Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:September:30 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2005/9/30-10/3 [Transportation/Car] UID:39931 Activity:nil
9/30    Prototyping the military hardware of tomorrow:  -John
        \_ "A recreational activity practiced by some individuals is ignition
            of one's own flatus."  Is it possible to do that without burning
            your ass?
            \_ One reason to ban gays in the military -- you don't want to clot
            \_ One reason to ban gays in the military -- you don't want to clog
               your weapons system.
               \_ In a history of dumb things posted to the motd, this truly
                  stands out. Whether you are to be congratulated or yoked
                  with utter shame is a question that will plague these
                  proceedings for hours.
                  \_ Hmm, someone didn't appreciate the humor.
2005/9/30-10/3 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39932 Activity:nil
        John Roberts sworn in to the Supreme Court.  Now Bush gets to
        nominate another ultra-conservative leave-it-to-beaver style nominee.
        Yay for us. -mrauser
        \- considering the number of Rs who voted for RBGINESBERG, i think
           it's hard to oppose the nomination of ROLBERTS CJ.
        \_ I have yet to see any concrete reasons for opposing the nomination
           of Roberts to the USSC. cf. Earl Warren who oversaw the japanese
           internment. (I'm assuming that you weren't opposed to the Warren
           \- earl warren was also a stripper.
              \_ huh?
                 \- You're so naive.
                    \_ Mr. Beeblebrox, sir, you're so weird you should be in
        \_ I saw nothing wrong with the guy. He is decent, conservative and
           obviously brilliant. He is about the best you can hope for
           in a Republican. -ausman
2005/9/30-10/3 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan, Reference/History/WW2/Japan] UID:39933 Activity:nil
9/30    Anyone here from Japan?  How did Japan manage to have such low birth
        rates while contraceptive pills were not approved until recently?  Are
        Japanese condoms a lot more effective, or are there a lot more
        abortion, or is it really true that people have a lot less sex because
        men work long hours?
        \_ it is more acceptable in Japan to have an abortion than
           to use any sort of birth control.
        \_ The last one doesn't seem relevant, at least for married people.
           You only have to have sex once a year to have a ridiculously high
           \_ Um, no.
        \_ Yes.
        \_ One word: bukake
        \_ This while having the world's highest chlamydia infection rate.
           \_ Why does it hurt when I pee?
              Why does it hurt when I pee?
              I don't want no doctor
              To stick no needle in me
              Why does it hurt when I pee?
              I got it from the toilet seat
              I got it from the toilet seat
              It jumped right up
              'n' grabbed my meat
              Got it from the toilet seat
              My balls feel like a pair of maracas
              My balls feel like a pair of maracas
              Oh God I probably got the
              My balls feel like a pair of maracas
              Why does it
              Why does it
              Why does it
              Why does it hurt...when I
        \_ Japan is way down the chart for the amount of sex they have.
        \_ Sex education not based on abstinence, higher rates of male
           sterility, much more emphasis on condoms. Also, yes, legalized
           abortion (although this is still somewhat stygmatized); see
  (Stanford article on abortion in Japan 1996).
        \_ An astounding number of abortions.
        \_ Mostly it's women deciding not to have kids and not get married.
           Given the perceived and actual lives of married Japanese women,
           it's understandable.
           \_ What's the difference between the perceived and the actual?
        \_ The most sex crazed asian country in terms of amount of sex
           people have is my fatherland Taiwan.
2005/9/30-10/3 [Computer/SW/OS, Computer/HW/Memory] UID:39934 Activity:nil
9/30    I've got a Via C3 (using kernel-image-2.4.27-2-586tsc) and 1504 MB
        of RAM. Only 904 MB shows up with the "free" command. Is there a way
        to get this kernel to see/use all the available ram? or do I need
        a newer (or custom compiled) kernel?
        \_ you need a kernel compiled with bigmem support, or something like
           that. or highmem. i forget the exact term.
           \_ Great! Thanks. I think I found it: CONFIG_HIGHMEM4G   -op
           \_ Great! Thanks. I think I found it: CONFIG_HIGHMEM   -op
2005/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:39935 Activity:nil
9/30    Ex-Education Secretary Bennett: Black Abortions Would Lower Crime: []
        I guess the new edition of the Book of Virtues includes obsessive
        gambling and racial profiling.
