6/23    Soy products, yet another form of birth control:
        http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/06/22/fertility.soya.reut

6/22    Rent or buy? You decide:
        http://tinyurl.com/9ll3u (cbs news)
        \_ The calucalator does not take Prop 13 into account, so the numbers
           are way off, especially near the end of 30 years.
           \_ I assume the calculator is National, not CA.  How do you
              think prop 13 should skew it?  Doesn't prop 13 hold the tax
              rate steady? You can set the rate on the calc.
              \_ It locks the tax to a percentage of the purchase price, not
                 the current assessed value.

6/23    Supreme Court rules cities may seize homes
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1428929/posts?page=1,50
        \_ More like "SC upholds ED as is."
        \_ Can we get a non freeper link about the same subject? I'll start:
           http://tinyurl.com/bepw2 (forbes.com)
           \_ Here is the opinion:
              http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZS.html
              \_ anyone find a url for the dissent?
                 \_ It's all here: link:csua.org/u/chm (pdf file)
                 \_ The cornell page has links to the dissents as well.
        \_ what's so new about imminent domain?
           \_ When eminent domain is used to acquire land for private
              development, the potential for abuse is large.  A politically
              conected businessman can 'suggest' that the city use eminent
              domain to help build a new retail or office development.  The
              city uses its power to acquire the land for a value which is
              much less than if the developer had to sweet-talk homeowners to
              sell.  -dgies, !op
           \_ Because this isn't eminent domain.  This is a greatly expanded
              and never seen before abuse of the power.  Any developer can
              now come into any area and tell the city council how much more
              tax revenue they'll get from a new Walmart and it is now legal
              to tear down any homes in the way.  This is entirely new which
              is why the SC had to rule on it.  You're just trolling, right?
              \- While I see the potential for abuse, I find it odd to see
                 STEVENS as a corporate tool and THOMAS and RHENQUIST as the
                 defender of the "little guy", so I think some closer reading
                 on this case may be in order.
                 \_ Ok, you tell us what you find that says this isn't a new
                    huge expansion of ED and isn't easily abused.  We both
                    read the same article.  Go see O'Connors quote in the text.
                    She has it right on the money.  It's about the money.  Mr.
                    Developer promises new tax renevue from flattening a bunch
                    of homes and it's legal.  Period.  Please link to the
                    further reading you find that says this isn't the case.
                    \_ 1981: Poletown Neighborhood Council v. City of Detroit:
                       http://csua.org/u/chd (law.berkeley.edu). It's not
                       "new." It's re-establishing something old. key grafs:
                       MAJORITY: "The power of eminent domain is to be used
                       in this instance primarily to accomplish the essential
                       public purposes of alleviating unemployment and revi-
                       talizing the economic base of the community. The bene-
                       fit to a private interest is merely incidental. If the
                       public benefit was not so clear and significant, we
                       would hesitate to sanction approval of such a project."
                       DISSENT: "With regard to highways, railroads, canals,
                       and other instrumentalities of commerce, it takes little
                       imagination to recognize that without eminent domain
                       these essential improvements, all of which require
                       particular configurations of property - narrow and
                       generally straight ribbons of land -would be "otherwise
                       impracticable"; they would not exist at all... [I]t
                       could hardly be contended that the existence of the
                       automotive industry or the construction of a new [GM]
                       assembly plant requires the use of eminent domain." -!pp
                       \_ Ok, did you miss below where someone posted this was
                          over turned later?  Maybe you have something else to
                          link to that shows this isn't a new and dangerous
                          ruling expanding ED to places it has never been?
                    \_ A PDF version of the Connecticut State Supreme Court's
                       decision on the appeal:
                       link:csua.org/u/che (300k)
                       This is LONG, and I'm not going to summarize. It bears
                       reading, as the appellants' challenge has a lot to do
                       with interpretation of the phrasing of state law.
                       A large number of documents were filed on this case:
                       http://csua.org/u/chf (Findlaw.com)
                       Hope that helps. --erikred
                       \_ very interesting (che link).  Thanks. -nivra
           \_ Precedent for this application of eminent domain was established
              in 1981 in Poletown, MI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poletown
              Detroit seized 1300 homes & 140 businesses to build a GM plant.
              The 1981 decision was overturned in 2004: http://csua.org/u/chc.
              What I don't understand is wtf was going on in the intervening
              23 years?  Didn't houses get razed for the GM plant? Was the
              plant never built?  The overturn happened in MI SC by 4 very
              conservative judges.  In this case, conservatives are arguing
              for private property rights, and liberals are arguing for
              "public good," including economic development.  The public good
              for economic development policy's glaring drawback is the
              vulnerability to corruption: city planners can easily be bought
              by greedy developers. Wiki link on eminent domain:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
              \_ The solution to government corruption is to stop the corruption
                 not try to stop government from functioning.
        \_ I'm pretty liberal, why oh why does the Supreme court keep making
           rulings that make me agree with the rightwing of the court?
           \_ Yup, all the liberal justices are fighting for the little guy!
           \_ yah... I think my principles also steer me towards preferring
              the conservative side of this one.  If the corporations want to
              the dissent on this one.  If the corporations want to
              develop the land, make the tenants 2x or 3x fair market price
              for the land. -nivra
              for the land. -nivra [edit: I misused cons/lib labels]
              [Note: On 2nd reading, I agree with majority, see below]
              \_ See, this shouln't be a conservative/liberal issue.  It's
                 about private property.  This ruling basically says there's no
                 such thing as private property.  A free society shouldn't
                 accept this. -emarkp
                 \_ This is a conservative/liberal issue. It is an issue
                    of who decides what is best - the state or the people?
                    Liberals generally want to take things out of the hands
                    of the people and stick them in the hands of the state.
                    Look at the opinion - it basically says the state said
                    this was a good idea, who are we to second guess the
                    state.
                    Conservatives (real ones) would prefer to leave things
                    in the hands of the people - Let the developer PAY Ms.
                    Kelo the amt of money she wants in order for her to
                    willingly sell.
                    \_ This is simplistic and ridiculous. I'm a liberal who
                       believes in private property, individual responsibility,
                       freedom of religion, and government non-interference
                       in reproductive rights. Liberal and conservative are
                       labels that do not accurately reflect the level of
                       complexity needed here. --erikred
                 \_ Eh, it doesn't say there's no such thing as private
                    property.  The City still had to pay compensation, so
                    it still falls under Eminent domain.  I don't agree
                    with the ruling (as i currently see it), but I
                    wouldn't go so far as the above. -jrleek
                    \_ If I can't determing the selling price for my property
                       (whether anyone wants to buy at that price or not), how
                       is it that it's mine? -emarkp
                       \_ Uh..  You can determine an asking price.  A selling
                          price, no.  Now, if you lose bargaining rights, that
                          sucks.
                       \_ By that reasoning the constitution never
                          protected your property rights at all.
                          "nor shall private property be taken for public
                          use, without just compensation." Doesn't say you
                          get to decide what is just compensation. -jrleek
                          \_ And if you think it's not just, you petition for
                             redress.
                             \_ The fact that the onus is on you in the first
                                place is evil and fucked up.  -John
                    \_ Compensation doesn't take into account things like
                       subjective value in the property. In this particular
