Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:May:28 Saturday <Friday, Sunday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2005/5/28 [Uncategorized] UID:37870 Activity:nil 75%like:37872
5/27    Why DO they talk to other civilisations(sic)?
2005/5/28-31 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Politics/Foreign/Asia/Korea] UID:37871 Activity:nil
5/27    I read couple Chinese newspaper saying that 15 of F-117A is now
        in South Korea.  Does any of you knew about this?
           \_ This article implies over 100 F-117A are deployed around the world
              when only 54 remain.
              when only 55 remain.
        \_ I read a lot of things in Chinese newspaper, some don't get
           reported in American media until a few days later. Why?
2005/5/28-31 [Uncategorized] UID:37872 Activity:nil 75%like:37870
5/27    Why DO they talk to other civilisations(sic)?                  \_ It's a perfectly valid
                                                  British spelling.
2005/5/28-31 [Computer/SW/Unix] UID:37873 Activity:nil
5/28    What's the equivalent of >>! in bash?
        \_ I'm not a bash user, but the manpage (hey, it has one!) seems to
           imply >>|
          \_ It seems that >> in bash works like >>! in csh?
        \_ In either bash or (t)csh, you must set "noclobber" to prevent
                overwriting.  Perhaps you have it set it in (t)csh but
                neglected to set it in bash?
           overwriting.  Perhaps you have it set in (t)csh but negeclted
           to set it in bash?  But more importantly, what does >>! mean?
           >! makes sense, but don't >> and >>! mean the same thing?
           \_ "cmd >> foo" will not create foo if does not exist.
              "cmd >>! foo" will.  at least in *csh
              \_ Oh, ok.  In that case, yeah, what the previous poster said:
                 just use >> in bash.
2005/5/28-31 [Computer/SW/Database] UID:37874 Activity:nil
5/28    My .spamassassin directory takes up about 1/3 of my quota.
        Roughly half of this directory is my bayes_toks file.  The
        other half is nearly entirely filled up by a whitelist-db
        file that hasn't been modified in over a month.  It's over
        4Megs and seems to contain a bunch of stuff I don't even
        recognize.  There is also another whitelist file that is
        much much smaller.  What is the meaning of these files?  Do
        I need them?
2005/5/28-31 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:37875 Activity:kinda low
5/28    How can I get my disk quota increased?  I would be willing to pay.
        I was paying yahoo like $20/year for 2Gigs.  That's $1/year/100 Megs.
        I'd gladly pay at least twice that rate for one or two hundred
        Megs on csua.
        \_ Hold up for new soda, which SHOULD, FUCKING DAMMIT, be done and
           live this summer (don't hold me to this, but I want this done and
           off my plate as much as you all want it to go live).  I *think* the
           quotas will be around 100MB for home dirs. - jvarga
           \_ It has been suggested that a betting pool be started on the
              finish date of this project. - jvarga
           \_ Sweet!  You guys ROCK!!           -mice
              \_ Seconded.  Well played.  -John
        \_ Is the CSUA in need of hardware?  What do we need most?  Disk?  Let
           me know, and I may be able to conjure some goodies up from the
           non-profit I work for. -dans
           \_ i think the last thing soda would need is 1000 10-GB hard drives
2005/5/28-31 [Science/Biology] UID:37876 Activity:high
5/27    Smithsonian will show an 'Intelligent Design' movie: (
        \_ is
           something on 'intelligent design' in this week's New
           Yorker.  I had never heard of the No Free Lunch theorem
           before. - danh
           \_ One thing that's somewhat embarassing for the classical
                                        \_ you go wrong right here
              Darwinian evolution is that scientists have been unable,
              despite being unburdened with ANY pieces of falsifying evidence
              (all such evidence presumably got eaten),
              to construct a compelling story for how bacteria came to be.
              In other words, you can make up any story whatsoever, and as long
              as the steps work, you have a theory!  No such story has been
              forthcoming, despite best efforts to the contrary.
              I am also a little iffy on the way this article talks about
              'good science.'  There's good science in the sense that lets you
              make predictions and get grants and explain the world, and
              there's good science in the sense of its explanation being true.
              Newtonian physics is good in the former sense (on the macro
              scales), Einstein physics is good in the latter sense (again, on
              the macro scales only).  I think the best response Darwinists
              can make is to redouble their efforts to explain the origin
              of life, and sudden complexity shifts in life's past, rather than
              try to discredit the movement from which some intelligent
              criticisms of their theory have emerged. -- ilyas
              \_ Is Darwinism really about the origins of life or about how
                 it evolved throught the time? I thought it was about
                 the later.
                 \_ I think the 'official' Darwinist position on the origin
                    of life precludes a 'designer,' which means Darwinists have
                    the burden of constructing a story of how it happened.
                      -- ilyas
                      \_ You're an idiot. If you can't make comprehensive posts
                         that aren't filled with factual errors and moronic
                         suppositions please refrain from posting about
                         science in general. "Einstein" physics indeed...
