Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:May:16 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2005/5/16-17 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA] UID:37699 Activity:kinda low
5/16    Why is bonnie@csua calling me her bitch?
        \_ Why do you believe everything you see in the From: line?
        \_ If you are/were karen's bitch (and who isn't), you are, by
                                         \_ At least one CSUA alum comes to
           extension, bonnie's bitch. - jvarga
        \_ Really, it's explained in the email.
           \_ And I, for one, welcome our new CSUA overlords
2005/5/16 [Uncategorized] UID:37700 Activity:low
5/15    Poll: What is your Michael Bolton prediction?
        Nominated: .
        Filibuster success:
        Fili-busted (unsuccess): .
        Vote taken, not-nominated: .
        \_ steel bars, wrapped all around meee....
           i've been your prisoner since the day you found meee...
           i'm bound forever 'til the end of tiiiime...
           steel bars, wrapped around this heart of miiiine...
2005/5/16-17 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:37702 Activity:nil
5/16    Netgear Storage Central, at $129 it seems like a good deal
        for a home network file server:
                \_ Google NSLU2.  It runs Linux, I have one and I spool media to
                my Roku audio player a-la:
                It also acts fine as NAS.  The advantage over the NetGear is
                that it's a Linux server.  The downside is you supply your own
                external USB drives.  -ax
        \_ Google NSLU2.  It runs Linux, I have one and I spool media to my
           Roku audio player a-la:
           It also acts fine as NAS.  The advantage over the NetGear is that
           it's a Linux server.  The downside is you supply your own
           external USB drives.  -ax
           \_ I wanted to avoid externa usb/fw drives, but this sounds
              pretty cool.
2005/5/16 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37703 Activity:high
5/16    Newsweek lied and people died.
        \_ Lied?
           \_ Yes, lied.  They claimed that the military confirmed something
              that they didn't confirm.  Now they aren't even retracting their
              \_ They claimed that the military confirmed something that they
                 will no longer confirm...
              \_ So where were you when the New York Times was hyping the war
                 in Iraq with hundreds of lies about Saddam's huge arsenal of
                 \_ You do understand that a mistake by one news organization
                    does not justfiy another mistake by a different
                    \_ I'm not defending Newsweek.  I think they fucked up and
                       they should own up to it.  However, I think all the
                       right wing blustering and rage about it is pretty silly
                       given that we got into a useless war on track to cost
                       more than Vietnam in constant dollars based on a huge
                       tissue of lies that was printed in the NYT amongst
                       many others.  Don't hear much blustering and rage about
                       THAT.  It seems like lies are perfectly all right as
                       long as they justify your desired ends.
                       \_ Well, I don't think NYT lied, nor did Newsweek.  They
                          made mistakes, but so does everyone.  The best they
                          can do is to own up to their mistakes and correct
                          their processes so that future mistakes are less
                          likely.  Also, I find it somewhat sad (if it is
                          true) that there is only "right wing blustering and
                          rage".  We should all be upset about the Newsweek
                          error, just as we should all be upset about errors
                          in NYT and elsewhere.
                          \_ Okay, what was Newsweek's mistake?  They got this
                             tidbit from a "knowledgable source", one they had
                             used before.  They asked two DD officials for
                             confirmation.  The first declined to comment.  The
                             second said another part of the article was wrong,
                             but didn't question the part about flushing the
                             Koran.  So newsweek ran it.  This sort of thing
                             used to be called journalism.  Two weeks later,
                             their source backs out and the pentagon gets
                             pissed.  Something's fishy. --scotsman
                             \_ Good journalism requires at least two sources
                                for a story.
                                \_ Sounds to me like they thought they had two:
                                   Their source, and the official who read the
                                   story and didn't object.  It wasn't a
                                   positive assertion that "yes, this is in an
                                   upcoming report from an investigation", but
                                   it certainly seems they checked it out.
                                   It just really smells too much of shoot-the-
                                   messenger for me.
                                   \_ I'm not sure "no comment" and "That
                                      sounds like something I heard once"
                                      count as confirmations.
                                      \_ What about "I've reviewed your piece
                                         and you can't print this [other
                                         unrelated part]"?
                                         \_ That would be confusing 'not
                                            denying' with 'positively
                                            \_ Which, in an admin that funnels
                                               all FOIA requests through the
                                               white house, seems a line that
                                               needs to be crossed.