                       case Ms. Kelo family has lived in the same house for
                       many years, the house has a very nice view of the
                       Thames river, &c. The assessed value of the house
                       isn't that high and no where near enough for her to
                       afford to buy another river front home.
                       What give some rich ass yuppie who works for Pfizer
                       more rights to that river view than Ms. Kelo? If he
                       wants Ms. Kelo's home he should be prepared to pay
                       what SHE feels is a proper price for the property,
                       not what the assessor thinks.
                       Under the Kelo regime it seems that the only way
                       to have private property is to be willing to lay
                       down your life to defend it. (At least they won't
                       be able to take your home while you are alive).
                       \_ this is a totally different issue:  ie.
                          how to determine "fair market value" or "fair
                          compensation."  The issue at hand is one of
                          viable use of eminent domain clause and what
                          constitutes "public use."  -nivra
                          \_ I was just pointing out that compensation
                             in this case will likely not be adequate.
                             BUT, if anything can qualify as a public
                             use (and anything the city says is a pub
                             use seems to qualify under the Kelo view)
                             compensation becomes VERY important. If
                             the city can just walk up to a perfectly
                             good home and say that it is taking it
                             b/c some yuppie is willing to pay more
                             for it and just pay some pittance where
                             is the justice?
                       \_ Re: the ad-absurdia claim that "there is no private
                          property." The Conn. SC said: "This claim, while
                          somewhat incalescent, affords us the opportunity to
                          reiterate that an exercise of the eminent domain
                          power is unreasonable, in violation of the public
                          use clause, if the facts and circumstances of the
                          particular case reveal that the taking specifically
                          is intended to benefit a private party. Thus, we
                          emphasize that our decision is not a license for
                          the unchecked use of the eminent domain power as a
                          tax revenue raising measure; rather, our holding is
                          that rationally considered municipal economic
                          development projects such as the development plan
                          in the present case pass constitutional muster."
                          -nivra
                    \- again it does sound like there have been some iffy
                       uses of eminent domain recently, but i havent read
                       about them in depth. but the world is a complicated
                       place. see again something like the pruneyard v robins
                       case. property rights arent absolute or always trumps.
                       similarly, simple "common sense" principles like
                       "coming to a nuisance" dont always make the most
                       sense. see e.g. spur v. del webb, and Guido Calabresi
                       and Melamed: Property rules, liability rules and
                       inalenability: one view of the cathedral, from the
                       harvard law rev. --psb
                       \_ There are two underlying principles to this
                          decision:
                          1. Property should be put to the best possible
                             use
                          2. The law should be allow rsrcs to be allocated
                             in the manner that maximizes their use
                          From a certain pov Ms. Kelo's use of the prop.
                          was not the most profitable (ie best possible
                          use) of the land; the property could be put to
                          better use by Pfizer (or their proxies).
                          Once the city decided that Pfizer could make
                          better use of the land than Ms. Kelo, the duty
                          of the cts is to see that this decision is
                          implemented UNLESS it can be shown that the
                          decision will not maximize the use of the
                          property.
                          If this is the view then Ms. Kelo bore the
                          b/p to show that her use was as good or better
                          than the proposed use - she could not show
                          this, so her b/p was not met, so the city's
                          wins. Case closed. Everyone go home - except
                          Ms. Kelo, she doesn't have a home.
                          \_ What?  You actually believe those 'principles'
                             and what follows from them?
                             \_ Absolutely not, but that is the only
                                way that I can make sense of this
                                garbage.
        \_ This may need a Constitional amendment, from a first reading.
           -moderate
           \_ Yes, the majority ruling is constitutional and I agree insofar
              as this is correct within what's currently legislated. But, law
              doesn't provide for what's "ample and reasonable compensation."
              An amendment should probably address that to favor excessive
              recompense for the "condemned properties."  After perusing the
              pdf opinion from the Conn. SC erikred posted, I agree that
              (1) public use for economic development should be allowed.
              (2) limits on this are a flexible and changing issue, and
              need to be determined case-by-case via the legislative and
              judicial system.  In this case, the economic development in
              question was planned by the city for a large economic develop-
              ment zone, which happened to include Pfizer offices.  There's
              also a marina, park, etc.  Eventhough some of the specific land
              in question may be sold to a private entity(Pfizer), the plan,
              in whole, is justified under "public use."  -nivra
              \_ You want case-by-case.  I think raising the bar higher via
                 Constitutional amendment is something which should be
                 seriously considered. -moderate
                 \_ I think recompense should be increased, but the correctness
                    of interpreting "public use" --> "public purpose" is valid.
                    case-by-case allows the correct judgment to be made in
                    borderline public good/private benefit situations.  If
                    the recompense to the existing property owners is aug-
                    mented, I don't see why "raising the bar" is needed. -nivra
                    \_ Like I wrote before, a Constitutional amendment is
                       something which should be seriously /considered/.
                       I'm not sure the American people believe being paid
                       "more" is sufficient for an interpretation of eminent
                       domain that goes beyond transportation and military
                       bases. -moderate
                       \_ I parse "raising the bar" and "wider interpretation
                          of eminent domain" as two different issues.
                          Raising the bar is increasing the burden of proof
                          that the economic development is public use.
                          "wider interpretation" is changing the definition
                          of "public use" -nivra
                          \_ Let's just change the Constitution so it qualifies
                             "for public use" with "limited to improving
                             transportation infrastructure or in the interests
                             of national security". -moderate
        \_ Opinion: This is bullshit.  Eminent domain is one of those issues
           where I set the bar REALLY REALLY high for the government to even
           have a right to get involved directly. -- ilyas
           \_ In your opinion, which side is more strict constructionist --
              interpreting the Constitution as it is written, as opposed to
              following the spirit of it as a loose constructionist?
              \_ Is this a joke? -- ilyas
                 \_ No.
                    \_ Your question is a tautology. -- ilyas
        \_ This discussion reminds me of something a guy I knew from the
           Caribbean said.  He asked, "How come Americans can't own land?"
           Huh? "Well, do Americans have to rent the land from the
           government or something?"  Uhhh.. no.  "But you pay property
           tax.  How can you say you own something when you have to pay
           someone to keep them from taking it from you?" Uhhhh...
        \_ This ruling is a disaster.  Now any tract of land anywhere in the
           country is up for development, all a wealthy developer has to do
           is to pay off a city council, and the city council can make a case
           that the development will benefit the public by creating jobs or
           whatever, and you can kiss your house and your neighborhood
           goodbye!
           \_ Realistically speaking, I wonder how much an average Joe would
              have to spend to fight a dubious eminent domain claim in the
              courts?  Could be a lot, I think.  I'd just sell and forgo my
              rights, unless nice GOP people gave me money.
           \_ see ad-absurdia claim above. -nivra

