| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2005/5/12-13 [Recreation/Dating] UID:37642 Activity:high |
5/11 I recently found out my significant other is having a secret e-mail
correspondence with someone else including discussion of sexual
topics, etc. I found this out by accident but since then i've been
doing some snooping. the correspondence itself is a little
racy / flirty and makes me a little jealous but it's basically
harmless...(it's clear that both people are in relationships and
both are aware of it and there's no talk of meeting in person etc.)
what bothers me more is the fact that it's being kept a secret from
me. everything else in the relationship is going well. How worried
should i be?
\_ You give a shit? Confront her, accept that it might end the
relationship, but maybe also clear the air, and feel bad about
snooping. Don't give a shit? Let it lie and deal. What's so
hard about that? -John
\_ You are snooping on your SO? I'd be very worried about that one.
Jealousy is a bad mother fucker, and will wreck relationships
time and time again.
\_ Are you married to your SO? -ax
\_ What does that have to do with it?
\_ What, you don't think there's a difference between
dating and marriage? -not ax
\_ If you are married and don't trust the person you
married, you screwed up and married the wrong
person. If you are single, you can always meet
someone else if it bothers you that much. Don't
read other people's e-mail if you can't handle
what you see. You should have so much trust in the
person you are with you don't feel the need to spy
on them. -ax
\_ Sorry, but that's silly--I've been with my gf
for ~10 years now. We're not married for tax
reasons, and because it doesn't mean much to us.
Try implying to me with a straight face that our
relationship is somehow less solid than any
given married couple's. -John
\_ I'm not commenting about the solidity of
your relationship, I'm commenting on the
ability to leave a relationship without
lawyers and red ink. I'm glad to hear you have
a solid relationship. In California if you
two had been married for ten years, and you
wanted out, you could look forward to alimony.
Actually, you might already have a common law
marriage depending on where you live...
-ax
\_ Fair enough, we basically get all the
same rights as a married couple (it's
called "concubinate" here, weirdly enough)
without palimony or tax obligations. -John
\_ Um, I agreed that your question was important.
And don't post past 80 columns (with tabstop=8).
\_ When it comes to trust and privacy, not really.
Assuming we are talking about serious, commited,
daing.
married, you screwed up and married the wrong person.
If you are single, you can always meet someone else if
it bothers you that much. Don't read other people's e-mail
if you can't handle what you see. You should have so much
trust in the person you are with you don't feel the need to
spy on them. -ax
\_ What a load of horseshit. Married people
\_ Interesting how this hasn't drawn a long,
fist-waving rant about squishing and alums
and hostile environments from The Management.
cheat all the time and do so whether or not
they 'trust each other'. In this case, whether
or not he trusted his SO she's still doing
something she shouldn't be.
\_ The point was that the op doesn't trust his
or her SO, as proven by the need to spy
on e-mail. I'm not talking about blind trust
I'm talking about trust based on an understanding
of the other person's values and behavior. -ax
\_ I find myself agreeing with ax. I must need
more sleep.
\_ So my conclusion is you don't trust your SO, that
is either based on you being paranoid or some kind
of behavior you see that is causing you doubts.
Obviously that lack of trust was there before you
"stumbled" on the e-mail. If it's paranoia,
watch "Raging Bull" and cut it out. If it's not,
\- ^Raging Bull^Othello
bail if you can't deal with it. Don't just
sit there and continue spying. -ax
\_ You didn't find out by accident-- you were snooping. That's on
purpose. Think about this: if it's truly harmless, is there a
good reason why s/he _would_ tell you? Have you indicated jealous
behaviour before (you know, snooping, etc.)? Perhaps s/he is
just having fun and trying to avoid a blow-up. If it's truly
harmless, just let it go. --erikred
\_ Who the hell ar you to say this? What do you know about the op?
\_ Who the hell are you to say this? What do you know about the op?
Idiot.
\_ A discussion like that that you don't know about can only destroy
your relationship. Any counselor will tell you that.
\_ You're SOL. If the exchange had been completely innocent in the
mind of your SO, she would have mentioned it to you. This is
something that has gone on over a period of at least weeks, right?
If nothing has happened yet, it just means that the opportunity
to do something has not openned up yet. If your SO's email-pal
becomes single, or if he just gets that certain itch, you can bet
that he will make an overture and that your SO will be willing to
(at least) consider the proposal.
(at least) consider the proposal. You can also bet that your SO
is aware of the possibility.
\_ not necessarily. I talk about sex with most of my friends at
some point, both male and female. The better the friend, the
more detailed/graphic the conversation can be without being
uncomfortable. Plus, flirting is fun. I love to flirt with
other people even when I'm in a relationship... in that case,
it's easier to flirt with people who are also in relationships/
otherwise unavailable, because there's an unspoken limit to
how far you can take it. It's safe. I also agree that if the
OP has demonstrated jealous/possessive behavior before, that
could explain why the SO is defensive/secretive. It could be
good to talk about, though, since it's obviously causing stress
to the OP and could lead to other relationship issues, even if
it's not a problem to the SO. The snooping part might be an
issue, though.
\_ I think you need to be honest with yourself about how
harmless you are being. Personally, I think you are a slut.
\_ Personally, I think you are a prude.
\_ Yeah, crazy me for not wanting to flirt with
married women and not wanting my wife to flirt with
men. Anyone doing this is kidding themselves and
ultimately asking for trouble.
\_ I have enough self control and know myself well
enough to know when I can flirt and when I can't.