                                               \_ This would be the "it's good
                                                  enough because doing more is
                                                  hard" standard?
                                                  \_ Which is why they
                                                     apologized, but haven't
                                                     \_ Newsweek retracted.
                                                        \_ Indeed.  Sigh.
                                                  \_ We should apply this
                                                     standard to more things.
        \_ And how did people die from Newsweek's lie?
           \_ do you even watch any news?
              \_ Oops!  I read about the Quran flushing and the riot, but I
                 missed the news that it was a Newsweek lie.  -- PP
              \_ Watching the news is a big mistake.  Reading the news isn't
                 much better but at least print media sometimes pretends to take
                 it's job seriously. --!pp
              \_ You missed the riots and deaths?
                 \_ Those were terrorists, not "people"!
                 \_ The Afghani government claims that the riots there had
                    nothing to do with the Koran story. Don't know if there
                    were deaths elsewhere.
                    \_ (not a troll, really) Afghani == currency.  Afghan ==
        \_ American Newsweek writers didn't know how inflammatory "flushing
           Koran down a toilet" was compared to getting nekkid CIA officers to
           sit on detainees laps - otherwise they would have done more vetting.
        \_ Newsweek already killed Admiral Boorda.
        \_ I posted a long quote from Gen. Myers stating that the US
           definitely placed Koran's on the toilet, but can't confirm yet
           whether any actually were flushed, but some asshole stomped it.
           You and the whole Powerline/LGF crowd are going to look pretty
           stupid when it turns out Newsweek was correct.
           \_ Where is the quote?
           \_ The post may have just been overwritten.  Why don't you
              repost or post a link?
                 Important stuff is at the very bottom.
                 Perhaps I am misunderstanding what Myers is saying though.
                 What do other people take that last paragraph to mean?
                 \_ For the most part he seems to be denying the Newsweek
                    report.  I have no idea what he was trying to say here
                    though:  "There are several log entries that show that
                    the Koran may have been moved to -- and the detainees
                    became irritated about it, but never an incident where
                    it was thrown in the toilet."
                    \_ Yeah I take that to mean that the Koran was moved
                       to the toilet, but not flushed down it, though it
                       is not entirely clear that he meant that.
           \_ "They have looked through the logs, the interrogation logs, and
              they cannot confirm yet that there were ever the case of the
              toilet incident, except for one case, a log entry, which they
              still have to confirm, where a detainee was reported by a guard
              to be ripping pages out of a Koran and putting in the toilet to
              stop it up as a protest.  But not where the U.S. did it.
              ...  That's still unconfirmed; it's a log entry that has to be
              confirmed.  There are several log entries that show that the
              Koran may have been moved to -- and the detainees became
              irritated about it, but never an incident where it was thrown in
              the toilet." -Gen. Myers
              Okay, so there are logs that say the Koran was moved "to" the
              toilet, which means to me on the seat (open or closed) or on top
              of the water reservoir.
              The point of debate is not about stomping on or putting Koran's
              "on" the toilet, the latter point the military concedes there are
              logs about.  The issue is flushing Koran's down the toilet, for
              which the military says there are no logs showing this.
              \_ So they were "really disrespectful" but not "ludicrously
                 disrespectful"?  The WH puts out a statement saying that
                 Newsweek is hurting America's image.  I say America is
                 hurting America's image.
                 \_ You don't get people killed because of Korans moved "to"
                    the toilet.  Flushing Korans is another thing.
                    Anyways, like I wrote earlier, American Newsweek writers
                    just didn't understand how inflammatory this was, or they
                    would have vetted it more.
                    \_ As noted above, the afghan gov't said that the report
                       was incidental to the violence.  Not a cause.  People
                       are pissed.  at us.  enough to blow up themselves and
                       innocents to get to us and those who are linked to us.
                       And you say it's because newsweek printed an article...
                       \_ Let's put it this way:  If Newsweek's anonymous
                          Pentagon source didn't back down and Gen. Myers said
                          "Yeah, we actually do have logs of our guys flushing
                          down Korans", then the U.S. military would be blamed.
                          \_ Y'know what.  The US Military is already blamed
                             because we are OCCUPYING THEIR COUNTRY.  Because
                             we are holding people thousands of miles from home
                             in a legal limbo.  The status of the qu'ran in a
                             gitmo prison is just another speck on our filthy
                             \_ The one point I can agree with you on is that
                                Dubya's administration has committed many more
                                serious mistakes than Newsweek has.