6/22    Technical question:  My friend is trying to program a
        single-threaded signal based server.  He's using the icc compiler
        on 64-bit linux.  However, the following problem comes up.  The
        server is working and calls malloc.  Malloc grabs the allocation
        mutex (thread-safe!), then a signal comes in.  The signal
        interrupts malloc and calls the handler function.  The handler
        function calls malloc, deadlock.  Any idea what can be done where
        to avoid deadlock?
        \_ what, besides the obvious 'dont use malloc in the interrupt' ?
           \_ Yeah, besides that.  Since I'm not writing the code, I'm not
              sure, but I guess that option is undesireable.
        \_ I reccomend the 'don't call malloc in the handler' but here's an
           alternate hack:  Replace both calls to malloc with calls to a new
           myMalloc().  myMalloc keeps a fixed-size buffer and its own mutex to
           controll calling malloc itself.  When myMalloc is called and the
           mutex is not free, it returns a pointer to somewhere in the fixed
           buffer and reduces the bytes free in the preallocated buffer.  When
           myMalloc is called and the mutex is free, it calls malloc normally,
           then checks if the preallocated buffer is 'too small' and if so
           performs a realloc on it.
           Two problems with this are:  You need an upper bound to how much
           memory the handler(s) will need to malloc, and if they want to
           free the memory too then myMalloc really needs to keep enough
           preallocated buffers equal to the maximum number of myMalloc calls
           you will see between times the mutex is freed.
        \_ What about something simple like writing a function that sets all
           signals to SIG_IGN, then calls malloc, then sets all the signals
           back to SIG_DFL?
           back to your signal handler?

6/23    Did I miss something?  It looks like the motd was set back 2 days.

