7/29    To the Japanese imperialist/asian nationalist troll (I'm so proud that
        my troll farm finally has a little friend for chicom troll, I was
        getting worried):  They lost.  -John
        \_ yeah and you thick skinned white men still don't get why you're
           bombed and attacked and hated and jihad'ed and so on so forth.
           \_ Here, let me take a stab at this: US is (for the time being at
              least) the top dog in the geopolitical dog pile, and also
              supports Israel.  If you think it has anything to do with 'lack
              of sensitivity' then I have to wonder what deluded idyllic
              closet *you* came out of.  Grow up, son -- the world doesn't
              revolve around your hurt feelings.
           \_ Ah, ok, now we're getting somewhere, I wasn't sure what your
              point was, exactly.  So you are equating a racist, imperialistic
              regime's expansionist policies based on perceived American
              aggression with the justified indiscriminate violence perpetrated
              against civilians by a few ideologically exploited thugs who
              are just as wont to murder their own "people" and oppress
              infidels and women as a response to repeated supposed slights
              committed against a primitive, barbaric "culture" that has never
              undergone a renaissance, never ever consider a tiny measure of
              introspection about why it is economically and socially failing?
              You know, I'm the first to try and look for and analyze faults
              in my own society's internal and international workings-as I've
              stated before, maybe this makes me a bit naive.  You, on the
              other hand, are a cranky, ill-educated cretin.  Oh, and I'll make
              sure to inform Condi about the "white men" thing.  I'm sure it
              sounded good on a flyer on Sproul plaza.  -John

7/30    Democrats do better in Snow Belts, worse in Sun Belts:
        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164196,00.html
        \_ This article falsely implies that a majority of Latinos
           voted Republican in a number of states. Bush did better
           than most Republicans with Latinos, but still lost by
           about a 60-38 ratio. The Emerging Democratic Majority
           crowd is pinning their hopes on Latinos, so this article
           is correct that Democrats need to hold onto those voters.
           But as long as Tancredo is the voice of immigration in
           the GOP, that shouldn't be too hard.
           http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/nadler200412080811.asp
           http://lin.kz/?sf66j
           http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/nadler200412080811.asp
           \_ Cf. Cuban exiles in Florida.

7/30    Almost without fail, whenever I tell people outside of the Bay
        Area that I graduated from Berkeley I get a brunt of hippie/
        tree-hugger jokes.  Has Berkeley always been known for this or is
        this a result from the 60's/ 70's movements?  Was it always liberal
        or did it lack a theme before? (i.e. UCI)
                                        \_ I think you meant e.g.
        \_ I think they're singling you out for hassling on this subject for
           some other reason.  I still find that the Berkeley name is equated
           with top-notch hard science in the minds of most people.  What's
           really annoying is all the fuckers on the east coast who'll assume
           you went to Berkeley school of music in New York.
           you whent to Berkeley school of music in New York.
                       \_ ^Berkeley^Berklee.
                          \_ and ^New York^Boston
        \_ Maybe you need a haircut.
        \_ I got a lot of this in SoCal and the mid-west, but I've been
           working w/ the same community so long that it turned into more
           of a ritual tease than anything. Just as I acted surprised if they
           ever had a pleasant day weather-wise or knew anything about
           culture. :-)  Oh, and it might've been my various combinations
           of sandals, beard, or ponytail.
        \_ Went to Texas on business last week, and a colleague from West
           Virginia actually asked, "Are you one of them liberals?"
           \_ HA HA HA. So what's your response, and what's a good response?
              \_ I think the normal response is, "No! Please don't hurt
                 me!"
           \_ When I read things like that, a little part of me dies and
              I realize someone like Bush will be President for a long long
              time.
           \_ jblack is from Virginia. Justin, wanna say something? I didn't
              think so.