I trust my wife knows herself similarly. I know
that I trust her. I think that you are a humourless
prude who doesn't appreciate the joy of being a
fully alive human being.
http://www.sirc.org/publik/flirt.html
"At one level, you can flirt with more or less
anyone. An exchange of admiring glances or a
bit of light-hearted flirtatious banter can
brighten the day, raise self-esteem and strengthen
social bonds. Flirtation at this level is harmless
fun, and only the stuffiest killjoys could possibly
have any objections"
\_ You're scary.
\_ Thanks.
\_ That wasn't a compliment.
\_ It is coming from you. Thanks again!
\_ That's just silly.
\_ Talking about sex is "light-hearted banter"?
\_ Does your SO (assuming you're in a relationship right now)
know the people you flirt with and the the fact that you
flirt with them? Do you think your behavior would be more
or less innocent with or without the knowledge (and/or
acquiescence) of your SO?
\_ Bottom line, don't do anything in private you wouldn't do in front
of your SO. Ask yourself, what would my wife/husband think if
she/he found out I was doing this. It may be timid and boring,
but you'll sleep well. -ax
\_ 1. How the OP found out about this is a separate issue.
Two wrongs dont make a right. It may affect OP's
options in dealing with it (if asked , "how did you
find out?") but let's move on to the main issue ...
2. As for how worried should I be, well I'd say this is
certainly a data point to factor in. It's like when
you have a fight about something minor ... is that
what is really going on, or is it really about some
larger issue. In this case, she's not doing it in
your face, which rules out certain motivations (to
put you down, assert control, see how you react, to
get to you pay more attention to her) but you may want
to see if she is doing other things to keep her options
open. I actually think it may not be unreasonable to
do something like tell her you are having lunch with a
woman friend next week and see how she reacts. That
assumes you have a reasonably attractive woman friend
you can have lunch with and that you can pull this off
reasonably.
\_ What she is doing is wrong. I would suggest you do the following.
(1) forgive her
(2) stop snooping
(3) love her more
\_ "Yes it's true... This man has no dick."
(4) don't play games or tests
(5) be happy, enjoy life
(6) if something similar happens, tell her how it makes you
worried and sad.
worried and sad. no, you are not being overly-possessive
(7) browse http://www.family.org (warning: christian site)
(8) continue to observe (no snooping) and get to know her
better
Email makes discretion and a double life easier. You are not
married but for married couples, for topics that get more personal,
emails to a person of the opposite gender should CC both of your
emails to a person of the opposite gender should consider CCing
spouses, generally speaking. |
| 2005/5/12 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:37643 Activity:nil 66%like:37647 |
5/11 Firefox 1.0.4 out. |
| 2005/5/12-13 [Recreation/Pets] UID:37644 Activity:nil |
5/11 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/06/eveningnews/main693667.shtml Animal cosmetic surgery. \_ do they make Neuticles for men? |
| 2005/5/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/Election, ERROR, uid:37645, category id '18005#5.11375' has no name! , ] UID:37645 Activity:nil |
5/11 "Lawmaker Hopes to Open Churches to Political Speech"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156264,00.html
Conservatism #1!!! |
| 2005/5/12-13 [Uncategorized] UID:37646 Activity:nil |
5/12 More on light pipes:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/05/more_on_light_p_1.php
\_ I like the "You're either with us or against us" vibe at the
end there. The tech looks interesting though. |
| 2005/5/12-13 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:37647 Activity:nil 66%like:37643 |
5/11 Firefox 1.0.4 out.
http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/releases/1.0.4.html
\_ Sigh, it's looking more like IE -- non-stop never ending updates to
\_ Sigh, it's looking more like IE -- non-stop never-ending updates to
fix security holes.
\_ do you actually use IE?
\_ Only for accessing web pages in my company. Before FF 0.9.3
I used Netscape for everything else.
\_ that's what i thought. even though ff is constantly
putting out security updates, it's still pretty
fundamentally different than IE.
\_ The fundamental difference being the spyware and
adware you don't end up with.
\_ All malware problems will be solved in the
next windows update! ..err.. the next
service pack! ...err.. the next version of
windows... -Microsoft |
| 2005/5/12-13 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:37648 Activity:low |
5/11 Utopia motd: When everyone is kind on motd
Communist motd: When you need politburo's approval to write on motd
\_ Where everyone contributes one word or letter to every post, but
where a geriatric hald blind hunt and peck secretary types them in.
\_ You are confusing communism with totalitarianism.
\_ Well, I guess the theoretical communist motd would just be
the utopian motd. (Which is just the libertarian motd where
everyone is nice.)
\_ Nobody would be allowed to post more than his allotted quota.
Except Party officials might give themselves extra benefits
for their essential services to the People. And of course
all activity would have to be closely monitored in order to
ensure this fairness and eliminate destabilizing radicals.
Gee, this is looking more like totalitarianism already! Well,
our people would have dignity instead of being capitalist
running dogs.
Capitalist motd: When you need to pay to write something new on motd,
and charge others for replying to your stuff
\_ More like: posts are given position on the motd based on popularity.
\_ Posts are given permission based on how much you paid.
\_ Posts are given position based on how much you paid.
Fascist motd: When all of your actions are reviewed by the big bro
\_ Fascist motd: When you are handed a statement to post and sign.
Socialist motd: When politburo controls how many times you can use
and abuse motd
\_ Provided you don't use e's on wednesdays or s's on
Fidays, and every other word is given back to politburo.
Seniority motd: Posting position is based on how long you've been
in the CSUA.