                 \_ How many other surfaces are there in a military latrine
                    where one can put a copy of the Koran?
                    \_ Well, the issue is whether they did it on purpose to
                       piss off the prisoners.
                       \_ Is it?  I thought the issue was the location of the
                          of the Koran.  The Myers quote made no mention of
                          the state of mind of the military guard(s).  Never
                          been in a military prison latrine before, but I'm
                          not coming up with many better locations to put a
                          copy of the Koran than on top of the can.
                          \_ Why did they bring one there in the first place?
                             \_ Ah, that's a different question.  I don't
                                think I've seen any reference to *who* brought
                                Koran into the toilet.  Was it a guard or a
                                prisoner?  But once the book is in the toiilet,
                                where else better should you put it?
                             \_ Every prisoner gets a Bible, Koran, or whatever
                                holy book you want.
                                \_ Would they give free Playboy subscriptions
                                   if you said you worshipped Hugh Hefner?
                          \_ What is inferred is that the state of mind of the
                             prison guards was as you stated:  They were
                             innocently placing the Koran on the john because
                             it seemed like a good place.
                             But Myers didn't say that explicitly.
                       \_ These are supposed to be diaries of interrogations
                          remember. It makes no sense to respectfully place
                          the Koran "near" the toilet as an aside in an
                          interrogation interview. My guess is that they
                          threatened to flush them as a way to antagonize
                          the "interviewees." But that is just a guess.
                          the "interviewee." But that is just a guess.
                          \_ I don't know, the pentagon guys didn't say
                             the Koran was "moved to the toilet" during
                             interrogation, just that it was moved there.
                             You're assuming this was during
                             interrogation, but it's also possible
                             that a gaurd may have picked up a Koran to
                             get it out of the way and just used the
                             toilet tank as a convinent place to put it
                             down.  Heck, I read my bible on the can, and
                             rest it on the tank sometimes.  I can see a
                             gaurd doing this with a Koran inadvertantly.
                             It's a possibility.
                   \_ I assumed that it was in a cell that had a toilet in
                      it, like most jails.
                      \_ Apparently, some prisoners are kept in en suite
                         cells, and others are kept barrack-style, presumable
                         with an attached communal latrine.
                          \_ I don't understand this logic.  Regardless
                             whether it happened, if the military denies
                             it, then they mustn't be blamed?
        \_ This is hardly the first time this claim has been made:
2005/5/16-17 [Computer/HW/CPU, Computer/HW/Drives] UID:37704 Activity:moderate
5/16    I am looking for recommendations for a how-to-assemble-one's-own-
        computer-book. I would just buy a Dell but I want something quiet.
        The system will run XP and SuSE. -- ulysses
        \_ Buy Dell, donate to Republicans. It's as simple as that.
        \_ Is that worth it?  One standalone copy of XP is so expensive.
           \_ Worth it?  Probably not.  Fun and instructive, yes.  Also you
              don't have to pay full retail for XP. -!op
        \_ My Dell is very quiet.
           \_ My Dell is very noisy (the power supply) and the
              replacement from Dell is not much better either. I hate
              the fact that I cannot put in a standard ultra-quiet
              power supply because it won't fit Dell's propretary
              case!! I am never getting a Dell computer again.
              \_ Who sells cheap standard PCs?  Tiger Direct?
                 \_ Tiger Direct?  Only if you take their rebates into account,
                    and that might not be an entirely wise thing.
                 \_ I build my own now. I enjoy doing it and once
                    every few years gives me the opportunity to be
                    informed about the latest PC building trend. There
                    are tons of places that sells standard PCs.
                    \_ Care to recommend one?
              \_ My Dell dual Xeon at work is noisy, but my home machine is
                 silent.  I can't hear the fan or hard drive at all.  It was a
                 Dimension 4600.
        \_ The Dell OptiPlex GX280 (Small Business only) is reviewed by
  as very quiet, due to its new BTX case design (which
           funnels air down a central corridor as my Geek Squad friend
           tells me).
           Our office is buying them, but I'm too lazy to walk over and check
           how loud they are.  These are standard Dell Small Business desktops
           as of ~ half a year ago.  Don't get the Small Form Factor version,
           which only has 2 DIMM slots (I would get the Mini Tower).
