| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2005/5/19 [Uncategorized] UID:37756 Activity:very high |
5/19 Star Wars is all that is was hyped up to be. Now I can die in
peace.
\_ please do.
\_ it is nice to know berkeley accepts such compassionate
people.
\_ Well, did Lucas make a good connection between Bush::Dark side,
empire::Amerika, stormtroopers::Marines? Was the connection clear
such that it convinces mindless youths to vote in a certain pattern? |
| 2005/5/19 [Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:37757 Activity:moderate |
5/19 David Brooks, moderate conservative of the NY Times, on Newsweek
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/19/opinion/19brooks.html?hp
\_ Thank you.
\_ David Brooks is an intellectually dishonest man.
\_ Examples?
\_ He's a master of the false dichotomy. A canonical example:
"Before we get lost in the policy details, let's be clear
about what this Social Security reform debate is really about.
It's about the market. People who instinctively trust the
markets support the Bush reform ideas, and people who are
suspicious oppose them."
http://csua.org/u/c4d (nytimes.com, although you may have to
pay to read this content now)
\_ I thought he was being pretty reasonable while honest
about having a subjective point of view. -John
\_ I don't know about false dichotomy or being
"intellectually dishonest", but here he is definitely
demonstrating his mastery of being vague to the point of
being useless.
His thoughts on Newsweek, however, ring true.
\_ Well, if you talk to a lot of people with different
backgrounds you'll find that this statement is true.
Some people don't trust the market and want a safety
net.
\_ My FIL is retiring soon with over $1 million because of
the market. His SS returns are worthless by comparison.
How long should we fund irrational people?
\_ The Nikkei first hit 11,000 in May 1984.
It's at 11,000 today, which means it has lost a
significant amount of value in real terms. There is
no reason that couldn't happen to U.S. markets. -tom
\_ What if it did?
\_ It never has over the long term. Pick any 20 year
term of the Dow.
\_ "It never has" doesn't mean "it never will."
There's nothing magical about the Dow that
insulates it from stagnation or decline.
How do you think the U.S. economy will do
in a world economy of oil scarcity? (Hint:
not well). It is entirely possible that
we have already seen the peak of the U.S.
stock market. -tom
\_ In a world economy of oil scarcity I
think the US has a leg up on
competitors who are just entering a
stage in which they require increasing oil.
Countries like the US and Japan are
already addressing alternatives. What will
less technologically developed nations do?
\_ The US consumes more oil per capita
than any other nation on the planet.
In any case, the point is that the
fact that the US economy did well
during the 70-100 year reign of the
oil economy does not have any predictive
value for whether it will continue to
do well when the oil economy is gone.
It might, and it might not. It's
certainly not something you can trust.
-tom
\_ And if he had gotten injured at 40, he would be
broke and the only thing keeping him from penury
would be Social Security.
\_ I think that Social Security as retirement
should be distinct from Social Security as a
form of welfare.
\_ Since no one has so far come up with a
proposal to do that, you are just spitting
into the wind. I have no idea if it is
even economically feasable.
\_ Isn't this essentially what Bush is
proposing? Some of the money stays in
the system as a 'safety net' and some
leaves in the form of retirement accounts.
\_ No. Bush has never proposed putting
the disability insurance part of
Social Security into a seperate
program.
\_ He hasn't, but isn't that
essentially what he's doing by
privatizing part of it - separating
out the the retirement accounts?
\_ Please find URL where Dubya talks
specifically about what happens
to disability benefits in his
personal accounts plan.
to disability + veterans benefits
in his personal accounts plan.
\_ You are being obtuse. Does
the phrase "essentially"
mean anything to you? When the
money is diverted to retirement
accounts and out of disability
(for instance) then you are
essentially creating two
different plans: one for
retirement and another for
disability. If you read the
literature you will see
statements like:
"Diverting money out of the Social Security system into individual investment
accounts could require substantial reductions in survivor and disability
benefits. Since revenues diverted from the Social Security Trust Fund would no
longer be available to pay guaranteed benefits, those benefits might have to
be reduced significantly. This is a critical issue that has been largely
ignored by proponents of individual investment accounts."