        \_ "A Modest Proposal"
        \_ But... it's true.  I mean at a naive statistical level, and even if
           you looked at the longer term implications it's true.  Of course it's
           reprehensible.. and he noted that.. the whole point was a commentary
           on why there are some things we don't and shouldn't do to lower
           \_ Yes, but it's a mental disconnect. Is abortion really related
              to the crime rate, specifically black abortions? The fact that
              the phrase "black abortions" appeared to have come up without
              prompting demonstrates a certain mindset.
        \_ Steven Levitt (U of Chicago economist, "Freakonomics" guy) wrote a
           somewhat related paper ( called "The Impact
           of Legalized Abortion on Crime" (one sentence summary: "legalized
           abortion had an impact on crime"). Actually all of his stuff is
           quite readable and really interesting.
2005/9/30-10/1 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:39936 Activity:kinda low
9/30    "If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole
        purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and your
        crime rate would go down. That would be an impossibly ridiculous and
        morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."
        -Former Education Secretary William Bennett, GOP member, and now
         radio host (Sep 28 2005) (full quote)
         \_ Despite his whining, the problem is not that he was taken out of
            context (people are clued enough to realize that he was not
            calling for the forced abortion of black fetuses).  It's the
            disgusting insinuation that blacks are inherently predisposed
            to crime.  He was playing this hand off the cuff when he said
            it.  I wouldn't fault him the misspeak.  But he doesn't realize
            what he said _was_ offensive and that he should apologize (if
            he did, it would all go away).
            \_ "Asked if he owed people an apology, Bennett replied, 'I don't
               think I do. I think people who misrepresented my view owe me an
               \_ Considering that the context was a discussion of 'freakonomics'
                  and the fact the very next sentence (not quoted above) was:
                  "So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations
                   are, I think, tricky."
                  There is no reason for Bennett to apologize.
                  \_ Yes, there is. If you miss that then you are also
                     a bigot without realizing it.
                     \_ Finally, 10 yrs of voting republikkan have yielded
            \_ You're making the same error though.  It's a disgusting but
               accurate insinuation.  You can attach whatever reasons to it you
               want (poverty, history of cultural abuse, etc.), that doesn't
               make it inaccurate.
               \_ You're putting a lot of words in Mr. Bennett's mouth.
               \_ To make it completely accurate, aborting all babies of any
                  race would reduce the crime rate. Singling out blacks implies
                  a bias.
                  \_ did you mean "reduce the crime rate" or "reduce crime"?
                     Blacks 7x more likely than whites to commit homicide.
               \_ if it's a "disgusting but accurate insinuation", do you
                  E.g., I casually mention to you in front of an audience,
                  "If I could have sexual relations with your wife, she would
                  be thrilled.  That would be a morally reprehensible thing to
                  do, but she would be quite satisfied."
            \_ Blacks commit crimes higher than their proportion in the general
               population.  As a simple numbers game, it would have been more
               correct to say that if all blacks were removed from the
               population, the crime rate would go down.  Of course, that's
               still not necessarily correct because of secondary effects.  But
               no one is seriously considering it.
               \_ White males between 25 and 35 make up a higher proportion
                  of serial killers than their proportion to the general
                  population would suggest. Statistics without context are
                  meaningless and, in this case, merely provocative. Get into
                  Paul Harvey mode, or STFU.
                  \_ not the poster above, but if we remove white males
                     25 to 35, then that would decrease serial killer crime.
        \_ You could also give every black baby $100,000 at birth and in
           a couple generations it would probably be whites committing all of
           the crimes.
           \_ It probably wouldn't take a couple of generations.
           \_ Why do you think handouts will end crime?
              \_ People tend to commit crime out of desperation. There are
                 exceptions, but in general criminals are products of
                 their environment. If slums became suburbs then crime
                 rates would fall.
                 \_ Why would a single big handout to a baby turn slums into
                    suburbs, reduce or eliminate desperation or do anything
                    else positive?  Counter example: lottery winners.  How many
                    big money lottery winners are any better off a few years
                    after their pay out than they were before?  Handouts do
                    not improve lives.  They create dependency.  Another
                    example: Africa.  Pouring money into Africa has done
                    nothing to eliminate crushing poverty or starvation.
                    Free food, clothing, money, etc, from the EU and USA
                    only destroys the local economy.  How can a native
                    African farmer make any money when the West is giving
                    out free food (for a limited period of time)?  They can't
                    so they stop farming, then surprise! there's a famine.
