Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:April:22 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2005/4/22-23 [Reference/RealEstate] UID:37311 Activity:kinda low
4/22    Housing bubble!  Arrghhh!
        "n IMF study on asset bubbles estimates that 40% of housing
        booms are followed by housing busts, which last for an average
        of four years and see an average decline of roughly 30% in
        home values."
        \_ This is tangent but the article point-of-view pisses me off. It
           states that recent loan arrangements allow "more marginal"
           homebuyers to take out loans. As opposed to maybe prices increasing
           faster than any realistic notion of valuations? It's as if the
           problem lies with how poor the people are who are buying the
           houses rather than how expensive the houses have become relative to
           people's incomes. This is a banker's view of the world, I suppose.
           Oh, and, yes, this is just me being bitter, of course. -- ulysses
           \_ Who or what do you blame for current housing prices?
              \_ I support violent vigilante action against real estate
                 speculators.  I'm pretty sure if the severed head of the
                 last parasitic fuck who bought land in my neighborhood just
                 for profit were on a spear at the major intersection it would
                 deter further speculation pretty fast.
                 deter further speculation pretty fast. -- !ulysses
              \_ I blame you.
        \_ Just as anecdotal evidence, I live in Livermore.  Before I
           arrived rents were through the roof.  A friend of mine bought a
           house because it was cheaper than renting.  Next, rents
           returned to reasonable levels (sort of, $1000 for a 2 bedroom
           apt.), and housing skyrocketed. Now it seems like about a
           quarter of the apts. in my complex are vacant, and I think rent
           is at about $875. -jrleek
        \_ Oh no!  If my house drops in value by 30%, my leveraged profit
           could drop as low as 300%!
           \_ ouch!  that would hurt!
        \_ Interesting way to report it.  That means that 60% of booms are
           followed by no bust.
           \_ If you priced the houses in 'real dollars' I'd bet a lot of
              those 60% are long shwallow busts.
              those 60% are long shallow busts.
              \_ except you have the use value and tax benefit of home
                 \_ I'm not dissing home ownership, but just saying a bust is
                    still a bust.
                        \_ decline != bust
2005/4/22 [Health/Disease/General, Recreation/Dating] UID:37312 Activity:kinda low
4/22    Is it possible to have unprotected sex with someone when you have a
        cold and not give it to them?
        \_ You have a penis cold?
           \_ Think of the male orgasm as a giant goopy sneeze from below.
              \_ Lovely imagery.
              \_ Mine is like several sneezes.
        \_ If you're having sex with someone, you're probably close enough to
           be exchanging germs all the time.  Forget trying to avoid getting
           \_ Maybe he needs a full body condom, like what appears in
              "Naked Gun."
2005/4/22-23 [Computer/SW/Unix] UID:37313 Activity:nil
4/22    The woman who claimed she found a finger in her bowl of Wendy's
        chili last month was arrested.  Hahaha  I suspected it was her when
        this incident first occurred.
        \_ link?
           \_  GREAT NEWS!  GREEDY WHORE!
        \_ Good police work.
        \_ Why didn't she go with a dead cockroach?  Then the police would've
           paid much less attention.
           \_ Probably can't (as much) money out of it as a finger would...
2005/4/22 [Uncategorized] UID:37314 Activity:moderate
4/22    some of the photo of Nanjing Massacre... be warned.
        \_ Sooo.. NSFW?  Is it just me, or does nu18 sound like a porn
        \_ Could use better English translation...
2005/4/22-23 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:37315 Activity:kinda low
4/22    China is not playing by the rule?  how about USA?
        \_ Bad Chicom troll.
        \_ We're not.  Unfair subsidies, trade barriers, etc.  But we're
           a lot lot lot less worse.  Bad Chicom troll.  -John
           \_ The content of the url does not match well the title given by
              op, but come on, this is the motd.  The article's point is made
              across when the like of John say "We're not" "bad chicom troll"
              without even attempting to make an argument.  Of course Americans
              have the right to be self-righteous, just like citizens of any
              country.  But self-righteousness alone rarely lead to progress.