\_ Please find the URL where /Dubya/ talks specifically about what happens to
/disability benefits/ in his /personal accounts plan/.
Or, you can refuse to answer the request and continue to stay with the
opinion that I am "being obtuse".
\_ That is sort of the point. He ignores the problem.
\_ If the URL exists then you find it. If it does not, then what the
heck is your point? By privatizing retirement then he is by
necessity splitting retirement from disability, unless there are
also privately funded disability accounts, which is not possible
as how could someone not able to work fund their account???
http://www.ohiosilc.org/news/2005/050216_harkin_soc_security.html
"President Bush says that he has no current plans to cut disability
benefits. And I hope that remains the case. Unfortunately, the
president's Social Security privatization plan leaves a lot of
questions as to how people with disabilities will be treated,"
Harkin said. "We have no details from the president, and I am deeply
concerned that he has not thought this through."
\_ Thanks for the URL. At least we have a Senator saying that Dubya
"has no current plans" to cut disability benefits in his new plan.
Data points are useful. Maybe someday we will have more data:
a URL where Dubya says what the Senator thinks he said. |
| 2005/5/19 [Politics/Domestic] UID:37758 Activity:nil |
5/19 \_ The filibuster and size aren't the
only differences between the house
and senate. And if you distrust
the house, should we eliminate it?
\_ No, you sad little twat. I don't distrust the house. But,
as you say, size isn't the only difference.
They were structured differently for numerous reasons.
One being that the Senate would have tighter rules for
debate and passage. It was seen as a cooling dish
for the majority rule of the house. The immense body of
procedural rules, of which the filibuster is one, is a check
on a runaway legislature. The R's want to get their whole
shebang through. Sorry, that's not how our government is
supposed to work. I almost hope they do force this issue.
It'll be the groundwork for a D coup in 2006.
\_ You also forgot to mention that the Senate is not apportioned
based on population, so the 51 Senators about to make this
rule change represent less than 50% of the population.
\_ You know, the house used to have a "silent" filibuster. It
was eliminated in 1889. Search for Thomas Reed.
\_ Yes, and it was a blow to the power of the minority. Thank
God that for the last 100 years, we've had a respect for
the minority still in the Senate. |
| 2005/5/19-21 [Computer/HW/Laptop, Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:37762 Activity:nil |
5/19 Is my 1394 Net Adapter supposed to always be in state: "Connected"?
WinXP Pro Toshiba M100 laptop, in Control Panel->Network Connections,
it says i have a 1394 Net Adapter connection that always says
it is "Connected". Never noticed it before. Never had anything
plugged into the 1394 firewire port. Selecting Right-click and
"Status" shows time connected and 400Mbps but no other fields filled.
\_ WOW, still no answer or ideas? I must have a question that stumps
the MOTD and Google. This must be an unanswerable one? Naw, SOMEONE
must have The One True Answer. |
| 2005/5/19 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37763 Activity:high |
5/19 "I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims, did not have
weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your
claims, that Iraq had no connection to al Qaeda. I told the world,
contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity
on 9/11, 2001. Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out
to be right and you turned out to be wrong. And 100,000 people have
paid with their lives -- 1,600 of them American soldiers sent to their
deaths on a pack of lies, 15,000 of them wounded, many of them
disabled forever, on a pack of lies. Senator, this is the mother of
all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes
that you supported." -Spoken in the Senate, May 17 2005
\_ url? more detail? Who spoke?
\_ I think it was George Galloway, MP from East London. He's a
major prick, liar, crook and Saddam-hugger (and probably took
a fair amount of illicit bribe cash from the guy) but hey, he's
got some good points. -John
\_ Has to be a lefty since the 100,000 numbers is made up by the
left. My guess is Ted Kennedy.
\_ "Made up" by the Lancet, the premier British journal
of medical research. Science is now "lefty" to the
howling Zealots.