\_ It's just like the capitalist motd, except the Politburo owns the
motd and collects the fees, and if you're too poor to pay then they
grant you a certain minimum amount of posting. The capitalist motd
would be auctioned off to the highest bidder(s) in chunks and they
would run the thing themselves, taxed and policed by Politburo.
Libertarian motd: When anyone can do whatever he/she pleases to motd
\_ Libertarian motd is where we are today.
\_ great, an object lesson in why libertarianism is ridiculous. -tom
\_ It's been libertarian for years, and yet you continue to
obsessively read and post. Would anyone bother to read or post
to any of the other above choices(I'm ignoring the utopian
one)?
\_ probably, everyone except cowardly, abrasive
right-wingers would be just fine with it. -tom
\_ What is wrong w/ the motd as it exists? Yes there is
a bunch of crap on it, but that can be easily ignored.
Yes sometimes people overwrite each other, but that
isn't a huge problem b/c most people are basically
considerate and try to avoid this. All in all it
works and has worked for years.
Personally I think kchang's attempt at detecting
who is making a post is a good one. It has made
the discussion more civil and the topics more
interesting/technical (as it was years ago).
\_ The motd has been held hostage by people who feel that
the motd didn't agree with them and that they should have
the power to do whatever they want to it. Liberatarian
values emphasize personal responsibility. An anonymous
motd seems to encourage irresponsible and petty behavior
instead of civilized discussion. -rollee
\_ I strongly disagree. If the motd is more civil, it's
because a couple of people like aaron and ilyas have
stopped posting, which is unrelated to anything kchang
has done. If people want to post semi-anonymously,
there's still plenty of ways to do it, as discussed in
other threads. Personally, I've stopped using motdedit
just because I don't like the idea of being tracked by
kchang. If postings to the motd are going to be tracked,
it should be done officially with some kind of version
control system, not by some buggy script maintained by
a stalking dweeb.
\_ The irony is razor sharp. -- ilyas
\_ The problem, as I see it, is that while it is
desirable to have a anonymous forum for the free
and open discussion of all sorts of topics, it
is necessary to inject a note of civility into
the forum so that newcomers are not turned off.
The vitality of this (or any forum) depends on
new blood - w/o new perspectives we will end
up w/ a bunch of rehashes of the same arguments.
The optimal solution would be for everyone to
voluntarily behave in a civilized manner, which
would encourage newcomers to adopt the same
attitude. The history of the motd indicates that
this may not be possible.
I believe that an official tracking system would
create a disincentive to a free and open debate.
I see the kchang hack is a compromise. There is
still some level of plausible deniability, but
you can still get called on the particularly bad
comments. This possibility should help to elevate
the discussion.
\_ "The kchang hack" is annoying and intrusive and
pointless. That said, it's based on freely
available information; furthermore, nobody's forcing
anyone to use motdedit (or even post.) And I don't
see it violating any CSUA policies. Best way to
deal with it if you don't like it? "Yeah I wrote
xyz, so fucking what?" -John
\_ amckee's motd: When everyone is kind on motd, or else.
\_ amckee's motd: When everyone is kind on motd (to amckee), or else.
\_ The Communist, Fascist and Socialist motd's are pretty similar.
\_ I find it funny that most of the criticisms are posted
anonymously, which really diminish the weight of the post -kchang
\_ Really? It seems that most criticism comes from those who are
not anon (tom, emarkp, ilyas, john, to name a few). I'd say
more than half the ppl who sign their posts have been critical
of your script.
\_ I for one really like the idea of kchang's script, outside
of having logged motd entries.
It would reduce the amount of blatently offensive trolls.
Maybe we can have a separate motd.not.logged file that people
can chose to read or not. -rollee
\_ Right...until someone gets offended and starts to agitate
for some sort of moderation, and then a new scripter
creates a tracking script for it, and then the people that
left to hang out in their anonymous utopia start to get
pissed off, then it all gets mean and angry(ier), and then
some new clever fellow pipes up "hey, let's separate
motd.not.logged into motd.not.logged and
motd.really.really.not.logged" which of course will fail
since no one can stop another random dude from exercising
his freedom and scripting or logging THAT one....