              The mental picture of Chinese government being a superefficient
              evil planner scheming to undercut fair American market prices
              through currency manipulation and subsidy is a figment of idiotic
              imagination.  The government doesn't decide the price and and
              exercise little control over the amount of export.  Subsidy
              is small.  Very very few Chinese companies directly export to
              the US market.  The low prices are dictated on them by large
              US companies like walmart. I have Chinese acquaintances in export
              who are desperate to hike the price but cannot, because they have
              no leverage against the American middleman.  For various reasons,
              they cannot bypass the later and enter US market directly.
              \_ OK I'll use complete sentences, since you seem to have had
                 a liberal helping of thicko juice for breakfast:  The op's
                 trollish argument is nonsense.  Although he has a point that
                 the US violates a lot of international trade treaty rules,
                 through mechanisms such as subsidies and unfair tariffs, what
                 we do by no means even starts to match up against Chinese
                 continued refusal to float currency, functional restrictions
                 on FDI, hideous labor practices and, and engaging in legally
                 "bad" stuff such as industrial espionage and completely
                 disregarding IP rights (talk to any westerner who's ever
                 opened a factory/plant/office in China to see what I mean.)
                 You may now go on trolling about "oh n0es, poor China)  -John
2005/4/22-23 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37316 Activity:nil
4/22    A green movement I could get behind
2005/4/22-23 [Transportation/Car] UID:37317 Activity:moderate
4/22    We've Been Led To Expect Free Parking: (sfexainer)
        A great column exploring the roots of some of the fundamental
        problems we face in America (expensive housing, traffic congestion,
        obesity) and what we can do about it.
        \_ I often wonder what America would look like if road construction
           and maintainence had been left to the free market, instead of
           subject to massive government subsidy and oversight.  The
           interstate system is a really good example of centralized planning
           and it's unintended consequences.
                \_ where is this magic free market no subsidy transportation
                   system in the world?
                   \_ Nowhere; transportation systems are an example of
                      something the free market is ineffective at providing.
                      But that doesn't mean it should all be subsidized;
                      ideally your subsidies should be aimed at promoting
                      larger goals.  -tom
                      \_ My point was that massive road building was a concious
                         choice made by the government.  It's only now that
                         our country is so car dependent that road building
                         is an "essential service."
                         \_ For a long time, the massive road building was not
                            done to the exclusion of supporting rail travel.
                            \_ actually, the rail network in the US was
                               mostly built with private money; the government
                               granted land but that was about all.  But
                               the railroads became oppressive monopolies,
                               which along with the oil companies brought
                               Teddy Roosevelt into power as a "trust-buster".
                               Extremely harsh restrictions on rail
                               monopolies, never revisted over time, squeezed
                               the life out of the industry over the next 30
                               years, and rail in the US has never recovered.
                               \_ You dismiss the granting of millions of
                                  acres of land like it is nothing.
                                  \_ It's not nothing, but most of the land
                                     wasn't very valuable.  -tom
                                     \- do you know what SPRINT stands for?
                                        interesting question what is the value
                                        of fibre optic routes. some litigation
                                        on this.
                                        \_ SPCC started offering phone service
                                           in 1978.  That was, what, 100 years
                                           after the railroad land grant?
                                  \_ Lands for freeways were also granted.  But
                                     in addition to that, freeway constructions
                                     were funded with govt money.
                                        \_ I'll bet freeways and roads take up
                                           way way way way way way way more
                                           land than the railroads.  Railroads
                                           are much easier to build and
                                           maintain as well.
                                     \_ Yes, but railroad companies also
                                        got 10 sq. miles of land for every
                                        mile of railyway.
           \_ I think it would have been more expensive and worse.
            \_ Without the HUGE road subsidies in this country trains would
               be used a lot more.  That's what pisses me off when Bush
               says shit about how Amtrak needs to support itself.  Amtrak
               can't compete against a road network that gets insane amount
               of tax money for expansion/support.  It's not a fair system.
                \_ Hypocrisy seems to be a requirement in todays Republican
           \_ Privatizing apple and orange vendors, GREAT idea. You get lots of
              competition and even if they're too expensive, you can choose to
              not buy them. Privatizing basic, essential infrastructures like
              water, energy, and transportation... you get the Enron effect.
              \_ Halliburton!
                 \- does anybody know if you have to pay the city a per-day
                    chanrge in SF if you want to say reserve three parking
                    spaces in front of your building for a week "for construc-
                    tion" ... i see some of these places reserved for
                    ridiculous amounts of time which lie fallow most of the
                    time. i think the article misses some non-economic factors
                    as well. i think the sf parking people should also go
                    after the giant number of illegit handicapped placards.-psb
2005/4/22-23 [Academia/Berkeley] UID:37318 Activity:nil
4/22    any ESL classes at UC Berkeley? any co-ops on north side?
