Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:October:06 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2005/10/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:39996 Activity:low
10/6    "Forty-six Republicans joined 43 Democrats and one independent in
        voting to define and limit interrogation techniques that U.S. troops
        may use against terrorism suspects ..."
        http://csua.org/u/dn2 (Wash Post)
        \- anybody know the list of senators voting against defining the
           limits? i see powell spoke up too.
           \_ http://csua.org/u/dn4 [senate.gov]
        \_ how about just abide by Geneva Convention and allow International
           Redcross inspect the suspects?  we don't need new law here.
           \_ Then why is the White House opposing it?
              \_ because White House want to use 'all means necessary'
                 to extract information from those so called 'terrorist.'
                 \_ ^want^needs^
                    \_ want, not need.  everyone can say they 'need' the
                       information.  And if you put things to perspective,
                       Nazi Germany was a much more real threat to US
                       security then than so-called terrorist to US today.
                       \_ You misunderstand. I'm saying that the CinC
                          must have the option of using any and all
                          means, including torture, first strike, &c,
                          that he deems are necessary to defend the
                          republic.
              \_ All government bodies object to restraint on their power.
           \_ The geneva convention doesn't apply to non-state actors
              who refuse to abide by its rules. It also doesn't apply
              to the type of conflict we are involved in.
              NOTE: There may be other reasons to avoid torture (ie. it
              is not effective).
              \_ The Geneva Convention very explicitly applies to anyone
                 whose status is unknown.  -tom
                 \_ Tom is correct on this, the anon parrot quoting White House
                    talking points is wrong. -ausman
              \_ The fun part is that nearly everyone detained by the military
                 in Iraq is by definition an "unlawful combatant." Heck, if
                 the military were able to operate legally within the US,
                 it would be the same unless they they are wearing some form
                 of ID signifying them as members of an opposition armed force.
                 \_ Such form of ID would be called a uniform, as required by
                    the Geneva Convention in order for someone to be covered.
                    \_ Once again, you are wrong.
                       "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons,
                       having committed a belligerent act and having
                       fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to
                       any of the categories enumerated in Article 4,
                       such persons shall enjoy the protection of the
                       present Convention until such time as their
                       status has been determined by a competent
                       tribunal."  (Geneva Convention Article 5).  -tom
                       \_ It is you who are wrong. Given that you
                          agree that Covention 3 governs, start w/
                          Part 1 Art 2 cl 1 states that the Convention
                          Part 1 Art 2 cl 1 which states that the
                          Convention
                          "shall apply to all cases of declared war
                           or of any other armed conflight which may
                           arise between to or more of the High Contr-
                           acting Parties"
                          Clearly this provision does not apply to
                          terrorist who are not "High Contracting
                          Parties."  Unless you can show me where
                          AQ, &c. signed on to the convention.
                          Perhaps you wish to look to Part 1 Art 2
                          cl 3:
                          "although one of the Powers in the conflict
                           may not be a party to the present Convention,
                           the Powers who are parties thereto shall
                           remain bound by it in there mutual relations."
                          Clearly this provision does not apply to terrorist
                          who are not "High Contracting Parties."  Perhaps
                       you wish to look to Part 1 Art 2 cl 3:
                       "although one of the Powers in the conflict may
                        not be a party to the present Convention, the
                        Powers who are parties thereto shall remain
                        bound by it in there mutual relations."
                          This contemplates organized state action, not
                          decentralized terrorist action.  But even
                          assuming that Con 3 applies b/c of this clause,
                          and that we can therefore look to Art 4, A, we
                          find that
                          (1) does not apply b/c terrorist aren't part
                              of the armed forces of a Party in conflict
                              b/c they aren't part of the armed forces
                              of any country.
                       disorganized terrorist action.  But even assuming
                       that Con 3 applies b/c of this clause, and that
                       we can therefore look to Art 4, A, we find that
                       (1) does not apply b/c terrorist aren't part of
                           the armed forces of a Party in conflict b/c
                           they aren't part of any armed forces.
                          (2) does not apply b/c at least requirment (b)
                              is not met
                          (3) does not apply b/c they are not members of
                              the regular armed forces
                          (4) does not apply b/c they do not accompany
                              armed force in any manner of speaking
                          (5) does not apply b/c the Party in conflict
                              has no crews, masters, pilots, &c.
                          (6) does not apply b/c they do not respect
                              the laws and customs of war
                          Having dispensed w/ that, lets us look to B,
                          Having dispensed w/ that, let us look to B,
                          where we find that this provison doesn't apply
                          either.
                          There are two major problems w/ the solace
                          you find in Art 5, first there should be some
                          doubt of which there is none (see above).