           Don't get any Pentium 4 above 3.2 GHz.
           \_ The Precision series is pretty quiet. In spite of the above
              advice, the desktop is even quieter than the minitower.
              \_ Do you stand the Desktop on its side like in the picture?
                 How do you insert CD-ROMs?  The Precision series is a
                 "workstation" series right?
                 \_ You can stand it vertically with a plastic stand you
                    order or use it horizontally. Yes, Precision is the
                    workstation series. Like someone else noted, the Xeon
                    systems are loud. So it would be the 3x0 series which
                    is quiet.
                    \_ And the Dimension 4600's.  Just watch for
                       a good deal to come up.
        \_ has great parts and complete custom systems.
           \_ Has anyone used "Zalman TNN-500AF Noiseless Case" at $1200? Is
              it worth the price?
2005/5/16-17 [Computer/SW/Languages/Java] UID:37705 Activity:nil
5/16    I have a multithreaded Java application which calls some native
        libraries through JNI.  I'm looking for a good way to do profiling of
        it to see where the various Java and native threads are holding each
        other up.  What tool(s) would you reccomend?
2005/5/16-17 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:37706 Activity:moderate
5/16    Make sure you get the firmware updated on your Prius: (
        \_ Wow.  Didn't expect this kind of things to happen on a Toyota.
        \_ Pretty scary if it happens when you're trying to cut in front of a
           semi while entering a freeway.
           \_ I personally think the increased use of software in cars is
              a bad trend.  Most software is nowhere near as reliable as
              mechanical controls or electronic controls and the potential
              for unintended or undetectable failures is high.
              I'm thinking by next car should be a willy's jeep :-)
              \_ Maybe you should stop flying then, because new Boeings and
                 ALL Airbuses are controlled by electronics, without the
                 possibility of manual over-ride.
                 \_ I pretty much avoid airbus flights whenever possible.
                    Computer control on the new Boeings does have me
                    worried, but the way I look at it a failure of the
                    computer control on a plane means I'm dead, while
                    the failure of the computer control in a car means,
                    I will probably live but will lose a leg an arm or
                    be bound to a wheelchair. I prefer dead to cripple.
              \_ Yeah, I heard the Jeep Willy could run even with a punctured
                 radiator.  My Cherokee has only okay reliability, though.
        \_ Yermom likes to download the firmware in my Penis.
2005/5/16-17 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers, Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:37707 Activity:moderate
5/16    I'm looking for software (free or shareware) on windows that can help
        me manage information found on the web.  Usually I find some useful
        info and if I forget to bookmark it or write down the address
        somewhere else, it'll take me hours to find it again one month later.
        Also bookmarking is not really scalable.  I can't write my own notes
        etc.  There has got to be an easier way to classify and take notes and
        store links (or save HTML pages locally) in an indexable and
        searchable manner.  Thanks.
        \_ Well, firstly I would agree that bookmarks could use some
           improvement. But I think you can use normal Firefox bookmarks to
           sort of do this. You can open the bookmark manager which is
           searchable, and lets you attach a longish description to any item.
           What it really needs is a one-button "bookmark this" which includes
           the description field. Basically a UI issue. Actually, I just
           tried this and noticed the search function doesn't look at
           description text. What a POS.
        \_ just create subfolders in your bookmarks
        \_ What we need is kchang's auto classification motd tool for
           firefox!!  We just bookmark a page and based on content, it
           gets classified under a particular category! You should be
           able to get different 'views' of your bookmarks based on
           category, date, etc!
        \_ Hmmmm, interesting, I will have to spend some time doing more
           feasibility study on this and afterwards consider this feature...
        \_ I use a plain text file for this.
        \_ Not sure about Windows, but at least on OS X some of my
           friends use a product called Sticky Brain.  I use text
           file and a bunch of nested directories.
2005/5/16-17 [Reference/BayArea] UID:37708 Activity:low
5/16    Explanation please: why were people throwing so many tortillas
        at Bay to Breakers? I mean, it was cool and all, but wtf?
        \_ They're cheaper than frisbees. That's it, really. -gm
        \_ Uh... It's the tortilla toss.  duh.
        \_ Is this some new addition?  I was in the Bay to Breaker in 1998 but
           I didn't see any totilla throwing.