7/30    I'm tired of hearing people whine about sequel-itis in
        Hollywood yet support them with their box office dollars while
        skipping movies of original content.  Put your money where your
        mouth is.  For instance the top 20 movies (Yahoo Movies 7/30):
        -Sequels (10) =  $1.2M (i.e. Charlie Chocolate,War Worlds,Batman)
        -Originals (10) = $486K: (Mr Smith, The Island)
        \_ People are not supporting sequel-itis; income at movie theaters
           is down from last year, despite the continued rise in movie
           prices.
        \_ Charlie isn't a sequel.
           \_ No, it's a remake, which is even worse.
              \_ Considering that the first was a film adaptation of a book
                 that doesn't seem like that big of a deal.  Also this one
                 is tons truer to the source material.
              \_ Why?  Society has this irritating habit of evolving over
                 time.  After awhile, films tend to look dated, and to not
                 make much as much sense -- so the film gets remade with a more
                 contemporary style/script.  Just because it's new, doesn't
                 automatically mean it's bad.  It makes classic films more
                 accessible to a wider audience; I have a hard time
                 understanding why that's a bad thing.
                 \_ I support your idea.  I think we ought to print a new,
                    modern version of The Bible - but with a happier ending.
                    The original is such a downer, and modern audiences really
                    like an upbeat ending!
        \_ Batman wasn't a sequel. "The Island" was a remake of "Parts: The
           Clonus Horror" with a little "Logan's Run" mixed in.
        \_ People go to movies that their friends tell them are good.  The
           Island was obviously going to suck from watching the previews.
           Same thing for a bunch of others.  If you want sequels, think
           Star Wars.  Your list is really print-to-movie adaptations.
        \_ The "III" was dropped from "The Madness of King George" because
           test audiences kept assuming the film was the 3rd in a series.
           Since sequels consistently do better at the box office, I was
           surprised they didn't take advantage of the confusion.  Fine
           movie, btw.
           \_ Wot, wot!

7/30    For a regular expression like (?:(FOO)|(BAR)|(BAZ))(GARPLY) where
        exactly one of expressions FOO, BAR, or BAZ will match, is there
        a way to have only one backreference returned for the one that
        matches? That is, I'd like $1 to be for that match, and $2 to be the
        match for GARPLY. This is using preg_split (pcre on PHP). Thanks.
        \_ (FOO|BAR|BAZ)(GARPLY) --dbushong
           \_ Well, actually, I guess I didn't explain this quite right.
              Say I have something like (?:FOO|BAR|BAZ)(GARPLY),
              and FOO, BAR, and BAZ each have two sets of capturing
              parens themselves. I want those matches to be $1 and $2,
              and GARPLY to be $3.
              \_ I don't believe you can do that... but since you're trying
                 to do this with preg_split, how do you plan on capturing
                 any matches at all?  --dbushong
                 \_ There's an option for returning captured matches.

7/30    Freedom is on the march!
        "The vote is the first in which Mubarak -- in power for 24 years --
        will face an opponent, and his government has said it will serve as a
        launching pad for greater democracy. ...
        On Saturday, several hundred men and women were gathering to begin
        their march toward Cairo's main square when men in plainclothes
        descended on them, swinging billy clubs and assaulting the
        demonstrators. Burly government supporters surrounded activists
        sprawled on the pavement, kicking them in the head and ribs and
        tearing at their clothes. Others lifted protesters in the air by the
        arms and legs, hauling them off to police trucks. One elderly man
        wandered in a daze, his head bleeding. 'Down with the rule of the dog
        Mubarak,' one young man yelled as he was being clubbed. "
        \_ Are the several hundred men and women gathering without a permit
           to loudly yell their support for Mubarak not molested in this
           manner?  If your answer is "the government won't give anti-Mub
           demonstrators a license" then there's really a different, more
           immediately relevant blow to democracy right there... and one that's
           much closer to things that are starting to happen in the U.S.
           \_ So you honestly believe the level of freedom in Egypt is similar
              to the levels in the US?  Or that we're not that far from where
              they are?  Okey dokey....
              \_ Boy, I didn't remotely say that, but you turn it into whatever
                 makes you happy.
           \_ Yes, Egypt is massively repressive, especially about things
              like public gatherings. This is not new, btw.

7/30    Why isn't jblack posting stupid Republican propagandas anymore? Did
        one of you left-wing-nuts threaten him?
        \_ Isn't of harassing him on the motd, how about you send him an
           email and ask why he doesn't enjoy being harassed by the nutters
           on the motd?
           \_ "nutters" eh? That is an ironic turn of a phrase.
           \_ Of course he enjoys that. He is a troll.
        \_ Why ask why. He is an anonymous coward, an annoying one I may add
           \_ jblack is an anonymous coward?  Do you know what 'anonymous'
              means? -- ilyas
              \_ jblack was "outed" by motdwatchers; he didn't sign his posts
                 himself. hence the anonymous coward tag.
                 \_ Yes, yes, but now that he is outed, he isn't anonymous now,
                    is he? -- ilyas
                    \_ once an anon coward, alwayn an anon coward. At least
                       emarkp signs his name and stands by his opinions,
                       jblack posts something and refuses to answer our
                       questions. Now, I'll sign my name.   -anon coward #99
                       \_ You are the lowest form of motd life. -- ilyas
                    \_ The expression in question is "anonymous coward."
                       From Wikipedia: "'A.C.' is a term applied within
                       some online communities to describe users who post
                       without a handle [...]." It has to do with how one
                       chooses to post, not whether or not one is actually
                       able to maintain his/her anonymity.