\_ This site: http://www.iraqbodycount.net
says about 20K deaths. Which is right?
\_ This does not pretend to be a comprehensive review
of all casualties, just a numeration of those reported
by the media. I hope you can understand the difference.
\_ Yeah, made up:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887
\_ Your ignorance of statistics is stunning.
http://www.casi.org.uk/analysis/2004/msg00477.html
Quite seriously, you either have no knowledge of
statistics or you are being deliberately ignorant
of the facts.
\_ The salon article slams the stats as well as the
methodology. Which statements do you object to?
What about this one?
"One of the 33 clusters they selected happened to be
in Fallujah, one of the most heavily bombed and
shelled cities in all Iraq. Was it legitimate to
extrapolate from a sample that included such an
extreme case? More awkward yet, it turned out,
two-thirds of all the violent deaths that the team
recorded took place in the Fallujah cluster."
\_ That is false. The Lancet study specifically
discarded the Fallujah cluster because of fears
that it would skew the data. The whole thing
is riddled with innacuracies:
http://csua.org/u/c4j
http://csua.org/u/c4k (Washington Post)
"The researchers called their estimate
conservative because they excluded deaths in
Fallujah, a city west of Baghdad that has
been the scene of particularly intense fighting
and has accounted for a disproportionately
large number of deaths in the survey."
The fact is that this the best researched
study on civilian deaths in Iraq published.
It says there are at least 40,000 excess deaths
at a 90% interval. Rather than accept these
findings or do research on their own, war
apologists go for the "shoot the messenger"
approach. Which is not science, it is politics.
\_ The Salon article goes on to mention that they
discarded the Fallujah numbers and picked other
sites. Why do you refuse to read the article?
\_ Why did you pick a quote out of it that
implied otherwise then? Show me an equally
\_ So that you'd read the damn article.
well researched study that comes to a
different conclusion and I will consider it.
For now, this is the best science we have
\_ The point of the
article is that the
science is crap.
\_ The article
is wrong.
and your willful refusal to admit that fact
just makes you look uninterested in facts
that do not support your worldview. I
read the Slate (not Salon) article a long
time ago and watched it shredded in the
blogsphere.
\_ Just READ THE FUCING ARTICLE.
\_ I just told you that I read it many
times.
\_ No, you said you read it, period.
What are your objections to it?
\_ Calling a statistical
distribution a dart board
is foolish.
\_ Not when they're picking a
single value out of a
distribution with a massive
standard deviation. The
dartboard analogy is a good
one.
\_ Do you know anything about
statistics at all? Do you
know what a confidence
interval is?
\_ Yes and yes.
Then you know that to a 90% degree of confidence, the_/
number of excess deaths was 40,000 to 150,000 and to
a 75% degree of confidence it was 70,000 to 120,000.
How should these results be reported in the media
and in a speech? Knowing that the vast majority
of the people you are talking to don't know what
a standard deviation is, how do you report the
results of this peer reviewed, extensively
researched study? What number do you use
and what language do you use to explain it.
\_ Have you read the original Lancet
article or just what a bunch of
hacks have written in reply to it?
\_ No, it's a journal. I read the
guardian and nytimes summary.
\_ You can read it online for
free.
times. You are not smart enough to
be worth talking to.
distribution a dart board\
is foolish.
\_ I couldn't find a free
link. Feel free to supply
one.
/
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673604174412/fulltext
You have to register though.
\_ Thanks for the link. I'll read it and follow-up (probably in a different
thread) afterwards.
\_ http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/05/19/galloway/index.html
"British MP George Galloway returned to London to a standing
ovation after a fiery showdown with U.S. senators who have accused
him of profiting from the U.N.'s defunct oil-for-food program in
Iraq. ... 'We are the enemy within, Mr. Blair, the enemy of all
your wars, the enemy of all your betrayals, the enemy of all your
lies.'"
\_ Ah yes, he said he was coming to defend himself, but as far
as I can tell he just ranted left-wing talking points. In
other words, guity as charged.