                    Handouts do not improve lives in the way you seem to
                    believe.  Opportunity *combined* with personal drive to
                    succeed and excel through hard work, education and self-
                    improvement improves lives.
                    \_ This is why it would take a few generations. A
                       lottery winner is already the product of his
                       environment. A millionaire athlete is already a
                       product of his environment. However, if every
                       child's life was some incremental amount better
                       (and it would be with $100K) eventually there would
                       be a parity between the races. You and I both know
                       that hard work is just hard work. Lots of people
                       work hard and they are usually not the CEOs making
                       life miserable for everyone else. Europe takes care
                       of their poor and their crime rate is much better
                       than ours. I actually do not believe in 'handouts'
                       but there is no doubt they would reduce crime and
                       help those who received them if you give them time
                       to work.
                       \_ You still fail to demonstrate how giving a huge
                          handout at birth will change the environment the
                          new-born is born into.  Once we cover that the next
                          concept we'll go over is this nasty thing called
                          "inflation" and how "money doesn't grow on trees"
                          but we still need to finish the "handouts don't
                          help people" part.  We've had generations of handouts
                          and all we got were slums and high crime rates.  Why
                          do you think that is?  Why have generations of
                          hand out ridden people ended up worse off than their
                          grand parents?  You seem to think $100k is a lot.
                          It isn't.  Someone in section 8 housing, getting
                          welfare, social security, medical/caid/care/etc, and
                          various other government handouts is easily getting
                          way more than $100k over a few short years.  Are
                          you saying that if they got a lesser amount ($100k)
                          at birth all at once instead of the greater amount
                          over time everything would just be roses?  Or there
                          should be continued handouts on top of the $100k at
                          birth?  What exactly do you think that $100k is
                          goign to do for a child?  How many more children
                          will be born just to nab an extra $100k/kid?  Where
                          do you get the idea that tossing raw cash at a
                          problem for long enough will make it go away?
                          \_ I am going to guess that you have no real idea
                             what life as a poor black family is like. Did
                             you ever see the movie 'Hoop Dreams'? If not,
                             watch it. If so, how do you think Arthur's
                             family life would've been different if his
                             parents had $100K for each of their kids.
                             \_ Ok, thank you.  We're done.  You've completely
                                ignored everything I've had to say and instead
                                gave me a movie reference and your sister's
                                anecodtal life story in return.  And I was so
                                looking forward to the next bit about how
                                inflation works and money-growing-on-trees,
                                but you're clearly just looking for $400k
                                for your sister, not a rational discussion of
                                why a) this makes no sense, b) won't help end
                                poverty, c) can't be paid for anyway, and
                                d) has already gone on for generations to the
                                detriment of poor people who are now more
                                dependent than ever on government handouts,
                                not less so.  If you'd like to actually read
                                and respond to anything I've brought up, we
                                can continue but you haven't shown any real
                                interest thus far.
                                \_ You're clearly the asshole I thought
                                   you were and I'm glad I didn't my waste
                                   time addressing your points.
                                   \_ No, really what happened is you had
                                      nothing to say so you fell back on
                                      "soft" anecdotal arguments about your
                                      sister and a movie in an attempt to
                                      avoid serious discussion.  If "asshole =
                                      out debated you" or "asshole = unwilling
                                      to take an anecdote and a movie reference
                                      seriously from someone consistently
                                      unwilling to respond" then so be it.
                                      It isn't a case of you somehow having
                                      not "wasted your time addressing my
                                      points".  You thought you were but
                                      simply failed and got called on it. Why
                                      do you feel the need to fall back on
                                      grade school personal attack?  Because
                                      you lack the ability to think clearly
                                      and express yourself rationally?
                                      \_ Dude, you're an asshole and I
                                         thought that from the beginning.
                                         Now you've erased any doubt I
                                         had. You're also egotistical
                                         and, clearly, a neocon with
                                         little understanding of the
                                         plight of blacks in this country,
                                         and are possibly a bigot. Just admit
                                         as much.
                                         \_ This isn't helping or proving that
                                            you're any less of a "raving
                                            lunatic".  If you play his game,
                                            you've basically conceded the
                                            moral highground.  He may not be
                                            especially polite in his
                                            presentation, but he has made a
                                            a couple of good points.   -mice
                                            \_ Maybe you can find them in
                                               there somewhere. He's setting
                                               up strawmen and knocking them
                                               down. "Inflation" and
                                               affordability (money growing on
                                               trees) are not really relevant
                                               to the discussion, which is not
                                               to debate the feasibility, but
                                               whether such an endeavor could
                                               be successful if feasible and
                                               the reasons it would or would
                                               not. It is to understand
                                               the nature of crime, especially
                                               crime as committed by blacks.
