| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2005/4/22-23 [Reference/RealEstate] UID:37311 Activity:kinda low |
4/22 Housing bubble! Arrghhh!
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3886356
"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
ownership.
\_ 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
sick.
\_ 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?
\_ http://tinyurl.com/due52 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.
http://www.nu18.com/china_nj
\_ Sooo.. NSFW? Is it just me, or does nu18 sound like a porn
site?
\_ 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?
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3905158
\_ 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
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?Story_ID=3888006 |
| 2005/4/22-23 [Transportation/Car] UID:37317 Activity:moderate |
4/22 We've Been Led To Expect Free Parking:
http://csua.org/u/btc (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.
-tom
\_ 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.
http://www.coxrail.com/land-grants.htm
\_ 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
party.
\_ 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
Senate.
\_ 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
filibuster.
\_ 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
night..."
\_ 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
tabled."
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."
http://csua.org/u/btx
\_ 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.
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
point?
\_ 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
already.
\_ on a related note, 100 youngsters (in their 20s) came to the
street of tokyo protesting against the textbook. (from hk
newspaper)
\_ 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 http://www.remote-exploit.org
(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.
-phuqm
\_ 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:
http://csua.berkeley.edu/~kchang/24/?incr=1
Constructive comment/suggestions welcomed here
\_ what do the different colors/styles of the listed names mean?
\_ color key is here: http://csua.berkeley.edu/~kchang/24 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?
-emarkp
\_ 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
http://forums.slickdeals.net/t94394.html 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, http://csua.org/motd
\_ 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). |
| 5/24 |