        \_ Yes and Yes.
2005/4/22-25 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:37319 Activity:high
4/22    Thoughts on the "nuclear option"?  Seems truly crazy to me.
        \_ Is this in relation to something?
           \_ Uh..  do you follow the news at all?
        \_ Until both sides are willing to do a 24-hr round-the-clock
           filibuster, I don't think it's reasonable to even talk about it.
           You can break a filibuster with endurance if you're willing to stay
           up late.  And if the other side is willing to stay and fight it,
           maybe the majority should reconsider.  On the other hand, I think
           the Dems are going nuts blocking judges.
           \_ 10 out of over 200 is nuts?  Maybe the majority should remember
              what "compromise" means. I bet you'll be the first screaming
              for cloture rules to be reinstated when the D's take back the
              \_ Well, "10 out of over 200" is misleading.  The Democrats
                 blocked 17 of 52 Bush appellate nominees, roughly 1/3.  Of
                 course, the Republicans blocked 16 of 51 Clinton second
                 term appellate nominees too.  So the Democrats are slighly
                 less accommodating, but both sides play this game.
                 \_ I really don't mind "this game".  For the most part, these
                    nominees are fine.  When someone leans far enough to either
                    side to get more than 40 people to say NO, it _should_ be
                    a red flag.
                 \_ Explain to me again how this is "going nuts."
                    \_ Did I comment on "nuts" one way or the other?  I merely
                       explained that "10 out of over 200" is misleading, when
                       it was really "17 of 52".  Nor did I single out the
                       Democrats, when I took pains to point out that
                       Republicans did the same thing.  You need to 1) calm
                       down, and 2) work on your reading comprehension.
                 \_ This is a bit deceptive.  The Clinton nominees were
                    blocked, but by the majority in the Senate, not by a
           \_ You can approve judges if you can get 51 votes out of the Senate
              (or 50 votes + VP Cheney) every time.  Considering you have 55
              Republican senators, all you need are 50 rubber stamps to pack
              the courts.  Breaking a filibuster requires 60 votes.
              Filibustering is rarely used, because who wants to stay up all
              night when you could compromise?
              However, you can also get 50 votes to make a rule that says you
              can't filibuster anymore on judges.
              In which case, you can then employ 50 rubber stamps on any judge
              you want.
              Is this legal?  Yes.
              Is this good for America?  I really doubt it.
              \_ Don't you also need to attain cloture on a rule change?
                 \_ Apparently not.
              \_ Staying up all night sounds so theatrical and dramatic, but
                 in the modern Senate all that is required is for a senator
                 to state an intent to filibuster.  Requiring a senator to
                 pull an all-nighter might interfere with the real Senate
                 business of sucking up to special interests and banging
                 underage pages.
                 \_ What's your point again?
                    \_ Just correcting the inaccurate claim that a filibuster
                       requires a senator "to stay up all night".  Some of us
                       care about factual things.
                       \_ So all a senator has to do is "state an intent
                          to filibuster"?  What do they do after that?
                          Note how I haven't claimed "that a filibuster
                          requires a senator 'to stay up all night'".  Read
                          the wording carefully -- the words are "who wants
                          to stay up all night when you could compromise",
                          not "a filibuster requires a senator to stay up
                          all night".
                          \_ Well, the exact words were "Filibustering is
                             rarely used, because who wants to stay up all
                             \_ Why don't you answer my question, which
                                should address the key question of how
                                difficult it is to filibuster.
                                What does a filibustering senator do after
                                stating an intent to filibuster?
                                \_ Do?  Nothing.  If there are enough votes
                                   for cloture, fine.  If not, the filibustered
                                   bill gets tabled.  You might want to read
                                   the wikipedia entry on filibusters.
                                   \_ I did read it.  Please quote the section
                                      which shows (in more or less words):
                                      "If there are enough votes for cloture,
                                      fine.  If not, the filibustered bill gets
                                      Be very careful with your interpretation.
                                      \_ "What happens if the Senate fails to
                                         invoke cloture?   The debate
                                         continues. Generally, the Senate
                                         majority leader . in this case
                                         Frist . will simply give up trying
                                         to have the chamber vote on the
                                         measure in question and move on to
                                         another issue."