6/23    since the neoconRIAAhedonismhating drones on Soda hated
        the daily show archive and got it deleted, can someone point
        me somewhere online where tonight's daily show with Howard
        Dean will appear? - danh
        \_ sloda had a daily show archive? damn. I wish I knew.
        \_ Try Usenet in a couple of days.
        \_ Let me take this opportunity to heartily thank the
           the generous soul who was running the archive. It was a
           much appreciated slice of home and a way to keep informed
           about what was going on in the US. - ciyer
           \_ You were using the Daily Show as a news source?  Are you insane?
              \_ Well, it tends to be a better news source than Fox, CNN, or
                 anything else on television news.
                 \_ By what standard?  It's a pick of the news stories that
                    make the best jokes.
                    \_ By the standard of the rest of television news.  Have
                       you seen what passes for a "serious" news show these
                       days?  Have you watched Nancy Grace's show, for
                       instance?
              \_ Shrug. The show is much more entertaining than, let's say,
                 our "paper of record". For topics that were sufficiently
                 interesting, I'd also read articles from more traditional
                 news sources.
                 interesting / important, I'd also read articles from
                 more traditional news sources.
                 \_ Yes it's entertaining.  But it's not news.
           about what was going on back in the US. - ciyer
           \_ mehlhaff thanks you too for being a loyal archive viewer.
              mehlhaff would be more than welcome to accept any token of
              appreciation, especially donations.

6/23    [Old news deleted]
        \_ Old news:
           http://csua.com/?entry=38003
           \_ Sorry bout that.  I was on vacation with no Internet access
              the first time the thread came around.

6/23    http://blogs.salon.com/0003522/2005/06/06.html#a576
        "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United Federation of
         Planets, and to the galaxy for which it stands, one universe,
         under everybody, with liberty and justice for all species."
        Sounds good to me. - star trek movie guy
        \_ I assume the kid is 8 years old. Suspension seems pretty harsh
           to me for such a goofy offense.  I like the US, but I said all
           kinds of goofy things during the pledge in elementry school.
           \_ 8 years old and still in elementary school?
              \_ Uh...
        \_ What kind of parent(s) would name a child "8"?
           \_ It appears she just refers to her children by their ages on
              her blog, for privacy reasons presumably.
              \_ I see.
              \_ I'm guessing the same, but she has no trouble posting lots
                 of pictures of her kids.
        \_ "for all species"?  That kid's not gonna eat any natural food from
        \_ "for all species"?  That kid is not gonna eat any natural food from
           now on.
           \_ If its all replicated, what species got hurt? I'm guessing
              that until we get replicators he'll have to stick to vegan,
              to minimize his impact on animal species (which is probably
              what an 8 yr old kid has in mind when he says species).
              \_ I would be more likely to assume he meant "sentient" species.
        \_ The punishment for thoughtcrime is death. -mrauser
           \_ The Computer is your friend. Keep your laser handy.

6/23    For sodans working in industry: How much outsourcing of IT (not
        software development) do you actually see going to India/China?  How
        effective is it to outsource IT, esp. non-web application IT needs?
        \_ A lot of "business" side stuff (such as making good presentations
           out of drafts) goes there.  Much of the sevice type stuff is
           notorious for being of super-low quality, 1 million new IT grads
           per year or not.  -John
           per year or not.  As for IBM, they just announced something like
           14k jobs there, so YMMV.  -John

6/23    The Irvine Corporation buy a lot of land, enough to build cities.
        They build houses, LOTS of houses, and control when and how
        much to build, depending on supply and demand. Take Irvine, CA
        as their first success story. They still have a lot of land, but
        they choose to withhold land as to keep the value of the homes.
        They also charge an exorbitant amount of Home Owner's Association
        Fee, in which new home owners (since 2004+) have to pay $300-$500
        a month. They use that money to buy more land, and expand their
        operation. While some argue that they're monopolizing land,
        you can't deny that Irvine communities are also one of the
        prettiest, cleanest and safest communities in the U.S., and many
        say that you really get what you pay for. So what do you guys think
        about their business practices? It seems to me that land isn't
        really controlled by the state or individuals, but corporations.
        \_ Yes, Irvine is nice looking and clean, but it's like a fascist
           community. My uncle can't put up a satellite dish visible from
           the street because he'll get penalized. Exterior house paintings,
           modifications to windows, all have to go through approvals.
           You can't use aluminum foil in the front window... you'll get
           3 warning letters and finally a fine. Front curtain colors must
           be "tasteful" and blend in with the community.  There's a 9PM
           curfew for kids. You can't park on the street unless your garage
           and your driveway are all taken up. You can't use your garage for
           storage other than a vehicle (supposedly this will reduce fire
           hazard). They audit too, to make sure you follow their rules.
           \_ This says it all, "You can't use aluminum foil in the front
              window".  I stopped reading at that point.
        \_ They say living in Irvine feels like linving in Singapore.
        \_ I find Irvine sterile and bland. It is certainly clean and safe
           but I don't think it is very pretty. But I prefer cities.
        \_ I owned a home here, sold it, and currently am renting here.
           Irvine's just as pretty, clean, and safe as nearby communities.
           The housing price jumps as you cross the zip code primarily due to
           the school system and (relative to north/eastern communities)
           closer proximity to the ocean.
           Re: HOA's.  I don't know about post-2004.  I purchased in 2002,
           stayed on the HOA board, and we didn't pay ongoing tithe to the
           Irvine Co.
           Re: HOA ccr & community: It's part of the price of moving into
           Irvine communities.  Some ppl love the bland, uniform appeal
           Irvine suburban life allows.  Easy access to strip mall #179,
           with all the conveniences you need for modern suburban living.
           Along with this is HOA governance of outside aspects of your
           home, and how it looks.  You want external character? Don't move
           here.  I'm glad I sold despite the creature comforts.
           Re: Evils of the Irvine Co. Certainly all the charges that are
           normally levied against large, wealthy corporations are levied
           against them. They rake in profits to be sure, but iirc, they're
           privately-owned so no transparency.  I've heard the counter-charge
           that they're wasting precious undeveloped land, and that the only
           land left undeveloped is unsuitable for residential/commercial
           development despite the fact that their brochures and advertisements
           trumpet how "environmental" the company is for setting aside "green
           space."  I have no opinion re: public v. corp. control of land.
           FWIW, Irvine co. should thank their lucky stars for the UC nearby
           even while I'm sure they curse the land that the UC owns and doesn't
           develop as IC would wish.  Unfortunately, IC still controls too much
           land, and Irvine can't develop any of the character of typical large
           university towns. -nivra
           \_ What the OP misses is that the Irvine Corp. owns the land
              because it was a ranch. The same is true of the land owned
              by the Hearst Corp., Sierra Pacific, Weyerhauser, or Tejon
              Ranch. They didn't go out and buy land to resell later.