           \_ I've only ran the past 3, but each year they've done it.
        \_ Uh... It's the tortilla tossing contest.  duh.
           \_ I don't know where you were standing, but I know they had it in
              98.  My first one was either 94 or 95, and they've had it
              everytime I've gone.
2005/5/16-17 [Industry/Jobs] UID:37709 Activity:high
5/16    When an interviewer asks about your weakness, what do you usually
        \_ "i'm outta of a job and i have to come to you to get one"
        \_ "i'm too weak to answere questions about myself"
        \_ I cry when I masturbate.
        \_ Well, I could always use more upper body strength to impress
           the girls.
        \_ "I've been told that I work too hard, but I've never considered
           it a weakness."
           \_ Do not try this. Any non-moron interviewer would pick up on
              this sort of thing. I guess since he asked this question, we
              may deduce he IS a moron though. But anyway I divebombed an
              interview when some high-end VP asked this and relentlessly
              discarded my non-incriminating answers. The "correct" answer
              is really to have a pre-memorized set "things you're doing
              to improve yourself", under the assumption that anything
              where you're not your best is a weakness. Yeah it's stupid.
              I guess you could turn the "work too hard" thing into a real
              weakness if you say like you sometimes get fixed on a problem
              and if you don't get enough sleep you aren't as bright as
              you can be blah blah.
           \_ I agree that you should NOT give a canned response, especially
              the one above.  IT'S TOO FUCKING OLD.  It's like walking into
              a single's bar and asking "What's your sign?".  Be thoughtful.
        \_ "That's a stupid question.  I'll go somewhere else where the
           interviewers aren't morons."
           \_ Translation:  "My weakness is I kneejerk sometimes at the risk
              of pissing off other people."
              \_ No, I'd just rather not work for a company who wastes my time
                 like that.
                 \_ You might want to consider the fact that there's more to
                    being a true professional than your (very high) opinion of
           \_ Alternate Translation: "I'm a very, very poor candidate."
        \_ I just answered honestly.  Just list some real weakness you
           \_ Yeah, I tried that once. Apparently, they weren't interested
              in people who don't like to be micromanaged.
              \_ Sounds like you came out on top of that one.
        \_ I get distracted too easily by eye candies.
           \- Just say "I wish I could be more organized."
        \_ I'm a lazy fuck.
        \_ I tell them that sometimes I am too optimistic about how
           much work I can get done and that therefore I take on too
           many tasks and that sometimes this causes frustration in
           other people who are waiting around for me to get things
           done. It is a real weakness of mine (and just about every
           other engineer and sysadmin I have ever worked with) and
           just indicates a normal kind of failing that you can cop to.
           I don't tell them that I drink too much and call in work
           sick all the time on Monday because of it or anything like
           \_ This is a smart man. (or woman)
           \_ Yeah, good call.  During my interview for my current job,
              I was asked this and answered a couple of things off the
              top of my head -- one was "I have a hard time saying no
              (to client requests, management requests)" -- it's a
              genuine problem, and one that I work on.  This led into
              a brief discussion of dealing with those sorts of
              dynamics, and probably did give them a better idea of
              how I think & work.  Which is the point.
              \_ Well I'd still laugh at you both. It's still an obvious
                 cop-out basically, just a clever variation of "I work
                 too much/am too eager to work". It shows you're good
                 at lawyerly bullshitting. Good job.
                 \_ This is a foolish man. (or woman)
                 \_ No, I honestly don't think it is 100% bullshit. Super
                    awesome programmers accurately predict how much they
                    can get done in a certain amount of time and when they
                    screw up, they bust their ass to get back on track.
                    I am not that conscientious. Yes, it is BS, in the sense
                    I am not that hard working. Yes, it is BS, in the sense
                    that I believe I have worse failings as a human being,
                    but none that I think appropriate for a job interview.
                    If I was really pressed, I could come up with some others
                    like "sometimes I can be too terse for people" but I
                    rationalize that as me just not liking to be interrupted
                    when I am deep in thought.
        \_ My last boss has a restraining order on me, but I learned
           from that experience.
           \_ That rocks.
        \_ I have a hard time with the line between sexual harrassment and
           harmless flirtatiousness, but I've been taking sensitivity classes
           and higher doses of medication, so it's less blurry to me now.
        \_ I ask this question. Not looking for an answer but how they
           react. That tells me a lot more about a person, esp. for a
           high-profile position.