                    \_  evolution is a theory about a process by which
                        life changes.  It makes no claims about the existence
                        or  non-existence of a creator.
                        \_ In which case, proponents of evolution should leave
                           ID people alone, since they don't even contest any
                           evolutionary claims.  In practice, of course,
                           the theory of evolution and the theory of a
                           'mechanical' origin of life go hand in hand.
                           Also, some ID people contest certain dramatic
                           shifts being evolutionary, even after life has
                           existed.  -- ilyas
                    \_ I don't think that's really the case--at least I wasn't
                       taught that in school.  The New Yorker article points
                       out disagreements among ID.  One person saying evolution
                       may have produced current life once there was a cell,
                       another disagreeing.  It also points out that ID hasn't
                       produced a single prediction that can be verified by
                       experiment.  As such, it isn't science.  Really it
                       sounds like a bunch of whiners to me. -emarkp
                       \_ I am not defending ID as a scientific movement, I
                          merely point out it's not in good taste for
                          Darwinists to be attacking it on grounds other than
                          'your argument is bollocks.'  Some of ID arguments
                          are NOT.  Also, ID of course does make falsifiable
                          predictions about the world. -- ilyas
                          \_ I haven't seen any.  Can you point to them?
                             \_ Um.  The central claim that life cannot arise
                                by a blind process is falsifiable.  If
                                Darwinists succeed in creating a plausible
                                (or better yet, reproducible) story for life's
                                creation that will falsify the claim.  The
                                argument that something that doesn't make
                                experimentally falsifiable claims is not
                                science is extremely weak.  It's certainly
                                true, but many things that aren't science
                                make falsifiable claims.  -- ilyas
              \_ I don't remember much about AP Bio, but I remember being
                 taught that two strands of rna became dna at some point
                 and eventually dna figured out how to make cells (ie
              \_ Not that I follow the field, but I find it doubtful that
                 "no such story has been forthcoming". You might not find
                 them plausible but surely various people have offered
                 \_ Exactly.  Stanley Miller did a number of experiments in
                    which he filled chambers with the mix of elements generally
                    thought to coincide with early earth composition,
                    discharged an electrical spark and produced simple RNA.
                    There are a lot of assumptions involved, but it implies
                    that the process is possible.
                    \_ Stanley Miller did not produce a bacterium in a tube.
                       There is a huge jump in complexity between simple RNA,
                       which is, after all, just a big molecule, and a working,
                       reproductive cell.
                       I will find a story 'plausible' if it can be recreated
                       in laboratory conditions today, or, if it takes too long,
                       to be simulated by a computer.  -- ilyas
                       \_ Maybe we're all just simulations.
2005/5/28-31 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:37877 Activity:nil
5/27    Nissan to make hybrid Altima:
2005/5/28 [Recreation/Dating] UID:37878 Activity:nil
5/28    She opened her eyes then and saw the two immense shapes
        catapulting out just below her collarbones. They were gigantic .
        at least as huge as Karen's breasts and maybe even more! And
        they were flawlessly beautiful, creamy and round and sooooo
        sensitive!!! The air on her skin turned her nipples into
        throbbing extensions of pure fire, and the fire radiated back
        into her ribcage and then down, down until it coalesced deep
        inside of her vagina, becoming the fuel for a sexual furnace, a
        furnace that would continue to burn hotter and hotter for
        eternity. She felt as though her breasts had become massive
        sensors attuned to the sexual pulsations of the universe, giant
        solar collectors that could absorb the heat of the sun,
        transforming and sending this energy from her nipples through
        her breasts and down to her boiling pussy, telling her sexual
        organs that it was time to release another wave of energy and
        explode again.

        She saw that every student in the class, the girls as well as
        the boys, were all feeling the same way. They were gyrating in
        their seats, the boys cupping their balls and the girls
        fingering themselves. Ms. Owens had taken off her blouse and bra
        and was pushing her big breasts up with her hands, licking her
        own nipples as she stared spellbound at Jessica's gigantic
        boobs. Inspired by the beatific expression on her teacher's
        face, Jessica reached down and brought her fingers between her
        own legs. She was wearing a short skirt, and it was easy to
        touch the hot wetness there in her panties. God, she was so hot,
        so incredibly wet, and so ready to come again. She sneaked one
        finger past the edge of her panties, allowing the fingertip to
        swirl lightly around her vibrating clitoris, and then she
        brought two fingers inside, gliding them along the slippery
        walls of her vagina. So wet. So hot. So...

        She came again, even more powerfully than before. The climax
        overwhelmed her senses and then continued to build somehow. She
        heard male and female screams and moans and she realized that
        her orgasm was one small part of some kind of massive group
        orgasm, the raw sexual power of every single person in the room
        giving additional power to her body's sensations, helping her to
        go higher, ever higher. She began to scream from the
        ever-building joy of this earth-shattering release. Somehow
        through the almost blinding fever of this continuing orgasm, she
        saw that Ms. Owens . was it still Ms. Owens, or had she morphed
        into the woman in the house? . anyway, whoever it was had the
        bra from the box in her hands and was holding it out to her.

