115k tax?
                    \_ But there's nothing wrong with that. We should only
                       "tax the rich" to support the poor to a minimum extent.
                       Rich people make investments, fine... they help create
                       jobs and eventually money gets used on end products and
                       services. They hire contractors, buy fancy stuff for
                       their houses, etc. The level of consumption in the
                       country is fairly stable and the proposed numbers
                       provide for a scenario where both poor and rich are less
                       taxed, and are better able to manage their own savings
                       by being frugal. Personally, I'm not "poor" at 90k
                       salary but I've had really low consumption all my
                       working days so I'd be way better off. A consumption tax
                       would encourage savings which economists say is sorely
                       needed in this country.
        \_ What happens when you buy a $500k house?  Pay
        $115k tax?
           \_ There is no sales tax on real estate and there is no tax levied
              by the Feds. I assume this would remain unchanged.
        \_ "Fair tax" is stupid.  If you don't like progressive
           tax and want "fairness", let's just not pay any tax at all.
           That would make it fair.
2005/4/15 [Computer/SW/WWW/Server, Computer/SW/Mail] UID:37204 Activity:high
4/15    My company specifically blocks out port 995, which is pop3 over
        SSL.  This makes me wonder, are they archiving all emails
        received through regular pop3 port? I don't see any other
        reason for blocking the port. Sending smtp via ssl is ok
        \_ Chances are they don't know about POP3/SSL.
           Send them a polite request to open the port.
        \_ What does your company do?
           \_ I can't retrieve gmails through pop. at home it works fine.
2005/4/15 [Computer/HW/CPU, Computer/HW/Printer] UID:37205 Activity:kinda low
4/15    Son of Newton:
        \_ seriously lame
        \_ What's the point of running TabletPC OS if the screen is not touch-
           \_ or even if it is?
           \_ touch sensitive is good for limited applications, like GUIs that
              give you big buttons (for UPS men, census poller, voting, etc).
              Most Win apps are not like that. In addition, the selling point
              of Tablet PC is not the original PC itself, but rather, the
              ability to draw freehand (take notes, highlight EXISTING
              documents, read eBooks), and character recognition. The latter
              is especially useful for East Asian languages. I use it to
              write Chinese all the time. I still find it slow and hard to
              type Chinese, and the char recognition program is amazingly
              accurate to use. Is the Tablet PC for everyone? Absolutely NOT.
              It tailers to a niche market, and will most likely never be
              main stream. But I think it's cool        -happy Tablet PC user
          \_ Most Tablet PCs don't have touch-sensitive screens.  They all
             require a special stylus (and as a consequence, they're usually
             more accurate and offer other features like pressure
             sensitivity, which is good for drawing apps).  Even with a
             touch-sensitive screen, it's not like you want to smudge it up
             with your fingers anyway.
2005/4/15-16 [Reference/Tax, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:37206 Activity:low
4/15    Just curious, anyone pay use tax on the ca state return for internet
        \_ Yes, I wrote in I spent $500 on out-of-state purchases for both
           2003 and 2004 tax years.  $41 in taxes for being in L.A. County.
        \_ No I don't.
        \_ No.
        \_ Statistically speaking, no.
2005/4/15-16 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37207 Activity:nil
4/15    Boy, all those tax cuts for the wealthy sure are paying off in the
        \_ At least our current Prez and Veep "understand energy" so our
           energy prices have remained low.
           \_ Not to mention their foreign policy decisions have been key
              in helping some of America's youth learn about foreign
              cultures first hand (e.g. in the middle east, and who knows
              where else next?)
              \_ Here we have a good example of why humor is hard.
           \_ No. <snort> Please stop.
2005/4/15-17 [Science/Electric] UID:37208 Activity:nil
4/15    Do the offices/buildings for PG&E (or other gas/electric companies)
        have to pay for electricity/gas bills? I don't mean little local offices,
        but rather the buildings that are part of the big power plants or
        distributing stations.
2005/4/15 [Reference/Tax] UID:37209 Activity:high
4/15    What could you have bought with the money spent paying taxes?
                                                  \_ spent occupying Iraq
        Ob yermom:
        Nice dinner:
        Nice bike: ..
        BMW: .
        Condo: .
        Third-world country:
        BA House:
        None, because after I paied my taxes I have nothing left.
        \_ Isn't this the same as ob yermom?