                                               Why blacks? It's what Bennett
                                               (way up there!) was addressing.
                                               Bringing a million tangential
                                               points up and making a couple
                                               of them doesn't score any
                                            moral highground.       -mice
                             \_ That really has very little to do with how
                                much 'value' $100k really has within the US
                                economy.  It's also extrapolating a debatable
                                example into a much larger population, which
                                isn't necessarily valid when you take various
                                regional differences into account.  It also
                                doesn't necessarily represent the general
                                cultural attitude of the people -- this can
                                greatly affect how the money is used and how
                                the people in question choose to participate
                                in society.  I see what you're getting at, but
                                your argument is basically flawed.   -!ppp
                                \_ So choose a number you think is more
                                   realistic. Attack the concept, not the
                                   number. That's a waste of time. As for
                                   cultural attitudes, I assure you that
                                   black people wish to succeed and *do*
                                   succeed when given the opportunity.
                                   \_ Hm, well, I would debate the concept,
                                      but the other guy that did that seems
                                      to have been labelled a possible bigot
                                      and a neocon, and a couple of other
                                      things besides without any real dialogue.
                                      I think I'll pass on your invitation
                                      and save my time.
                                      \_ Do I really need to explain to
                                         someone how money can 'change the
                                         environment a new-born is born
                                         into'? That is someone being
                                         difficult or an idiot - possibly
                                         both. Isn't that obvious to everyone
                                         other than a neocon bigot? To say that
                                         I just want money for my sister is
                                         offensive and uncalled for. He left
                                         all attempt at rational discourse
                                         behind with that. My evidence may
                                         be anecdotal, but I haven't seen
                                         him present any at all other than
                                         some bullshit about lottery
                             \_ ie, "I saw this movie once about poor black
                                people so I'm an expert."
                                \_ ie, "I have no rebuttal". As someone
                                   from a working class family whose
                                   half-sister is a black single mother of
                                   4, I can attest to the accuracy of
                                   the movie in question. If, say, my
                                   sister had had the money to stay at
                                   home instead of 'working hard' and
                                   'going to school' then the lives of my
                                   nieces and nephew would've been much
                                   better. As it is, they did well with
                                   what they had, but that's beside the
                                   point, which is that they could've done
                                   even better with aid. Maybe her kids
                                   would be less afraid of going to
                                   college (debt), for instance.
                                   \_ You do realize there are at least 3
                                      people in this 'conversation', right?
                             \_ Why don't you answer his questions?
                                \_ He's a ranting lunatic.
                                   \_ No, he provided a list of points as
                                      to why your "give $100k to all blacks"
                                      idea is stupid. You didn't address a
                                      single one of them.
                                      \_ He's a ranting lunatic. His
                                         latest response proves that. He's
                                         not interested in rational
                                         discourse. His portrayal of me
                                         and my family is offensive and
                                         so is he. I don't waste my time
                                         with bullshitters like that.
                                         \_ Yeah, seriously.  God forbid that
                                            you'd actually be required to
                                            try and rationally debate.  Name
                                            calling and application of the
                                            race card is SOO much easier!
                                            \_ There's nothing rational
                                               about that guy. He's a
                                               blowhard who has already
                                               made up his mind that
                                               blacks commit crimes
                                               because they don't work hard
                                               and have no personal drive
                                               to succeed and money won't
                                               change anything for people
                                               like that. He already said
                                               as much. That is bigoted
                                               and beyond comprehension.
                                               \_ As far as I can tell,
                                                  you made most of that
                                                  up.  Sorry man, you
                                                  might as well give up.
                                                  Pretty much everyone
                                                  seems to agree you lose.
                                                  \_ Just read the first
                                                     *combined* with
                                                     personal drive to
                                                     succeed and excel
                                                     through hard work,
                                                     education and self-
                                                     improvement improves
                                                     The implication is
                                                     that money won't help
                                                     poor blacks because they
                                                     don't have those
                                                     other qualities. Right?
                                                     \_ Wrong.  You're the
                                                        only one here harping
                                                        on race.  See what you
                                                        want to see.  Play the
                                                        race card.  Launch
                                                        personal attack.  Do
                                                        anything but respond
                                                        to the opposing points
                                                        raised.  And then
                                                        claim to be offended.