\_ That's because I don't give a rat's ass about who thinks what
about what I post. I still think your script is dumb, but
I certainly won't argue about whether or not you should be
allowed to run it. -John |
| 2005/5/12-13 [Recreation/Computer/Games] UID:37649 Activity:nil |
5/12 For some reason, I find this line amusing:
Mr Gates says the new Xbox will show that Microsoft "is hardcore
about gaming"
\_ What kind of hardcore can be made by someone who's micro and soft? |
| 2005/5/12-13 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:37650 Activity:high |
5/11 Debunk Walmart Myths, go to http://walmartfacts.com See, they're not as bad as people think they are. \_ Walmart is probably not as evil as a lot of people seem to think. Walgreens on the other hand is infinitely more evil than almost anyone realizes. \_ Really? My wife worked for six years at the pharmacy dept. in a Walgreen store, and she didn't think it was evil. Walgreen store, and she didn't think it was evil. I don't shop there often, but that's because prices are not low. \_ According to WalMart, did the holocaust happen or not? \_ What does the holocaust have to do with Walmart's business? \_ If WalMart says it happened, then maybe it actually didn't. \_ Wal-Mart is worse than most people think they are. It's not because of how they treat their employees, but because of how they treat their suppliers and how ruthlessly they compete with their competitors. \_ competition, oh the humanity. \_ There is competition and there is ruthless competition. For instance, Wal-Mart charges companies for display space (as do a lot of companies) but with Wal-Mart is it extortion. Wal-Mart often sells products for below cost in a bid to drive others out of business, because they have the leverage to do so. That is not good for consumers or the economy. It is not healthy competition. It is the systematic destruction of competition and suppliers at the same time. \_ Why don't you go file an anti-trust lawsuit then? \_ I think someone ultimately will, but I'm certainly not equipped to do so. \_ The government files anti-trust lawsuits, not private parties. \_ You know, Wal-mart have been sued for predatory pricing before. AFAIK, they have won in every case. Care to provide research to back up your claim? \_ Which claim? That Wal-Mart extorts money from \_ Predatory pricing. Wal-mart has never been successly sued for predatory pricing, i.e. selling products below cost to drive out competitors. I assume it would have been clear from the context. Mea Culpa. \_ Wal-Mart has settled lawsuits, though, including one in Wisconsin. They were also ordered by a German court to stop selling items for below cost. suppliers? My dad worked for a big supplier to Wal-Mart and Wal_mart said "If you don't pay us x Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart said "If you don't pay us x $$$ cash we will not stock your product. We don't care if it sells or not." In this case x was a number larger than the revenues generated and Wal-Mart didn't give a shit. Wal-Mart then sets its own price to move the product, which might possibly be less than cost. They can "sell at a loss" because of the cash they received up front and of course people will buy the product at Wal-Mart because it is cheaper there - nevermind it is bankrupting an American company building product in America with Americans labor. Target, on the other hand, doesn't do that bullshit. American labor. Target, on the other hand, doesn't do that bullshit and so the company took their business there. However, Wal-Mart is gradually putting competition out of business and *then* where do you distribute your product? Mom and pop store? No one will buy it because they can buy cheap Chinese knock-offs at Wal-Mart for less. Wal-Mart doesn't care if it bankrupts suppliers as long as they have the cash. There will be other suppliers - an endless stream - right? \_ Predatory pricing. Wal-mart has never been successly sued for predatory pricing, i.e. selling products below cost to drive out competitors. I assume it would have been clear from the context. Mea Culpa. \_ Wal-Mart has so much leverage over suppliers that it is driving entire industries to China. They force prices so low that the ONLY way for a company to keep going is to oursource to China. Furthermore, they force every other retailer to do the same thing or go out of business because it allows them to sell hair dryers for $2 cheaper. Not to mention all the money they suck out of the public treasury. One good result from peak oil will be the end of WalMart. Their whole business structure depends on 10,000 mile supply chains which will become uneconomical in about 5-10 years do to oil scarcity. \_ Did you read the page at the URL above? It countered the China and the public treasury claims. Please point out what part of the page is lying. \_ The URL doesn't really refute anything. It just states facts. Pretty smart, actually. There is no concept presented of what the facts really mean. \_ Do you prefer counter-claims with no facts instead? From the site: in 2004, $18b merchandise from Chinese suppliers vs. $137.5b from US ones. Does that say something? \_ Not about my argument it doesn't. However, what if it was true (I'm making this up) that the numbers were higher/lower in 2003? While their facts might be true, it doesn't identify a trend. For all we know, that year was a anomaly. --dim \_ Look at the way they word it; I'm sure all their bicycles are made in Asia but if they buy from Huffy it's a "U.S. supplier." -tom \_ The way they word it is that the $18b includes "about $9 billion imported from direct sources and about $9 billion from indirect sources". So your hyperthetical Huffy bicycle would be in the second $9b of the $18b. \_ Bullshit. -tom \_ Which part of the above quote from Walmart is a lie? \_ Maybe it's just me, but "they force every other retailer to do the same thing [force prices so low that their suppliers must outsource to China] or go out of business because it allows them to sell hair dryers for $2 cheaper" is a pretty amazing statement. Most monopolists force out the competition so they can extract higher rent. But *not* Walmart! Those bastards force out the competition so they can charge *less*! That's just perverse. I hope Walmart doesn't try to branch out and sell gas or something. God knows I want to spend *more* on a fill up! \_ Do you think once WalMart has totally eliminated the competition their prices will remain low? Or are you kind of dim? \_ Oddly enough, I couldn't find any indication that Walmart charges higher prices once it has come to dominate a market -- and I've looked. There are lots of people saying Walmart *could*, or even Walmart *did*, but there's a complete lack of data. There's nothing that says anything to the effect that, in market N, after Walmart has come to dominate, prices increased by x%, or even the magnitude/frequency of price drops decreased. Since you're so sure this happens, do you have a reference? Not accusations, mind you, but research. Or is your claim just so much groundless MOTD propaganda? groundless MOTD bluster? \_ It's not about charging higher prices. It's about declining quality