6/23    Help!  I am trying to convince my collegues that Solairs 10 is not
        even close to be used as a desktop OS.  They've kept telling me that
        since it uses Gnome UI, it has the same usability as Linux.  How
        do I counter that?  So far, I can say:
        1. Linux has a lot more working device drivers
        2. Linux has a lot more consumer-oriented, multi-media applications
        anything else?                  sun guy
        \_ Your counter to Solaris is Linux?  Grow up.
           \_ that is all the choice I have... lesser of two evils
        \_ I suppose you're talking about Solaris on intel?
           1. Is not very relevant if you intend to use Sun hardware and
              you don't mind paying their prices (it's not like Sun's
              opteron boxes are overpriced, but they're designed to be
              'workstation' class boxes. Don't even think of getting one
              for like $1000 or less unless you're an education customer).
           2. You could make a good case if you actually have such a software
              package in mind (e.g. I wouldn't have a hard time convincing my
              users to stay away from Solaris on intel just because Matlab or
              some other packages they use don't work on it)
        \_ I think Linux makes a really nice desktop. Maybe Solaris does,
           too. I haven't had it on the desktop since Solaris 8 and I
           don't miss it. Personally, I like Windows (in a Linux VM) or
           MacOS as my desktop.

6/23    Is it safe to buy Quicken on eBay for ~$9.99?  They always claim that
        they are legit versions, but don't come in the retail box.  What are
        the chances it'll contain spyware?  Does anyone know if Intuit resells
        through small companies / individuals a-la-eBay?  (I pay for software,
        but retail goes for $50+!!)
        \_ Have you considered buying from http://Amazon.com used? Often you can get
           nib copies for slightly more than on ebay.
        \_ Is it an older version?  If not, I'd be weary of pirated copy.
           I think the best time to buy Quicken is during tax season where you
           can get rebates for buying it along with Turbo Tax.
        \_ Quicken 2005 cost me $30 when I bought it new at costco.  $20 just
           isn't worth the worry.
        \_ Quicken doesn't seem to change much from one version to another,
           not in the past few years.  Granted, I use it for tracking
           account transactions and balancing my accounts, and nothing else.

6/23    Even Warren Buffet is talking housing bubble these days:
        http://csua.org/u/cho
        \_ Assuming the housing bubble is a form of momentum investing, how
           much talk of a potential bubble burst do you think it will take to
           trigger the burst?
           \_ I don't know, but I do know quite a few people in Livermore
              trying to get out of the market and finding it harder to
              sell...
        \_ "...certainly at the high end, people who buy houses today may
            have some periods when they regret it."  That is extremely mild
            for a comment from Buffett.  -tom

6/23    A Roman Catholic Republican senator sponsored the Morning-After-Pill
        bill in NY.  Politics has changed?
        \_ Some people just have good sense. (I assume you're speaking of the
           OTC Morning after bill)
        \_ ObjblackRant
           \_ This is not up on Free Republic yet. C'mon jblack, you need
              to post it there so we can put it on the motd.
        \_ John Kerry is (supposedly) a RC.  Some RC don't believe he should be
           allowed communion.  Is the RC above cut from the same cloth?
           \_ Listening to non-Roman Catholics discuss the orthodoxy of Roman
              Catholics is as relevant as playing the commentary track on a
              pr0n DVD while you're trying to get into the mood.

6/23    The Blight of Eminent Domain
        http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=5160
        \_ As wild as the language used in the article is, I believe the author
           does have a valid point.