                                                        If you bring up your
                                                        sister as evidence
                                                        of something, you have
                                                        no right to be
                                                        "offended" when someone
                                                        attacks that "evidence"
                                                        that *you* brought into
                                                        this.  Go re-read all
                                                        the other comments and
                                                        make a count of how
                                                        many times someone
                                                        other than you refers
                                                        to race.  Then count
                                                        your own references to
                                                        race.  After that go
                                                        figure out what might
                                                        happen to the value
                                                        of money if you hand
                                                        it out in big chunks
                                                        to people.  It will
                                                        become nearly
                                                        worthless.  This is
                                                        called 'inflation'.
                                                        Handing out money for
                                                        nothing helps no one.
                                                        Nor does resorting to
                                                        unfounded personal
                                                        attack help you make
                                                        any points.
                                                        \_ The whole thread is
                                                           about race, bozo.
                                                           The person who
                                                           quoted Bennett
                                                           made it so!
                                                           It's not about
                                                           about inflation.
                                                           Can you think
                                                           in the abstract?
                                                           And attacking
                                                           my motives is
                                                           certainly beyond
                                         \_ See above.  And after this I'll
                                            add "oops, nothing else to say,
                                            got called on it so let's fall
                                            back on the old 'i'm offended'
                                         with bullshitters like that. Do
                                         you really think that if you gave,
                                         say, $100K to every black child
                                         born that crime levels would
                                         remain the same? How did you get
                                         into Cal?
                    \_ Giving someone a fish vs. teaching someone how to fish.
                       \_ A starving man doesn't have time to learn. You
                          have to give him a fish and then show him how.
           \_ it is not just about money.  There are rich people who
              are criminals.  There are poor people who are very good.
              Moral values plays a good role in this, not just money.
              \_ Of course there are rich criminals. It's not *just* money
                 but it plays a *big* part in it. Think of all the black
                 fathers in jail for drugs. How many could've had better
                 representation? How many could've bought the drugs like
                 rich Cal students do instead of stealing for the money?
                 Would the mom have been home more often to instill morals
                 and watch the kids? Could they have gone to private
                 schools outside of the slums? Money changes a *LOT*. The
                 idiot above thinks that $500/month in WICK or Section 8
                 housing is somehow proof that money won't really help
                 anything. Shit, man. Does anyone have a fucking clue here?
                 \_ It's a lot more complicated than money. There are lots
                    of examples of poor immigrant groups who work their
                    butts off and get ahead, while the slum population
                    gets worse. It has to do with the culture of the
                    people involved and after all those generations it's
                    not clear how that should be changed. The slum parents
                    who are themselves unmarried drug users are not going
                    to be of any use straightening out their kids, and
                    never would be.
                    \_ It's more complicated and yet money would solve a
                       lot of problems. Black immigrants tend to do well
                       here also. That's not the same as the descendants
                       of the slaves, who have a whole different set of
                       circumstances to contend with. To think that
                       somehow a Vietnamese boat person immigrating here
                       and succeeding is comparable misses the point. That
                       person has a culture and an identity. Blacks in
                       this country acquired that only recently. It's not
                       the whole story, of course, since Mexicans in this
                       country are also prone to crime and they do have
                       a cultural identity, but it's part of the issue. Even
                       by saying that 'unmarried drug users are not going
                       to be of any use straightening out their kids' you
                       are being borderline offensive. Those are the
                       people who can and will straighten out their kids
                       when they are given an opportunity to. It's hard
                       when so much of the population is in jail because
                       of a mixture of stereotypes and bad circumstances.
                       The cycle self-perpetuates. At some point it needs
                       to be broken and money is one way (not the only
                       way) to do that. You would be surprised at how well
                       kids who enter programs like 'Big Brothers' perform
                       when given the opportunities many white kids are
                       born with.
                       \_ It's not a very interesting or useful point when
                          taken out of a real-world context.  Sure, if you
                          give $100,000 or $1M or $1Kabajillion dollars to
                          all poor newborn babes and stipulate that the
                          value of the dollar stays constant you might have a
                          point.  But it's a completely empty point devoid
                          of any real meaning with those assumptions.