           \_ Just out of curiosity, what does it tell you about a person
              when they walk out of the interview telling you it's a stupid
              question, and that you're a moron for asking it?
           \_ So what are you hoping to see from them? What kind of
              responses to this cliche question impress you?
           \_ Two pp's above should watch "The Assassination of Richard Nixon"
              \_ Why?
        \_ "I can't stop my bosses' wives crawling onto my bed."
2005/5/16 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:37710 Activity:high
5/16    Report: Suspected Cop Killer's Family Flees To Mexico
2005/5/16-17 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:37711 Activity:high
5/16    kchang, I realize this is beyond the bounds of a diff tool, but I
        think it would be pretty neat if when I use your diff I could get
        the things that have been added and then deleted, between my
        current and previous diffs.
        \_ I did have that feature in an earlier version but the output was
           very ugly due to the fact that there's a tendency for certain
           individuals to change their own stuff 5-10 times within 2 minutes.
           Unless there are compelling reasons and that you can convince my
           committee members to agree (they're on the bottom of the
           24HourDiff page), I'll just leave it as it is. If you want you can
           just go to the 24HourDiff page and seek linearly.    -kchang
           \_ Your fucking committee members?  When did your delusions become
              this grand?
              \_ Committee Members for 24HourDiff: brain, dbushong, ilyas,
                        jvarga, chiry, tom. And me.
                 Committee Members for Kais Motd: they're all listed here:
                 \_ Nowhere on here do I see who the Heroic Committee
                    for the Glorious People's Revolution members are.
              \_ I think all it takes to be a member of the 'committee' is to
                 suggest something and explain why it's a good idea. -- ilyas
                 \_ ilyas is smart. You can thank him for a lot of ideas
                    that turned into actual features here (like user
                    tracking). I just implemented, that's all.  -kchang
                    \_ In Communist Russia, user tracks YOU.
                    \_ your user tracking is beyond suck.
                       \_ if you know how to make it better, maybe you can
                          share your knowledge, or just shut the fuck up.
                          And if you think you can get away with everything,
                          you're wrong. scp, cron, sendmail, etc are all
                          logged under /var/log/*.log, accessible by
                          \_ I think user tracking is against the spirit of the
                             \_ I've got your spirit right here pal.  Who died
                                and declared you great arbiter of the motd and
                                all matters CSUAish? -dans
                                \_ I did.    -God
                                   \_ shell> /csua/bin/finger god
                                      finger: god: no such user
                          \_ Wow, so are you really abusing root to track
                             who edits a world-writeable file?  -meyers
                             \_ Come now, soda has a long history of root
                                abuse.  Why break from tradition now? -dans
2005/5/16-17 [Computer/HW/IO] UID:37712 Activity:kinda low
5/16    Does anybody else think that optical mouse don't track as
        well as a good old (clean) mechanical rolling ball mouse?
        \_ yes they skip when I play mouse intensive games.
        \_ Any of the Microsoft optical mice that advertise scanning at
           6,000 times per second (~ 1-2 years old now) are fine.  The ones
           before that blew chunks
        \_ I used to have this problem with some older logitech
           optical mice, but I switched to the Kensington Pilot Mouse
           Optical Pro which doesn't have this problem.  You might
           want to try the logitech laser mouse, which is supposedly
           very good.
           \_ I've got the logitech laser mouse, and it is so much better
           \_ I've got the Logitech laser mouse, and it is so much better
              than the old roller mouse I had, night and day.  Way more
              accurate, especially in games.
        \_ Does it depend on any color pattern on the desk surface?
2005/5/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:37714 Activity:low
5/16    "But don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that
        somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of
        America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't
        think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to
        continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should
        not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my
        advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don't
        appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution
        of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I
        am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying."
        -Sen Adams (R) NH on his filibuster of Clinton appointee Richard Perez
        \_ Where is that in the senate record?
        \_ You know, when googling this, it appears to be a quote from Senator
           Robert Smith on March 7, 2000, not Senator "Adams".  Where did you
           get this quote from?
           \_ I got it from a discussion forum I am on. I guess the guy
              got the author wrong, but Sen Robert Smith is a
              (R) from NH, right?