                                         \_ What's your problem?
                                            Why aren't you quoting wikipedia
                                            like I asked?  You're the one who
                                            brought up wikipedia.
                                            \_ I am large, I contain
                                               multitudes. --chiapet
        \_ The Constitution explicity names six instances where supermajorities
           are required, appellate judge nominations is not one of them.
           The use of filibusters to prevent nominations is historically
           rare, until Bush's 1st and 2nd term.
           A Senate majority is allowed to change procedural rules, and so
           they should.
           Lastly, it is a sad day indeed when espousing the beliefs of the
           founders, as did Janice Rogers Brown, makes you a controversial
           nominee.  Unfortunately this is not the first time.
           \_ "A Senate majority is allowed to change procedural rules, and
              so they should."  Just because you can doesn't mean you "should".
              Legal?  Yes.
              Good for America?  I really doubt it.
2005/4/22-23 [Recreation/Food] UID:37320 Activity:nil
4/22    I've actually never ate at Wendy's.  In terms of healthiness, are
        they about the same as McDonald's and BurgerKing? Maybe I'll
        go there this weekend to check it out.
        \_ I like them better but I never tried their actual hamburgers.
           Their Spicy Chicken Fillet sandwich and sour cream+chive baked
           potato are good eating.
           \- how much do those cost?
              \_ i think it can vary by franchise, not sure. the chicken
                 is something over $3 by itself and the potato $1.XX. A
                 $0.99 basic side salad is also ok... not tasty but a
                 serviceable bowl of veggie matter.
        \_ Wendy's is better than either of those, because they have some
           healthier menu items than burgers. Arby's is also pretty
           healthy in comparison. Best is probably still Subway.
2005/4/22-23 [Computer/Companies/Google] UID:37321 Activity:kinda low 66%like:34709 66%like:38313
4/22    How's that GOOG short going?
        \_ GOOG is still about the same as it was in Nov 2004.
           \_ In other words, it's still out-performing the market, even
              though it ran over "short GOOG at 100" guy as it doubled
              in price.  (And actually, you're full of shit anyway; it
              is up over 10% since November 2004). -tom
2005/4/22-25 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan] UID:37322 Activity:very high
4/22    I haven't read much on the news, what do the Koreans think about
        the current situation between China and Japan?
        \_ Aren't they mad about that book that got approved that took out
           references to comfort women?
        \_ The Koreans are pretty mad about the books as well, but they
          haven't attacked anything Japanese over it.  (2 people cut off
          fingers and one guy lit himself on fire)  The protests over
          comfort women in front of the Japanese embassy are practically
          standard by now.  The Koreans are also mad because one of the
          new text books claims Dokdo, a tiny pair of Korean held
          islands, is illegally occupied by the Koreans. -jrleek
          \_ Wow, there's still arguments over that island?  I remember
             learning about it when I was a kid.  Koreans actually have a song
             that proclaims how Dokdo belongs to Korea.
             \_ Yeah.  My wife can sing that song. "Dokdo-nun oori ddang!"
                I reserve judgement a bit, because I've never heard the
                Japanese side of the story, but my understanding is that
                the only time the Japanese ever controlled the island was
                1905-1945.  Since Korea was occupied by Japan in 1906, I
                don't really think that counts. -jrleek
           \_ This is pretty correct, but those who cut off their fingers did
              so because of Dokdo, not because of the history books.  Also,
              I think there's generally a lot more anger in China and Korea
              than over just the issue of sex slavery; there were a whole slew
              of war atrocities commited by imperialist Japan--sex slavery
              simply appears to be either the only one well vocalized or the
              only one covered by the media.
              \_ You're right, although I kinda see those as related since
                 a lot of the Dokdo hubbub is over the textbooks, but
                 there's also "Takeshima Day" which pissed off a lot of
                 Koreans.  As for the comfort women, I think they get
                 covered the most because some of them are still alive
                 (80, I think) and actively protesting.  Most war
                 atrocities result in dead people. Dead people are very
                 poor at active protesting. -jrleek
        \_ My personal opinion is that the best way to resolve the
           situation would be for Japan to revise it's text books, and for
           China to pay for the repairs to the Japanese embassy.  I don't
           really think Japan has to continue to atone for it's past sins,
           but it shouldn't try to deny them either.  However, by allowing
           it's citizens to riot and damage the Japanese embassy, China
           was in direct violation of it's signed treaties. -jrleek
           \_ The problem is that 1) The "honor" thing is very important in
              Japanese culture than in mordern Chinese and western cultures
           \_ The problem is that 1) The "honor" thing is more important in
           \_ FYI it's "its" not "it's" in the context you're using it.