6/23    Stoopid Tech Q: Is there a version of CDE for SunOS 5.7?
        \_ Updated Q: how the hell do I get the CDE running from the
           command line?
           \_ /usr/dt/bin/dtsession?
              \_ got it, thanks.
              \_ turns out /usr/dt/bin/dtlogin -daemon does the trick.
                 \_ Oh.  in that case, /etc/init.d/dtlogin start

6/23    Torquemada Gonzalez had his fun at Gitmo, now he is coming
        after your porn:
        http://csua.org/u/chs
        \_ FWIW, I think this was John "I covered Lady Justice's Titties"
           Ashcroft's doing.
           \_ He might not have bothered if it weren't the case that so many
              photogrophers liked to snap pics of him with the titties in the
              background.
              \_ Possible, but it's still unbelievably stupid.
        \_ Yeehaw! gotta love those priorities.
           \_ But, won't you think of the children?  That said, they're all
              fronts for the terrorists anyway.  Tell me again, why do you
              hate America?  -John
        \_ It gets weirder ... this also applies to personal pictures ... which
           means you can no longer have a picture of your dick with your hand
           on it on a website, for example.
           \_ First they came for the bestiality people, and I didn't speak up
              because I didn't fuck donkeys. Then they came for Janet Jackson
              and her tit, and I didn't speak up because I'm not really into
              her. Then they came for the pictures of my hand on my dick,
              and no one was left to speak up.
           \_ It is actually even more annoying than that. Not only can they
           \_ It is actually even more annoying than that. Not only can
              come after you, they can come after say, Yahoo if you put
              a picture like that up as your personal photo. I think this
              is going to kill services like snapfish.
                \_ I doubt it.  Some judge will put a stop to this.
              is going to kill services like shutterfly.
                   \_ One just did in fact, at least until Sep 7, when
                      they injunction expires.
                      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430095/posts

6/23    Yeehaw! Dubya don't give a fuck about world perception:
        The United States' popularity in many countries - including longtime
        allies in Europe - is lagging behind even communist China.
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5094510,00.html
        \_ bbc (somewhat liberal slant) >>> guardian (ultra liberal slant)
           http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4124164.stm
           \_ The Free Republic >>> bbc
              http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1429190/posts

6/23    Lunch with Warren Buffet to be auctioned off on Ebay starting today:
        http://www.forbes.com/facesinthenews/2005/06/15/0615autofacescan02.html

6/23    Enough Mormon baiting.  What about Scientologists?
        \_ Why do you have to bait anyone?  Why can't you just leave people
           alone to do their own thing?  At what point in your life has a
           Mormon, Scientologist or anyone else ever hurt you?
        \_ You need a clue-by-four if you think those two are even in the same
           league. -- ilyas
           \_ Why do you think Joseph Smith was any more credible than ol' L
              Ron?
              \_ His first name wasn't "LaFayette" for starters.
              \_ That's not what I said. -- ilyas
        \_ I don't think there are any Scientologists on the motd.
        \_ where's the challenge in that?
           \_ I should point out that Scientologists are REALLY aggressive when
              it comes to people mocking them.  Any online archive of the motd
              containing Scientology bashing, like say, Kevins, might receive
              a polite lawyerly kind of notice at some point. -- ilyas
              \_ They have lost several court cases regarding this.  Look on
                 http://www.clambake.org for links.  Or host your page in
                 Germany.  -John
                 \_ what's different or special about hosting in Germany?
                    Political immunity? Or lack of enforcement?
                    \_ German Verfassungsschutz ("constitution protection",
                       there's a nice orwellian name) is very very tough on
                       Scientology.  They have come down very hard on their
                       "we're a church not a business" bullshit.  In general,
                       the Germans do not like radical groups (nazis, commies,
                       increasingly islamists), so your protection from libel
                       and slander claims as a critic of these is fairly
                       strong.  Actually I think that most of the German-
                       speaking countries have enacted pretty harsh laws
                       restricting Scientology from "religious" activity until
                       they become more transparent (fat chance.)  -John
                       \_ If they're intolerant of radical groups like the
                          Nazis, then aren't they just like Nazis? NaziNazis?
                          \_ Debatable.  They crack down on anyone who
                             advocates destruction of the constitution and
                             overthrow of the democratic system, preaches
                             "hate" (whatever that is), denies the holocaust
                             or just plain breaks the law.  Remember also that
                             European churches are more institutionalized than
                             in the US (many countries still have a church tax
                             that you pay if you're a registered member of an
                             officially recognized church--this goes back to
                             the churches) and probably don't take kindly to
                             scientology abusing the idea of "church" to make
                             money.  -John
              \_ Those motherfuckers already have my name on file as an
                 anti-scientologist, and I'd like to personally go on record
                 as telling them all to go fuck themselves for the nth time.
                 If anyone wants to know why, email me.  -lafe
              \_ aren't they Rich/powerful?  Tom Cruise like?
                 \_ Don't you just have to say the word fnord and it
                    scares them away, like a cross to a vampire?
                    \_ Xenu, not fnord
        \_Scientologists are scary and own tom cruise, but come on,
          there are literally millions of Mormons, they have their own
          state and economic system.
          \_ Does the Mormon church officially sanction kidnapping and
             brainwashing?  Do they sanction Mormon-owned businesses firing
             anyone who refuses to join, and forcing all their employees to
             spend their spare time going to mormon indoctrination seminars?
             Do they have an official policy of using civil lawsuits to
             harass and intimidate anyone who criticizes them?
             \_ I don't know, you tell me.

6/23    Thought you won 100 grand but got a Nestle 100 Grand Bar instead?
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/candy_bar_lawsuit
        I wonder if she is related to the women who filed the Toyota
        Toy Yoda lawsuit:
        http://www.sptimes.com/News/072801/State/Dream_car_is_a__toy_Y.shtml
        \_ So who is right in the eye of the court? The radio station that
           deceived the woman, or the woman too stupid and gullible?

6/23    "If you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be
        a violent period, the throes of a revolution" -VP Cheney (June 23 2005)
        \_ Very much like the "long hard slog" spin...
        \_ To paraphrase another president, it depends on what the meaning of
           the word "throes" is.