        \_ "Mr. President, this is just one year of the Presidency I am
           talking about. I have only dealt with 1992 when circuit court
           nominees were blocked in committee. I could have gone back
           further into the Bush Presidency. I could have gone back
           into other Presidencies. I didn't do that, but these are
           filibusters. When you don't allow a nomination to get to
           the Senate floor--it may not be under the technical term
           ``filibuster,'' but when you block it, that is a filibuster.
           You are not getting it here and you can't talk about it if
           it isn't up here. If it is languishing in committee, then
           we are not going to be able to debate it, approve it, or
           reject it. No matter how you shake it, they were filibusters
           led by committee chairmen rather than the majority leader
           on the floor."  From the same speech, Mr. Smith goes to
           washington and redefines the filibuster to include blocking
           in committee.  His speech starts on page S1209, and this
           quote is on page S1212, March 7 2000.
2005/5/16-17 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37715 Activity:high
5/16    I think I'm beginning to understand the rationale behind nominating
        Bolton. Many Republicans think that UN is useless (case in point and
        freeper sites) hence they either don't care who they nominate
        for or they want to show UN how pointless they are. I mean, who
        the fuck writes "Darfur pretty much proves the UN as useless and
        that the world in general doesn't give a rip about humanitarian aid."
        \_ He's not really putting a fine point on it, but Darfur, Rwanda,
           Srebrenica, Sarajevo... starting to see a pattern?  -John
        \_ We had to destroy the UN in order to save it.
        \_ The UN is an institution where if one powerful country takes the
           lead, the framework is there to support the leader.
           E.g., if any powerful country decided to spend the money, people,
           time, and political capital to get involved in Darfur, the UN would
           provide a framework where other countries could help.
           Unfortunately, no powerful country did anything significant about
           This is how the UN works.  This is how powerful countries "use" the
           UN correctly.
           \_ Nice nuke.  As I said, it's also where Libya gets to chair the
              human rights commission.  I'm not saying it's not better than
              the alternative, but there's a lot broken at the UN.  -John
              \_ Nuke of what?  I'm using motdedit with jove and didn't
                 force an overwrite.  Someone else using scp probably is
                 Granted, there's a lot broken, but there's a lot broken about
                 the American political system too.
                 We live with the American political system and try to fix it
                 because it's the best thing we've got.
                 There's no one saying we can't try to fix the UN too.
        \_ In spite of all what emarkp wrote in the URL above, he ignores two
           things:  (1) the number one reason the U.S. went into Iraq was
           Dubya's "no doubt" that Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs, and (2)
           rebuilding of post-war Iraq is being poorly executed.
           Now if the U.S. had presented evidence to the UN that there was "no
           doubt" that Saddam had WMDs -- and any of France, Russia, and China
           signaled a veto -- THEN the UN might be irrelevant.  However, Colin
           Powell presented his shit case ("trust us" on the "no doubt" part,
           okay?), France signaled a veto, we went in anyway, and the CIA's
           judgment now is that Saddam did not have stockpiles and did not have
           active WMD programs.  If we went into Iraq because Saddam was
           manipulating oil-for-food, torturing people, giving money to suicide
           bombers, and just because we wanted to get him while he was small
           before he could leverage Iraq into a global power because of his
           before he could leverage Iraq into a global power using his vast
           oil reserves and desire to restart WMDs once sanctions were lifted
           -- these are worthwhile goals, but none of these were presented to
           the UN or to the people of America as the primary reason for
           the UN or to the American people as the PRIMARY reason for invading.
           ... Now, we are already in Iraq.  We need to win.  We need to unify
           America.  We need to come clean.  Dubya needs to do these things:
           (1) Be loud and clear about CIA's judgment that there were no WMD
           stockpiles nor active WMD programs, it being the number one reason
           we went in, and how the CIA did believe there was "no doubt".
           (2) Say we're there now, we made the above intelligence mistake,
           but we need to win for the sake of the people of Iraq who are being
           blown up by suicide bombers, for the sake of the world if Iraq
           devolves into a safe haven for those who would build and train
           people to use WMDs.
           (3) Say that we presented a case to the UN for which we had "no
           doubt", but actually there was a lot of doubt on.
           (4) Start using the U.N. correctly.
           As long as we do not do the above, the U.S. we will not have come
           clean and we will remain a divided nation.  Yet, we may still win in
           Iraq.  I hope at least that happens.