        Jessica knew that she could fill that bra now. What had only
        minutes ago seemed unattainable might not even be big enough to
        contain her. She was so huge, so sensitive, her breasts filled
        with so much sexual energy, so much power. Keep growing, she
        urged them. Fill that bra. More than fill that bra! Leave that
        bra in the dust! Make that bra wish that it was huge and lucky
        enough to even try to hold these massive mammaries, these
        mighty, miraculous mountains.
2005/5/28-31 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:37879 Activity:moderate
5/28    Happy Memorial Weekend! Go watch the History Channel, MSNBC, etc
        they have a lot of educational shows, like history of wars,
        counter culture in Marin County/Arizona, etc. I'd like to take
        this time to ask WHERE ARE THE PROTESTORS??? In the 70s, there
        were a lot of peace and environmental activists. They actually
        accomplished something, like going to the streets, holding anti-war
        concerts, speaking out against Nixon, and generally creating
        awareness in the public. Many people hate Bush and hate the illegal
        and unethical war in Iraq, but WHERE ARE THE PROTESTORS? Have people
        gotten soft? Or lazy and apathetic? COME ON. I want to see
        protestors creating awareness like in the 70s.
        \_ Actually, you're mistaking the 60's for the 70s. Also,
           what the hell are you protesting? Do you want us to actually
           get out of Iraq right now without resolving the situation?
           Don't you think that regardless of whether you were for
           or against the war that we have to stay there to insure a
           stable middle east? What's your suggestion, we let the country
           detoriate even further? What kind of nitwit are you anyway?
           \_ You think there's only one solution, hence you're the nitwit
              william. I propose splitting Iraq into smaller federations
              rather than this monolithic government in which one side
              feels short changed. There are many things that could have
              been done, like hiring better post-war strategists who have
              better ideas on nation building than it is now. If you think
              the current solution of killing insurgents is working, you're
              a fucking idiot. There's no fine distinction between insurgents
              and the growing number of civilians who have strong resentments
              towards US.
              \_ Hello.  Have you been following what's going on in Iraq
                 lately?  I think the 'growing number of civilians' wants
                 foreigners out now, since they feel they are fighting an
                 Iraqi government.  The last few operations against insurgents
                 have been increasingly done by the Iraqis themselves (with
                 American help). -- ilyas
        \_ The USSR is no longer financially supporting insurgency groups.
           Most non-leftists realize the boomers damaged this country
           for generations.
           \_ I think you mean "destabilized".
        \_ because our wars have brought us peace
           \_ Except for the ones that didn't
           \- 1. there was a draft in the vietnam example. that caused
              major social disruptions (and minor inconvenience to people
              like CHENEY) 2. +50k usa casualties rather than low hundreds
                                                              \_ low thousands
                                                                 \- i believe
                                                                the 50k vietnam
                                                                death figure
                                                                is comparable
                                                                to the invasion
                                                                stage casualty
                                                                count, not the
              in iraq (and the number of vietnamese killed were also much
              higher than number of iraqis ... and these number dont matter
              higher than number of iraqis ... not that these numbers make
              that much to people here anyway) ... but on a narrower question
              of something like "why did people get more pissed off over the
              secret bombing or gulf of tonkin vs the deliberate or incompetent
              mistakes today" ... that's a reasonable question. 3. there is
              not really much of a POW legacy to the gulf war. i guess we're
              just distracted by Xbox and cable tv and web p0rn to care that
              OBL got away.
              OBL got away. 4. the victory conditions were more involved in
              the southeast asian conflict ... the "mission accomplished"
              was declared after getting saddam out. an invasion to toople
              a govt != intervetion in a civil war.
              \_ too bad, I was hoping that GWB would be remembered the way
                 Nixon is remembered, but I guess he's going to be revered
                 by Republicans the same way Reagan was revered. Oh well.
           "Media coverage of Vietnam was a rare exception in the history of
           combat coverage by the American media. Never before had the press
           been granted such access to the war zone. And never again would
           they. That war served as a lesson to the government and a pinnacle
           of freedom for the media"
2005/5/28-31 [Recreation/Media] UID:37880 Activity:kinda low
5/28    I noticed that the latest Star Wars doesn't show the THX
        "scene" before the movie starts. Does anyone know why?
        \_ Did you watch the digital version or the regular version?
           I'm pretty sure the digital version I saw last week had
           the THX scene.
                \_ Both, actually. The digital one definitely didn't
                   have the THX scene; I'm pretty sure the regular
                   one didn't either. -op
        \_ doesn't it depend on the theater? I watched it once in
           Century 16 in Mountain View and didn't see the logo and once
           in Union City and did see it.
           \_ Yes. it depends on the theatre.  The theatre showing the movie
              must have a THX certified sound system.
2018/12/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:May:28 Saturday <Friday, Sunday>