\_ Facts are not "left-wing talking points." Those of us
in the reality based community are amused.
\_ 100K dead is not a fact, it's a lefty talking point.
\_ Do you think it's reached that number by now?
\_ Since the Pentagon has indicated it does not officially
track number dead/wounded from collateral damage,
clearly facts don't matter.
http://http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/news.asp?ArticleID=84438
\_ IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
\_ so, you really think we managed to avoid any civilian
casualties?
\_ sarcasm detector faulty!
\_ It's Captain False Dichotomy! And his sidekick
Strawman Boy!
\_ So tell us then. How many civilian casualties
do *you* think there have been in Iraq and
where do you get your numbers?
\_ Your false dichotomy was that either 100,000
civis died or I think that none did. Moron.
\_ So you continue to refuse to come up with
an answer and resort to Ad Hominem in
an attempt to cover up that fact.
\_ No, I added the ad hominem after pointing
out your false dichotomy for fun.
\_ And you still refuse to come up
with a number.
\_ political threads seem to be
getting stupider and stupider.
\_ yawn.
\_ Iraq Body Count looks more
reasonable at about 20K.
\_ Those are only civilian
deaths due to enemy action.
Overall deaths, which would
include all insurgent and
military casualties, would
have to be higher. There is
also a lot of murder in
Iraq these days, much more
than in SH days. IBC does
not count this, either. |
| 2005/5/19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:37764 Activity:kinda low |
5/19 Irony is Dead: The Republicans are trying to use a bogus interpretation
of the Constitution to force the confirmation of judges they believe
will return us to an "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution.
\_ Remember, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. -John
\_ News flash! Partisans redefine terms to look good! Yeah, it's
pathetic. But then, I think all procedures which prevent the
majority from passing legislation/etc. which aren't explicitly in
the Constitution should be eliminated. -conservative
\_ And to hell with that whole "protection of the minority" idea.
\_ There are constitutional supermajorities required for some
things.
\_ And the constitution also says the senate runs by its own
rules. Those rules require a 2/3 vote to change. If they
can be changed by a majority vote "because dick says so",
watch the fuck out.
\_ I was under the impression that only 50%+1 was necessary
to change rules. Where did you find 2/3 to change
senate rules?
\_ Answering myself.
http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/standingrules.txt
seems to say two-thirds. But there are so many
run-on sentences it's hard to read.
\_ Since you view yourself as such a strident
Constitutional purist you might like to know
the aforementioned document specifies five
instances where a supermajority is required.
Guess what, appellate judge nominations is not
one of them. The Founders were afraid of
judicial tyranny for a reason. What is wrong
with a simple yes or no vote on the Senate floor?
\_ What is wrong with hypocrisy?
\_ did you feel the same way when Clinton
was President?
\_ none of Clinton's judge nominations
were filibustered. What precisely
am I expected to "feel".
\_ But they were not given a simple up
and down vote in the Senate, were they?
I would expect you to be consistent,
or just admit you are only interested
in power for its own sake, not in any
notion of fair play.
\_ An appointee should die in committee
if the committee thinks he won't come
close to an up vote. That's the point
of a committee. Alternatively, the
committee could just send the vote to
the floor with a recommendation (which
seems reasonable to me).
\_ Is that what happened to Clinton?\
All 60 of his nominees that were
blocked in committee had no chance
in an up and down vote? Is that
what you believe?
\_ FATALITY!!1!
(ob follow-up about false
dichotomies that ignores that
he just got slammed)
\_ How old are you? |
| 2005/5/19 [Uncategorized] UID:37765 Activity:high |
5/19 What's wrong with the comment that "Mexicans do jobs U.S. blacks
won't." Is it not true? I look around, I see mexicans do all
kinds of jobs, I look around, I see blacks do all kinds of
crimes and drugs. It is true to some degree...