                          Second, the protection only lasts until a
                          competent tribunal - such as a US military
                          tribunal - makes a determination re Art 4
                          status. Once the tribunal makes a determin-
                          ation that the person does not fall w/in
                          Art 4, the protection afforded by the conv-
                          ention ends.
                          NOTE: This does not imply that I believe
                                that torture should be used, only
                                that there is no legal barrier to
                                its use against non-citizen non-
                                state enemy combatants.
                                that my understanding is that
                                there is no legal barrier to its
                                use against non-citizen enemy
                                its use against non-citizen enemy
                                combatants not formally associated
                                with any state and not held w/in
                                the jurisdiction of a US dist ct
                                (if the person is w/in the jx of
                                a US dist ct habeas and 8th amend.
                                relief may be available - hamdi
                                does not answer that question re
                                non-citizens).
                                \_ So someone who is a Pakistani
                                   or Iraqi citizen, who is
                                   detained...
                                with any state.
                                (it is an open question whether
                                habeas relief is available in
                                such a case).
                                a US dist ct habeas relief maybe
                                available - hamdi does not answer
                                that question re non-citizens).
                                \_ So someone who is a Pakistani or Iraqi
                                   citizen, who is detained
                                \_ Ok, so I have a stupid question.
                                   Is the Geneva Convention legally
                                   binding under U.S. law anyway?
                                   I.e. supposing that it could be
                                   shown that, say, Rumsfeld was
                                   directly responsible for an order
                                   that was in clear violation, is
                                   there any actual legal way to
                                   convict him of some crime?
                                   I would guess that for people in
                                   uniform this would be covered in
                                   the UCMJ, but what about civilians?
                                   \_ The Covention is not self
                                      executing (it cannot be
                                      executing (ie cannot be
                                      enforced directly in US
                                      cts). Part 6, Art 129
                                      executing. Part 6, Art 129
                                      states that
                                      "[t]he High Contracting Parties
                                       undertake to enact any legi-
                                       slation necessary to provide
                                       penal sanctions for persons
                                       committing, or ordering to
                                       be committed"
                                      breaches of of the Convention.
                                      In order for Rummy to be puni-
                                      shed, he would have to be con-
                                      victed under any applicable
                                      fed law executed to enforce
                                      the Convention. This is assu-
                                      ming that Bush would not use
                                      his pardon pwr under US Const
                                      Art 2 Sec 2 cl 1.
                                      victed under the applicable
                                      fed law. This is assuming that
                                      Bush didn't use his pardon pwr
                                      under Art 2 Sec 2 cl 1.
                                      under US Const Art 2 Sec 2 cl
                                      1.
                                      The preferable method to deal
                                      with something like this would
                                      be to impeach him pursuant to
                                      US Const Art 2 Sec 4 ("civil
                                      officer") b/c the Pres. pardon
                                      pwr does not apply to impeach-
                                      ment ("except in cases of
                                      impeachment").
                                      ment.
                                      One completely useless alt. is
                                      to pursue an action in the ICJ.
                                      \_ "to enact any legislation
                                          necessary..." Right, but
                                         does such legislation exist
                                      \_ "to enact any legislation necessary..."
                                         Right, but does such legislation exist
                                         on the U.S. lawbooks?
                                         \_ I believe (but am not
                                            100% certain) that fed
                                            laws re torture, &c.
                                            exist that cover these
                                            violations - note that
                                            new laws specific to
                                            the Convention may not
                                            be needed if adequate
                                            legislation already
                                            exists.
                       either.  Perhaps you find solace in Art 5 cl 2
                       "should any doubt arise as to whether persons
                        having committed a belligerent act and having
                        fallen into the hands of the enemy belong to
                        any of the categories enumerated in Art 4,
                        such persons shall enjoy the protections of
                        the present Convention"
                       Note that this is conditioned on the status of
                       such persons being "determined by a competent
                       tribunal." Even if you can prove that there is
                       some doubt, there is no reason to 2d guess the
                       determination of a US military tribunal re
                       whether someone falls w/in Art 4.
                                with any state.
                                \_ Ok, so I have a stupid question.  Is the
                                   Geneva Convention legally binding under
                                   U.S. law anyway?  I.e. supposing that
                                   it could be shown that, say, Rumsfeld was
                                   directly responsible for an order that
                                   was in clear violation, is there any actual
                                   legal way to convict him of some crime?
                                   I would guess that for people in uniform
                                   this would be covered in the UCMJ, but
                                   what about civilians?
                                       In order for Rummy to be pun-
                                       ished, he would have to be
                                       convicted under the applicable
                                       fed law.
                                      Art 2 Sec 4 ("civil officer")
                                      b/c the Pres. pardon pwr does
                                      not apply to impeachment.
                                      ment.
                                            violations.