           \_ The problems are that 1) The "honor" thing is more important in
              Japanese culture than in mordern Chinese and western culture
              (don't know about Korean), 2) The monarchy is a continuation of
              the one in the past.  So it's very hard to make Japan admin they
              were evil.
              \_ 3) Is Chinese your first language?
                 \_ Yes.  Your point?
                    \_ Perhaps your opinion might be biased?  In any case,
                       you stereotype of the Japanese is unfortunate.
                       \_ But in this situation probably pretty accurate, at
                          least  relating to this situation.  Putting aside
                          the whole Yasukuni thing (as there's at least _some_
                          point to it),  what other reasons could you think
                          of for Japanese schools not wanting to adopt a text-
                          book which owns up to prettty hideous war crimes?
                          (and don't start with "the-US-did-this, the-other-
                          colonial-powers-did-that, there's (a) an order of
                          magnitude of difference, and (b) most western
                          countries have or are coming around to admitting
                          having caused some bad shit.  I'm not saying the
                          Chinese approach is anything less than reprehensibly
                          opportunistic, but there's sure a lot of potential
                          for Japan to take the moral high ground.  -John
                          \_ So how do the Germans deal with their history
                             textbook issues?  How is WWII presented in
                             German schools?
                             \_ "We really really fucked up and did lots of
                                bad shit and we have to make sure that it
                                never happens again".  Although the situation
                                with them is a bit different, as the Japanese
                                committed widespread wanton brutality, not
                                really genocide per se.  And yes there is a
                                lot of resistance to the constant guilt thing
                                in Germany.  -John
                    \_ BTW, your English could still use a bit of work.
           \_ When this thing is eventually settled, China WILL pay
              for the damage to Japanese properties. Whether Japan
              will alter the text book or not, it remains to be see
              (highly unlikely).
              \_ nah, I doubt China will pay a cent.
                 \_ what are you willing to bet? -chiry
                 \_ Didn't the Chinese govt pay for the damaged US embassy?
                    Of course, that doesn't compare to the laser guided
                    bomb that landed on the Chinese embassy.
                    \_ They need to pay for that bomb.
                    \_ yea, but US is scary country.  PRC always try
                       to avoid conflict with US.  Also, US didn't
                       murder millions of Chinese civilians, or use
                       them for medical experiments.
                       \_ No, the PRC has done enough of this themselves.
                          Also, see recent stories on Uighurs.
                          \_ Ask people in PRC, and they will say GLP
                             and GPCR sucked.  They will also say the
                             last quarter century of economic reform
                             and prosperity was good.  What's your
                             \_ That the PRC is manipulating medium-grade
                                anger over a text-book written by Right
                                Wingers in a foreign country to push for
                                greater bargaining power over oil fields in
                                ambiguously owned waters while continuing to
                                stifle any criticism of the PRC's own
                                atrocities, some of which are ongoing.
                                Physician, heal thyself.
                                \_ err ... I think everyone knows that
        \_ on a related note, 100 youngsters (in their 20s) came to the
           street of tokyo protesting against the textbook.  (from hk
           \_ Native students or Chinese?
              \_ natives plus foreigners from around the earth.
2005/4/22-25 [Computer/HW/IO] UID:37323 Activity:kinda low
4/22    How secure can bluetooth be implemented.  I hear stories of remotely
        hacking into people's phonebook and such.  I'm specifically wondering
        about bluetooth keyboards.  Even if you don't advertise your presence,
        is it easy to remotely monitor your keystrokes?
        \_ In theory bt could be securely implemented. In reality it is prob.
           to much to expect that your bt kbd is encrypting everything that
           it sends to your computer.
           to much to expect that your bt kbd is properly encrypting keystrokes.
        \_ There are working bluetooth exploits--Max Moser demonstrated a few
           of them recently.  Many peripherals (kbd, mouse, earpieces, etc.)
           also are weak because of simple static auth keys (1111, 1234, etc.)