and destruction of the environment in the pursuit of lower prices. Suppliers are having their profit margins squeezed. Some are going offshore. Others are cutting benefits to their own employees or downsizing. It's hard for those suppliers to tell Wal-Mart to F*** off when there is no other channel to distribute since Wal-Mart has driven them all under. \_ Are you the "will prices remain low" poster? If so, I take it that you don't have research to back up your claim. \_ No, I'm not. \_ So who's pursing lower prices? Is it Wal-mart or the consumers? \_ Wal-Mart, in pursuit of consumers. However, it's not about the lowest price. Say, for example, that generic cola is cheaper but dangerous. Wal-Mart has an obligation not to sell dangerous cola. Wal-Mart is pushing lower prices, but consumers don't always know what went into that bargain. Now that people are finally educating themselves Wal-Mart is not as popular. \_ Is that true? Yes, I know that they just announced bad financials. However, the market seems to think that Wal-mart's problem is a bad product mix plus financial discomfort amongst Wal-mart's target market, rather than some kind of popular uprising against the company. Here's a link of market research on Wal-mart in Oklahoma City, which the company dominates. It shows that Wal-mart's *detractors* in fact are the 2nd largest group of Wal-mart customers (15% of total Wal-mart shoppers, 5.6 visits in 4 weeks, spending $289). http://csua.org/u/c18 \_ It is true in California and other places where Wal-Mart has fought big political battles just to get their stores built. There are lot of people opposed to Wal-Mart - a lot more than, say, 20 (or even 10) years ago. \_ People (would-be customers) in favor of a store generally don't put on a political battle for it. \_ Yes, they do. Have you followed the news at all? Supporters of Wal-Mart pitted against people opposed to it, sometimes on the same city councils. \_ Do you seriously expect me to believe that even when Walmart can raise their prices because they have a monopoly, they chose not too out of the goodness of their hearts? You are the one making the extraordinary claim here. \_ Well, I can't prove that they never do it. Impossible to prove a negative, you know. However, Wal-mart corporate dictates prices nationwide, and then individual stores set deltas from the national price. It's not clear whether local managers have the power to do * +/-n%, or whether the local authority only extends to "specials". In any case, I have not found *any* credible research that shows Wal-mart extracting monopoly rent, though there are plenty of accusations. I will repeat my challenge. If mine is such an incredible claim, it should be trivial to find evidence against it. There are many markets where Wal-mart is dominant, after all. Can *you* find any example of Wal-mart raising prices *after* forcing out the competition? And if you cannot, then is my claim really so incredible? Here's a ref. to market research on Wal-mart in Oklahoma City, where Wal-mart has 10 supercenters, 6 discount stores, 7 neighborhood markets, and 4 Sam's Clubs. The study found Wal-mart to champion low prices. In fact, "its low prices and quality merchandise translate into 'looking out for me--the shopper'". http://csua.org/u/c18 \_ I don't have the time or inclination to do a cross market study, but if someone had done it and it supported it, you can bet Wal-Mart would trumpet it. Just admit it, you have to evidence your opinion, other than your feelings. your feelings. BTW, referecing that bit of obvious marketing PR as evidence doesn't really do much to prove your case or improve your credibility. \_ Like I expected, just so much MOTD bluster without evidence or research. Amazing as it seems, Wal-mart seems to maintain low prices even after it achieves dominance in a market. \_ Just a lot of MOTD bluster without evidence. Wal-Mart "seems" huh? Great thread of argument. \_ Look, this is not isolated to Walmart. It is just what super mega corporations do. They care about the bottom line-- PROFIT. They will do whatever it is profitable. Do you think corporations actually have a soul and care about their employees? In reality, they will do whatever it takes to be profitable, including cutting benefits, hiring non-Unioned workers, squeezing other businesses out, and buying imports instead of American. If one day, they can replace all of the workers with cheap robots, they will not think twice and do it, because it's profitable. It's already happened in the outsourcing of Detroit, the entire outsourcing of VISA/Mastercard support lines, etc. It's not just Walmart. It's what big corporations do. And that's the bottom line. \_ No, not every corporation operates like this - even big, profitable ones. Example: Petco versus Petsmart. One is vaguely aware of social issues and the other is oblivious. \_ There was a debate about this on CSPAN recently: rtsp://video.c-span.org/60days/ap050705.rm I think there are serious problems with Wal-Mart, but more important are the underlying issues with China trade. \_ Wow. That Liza Featherstone is the most condescending bitch I've ever seen. "Unions aren't a special interest" indeed. |
| 2005/5/12 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37651 Activity:high |
5/11 "A photographer witnesses the devastating aftermath of six Iraqi
children whose parents [who were mistakenly identified as
insurgents] were shot before their eyes by U.S. troops" Pretty
awsome gory graphics, here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7818807/site/newsweek
\_ God. That child's terrified face. Thanks. Now I won't be able
to sleep.
\_ if only they can make first person shooter games as graphical as
this... that'd pretty AWSOME. Blood splat, children crying, head
blood gushing out. It'd be a great seller.
\_ Stupid left-wing propaganda. Regardless of the violence, lack of
infrastructures, and shortage of necessities of life for the
Iraqi civilians, we're bringing freedom to their country!
FREEDOM!!! -conservative
\_ Is the URL outdated? I see a picture with caption "Bomb victims:
Bodies lie outside a hospital in Hawija, the northern Iraqi town
where a suicide bomber killed dozens of job applicants waiting
outside a police and army recruitment center on Wednesday"
\_ Bottom right, "Photo gallery with audio".
\_ The article at that URL--is that news or opinion? And people say
Fox News is biased....
\_ It's a columnist. Information and analysis from an author.
God, you people are fucking clueless.
\_ So..just like Fox News?
\_ If you want "just the facts, maam," follow AP articles.
If you want the facts placed in a context, be it social,
historical, political, etc., follow columnists. If you
want to see the context that Bush wants it in, watch Fox
News.
\_ So the bias of this article is okay, but that of Fox
News isn't?
\_ I have no problem with "bias". Bias is inevitable.
I have a problem with people who limit their
curiousity to the point of myopia. I also have
a problem when the "just the facts, maam" reporting
isn't just the facts. Fox's bias in their analysis
is not a problem in and of itself. Their penchant
for flat out lying and failing at fact checking is.