        \_ did they regulate that interrogators should only ask suspects
           nicely, using words like 'Please' and 'thank you', and house them
           only in 5-star hotel equivalent living conditions?
           \_ No, but they did declare the squallor of your apartment a
              violation of the Geneva Convention.
2005/10/6-7 [Reference/RealEstate] UID:39997 Activity:nil
10/5    Imagine living in NYC with all the conveniences without the
        pollution, dirt, crowds, and expensive housing. Imagine a city
        that is well connected via mass transit and is completely walkable.
        Housing is scalable and thus affordable, and work place is nearby.
        School and daycare are within walking distance. Shopping
        and retail stores are only 10 minutes away. Imagine no more.
        New Songdo City is here:
        http://www.metropolismag.com/cda/story.php?artid=1192
        http://www.new-songdocity.co.kr
        \_ I don't follow you on the "scalable and thus affordable" bit.
           Assuming this venture succeeds, and this becomes a very desireable
           place to live where people can find very high paying jobs, why
           wouldn't the cost of housing in the convenient locations spiral
           upwards just like in other successful cities?  I guess it might be
           a chance to see what a downtown housing market looks like without
           rent control or rent subsidies, but there are probably other cities
           like than by now anyway.
           upwards just like in other successful cities?
        \_ Where will I park my Hummer?
        \_ Will I have to forsake busty, blonde, blue-eyed women in favor of
           slanty-eyed chicks with small tits?
           \_ Pardon?
           \_ Considering you obviously cannot get either, I don't see how
              it matters.
              \_ "For everything else, there is MasterCharge..."
        \_ is it in the range of North Korea's artilery?
           \_ It's within range of their nukes.
           \_ It's within range of their nuclear catapualt.
                \_ Nucular
2005/10/6-9 [Computer/SW/Mail] UID:39998 Activity:nil
10/6    Is there a UNIX command line that uses an SMTP server to send out
        email? Something like:
        prompt> mail joe@blogspot.com -smtp_server <DEAD>smtp.yahoo.com<DEAD> -user
                  sam@yahoo.com -password abcdefg
        \_ ObUseTelnet
        \_ Theres probably more modern tools, but 11 years ago I downloaded
           ~mehlhaff/bin/mailforge.sh, which I've never actually used.
           The trick is finding an open SMTP relay that will let you use it.
           -ERic
        \_ http://esmtp.sourceforge.net I think this is the esmtp I use
           with a ~/.esmtprc that does what you describe.  -ax
2005/10/6-9 [Reference/Religion] UID:39999 Activity:nil
10/6    "nobody seriously thinks what happened in Bali has anything to do with
        Iraq. There are, in the end, no root causes, or anyway not ones that
        can be negotiated by troop withdrawals or a Palestinian state. There is
        only a metastasising cancer that preys on whatever local conditions are
        to hand. Five days before the slaughter in Bali, nine Islamists were
        arrested in Paris for reportedly plotting to attack the Metro. Must be
        all those French troops in Iraq, right?"
        http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16801982%255E7583,00.html
        \_ I agree with everything he sais about Islam, but the claim that
           Christianity is not also guilty of this mentality is absurd.
           American religious right leaders have publicly stated exactly the
           same objectives as these islamists.  They may not have have power
           right now, but they're still just as much a threat to the survival
           of our civilization.  No one should ever forget that Jerry Falwell
           sided with the terrorists on 9/11, and that he continued to be a
           VIP guest at the Bush whitehouse after that time.
           \_ Oh for crying out loud, not this again.  Falwell did /not/ side
              with the terrorists.  If you want to debate that point yet again,
              start a thread, but your revisionist history is pathetic.  And
              sign your name. -emarkp
              \_ You're both right/wrong: http://csua.org/u/dna
                 \_ Um, no.  Your link doesn't say that Falwell sided with the
                    terrorists.  I'm aware of the content your link has, which
                    is why I know that Falwell didn't side with the terrorists.
                    How am I wrong on this? -emarkp
                    \_ Because you're bothering to argue with an obviously
                       inflammatory remark. --erikred
              \_ You're both right/wrong:
        http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/falwell-robertson-wtc.htm
        \_ Yeah, Christians haven't done a large scale massacre of members
           of a different religion for almost 10 years. Why can't those
           Islamists be more like that?
           \_ Are you refering to Bosnia?  I think if it's Christians v
              Muslims it still fits the framework.  It's not that all
              the other parties are totally innocent, just that it seems
              to be much more universal with Muslims.
              \_ And the US helped the Muslims there against the Christinas.
                 Of course the Muslim world don't want to remember this.
                 \_ Nor did we ever want to mention that they were Muslim.