           Bluetooth's range is not an issue either; google for 'bluesniper.'
           The protocol is a bit safer due to some reasonably clever fidling
           with keys during a session.  Look at
           (the Auditor collection) for some very good tools and docs on the
           topic.  That said, will anyone care enough to attack your keyboard?
           Probably not.  -John
2005/4/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:37324 Activity:very high
4/22    Quote going around the blogs today:
        "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is
        absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should
        he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his
        parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is
        granted any public funds or political preference ... I believe in an
        America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish --
        where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on
        public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any
        other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose
        its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the
        public acts of its officials." - president John F. Kennedy
        \_ Why did JFK hate America?
            \_ JFK was the first Catholic President, he had no choice but to
                come out strong against religion, since he was a religious
                Minority.  And there were wingnuts in the red states who
                actually thought the vatican might have sway over US policy
                It is similar to why Clinton had to be so hard on drugs during
                his presidency as a known pot-smoker. -phuqm
                his presidency as a known pot-head. -phuqm
                \_ phuqm, it's hard to take anything you say seriously after
                   reading the last sentence in this paragraph.  There is a
                   kernel of truth in what you say, in that Clinton indeed
                   expanded the war on drugs more than any other president
                   before him in part to appear as a Democrat that was
                   "tough on crime."  However, calling him a "known pot-head"
                   just makes you sound like a Freeper.  That's okay, one more
                   motd crank we don't have to pay attention to.
                   \_and one more humor impaired whiner.  Here, I'll give you
                      the bland version:  "Because Clinton took so much heat
                      over his (admitted) marijuana use, he could not afford
                      to appear soft on drugs."  (Does that make it easier
                      for you to parse oh humorless one?).  Also, you or
                      someone editing at the same time as you stepped on
                      two of my posts, punk.
        \_ So?
        \_ and he is wrong.  The 'separation' metaphor is a 20th century
           contrivance by Justice Black in Everson that completely distorts the
           original intent.  Time to put this absurd notion in the trash
           bin of history.
           \_ the wall of seperation metaphore was taken from a letter by
              Jefferson in 1802.  However,  you are right that Kennedy is
              wrong above.  And right in general that it is a bad metaphore
              which does not capture the actual intent of the 1st amendment.
              \_ Jefferson was in France during the time the Bill of Rights
                 was ratified.  He later collaborated with Madison to
                 write the Religious Freedom act in Virginia, which was
                 explicit about a separation.  At the writing of the
                 Bill of Rights almost every colony had a State church.
                 Jefferson himself as President funded Christian missionaries.
                 This type of Federal support for Christian institutions
                 continued until the beginning of the 20th century.
                 In another letter, to Rev. Samuel Miller on
                 Jan. 23, 1808 Jefferson stated, "I consider the
                 government of the U S. as interdicted by the
                 Constitution from intermeddling with religious
                 institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or
                 exercises. This results not only from the provision
                 that no law shall be made respecting the establishment,
                 or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which
                 reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the
                 U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious
                 exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline,
                 has been delegated to the general government. It must
                 then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any
                 human authority."
                 Lastly, it is someone ironic that Pres. Kennedy uses
                 invokes this decision since Justice Black was
                 radically anti-Catholic and even a former member of
                 the KKK.
                  \_ umm, thanks for the history lesson and all, but i'm
                     not sure why this is a response to me.  Do you think
                     you are adding or subtracting from what I said?
                     Who cares where Jefferson was when the Bill of Rights
                     was ratified?  Why is that relavent to this
                     conversation? -phuqm
                  \_ Umm, thanks for the history lesson and all, but i'm
                     unclear on why this is a response to me.  Do you
                     think you are adding or subtracting from what I said?
                     Who cares where Jefferson was when the BofR was
                     ratified?  How does that impact anything that has
                     been said? -phuqm
              \_ JFK's statement cannot be wrong. The statement 'I believe
                 in an America where []' is very different from 'I believe
                 that in America []'. JFK's statement is an expression of
                 what America OUGHT to be rather than what it is (or is
                 required to be under the establishment clause). There is
                 nothing wrong with his belief that America should have
                 more religious separation than the constitution requires.