\_ Just ask yourself what would have been said had Bush made the same
statement. |
| 2005/5/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:37766 Activity:kinda low |
5/19 Ha ha. http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180008 Media Matters cracks me up. Glenn Beck's motto is "half the politics, twice the comedy". The quote they have from him is during a bit about "what you would do for 50 million dollars" because of Dave Chapelle's problems. The quote was entirely tongue-in-cheek. I've put an mp3 of the whole thing in /csua/tmp/beck_choking_moore.mp3. -emarkp \_ Hahahaha, those whacky conservatives, always threatining to \_ Hahahaha, those whacky conservatives, always threatening to kill judges or beat up liberals or blow up the New York Times. What a great sense of humor you guys have. Hahahaha. \_ Whatever. Listen to the clip. http://MediaMatters.org did *not* put it in context, and it proves how ful of crap the site is. -emarkp \_ Threatening to kill your political opponents is just not funny. Does Jon Stewart ever do this? \_ Listen to the clip. Heaven forbid you judge someone in context. \_ I will listen to it later, when I am not at work. \_ soda {158}% ls -l /csua/tmp/beck_choking_moore.mp3 -rw------- 1 emarkp wheel 13222106 May 19 13:56 /csua/\ tmp/beck_choking_moore.mp3 \_ Permissions fixed. Sorry 'bout that. -emarkp \_ Not having researched this, it appears to me that you are looking very hard to find problems with http://mediamatters.org, when in contrast, it's not very hard to find serious problems with Dubya. \_ No, Beck mentioned it on his show, and I checked their site to verify it. \_ Oh, and the http://mediamatters.org article says he has 6 million listeners. That's incorrect--he has 8 million. \_ Check out the Conservative "Accuracy In Media" crowd for fun sometime. \_ Oh, I'm sure there are partisan R's twisting the truth like crazy too. -emarkp \_ It doesn't pretend to be an unbiased sorce, just a liberal media watchdog, like all the Conservative media watchdog groups out there. It is better than the vast majority of them, if you ask me. But then again, I am liberal, so I would say that. |
| 2005/5/19-20 [Transportation/Airplane] UID:37767 Activity:low |
5/19 I understand the US concern for EU to give loans to airbus, but
didn't we gave billions to help United so they won't go
bankrupt? Isn't it the same thing?
\_ airline providing service versus company providing product?
\_ US just a crying baby, I mean it.
\_ I think it's the same thing, but one could argue that the United
situation is a result of a terrorist strike.
\_ if that is the case, then, Southwest Airline must be aiding
the terrorist organization. How else would you explain that
Southwest is making profit in the midst of terrorist attack
and rising fuel cost?
\_ Southwest used their massive cash hoard to hedge fuel up
the wazoo, they are paying $30/barrel for their fuel still.
\_ No, actually we didn't give billions to United.
\_ According to Rumsfeld, if you can't prove that it didn't
happen, then we should give it the benefit of the doubt. Then
we should send in the marines and cluster bombs. Fucking
United won't know what hit them.
\_ Hahahaha, that's a good one! ;)
\_ They, like other airlines, pay little (or no?) tax on kerosene.
Likewise, I seem to recall they've received pretty lenient
treatment in terms of bankruptcy protection, but you should check
your own facts on that. The US does give pretty preferential
treatment to Boeing & other aerospace companies though, in terms
of contracts, sharing of research paid for by tax money, etc.--
beyond that, both Airbus & Boeing engage in enormously dodgy
tactics to secure deals. It's a thoroughly cutthroat industry, and
both the EU and US are right about the other side being a bunch
of protectionist lying shitbags. As for sending in the marines,
when's the last time you flew United? Notice the battleaxes they
have as stewardesses? Those chicks have hair on their teeth;
they'd eat those poor bastards up alive. -John
\_ rofl!! |
| 2005/5/19-21 [Reference/Military] UID:37768 Activity:kinda low |
5/19 Why do we send US Marines to Afghanistan which is a landlocked country?
\_ Why do we park in a DRIVEway and drive on a PARKway?