6/23    BART employees want a 17% raise.  What's the current inflation rate?
        \_ Hey, I want a 17% raise too.  Why don't you shove your inflation
           rate up your ass?
           \_ I second this inquiry.
        \_ BART salaries have been frozen for 4 years
           \_ You mean there was no one-time raise at the beginning of this
              4-yr period?
           \_ The expiring BART contract has 4-year raises totaling 22%.
              Union officials claim the proposal for the next contract calls
              for a wage freeze of 4 years and a 13% cut of benefits.
              http://csua.org/u/ci0
        \_ I just got a 14% raise this month. That was after a 4% raise
           last September.
              \_ 22% for the past 4 years?  I only got 7% over the past 4 years
                 with little job security and I'm already among the lucky ones
                 in the industry.  These BART employees got 3+ times the raise.
                 Now they want 17% for 3 years?  That's even higher.
              \_ A different perspective: http://csua.org/u/ci8
        \_ I just got a 14% raise, on top of a 4% raise last October.
           Why is this being deleted? Jealous or something?

6/23    I blame all you liberals for this Eminent Domain fuckup.  Hang your
        heads in shame. -- ilyas
        \_ I thought all liberals would think this decision was stupid and
           wrong since I am a liberal and that's what I think.  The motd has
           proven me wrong, and I do indeed hang my head in shame for my
           fellow liberals.
        \_ It's not liberals, ilyas, it's corrupt and stupid government, aided
           by lack of transparency and control.  Happens on both sides of the
           spectrum.  -John
        \_ fuck you.  there is nothing on the liberal docket to justify
           Eminent Domain.
        \_ Finally, we actually found an issue on the motd where the far-right,
           far-left, moderate liberals and moderate conservatives all agree.
           Leave it to you to turn that into a anti-liberal flame war.
           \_ What flame war?  Are we reading the same motd?  You think
              _this_ is a flame war?  And as for everyone agreeing, apparently
              the more 'liberal' justices didn't agree.  I mean my original
              comment was sort of tongue-in-cheek, but as the russian proverb
              goes, in every joke there's a grain of a joke. -- ilyas
        \_ Uh, why? How exactly would your typical liberal favor eminent
           domain for a private developer? Most liberals I know don't even
           favor eminent domain for storm drains. The politics of redevelop-
           ment don't fall along the lines you might imagine. I will admit that
           the voting over the recent SC case mystifies me. -- ulysses
           \_ We had a rather heated discussion about this just now on irc.
              My view is that liberals favor more conventional uses of ED,
              while it tends to be a 'hot button' issue for conservatives.
              Furthermore, liberals in my view tend to favor 'public good' at
              the expense of 'private property' if these come in conflict.
              Also, you can take the private developer out of the equation here,
              the government can take full initiative here (or not even involve
              a business at all). -- ilyas
              \_ I think this view is a rather ingenuous application of a
                 stereotype.  I know very very few liberals that are
                 comfortable with this development, or would have actively
                 campaigned for it.  Admittedly, this is anecdotal, but no
                 less so than your blanket assertion about 'all liberals
                 are bad, etc'.
                 \_ I don't think liberals are 'bad,' nor have I asserted this
                    as you claim.  I happen to disagree with their moral
                    framework though.  Some of them are fine people, really.
                    They are well behaved in public and everything.
                    Some of my best friends are liberals!  -- ilyas
                    \_ Okay, my bad -- that was phrased very poorly...
                       But I think you're confusing the clout of big
                       business and their poilitcal alliances with rabid
                       Berkeley students fresh from HS.
                       business and their politcal alliances with rabid
                       Berkeley students fresh from HS.  While the liberals
                       have some big philosophical weaknesses, I don't think
                       it's reasonable to blame them for the actions and power
                       of big wealthy, powerful, connected business interests.
                       it's reasonable to blame them for the actions  of big,
                       wealthy, powerful, connected business interests.  As
                       someone points out below, the simplification of this
                       issue into liberal vs conservative is, at best, naive
                       and at worst, a smoke screen to distract the people
                       from the not-very-subtle shift of power.
                       \_ This has nothing to do with big, powerful, connected
                          business interests.  This is the supreme court
                          approving this and all future money grabs by the
                          government through increased tax revenue at the
                          expense of individuals.
                          Getting 'business interests' involved is a red
                          herring.  Though they may be involved, they are not
                          necessary for application of ED, especially this
                          shiny expanded "I am gonna kick your ass" ED.
                          I hope you don't think the actions of the scotus
                          were the direct result of 'big business' interference.
                          You can't buy off the scotus that easily.  They are
                          old and set for life. -- ilyas
                       \_ Ok I'll bite. What are the "big philosophical
                          weaknesses"?
                    \_ ^liberals^homosexuals
           \_ I think it's enough for all the "liberal" SCOTUS judges to
              have voted for expanding ED powers, and all the pricks
              to have voted the other way, I mean, conservative judges.
              \_ That too.  I was sort of trying to explain why scotus voted
                 as it did.  Frankly there are plenty of reasons to dislike
                 this ruling for almost every point of the politial
                 spectrum except perhaps some full-on hivemind
                 utilitarian/authoritarian.  -- ilyas
                 \_ did you read the full opinion below?  It explains why
                    the majority voted as it did.  Additionally, Kennedy's
                    op. also illustrates it.  For the record, I'm liberal,
                    and I think I'm hesitantly in favor of the ruling.  But,
                    it's very borderline.  I am not comfortable with what they
                    did to Kelo, nor the other home-owners.  I'm also not
                    comfortable with the future resale of the land to Pfizer.
                    However, I am sympathetic to the logic of the ruling,
                    given current interpretation of law.  You're right about
                    the sociological generalization of liberals favoring
                    "public good" over "private property,"  and if it weren't
                    for my philosophical leanings towards principle, I would
                    have no problem with this ruling.  However, there's another
                    generalization about liberal principles that should be
                    noted: a favoring of individuals' privacy and rights over
                    that of corporations.  These two liberal principles are
                    at odds in the Kelo case, which is why I'm very borderline
                    in my support for it.  I would be amenable to an amendment
                    limiting eminent domain to cases like Hawaii or extreme
                    blight.  But current law supports "economic development."
                          -nivra
                    \_ Out of curiousity, assume there was no private business