                 \_ There is more than one way to be wrong.  One can be
                    wrong headed.  Obviouly I am not suggesting that he
                    is wrong about what he believes (though, I don't know
                    that he did believe that).  I am saying that what he
                    believes in (allegedly) is wrong.  -phuqm
                 \_ There is more than one way to be wrong.  One can, for
                    example, be wrong headed.  I obviously did not mean to
                    suggest that he incorrectly stated his beliefs (though
                    he may well have).  -phuqm
                    \_ Perhaps I was not clear. JFK statement indicates
                       that he knew what the 1st amd required and was
                       arguing that this was not enough: the policy
                       of America ought to be complete separation
                       despite the fact that the framers didn't require
                       that. One can disagree w/ his assessment, but the
                       assessment cannot itself be wrong.
                 \_ Side note: wouldn't it be nice to again have a president
                    that could speak in complete sentences?
                    \_ Wouldn't it be nice to have a well spoken liberal
                       candidate that could actually win the election?
                       \_ Hell, liberal or conservative, it's fine with me.
                          Anything would be better than the leader of the
                          free world giving us all the sneaking suspicion
                          that he can't even tie his shoes.
                    \_ You mean like Reagan? Yes.
                        \_ reagan was very charming, regardless of whether
                           or not you agreed with what he said.
2005/4/22-25 [Computer/SW/Languages/Misc, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:37325 Activity:high
4/22    Per ilyas and dbushong's suggestion I modified motd diff:
        Constructive comment/suggestions welcomed here
        \_ what do the different colors/styles of the listed names mean?
           \_ color key is here: go down
        \_ Knowing what I have added to the motd today (very little), I can
           confidently pronounce this as a piece of crap.  Or at least that
           a simple way to defeat it is to edit the motd without a lock and
           background the editor (reloading inside the editor when I want to
           add a change). -emarkp
           \_ I never made the claim it's 100% accurate or undefeatable.
              In fact it's impossible to track everything unless you make
              mods to the OS to track writes, or build something on top of
              root writable motd.public that requires authentication. It's
              a difficult problem, and that's what makes it interesting.
              \_ But claiming to indicate users while being inaccurate is
                 disinformation, especially in some of the charged threads that
                 show up here. -emarkp
                 \_ what, science can't be probabilistic? The indicators are
                    merely what the script THINKS has happened, that
                    it has some confidence that underlined/bold/etc users
                    did something, and low confidence that grayed out users
                    did something. That's it. You're right, it's not black
                    or white. If you don't trust the script, that's fine too.
                    But calling it a piece of crap, that is a bit extreme.
                    \_ It's a piece of crap.  -tom
                    \_ I count 25 entries today with my name in it.
                       Considering that before this thread I made a whopping 2
                       edits, yes I think it's a piece of crap.  Oh, and sign
                       your name. -emarkp
                        \_ I'll gladly sign my name when you start using
                           motdedit or a shared lock system :)
                           \_ Give me a break.  Motdedit is problematic, and
                              faulty.  My editor lets me know if the buffer I'm
                              editing has changed on disk so I don't overwrite.
                              That works for me.  Sign your name. -emarkp
                              \_ Well. You don't use motdedit because you have
                                 your reasons, and I will not sign because I
                                 have my reasons. Let's just leave it at that.
                                 \_ Then do you have a problem with someone
                                    writing a script to divine your identity?
                                    \_ Not really, why should I care? It
                                       interfere with me anyways.
                                    \_ No. I guess we're all different
        \_ The page could use some UI improvements. How about format
           it like those web forums? What I meant is something like
  So that each
           topic is broken into its own colored sections. Also, fonts
           such as Arial would probably be easier to read. How about
           move the "clock" to the front in its separate column? At
           the end of the page, explain the color coding. Remove the
           extra line above and below the highlighted section. And if
           you are really bored, reformat each reply so that it is
           perfectly indented. -chiry
        \_ And if you yearn for anonymous motd again,
           \_ I wouldn't mind if I get a shell account.
2005/4/22-23 [Finance/Investment] UID:37326 Activity:high
4/22    Why does cygwin have a hippo as their icon now and why is there NO
        discussion of the change that I can find.  Paranoid people like me
        FEAR CHANGE.  Anyone know what's up wid dis?
        \_ Maybe they got hacked.
            \_ Dat's WHAT I'M AFRAID OF!  (i doubt it though).
2021/12/03 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:April:22 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>