\_ Why do we call goods on ships "cargo", and goods on cars
"shipment"?
\_ why we invade another country when we don't have Department of
"Offence?"
\_ I mean land relates to Army while water relates to Marines.
\_ Because you have no idea what the Marines do or are capable of.
\_ I guess I don't. So why is that military branch called "Marines"
instead of something like "Army-Lite" or "Agile Land Force".
\_ I'm going to make shit up here and say that the US Marines
probably derive their original name from the british
Royal Marines, the royal marine's first name was
"Maritime Regiment Of Foot". - danh
\_ Maybe, but the reality is that the Marines are part
of the Navy trained in amphibious assault. They
often get non-Naval assignments because they are
well-trained and mobile infantry. The SEALS get
called to do extra (non-naval) stuff, too.
\_ already discussed last year:
http://csua.com/?entry=34877
\_ Right, because once it's in the archives there'll NEVER be
anything new to add. Nope nope nope, nossir!
\_ The first things I do is search the MOTD! If the nitwit
was going to search MOTD archives then we may as well
have searched Google and spared everyone the trouble.
\_ "It is only by studying our past that we can understand
ourselves."
\_ Thanks! |
| 2005/5/19 [Recreation/Media] UID:37769 Activity:nil |
5/19 Why are there no discussions of Episode 3? You know you may
think you are an informed population, but in reality you are
just an impotent as the guy who works 80 hours a week at minimum
wage if you don't get directly into politics. Talking about Ep3
is a lot more fun. So did anyone miss the Bai Ling cut scene?
\_ It was the same level of badness as the first two. -=Aubie
\_ The first two weren't at the same level of badness, so what
do you mean?
\_ The first one had:
Really Bad Dialogue
Really Bad Direction
Really Bad Story.
The second one had:
Really Bad Dialogue
Really Bad Direction
Really Bad Story.
The third one had... -=A
\_ would you recommend the visual aspects at least? I'm
thinking of seeing it with headphones on, so I don't
have to bother with the bad dialogue.
\_ Wait, you think this one was WORSE than the first two?
\_ What happened in the Bai Ling cut scene? Sht gets naked? |
| 2005/5/19-21 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:37770 Activity:kinda low |
5/19 Is a 77GB disk considered big three years ago? I just realized that
one of the machines I got three years ago at work has a 77GB disk, ten
times as big as what are on the other machines at work I got around
the same time.
\_ I've never seen a 77GB drive. Do you mean 80GB or 74GB SCSI?
\_ I dunno but 7.7GB was definitely really, really tiny.
\_ I've never seen a 77GB drive. Do you mean 80GB (77GiB)?
80GB for mid-2002 sounds on the mid-high end. Like it would be
large but a relatively good price/GB.
\_ Actually, the label on the disk says 82.3GB. Disk Management in
XP says it's 76.68GB with no unallocated or reserved space. It's
an IBM Deskstar disk.
\_ It was considered a larger size 3 years ago, but we already were
utilizing 60 gig drives on a regular basis in 2001. So no, it's
\_ You sound smart using... i mean... utilizing big words like this!
\_ This reminds me of the radio commercial that says people are
judged by their vocabulary.
nothing unusual.
\_ It is considered science fiction when I had my first computer.
\_ Ok, so let's say you had 77GB back in 1990 (yes I'm serious), and
P4 and all that power on your desktop. How much productive would
you have been relative to everyone else? And let's forward to 2005
and suppose you had 100TB of disk space and 100GHgz of Pentium XXX,
how much more productive would you be?
\_ Depends on what you do for a living? If you're a farmer then
not much. If you're a cosmologist, oceanographer, atmospheric
scientist, big oil company, or geneticist then perhaps a lot. |
| 2005/5/19-20 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany, Politics/Domestic] UID:37771 Activity:nil |
5/19 Santorum self-Godwins: What the Democrats are doing is "the equivalent
of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me.
How dare you bomb my city? It's mine.' This is no more the rule of the
senate than it was the rule of the senate before not to filibuster."