                       involvement at all.  The gvt bulldozed over some
                       buildings to build a government business, like a post
                       office or a lottery.  What would your feelings be
                       in this scenario? -- ilyas
                       \_ I'll be your token liberal. Neither of those qualify
                          as far as my "feelings" go. An eminent domain seizure
                          should serve a function beyond simply grabbing land
                          for a public (or private) project. Storm drains and
                          transportation corridors are a good example since
                          both are large scale systems that require continuity.
                          Landowners are rarely willing or able to properly
                          maintain drainage corridors they happen to own, for
                          instance, which can cause widespread flood damage.
                          The funny thing is, as I said, there is little
                          support for such an eminent domain act while
                          apparently grabbing land to build a gamepark is OK.
                          Whatever I might "feel" about particular eminent
                          domain applications has little bearing on how to
                          interpret the eminent domains clause.  -- ulysses
                          \_ I agree with the last sentiment, as well.  The law
                             and my perceived interpretation of it(favoring the
                             majority) are two different things.  I feel like
                             Kelo was treated unfairly, but as the law cur-
                             rently stands, I support the majority interpreta-
                             tion.  -nivra
                       \_ the usage of eminent domain needs to be demonstrated
                          as necessary.  For instance, in Berman v. Parker,
                          the dept. store wasn't blighted, but was part of the
                          blighted community fixed to undergo wholesale
                          redevelopment.  In this case, eminent domain
                          condemnation of the dept store can be seen as a
                          necessary portion of the "public good" over "private
                          property" as it is necessary to implement the grand
                          plan.  In your example, the questions that need to
                          be asked are: 1) why this location? 2) why a post
                          office? 3) what is the public use/good of the
                          proposed development? 4) are there any alternatives.
                          For something as small as a post-office, I think the
                          answers will reveal that there are other options
                          available than eminent domain condemnation of an
                          un-blighted property.  I can't off-the-top-of-my-head
                          imagine a scenario where that wouldn't be the
                          conclusion.  Btw, this is also the prevailing
                          reasoning behind why Kelo v. New London makes sense.
                               -nivra
        \_ stupid troll. The life of a few can and should be sacraficed for
           the benefit of the mass. If you can tear down a few insignificant
           houses for a huge Walmart that everyone can benefit from, then
           you've done a great service for the community. Eminent domain is
           a good thing.
        \_ Don't blame me.  I'm a moderate! -moderate
           (Psst.  So is Hillary.  Pass it on.)
        \_ well you can also blame Bush I and John Sununu, in part anyways.
        \_ I agree this time around, the liberals have fucked it up. -eric
        \_ Who is on the side of Wal-Mart? Hint: it ain't the "liberals."
           This is classic big business conservatism, where government
           dances the tune sung by corporations. Real liberals have been
           fighting this drift for at least a generation.
           http://www.corporateering.org
           Get the book and read it. It is interesting stuff. -ausman

6/23    What, no flamewar about Karl Rove's blatant attempt at trolling 50%
        of America?
        \_ There was not flamewar after Durbin's comments, or even Kennedy's.

6/23    I was not too smart to believe what I read on SBC Yahoo!'s web
        site (that after merging my Yahoo! ID with a SBC sub-account ID,
        I can reverse the merge by simply deleting the sub-account) and
        went ahead with the merge.  The merge did NOTHING as claimed--
        I did not get any extra storage nor any extra service.  So I
        wanted to reverse the process only to find out that I can only
        'suspend' an sub-account, but not delete.  I called customer
        service and was told it is impossible to delete an sub-account
        and hence impossible to undo the merge.  I have spoken to 5
        people including one manager and one level 2 support person.
        None was able to offer any help.  I tried suspending the
        sub-account, only to find out that I could no longer access my regular
        Yahoo! account.  Has anyone had to deal with this issue?  How
        was it resolved?  Are the 5 people I talked to not too bright
        or their web site is just lying?
        \_ I have evidence that Yahoo is controlled by Scientologists.
        \_ When this was first offered (2+ years ago), I distinctly remember
           reading that it was not reversible. It's possible that the 5 people
           you spoke with are still operating under that assumption. Print
           out the page with the relevant promise and direct support
           personnel to the url.
           \_ I did.  I pointed the support people to the URL that states
              the process is reversible.  All I get was a defensive
              comment, "I am telling you the truth!  It cannot be done!".