Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:May:19 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
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/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] 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.
2017/09/25 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/25    
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:May:19 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>