           As long as we do not do the above, the U.S. will not have come
           clean, and we will remain a divided nation.  Yet, we may still win
           in Iraq.  I hope at least that happens.
           \_ What is the definition of "winning"? Did we win in Vietnam?
              When Israelis give up land for peace, is that winning?
              Sun-Tzu says that if you have to start a war, then you've
              already lost. What does that mean to you?
              \_ The principal victory condition in Vietnam was no Communist
                 Vietnam.  The victory condition was not satisfied.
                 The principal victory condition for Iraq is no safe haven for
                 those who would build and train people to use WMDs.
                 I hope this victory condition is satisfied.
                 \_ Oh wow.  Cool.  So we were done before we started!
                    'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' means nothing to
                    these people.  If you don't fix it, how can you
                    siphon money out of it?
                    \_ What are you babbling about?
                       \_ For this to be a victory condition, you assume
                          that, before the war, Iraq was a haven for WMD
                          producers and terrorist training grounds.  You
                          have a long evidence gap to cross to make this
                          claim.  However, since the war, it's getting
                          closer to this sort of haven.  Congrats.
                          \_ The victory condition before the war was
                             to destroy all WMDs and dismantle active programs.
                             Dubya's assumption, as I state repeatedly above,
                             was that Saddam had WMDs and active programs.
                             This was clearly a mistake.
                             The new victory condition is to prevent Iraq
                             from becoming a safe haven for training /
                             production of WMDs.  As long as we recognize our
                             earlier mistake -- and I have said repeatedly
                             that Dubya needs to acknowledge the mistake loudly
                             and clearly -- it's honest to make this new
                             victory condition.
                             \_ The victory condition before the war, and
                                indeed the condition thata Bush placed upon
                                himself, was to disarm Saddam, preferably
                                through non-military means.  Exhaust all
                                diplomatic efforts, he said.  A resolution
                                of force to use as a diplomatic tool, he said.
                                It was no mistake.  They had decided long
                                before, as we now know, that they were going
                                to go in.  WMD or not.
                                \_ Actually, Dubya denied it all (the UK memo)
                                   in a statement yesterday.  You can believe
                                   Dubya is a lying asshole prick who rushed to
                                   war and fixed intelligence around policy
                                   (all in the name of Freedom) and this may
                                   very well be true, but I still hope Iraq
                                   turns out all right.
                                   I'm guessing another of your beefs is:
                                   That you just don't want to call it
                                   "winning" or "victory condition", but
                                   "pulling America's ass out of the fire
                                   after Dubya fucked it all up" and
                                   "non-fuckup condition" which is actually
                                   pretty accurate.
                                   \_ No shit?!  Dubya denied it?  Well then,
                                      the Brits must have lied.
                                      You know, I'd love to be able to call
                                      something about this "winning".  I'd
                                      love to think we're not making people's
                                      lives miserable and dangerous when they
                                      didn't do anything to us.  I'd love to
                                      think that we will be able to help them
                                      create a nation with strong enough
                                      institutions to prevent it from becoming
                                      a haven for dangerous elements.  And yes,
                                      we're in a catch 22 of our own making on
                                      this point.  But winning this means
                                      nation building.  And if you look at
                                      our history of that, it doesn't go so
                                      \_ Well then, you and I hope the same
                                         thing.  I think what happened was
                                         that I sacrified some accuracy in
                                         terms in hopes of converting
                                         moderates and less fanatical Dubya
                                         supporters.  I gave Dubya the benefit
                                         of the doubt in terms of whether
                                         he's a liar.  Really, Dubya could
                                         just say the UK misinterpreted U.S.
                                         intentions, but I doubt it's going
                                         to get even that far.
        \_ will the Mormon troller above clarify if this is true... that you
           really think UN is irrelevant (and the comment that you don't
           give a shit what the world thinks about US), hence you don't
           really care if Bolton gets in or not?
2005/5/16-17 [Academia/OtherSchools] UID:37716 Activity:nil
5/16    Director of undergraduate writing at MIT thinks the new SAT is lousy:
        \- the last two lines are pretty funny. "the SAT is divided into
           3 parts ... i came, i saw, i bullshitted" --psb
           \_ Better than "I came, I peed, I shitted".
           \_ Sounds like it really is measuring ability to succeed in US
              universities then.
              \_ Not to mention the ability to climb the corporate ladder.
2018/12/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:May:16 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>