\_ You asserted that FN is a puppet of the Bush
admin. Now you're complaining about its facts
beging wrong. Can you substantiate the claim
either that FN is a pawn of Bush or that FN has a
higher rate of error than other news
organizations?
\_ Here's a collection of John Moody memos showing
a disturbing trend of ... shaping the news to
flatter the current administration:
http://csua.org/u/86m
\_ A blogger quoting "Outfoxed"?!
\_ Do you question the validity of the
memos?
\_ Yes. Prove that they aren't simply
pulled out of someone's ass.
\_ I've wasted enough time on your
stupid shit. Wake the fuck up.
\_ Got it. When confronted for
facts, you have none. Got it
loud and clear.
\_ How do you go through life
rejecting any piece of
information that doesn't fit
into what you've decided is
"right"? Do you have no
intellectual curiousity at
all? I'm curious as to what
else in this crazy mixed up
world you believe in against
all empirical evidence? I
gave you facts, and you said
someone pulled them out of
their ass. Believe whatever
the fuck you want.
\_ Why do you reject FN as a
news outlet based on a
single source?
\_ 1) I didn't reject FN.
I said, effectively,
that they editorialize
in their news, and give
you a perspective that
lines up with the
current admin's
desired context.
\_No, you didn't say
that.
\_ Go back and read
what I wrote.
\_ I did. You
didn't say
that.
_/
"If you want to see the context that Bush wants it in, watch Fox
News."
\_ Which you have yet to prove.
\_ Tell me how that statement "rejects FN as a news outlet"
\_ Non sequitur. I didn't say that statement means what you say
I said it means.
2) It's not based on a
single source. It's
from personal
observation, and from
commentary in numerous
locations from people
who follow these things
more closely than you
or I ever could.
You're asking me for
a dissertation on the
motd. Fuck off.
\_ Numnerous people who
say "everyone knows
FN is biased".
\_ You're utterly
hopeless. Facts
are not untrue
just because you
don't like them.
\_ Then why do
people reject
FN as a news
source when FN
has its facts
right?
\_ Now who's
making
claims
without
backing
them up?
And here's a link to Media Matters' backlog
of Fox missteps, misstatements, etc.
http://csua.org/u/c13
\_ A left organization.
\_ Yes, so?
\_ So how much does Media Matters watch
CNN?
\_ Look for yourself, dumbfuck.
\_ Thanks for clarifying that
you're an idiot.
Take them with as much salt as you like.
David Brock was once a Scaife-funded
journalistic hitman, but apparently decided
he wanted to be able to sleep at night.
And I won't post it again, because it's been
posted too often, but the PIPA study that
showed those who got their news primarily
from FN were far more likely to be misinformed.
\_ A lefty group that doesn't understand cause
and effect. None of these compare FN with
(say) CNN or CBS.
\_ I never said anything about CNN or CBS.
\_ Examples. I asked you to prove that
FN was worse than any other news
organizations.
\_ Prove to me that they're up to par.
\_ Hey dumbass, you made the claim
that FN has problems, you
provide the proof or shut up.
\_ So they drove towards a checkpoint after dark. When they were
ordered to stop as is customary done after dark, they didn't slow
down even after warning shots were fired. What do they expect?
I think they deserve a Darwin Award.
\_ But the Arab media won't report any of these. They'll only say
American GIs shot at innocent unarmed Iraqi civilian family and
killed the parents.
\_ It means the checkpoints are set up in a way such that it's
acceptable to have some collateral damage as long as the
American soldier is okay. Nothing wrong with that, right?
\_ No. It means the checkpoints are set up in a way such that
it's acceptable to have some collateral damage, when
someone doesn't follow orders, as long as the American
soldier is okay.
\_ "orders" in this case refers to bullets flying over
your car?
\_ well stuff like this is bound to happen unless
it's very clear there's a checkpoint ahead. if some
Iraqi dad driving his little car with fucking 6 kids
packed in the back like some clownmobile in the
evening and suddenly there's gunshots, maybe he's
not the brightest bulb but maybe you don't think
that calmly or well in such a situation either...
\_ So, was it very clear there's a (U.S.) checkpoint
ahead?
\_ What! The foreigners are imposing rules on the natives and would
shoot them if they don't comply??? |
| 2005/5/12-13 [Computer/HW/Laptop, Computer/SW/Languages/Misc] UID:37652 Activity:kinda low |
5/11 If you noticed that your laptop HD never rests because it's doing
something, and you've already killed all auxilary processes and made
drives not "Fast Indexable", it's the explorer that's funky. Here
is one solution. Kill explorer and then run it again. You can use
a batch file script:
taskkill -im explorer.exe /f
explorer.exe
\_ Make sure you set this to N and reboot if necessary.
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Dfrg\BootOptimizeFunction\Enable
This got rid of the strange HD activity on my laptop. -chiry
\_ Is it trying to defragment the disk on its own?
\_ My understanding is it will kick in when your laptop
has been idle for some time (ie, 1 hour), and will
disappear the moment you ran task manager trying to
identify the process using the disk. You will see it
in task manager if you leave task manager running for
an hour. I think it tries to defrag the boot files,
not your whole disk.
\_ what does explorer.exe do when you don't have any IE Explorer
window open?
\_ It's your shell. Taskbar, tray, file broweser, etc. IExplore is
something else.
