Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:May:12 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
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...
                                \_ 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,
                        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?
        \_ 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.
                          "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
        \_ 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 (warning: christian site)
                (8) continue to observe (no snooping) and get to know her
           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
        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",2933,156264,00.html
        Conservatism #1!!!
2005/5/12-13 [Uncategorized] UID:37646 Activity:nil
5/12    More on light pipes:
        \_ 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.
        \_ 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
                 \_ 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
        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
                          \_ 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
                                          \_ 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'".
                                     \_ 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:
           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:
        \_ 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
                    \_ 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
                             \_ Here's a collection of John Moody memos showing
                                a disturbing trend of ... shaping the news to
                                flatter the current administration:
                                \_ A blogger quoting "Outfoxed"?!
                                   \_ Do you question the validity of the
                                      \_ 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
                                                          \_ Go back and read
                                                             what I wrote.
                                                             \_ I did. You
                                                                didn't say
        "If you want to see the context that Bush wants it in, watch Fox
        \_ 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
                                                                 \_ Now who's
                                                                    them up?
                                And here's a link to Media Matters' backlog
                                of Fox missteps, misstatements, etc.
                                \_ A left organization.
                                   \_ Yes, so?
                                      \_ So how much does Media Matters watch
                                         \_ 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
                                         \_ 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
           \_ 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
        \_ Make sure you set this to N and reboot if necessary.
           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  -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!
        \_ He definitely flatters himself whenever he draws himself in his
           \_ 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?
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:
        This of course, is in sharp contrast of a typical American woman from
        say, Paris Kentucky:
2005/5/12-13 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37657 Activity:nil
        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.
        \_ 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.
               \_ 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
        \_ 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
        "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. == 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
2005/5/12-13 [Computer/Rants, Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:37659 Activity:nil
        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):
        \_ 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
        \_ 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
           \_ 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
           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.
2018/08/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:May:12 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>