        Cute petite chick with big natural boobs: .
           \_ Rent or buy?
              \_ Buy.  I don't like sharing chicks.
2005/4/15-17 [Reference/Tax] UID:37210 Activity:low 57%like:37212
4/15    Dubya's 2004 Federal tax numbers:
        AGI:            $784219
        Taxable income: $672788
        Total tax:      $207307
        Effective (not marginal) tax rate:      26.43%
        \_ Is he still considered a TX resident so he doesn't have to pay
           state tax?
        \_ How do you get $110,000 in deductions?
           \_ ~$80k of charitable contributions, I think.
              \_ Of that, $10k for the tsunami, as far as I remember.
           \_ Not that hard. Buy a $2M house and finance 80% of it.
              Capital losses. Business losses. Depreciation on rental
              property. Hell, I made 1/7 of what Bush did and deducted
              $30K. Seems right in line.
              \_ No, you can only deduct the interest of up to $1M mortgage.
                 I suppose you can just buy a $10M house and deduct the
                 property tax.
                 \_ Is there a huge difference here between a $1.5M
                    mortgage and a $1M mortgage?
              \_ This brings up a question; if you were the President, and
                 wanted to paint the White House some other color, could you?
                 \-rainbow/google coalition.
                 \_ BLACK LIKE MY SOOOOULLLL!!!!! --rivethead
2005/4/15-17 [Computer/SW/Languages/Java] UID:37211 Activity:nil
4/15    Can I use a Java java.util.SortedSet to have a sorted set of an
        arbitrary object, assuming I provide a comparison function?
        \_ That should work from what I can tell.  Try it.
2005/4/15-17 [ERROR, uid:37212, category id '18005#5.74719' has no name! , , Reference/Tax] UID:37212 Activity:moderate 57%like:37210
4/15    Cheney's 2004 return: (Mr. and Mrs.)
        AGI:            $1,734,373
        Taxable income: $1,328,678
        Total fed tax:  $393,518
        Effective fed tax rate: 22.7%
                \_ You're looking in the wrong place.  Check out how much cash
                   is going past taxes to Haliburton so it can continue to pump
                   cash into Cheny so he can fund schools to eliminate
                   original thought.
        \_ So Cheney is the real evil, not Bush?  More than twice the AGI, yet
           lower effective tax rate.
           \_ The Cheney's contributed more to charities, I think.
              Also, Lynn "Makes Hillary Look like a Girl Scout" Cheney made a
              lot of money off books.
              \_ Money made off writing books aren't taxable income?
                 \_ Nah, just saying Lynn made more than Laura.
        \_ 40% of Cheney's profit from Halliburton goes to Univ Wyoming (his
           home town), 40% goes to GW University's medical faculty,
           and 20% goes to private and religious schools:
2005/4/15-17 [Computer/HW/CPU] UID:37213 Activity:kinda low
4/15    I'm compiling something standard and it fails. Upon Googling, the
        sol'n is to use "setarch i386" on my Pentium M730 processor, and
        everything works fine. Out of curiousity, I dumped my environment
        variable under "setarch i386" and outside and they're almost
        identical. Furthermore, uname reports the EXACT same thing. I'm
        baffled now. What does setarch do?
        \_ DESCRIPTION
       setarch This utility currently only affects the output  of  uname  -m.
       For  example,  on an AMD64 system, running 'setarch i386 program' will
       cause 'program' to see i686 (or other relevant arch) instead of x86_64
       as machine type. It also allows to set various personality options.
           \_ Yes I RTFM'ed too, but the fact of the matter is, under both
              conditions my Fedora Core 3 reports IDENTICAL uname -m results
        \_ I've never heard of setarch.  Which *nix is it?
          \_ Fedora Core 3
2005/4/15 [Uncategorized/Profanity, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:37215 Activity:high 50%like:36345
4/15    Fuck Reagan. Fuck his followers as well.
        \_ Necrophiliac.
           \_ That no longer legal thanks to the Governator!
2005/4/15-17 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:37216 Activity:nil
4/15    Firefox 1.0.3 is out.  No release note yet.
        \_ Release notes available now.
2005/4/15-16 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:37217 Activity:kinda low
4/15    Retired Korean agents burn coffin of Japan ambassador.
           \_ Sure everyone gets along so well in that region today, but what
              happens tomorrow when peak oil arrives?
2022/01/17 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:April:15 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>