\_ Yes, the Democrats invaded Paris in 1806 and are pretty pissed about
being asked to stop it with the genocide.
\_ You don't seem to understand "Godwin's Law". You can't "godwin".
\_ You don't seem to understand that your prescriptivist tendencies
won't fly here, son.
\_ So what happens when you're talking about actual eugenics
programs or neo-nazis?
being asked to please stop it with the genocide. |
| 2005/5/19-21 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:37772 Activity:nil |
5/19 Good stuff:
George Orwell, "The Decline of the English Murder"
http://orwell.ru/library/articles/decline/english/e_doem |
| 2005/5/19-21 [Recreation/Media] UID:37773 Activity:low |
5/19 Why are there no discussions of Episode 3? You know you may
\_ Moratorium on EP3 discussion in the MOTD until Monday.
You can put links to a file but no discussion here.
\_ Wusses. If there's no spoilers, why can't people talk about it?
\_ Because it changes expectations. And people can talk about
it in /tmp/EP3. BTW, I have seen it so this is a favor to
those who have not.
\_ If you've seen the previous two you have expectations,
so if you don't know what to expect by now you're a fool.
But fools will be fools, no foolin'.
\_ I heard Anakin becomes Darth Vader! But how did he have
sex with Padme in that suit??!1 Force P0w3r5??
\_ I greatly appreciate this. -starwars fan who hasn't seen
sw3 yet
\_ Bwaahahhahahaaa, yer still a fan after the dreck
you've seen? I feel sorry for you.
\_ You must pay me 5 cents.
\_ Bush will soon declare himself as the emperior. "You are
either with us, or you are my enemy!"
\_ If you are a star wars nutcase you and your fellow ewoks
will love it. If you are a reasonably sane human being
who has the capability of discerning mass marketed LCD
garbage from really good sci fi you will skip EP3 and
watch your TWOK DVD instead. - st movie guy |
| 2005/5/19-20 [Consumer/Camera] UID:37774 Activity:nil |
5/19 DHL sucks = it means "Drop you shipment at the door, hope someone
doesn't steal it, and then just leave"
\_ Uhm, that's not terribly unique to DHL.
\_ the way it matches their name is
\- in the stealing scenario at least you should be covered.
what pissed me off is when some shipper left a bunch of
fast film on my doorstep on a 95degree day.
\_ You are still using film are you saying? ;)
\_ Not the pp, but I still use film as well. I actually
like being able to achieve different results with
different film.
\_ I mail-order film too, but I always ship it to my
work place.
work place. I have a digital point&shoot, but I use my
two film SLRs for serious shooting. -- !pp
\_ You can achieve different results with different
digicam settings (sensor sensitivity etc)
\- yes i know. i shoot digital and film. and you
achieve diff results shooting diff settings and
diff films. --pp |
| 2005/5/19-20 [Politics/Domestic/California, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37775 Activity:high |
5/19 Stupid prediction:
Six Republicans will report to other Republican senators that they're
going to compromise to prevent use of the nuclear option. Republican
senators, rather than face the embarrassment of not being able to
execute on the nuclear option, will compromise with Democrats in some
form. Both sides claim victory; both sides will say they did not
sacrifice on principles; the media will say a compromise prevented
the nuclear option.
\_ I don't see any incentive for Republicans to back down. Not
that I am all excited about filerbuster, just that I felt that
judges should be confirmed with super majority, period.
\_ Why in god's name do you think that Judges should be
"confirmed with super majority" ?
\- the rationale is ostenisbly like peremptory
challenges, which is another "negative selection" ...
to get rid of "tails". --psb
\_ Also, the precident is horrible: The rules have
been a judge can be fillibustered, both sides have
done it many times before. Changing the senate's
internal rules with a simple majority vote, by
effectively lying about what the vote is about
is really wonky.
\_ How common has judicial filibustering been? Are we
talking hundreds of times in the history of the US?
Just trying to figure out the order here. |
| 5/17 |