\_ There are a bunch of useful toys for checking open processes, file
handles, etc. under Windows on http://www.sysinternals.com -John |
| 2005/5/12-13 [Recreation/Dating, Reference/Religion] UID:37653 Activity:nil |
5/11 I am kind of a weird jam. My friend; who is Lutheran, wants my
wife and I to godparents to his son. It seems the fact that neither my
wife nor me are Lutheran is not a problem. I was just wondering what
if you are supposed to buy something for the boy, who is
6. Are you supposed to get the kid a religious gift of some
sort? --puzzled agnostic
\_ It would have been much more interesting if you said
My friend; who is Lutheran, wants my wife.
\_ Yeah my interest level was going up until I saw the godparent
thing and it was like, sigh. This post is unworthy.
\_ Um, common sense would suggest you ask your friend, you putz.
-- Sometimes presents are not expect/required but you
look like a putz when you are the only one not giving
something. Sort of like being the only kid not to get your
parents an Xmas present eventhough they told everyone not to.
\_ Traditionally it means you're supposed to take care of the kid if
the parents buy the farm, and kind of "sponsor" him/her. So yeah,
you should buy him things. -John
-- Then its up to the giver and there is nothing
standard like giving a gold cross or something?
\_ Originally you're supposed to be like a witness at the kid's
christening, but that's mainly a catholic thing. There is no
"standard", it's like gm says, "honorary uncle." Anyway, what's
the big deal? It's usually considered an honor, and you don't
have any religious or legal obligations. -John
\_ It's sort of like being an honorary uncle. -gm
\- maybe there is a different matter for religious people
but assuming this is a close friend and you dont feel
weird about the whole thing [otherwise, i am not sure
how you would get out of it] i think you just get the
kid something "good for him" ... like an educational book
or a subscription to a mangazine or some such. you dont
have to buy him an ipod or something overtly religious.
\_ In which case presents are expected, even though someone told you
they weren't, so ask another guest if you consider your friends'
answer suspect. I still stand by my original statement that this
can be solved with common sense. Putz. |
| 2005/5/12-13 [Uncategorized] UID:37654 Activity:nil |
5/11 Holy crap! I had no idea Scott Kurtz was so damn fat!
http://homepage.mac.com/christophersw/PhotoAlbum5.html
\_ He definitely flatters himself whenever he draws himself in his
comics.
\_ Yeah, and he draws himself fat in his comics...
\_ He draws himself fat, but not grotesquely obsese.
\_ He draws himself fat, but not grotesquely obese.
\_ Yeah, and have you seen what those Penny Arcade guys look like
in real life? Not grotesque, but...
\_ Noooo! Don't tell me Tycho's not sexy in real life! |
| 2005/5/12-13 [Computer/SW/OS/OsX] UID:37655 Activity:nil |
5/12 How can I extract a jpg that's embedded in a Mac OS X powerpoint file?
Thanks. |
| 2005/5/12 [Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:37656 Activity:nil |
5/12 John, I like the way your GF looks. She looks like a classy European
babe, like the one from Paris France:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/r.rodham/120804-rh-2.jpg
This of course, is in sharp contrast of a typical American woman from
say, Paris Kentucky:
http://sidesplitters.catastrophe.net/arch/2004/Paris-Kentucky.jpg |
| 2005/5/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37657 Activity:nil |
5/12 http://www.fair.org http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=19&media_outlet_id=2 Search for Fox WMD. 85% of the Fox viewers think that there's WMD and only 16% of the other news think so. That is just one small example. FYI, it also reports that CNN and other liberal media are unfair as well. Basically, ALL news source suck, some more than the other. \_ And what do you conclude from those numbers? \_ And in other news, CBS has apparently hacked up an interview to make the interviewee say what they want. http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010443.php \_ The world is not about United States. The world is about... THE WORLD. That's why I balance spotty and biased U.S. News sources such as liberal LA/NY Times and red neck Fox News with other news source, such as European Daily, Japan Times, and Al Jazeera. I'm serious about the last one. To really understand the world, one needs to temporarily detach oneself from his/her cultural roots and try to understand and even empathize from all perspectives. I don't mean you should become a suicide bomber or burn American flags, but at least try to think the way they think. Unfortunately, this is too much to ask from your average Yankees (with IQ below 90). \_ Average IQ is less than 90? \_ Average IQ is 100, although in the past few decades it's been rising steadily. And I don't think average American necessarily have average IQ. More tests are needed, obviously. http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm \_ First off, the average IQ is just that, the measure of the average IQ of a cohort. Therefore, the average American has an average IQ by definition. If you mean that the average American has a lower IQ than the average XYZ country, then that's another story. You can't say that the average American doesn't have an average IQ, that's like saying the average American doesn't make an average income. Second, IQ only measures a very finite quantitative subset of reasoning skills. Just because you have a high IQ doesn't mean that you have a high EQ or that you are more intelligent in things which the test does not measure for. Trying to correlate IQ with politics is one of the dumbest exercises around. You might as well correlate favorite colors with politics or favorite foods with politics. \_ Who are these people? They even have problems w/ the Newshour. |
| 2005/5/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37658 Activity:nil |
5/12 http://mediamatters.org/items/200505100002 "Fox News general assignment correspondent Major Garrett quoted Republicans who asserted that Texas Supreme Court justice Priscilla Owen, nominated by President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, is the first judicial nominee to be filibustered who received a unanimous well-qualified ("WQ") rating from the American Bar Association (ABA). But Garrett failed to note that blocking WQ-rated judicial nominees is hardly new." So the correspondent correctly notes the historicity of the filibuster, and Media Matters criticizes him for not mentioning "blocking" of candidates. Yeah, real solid criticism there. \_ Why are you cutting the quote? "... is hardly new. Republicans blocked 10 of President Clinton's appeals court nominees who received unanimous WQs. Denied even hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, these nominations never left the committee for full Senate consideration." Oh yeah! You == The Stupid. http://Mediamatters.org == Got it Right. \_ No, media matters apparently doesn't understand the difference between "filibuster" and blocked in committee. \_ Do you accept or not accept the observation below: One can state a standalone fact without further context and, while not lying, be misleading. \_ Of course that's possible. Proving intent is harder. At any rate, in this particular case, FN has addressed the filibuster vs. committee issue at length (at least on the one FN show I watch). \_ Do you accept or not accept the observation below: One can make a factual statement that is misleading, even when not intending to mislead. \_ Is the filibuster the only tool used to block appointees out of sheer partisan venom? If not, then why focus solely on the filibuster? |
| 2005/5/12-13 [Computer/Rants, Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:37659 Activity:nil |
5/13 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155745,00.html I don't like Microsoft but at least they're backing Gay Rights. Go Microsoft, go diversity, go tolerance, and go gay pride! \_ Go CEO Bill Gays! \_ Bill Gays! Bill Gays! Bill Gays! ...... |
| 2005/5/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37660 Activity:kinda low |
5/13 Listen to Bolton in his own voice (proof that he's not a nutjob):
link:csua.org/u/c17
\_ Wow, I didn't know anything about this till now. He seems to have
a lot of Bush's qualities. Go America!