                          \_ Not any empty point at all. It proves that
                             there is an economic component to all of
                             this. Is that a point the raving lunatic is
                             willing to concede? No one was arguing about
                             feasibility, just like Bennett wasn't. He is
                             not advocating killing all blacks and likewise
                             I am not advocating that we give them all
                             millions of dollars. However, to fail to see
                             how giving them money would help solve the
                             problem of crime is to also misunderstand why
                             Bennett's solution is so bigoted and offensive.
                \_ See, what I would do, if I were king, is to give a 4 year
                   full scholarship to any child who can prove that they
                   are descended from slaves. This is "worth" about $100k,
                   but would probably be a much more effective anti-poverty
                   program. It is certainly affordable, too, no matter how
                   much you claim it is not. There are certainly no more
                   than 4M blacks of college age in this country. At $25k/yr
                   that works out to $10B, a pittance by Federal spending
                   much you claim it is not. There are no more than 4M blacks
                   of college age in this country. At $25k/yr that works
                   out to $10B, a pittance by Federal spending standards.
                   \_ Why only "descended from slaves"?  Would you give a free
                      ride to a "dfs" kid who has multi millionaire parents?
                      Middle class parents?  What about the poor kid of some
                      other race?  The kid born in the house next door gets
                      screwed out of a $100k education because his skin is
                      the wrong color?  Why would you have a hand out program
                      based solely on race when what you claim to be trying to
                      do is fix economic injustice?  Would that cause not be
                      better served by giving grants based on economic status
                      instead of skin color?  And what about the kids who are
                      descended from slaves but lost their "descended from
                      slaves" membership card?  Those kids get screwed too?
                      I'm in favor of making education affordable for everyone,
                      but strongly opposed to your picking a "pet" group to
                      benefit based solely on skin color and unprovable
                      membership in the "descended from slave" set.
                      \_ I'm not the person who suggested that, but I
                         think it is reasonable to extend such an offer to
                         anyone descended from slaves, no matter their
                         current economic status. Poor kids of some other
                         race are another issue entirely and how to (or
                         whether to) address that is divorced from this
                         issue. Skin color is not relevant. If there's a
                         white person descended from slaves that's fine,
                         too (and there are some descended even from black
                         slaves). From a practical standpoint a certain
                         percentage of heritage would have to be decided,
                         like with Native Americans. The people who
                         couldn't prove it - well, that's a problem.
                         Native Americans face it as well. It's not a
                         reason to deny the people who can. It is, after
                         all, still based on academic achievement (i.e.
                         they still have to get into college). I personally
                         would support such an idea. I think extending it
                         based on economics isn't necessary, since there
                         are already scholarships and grants to cover
                         those cases.
                   much you claim it is not.
           \_ Ob Lotto Lout.
        \_ what would happen if we removed all Asians from Berkeley
           \_ the virgin rate would go down, duh
2005/9/30-10/3 [Computer/SW/Languages/C_Cplusplus] UID:39937 Activity:nil
9/30    What's the name of the rand() function that returns a float
        between 0 and 1? Or alternatively, how do I use the normal
        rand() to return a number between 1 and n? I could % n, but
        it's not really uniform if n is large... Thanks.
        \_ Language?
           \_ C.
              \_ I strongly suggest looking up public code for the "Marseinne
                 Twister" if you're on a 32-bit platform.  Do *not* use "%" if
                 you want uniform.  Find the largest value k such that k*n <
                 MAX_RAND (or 2^31-1 for the twister).  Any value larger than
                 that should be discarded.  Then use %.  That gives you uniform
                 \_ Thanks!
              \_ 30 seconds with the appropriate manpages turns up drand48. I
                 don't know how random its output is. -gm
                 \_ Which isn't in standard C or C++, but is commonly available
                    on Linux.
        \_ Are you on a platform w/ /dev/random or /dev/urandom? If so
           you could use that and normalize to btwn 0-1.
        \_ Also avoid % because most rand() implementations aren't very
           random for the low-order bits.
           random for the low-orbit bits.
2005/9/30-10/2 [Uncategorized] UID:39938 Activity:nil
9/30    "Earlier this month, Google sold 14,159,265 shares in the
        biggest-ever U.S. secondary stock offering. The company's
        side-splitting sense of humor was on display in the choice of that
        number, which mimics the digits to the right of the decimal point
        on the mathematical constant pi."
        \_ Last time it took some digits from the constant e, right?
           \_ Yes.  It was an eBillion.
2005/9/30-10/3 [Uncategorized] UID:39939 Activity:nil
9/30    Author's Guild v Google:
        (yes its a few days old, but still interesting)
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:September:30 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>