\_ I was expecting beautiful voices of Michael Bolton but... nevermind
\_ I was expecting beautiful voice of Michael Bolton but... nevermind
\_ Our future UN Ambassador is so BIG and TAX FREE, and Condi Rice is
behind him 100%! Thanks for the URL, but I also think the spot
would be much more effective without the text cues and the credit.
behind him 100%! Thanks for the URL.
behind him 100%!
\_ Okay I have a video without the text cues
http://www.moveamericaforward.org/images/uploads/Bolton-UN.wmv
\_ Gee, I don't know about this Bolton thing. I think it's just a
setup. The conservatives want to put in a conservative candidate but
know that he/she'll get rejected, so they put in an obvious radical
nutcase (Bolton) that they know will get rejected. And while the
Democrats declare victory for turning Bolton down, Republican's
will put in the candidate they intended in the first place--
conservative. It's kind of like a store where the merchant raises
his price by 50%, then offer a 25% discount to buyers who think
they're getting a deal. The merchant still get the better
deal, but at least both sides are happy.
\_ I don't think so. I think the Bolton nomination was a total
overreach, and when Voinivich put the breaks on a few weeks
back, the WH had a big "oh crap" moment. They could play the
obstructionist card when it was just the opposition working to
stop their nominations. When R's start to break ranks on you,
especially in today's party, you've seriously fucked up. |
| 2005/5/12-15 [Computer/HW/Laptop, Computer/Networking] UID:37661 Activity:low |
5/12 Hi, I run windows Xp home edition on my laptop. It's hooked up
to my DSL router via ethernet most of the time. When I want to
just use the laptop without a net connection, the laptop sometimes
locks up and becomes really really slow. To the point where I can't
even right-click on the network icon to disable it temporarily.
I can't even do Ctrl-Alt-Delete to bring up the task manager.
Is there a way to fix this? That is, just make it stop trying to
reconnect to a network so aggressively. Thanks.
\_ Well did you narrow down the causes? Have you tried
"ipconfig /release" and see if something's up? Also, I'd suggest
you "unmount" all network drives as that hangs XP a lot.
Oh, and stop reading alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.orientals
\_ Uhm, no. Doing an ipconfig /release isn't the correct answer
to this problem. I believe the answer lies within your internet
connection settings. As you did not specify how exactly you
connect to the internet, there's no way for anyone to really
help you. If you are connecting through a router that does
the PPOE for you then a disconnection from the net should not
cause a slowdown like this. Perhaps you have a bridge of some
sort in your network config. It may also be hardware related...
Anyway, this is a very peculiar problem.
\_ that is what I have. DSL modem does the PPPoE and my
net connection is just a plain ethernet link that does
DHCP. No fancy stuff. I do have zone alarm running though.
When this happens I can't bring up task manager to see
which process is running, so it's hard to troubleshoot this.
- the op
\_ Then try the following, hit F8 during the bootup
process, then select safe mode with networking.
If safe mode with networking appears to run fine
then there is something wrong with one of the
programs you are running during startup. Try disabling
zone alarm if that's the case and see if that solves
your problem. Also, as below, make sure your machine
is clean. Malware will exhibit this behavior.
\_ Reboot your computer with the Ethernet plugged in. Wait.
Run netstat -ano from a command prompt. Check if you have
lots of outgoing sessions. Then install Ad-Aware and Spybot to
check if you have adware.
\_ [80 columns please.]
Hope this helps. - jthoms |
| 2005/5/12 [Computer/SW/Editors/Vi] UID:37662 Activity:very high |
5/12 tse, posting over 100 times a day on motd. What do you do for a living?
\_ % finger -m tse actually yields relatively accurate information.
Specifically, I'm running regression and closing timing, so I
spend lots of time in front of a terminal doing not much. BTW,
your accounting is likely inaccurate. I believe I have 5 posts in
the last 24 hours (6 counting this one), though I tend to keep a
vi around, so I assume lots of "anonymous" updates are credited to
me.
the last 24 hours (6 counting this one), though I tend to keep a vi
your accounting is likely inaccurate. I tend to keep a vi
around, so I assume lots of "anonymous" updates are credited to me. |
| 3/15 |