                    We called them "Albanians" and "Serbs".  Not "Islamists"
                    and "Christianistas"
                    \_ And white  Christians were doing the killing so it can't
                       REALLY be about religion. Must be nationalistic. Yeah...
                    \_ And white  Christians were doing the killing so it
                       can't REALLY be about religion. Must be nationalistic.
                       Yeah...
                    \_ What's wrong with that?  Are you saying that if we were
                       helping Muslims without calling them Muslims, we were
                       not helping Muslims; while if we are attacking Muslims
                       without calling them Muslims, we are still attacking
                       Muslims?  This is double standard.
                       \_ Er, no, I'm not saying that.  I'm suggesting that
                          the word choices are interesting.  good muslim ==
                          "albanians" imo because "muslim" has a negative
                          connotation with a large portion of the american
                          public.
           of our civilization.
                    We called them "Albanians"
2005/10/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:40000 Activity:nil
10/6    Looks increasingly like US has had its first suicide bomber.
        OKC Ch 9:OU Suicide Bomber Attempted Stadium Entry/5 Others
                Involved, Ticket to Algeria Found                       -jblack
                http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1497375/posts
        \_ Oh, you mean aside from those dozen-odd guys who rammed a bunch
           of planes into things a few years ago?  -John
           \_ I assume he meant "home grown."
        \_ This is a much more complete run-down, with links for all his
           facts. http://www.zombietime.com/oklahoma_suicide_bombing
        \_ they are now saying it was remote controlled and, though this
           is old news, the guy tried to buy ammonium nitrate
2005/10/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40001 Activity:nil
10/6    Larry Elder writing about Bill Bennett: http://csua.org/u/dnf
        "How does one artfully say that out of a small percentage of America's
        population -- 13 percent -- blacks account for 37.2 percent of all
        those arrested for violent crimes, 54.4 percent of all robbery
        arrestees, and are the known offenders in 51.3 percent of all murders?
        The murder rate in the city of New Orleans stands at over 7.5 times the
        national average, and authorities convict only one in four arrested for
        homicide."
        \_ One recognizes it's not about their race, but other factors.
           \_ Ever wonder why white collar crime is never broken up by race?
              \_ Because white collar crime are not violent crimes?  People
                 fear less for white collar crimes than for violent crimes,
                 even in homogeneous society.
                 \_ A mugger will only take your wallet.  Kenny boy will end
                    your job, take your life savings and put you on the
                    street!
                    \_ but Kenny boy is dubya's friend...
                    \_ But a mugger would stab me to death as he pleases.
                       \_ Why? If caught mugger/killer could face life in
                          prison or death penalty. If Kenny is caught, well,
                          he's still free ain't he?
                          \_ Savings and credit can be rebuilt; a perforated
                             heart probably can't be.  If a guy is mugging you
                             to begin with, considerations such as "he might
                             get caught" aren't really a serious deterrent.
                             Violent crime isn't inherently rational to begin
                             with -- which is partially what makes it scary
                             (aside from, you know, the possibility of being
                             stabbed to death or getting raped).
                             \_ Which would be true if every mugging resulted
                                in death, rape, etc. But they don't. Odds are
                                Kenny will do less time for damaging thousands
                                lives than some fool who gets caught for doing
                                for robbing $100 from somone.
                                \_ It's not what "will" happen, it's the fact
                                   that it "can" happen -- and is far more
                                   likely a possibility.  Honestly, I'm not
                                   even sure what the point of the conversation
                                   is.  I'm not going to be able to keep on
                                   posting to this thread -- too much going on
                                   here right now.  Perhaps the other guy will
                                   pick up the thread.  Sorry man.
                                \_ Not to mention few robbers can rob thousands
                                   at once or steal Billions.  The amount of
                                   money stolen by bank robbers is
                                   insignificant to what the white collar
                                   crooks can steal.
                       \_ Why? If caught mugger could face life in prison or
                          death penalty. If Kenny is caught, well, he's still
                          free ain't he?
        \_ That article has some stellar quotes.
              \_ Because white collar crime are not violent crimes?
2005/10/6-9 [Computer/SW/Languages/Perl] UID:40002 Activity:nil
10/6    Is there an easy way in Perl to enumerate a complete file tree from a
        given directory?
        \_ File::Find?
           \_ This looks far too complex for what I need.  But if there's
              nothing simpler I guess I can use it.
              \_ use File::Find;
                 find(sub { print("$File::Find::name\n"); }, '.');
                 # how much simpler did you want?
                 \_ Yeah, after trying it, it was easier than I thought.
                    Thanks for the recommendation.
2005/10/6-9 [Uncategorized] UID:40003 Activity:nil
10/6    New BOINC project Rosetta@home now available.  Does anyone know how
        it's different from Predictor@home and the non-BOINC Stanfraud project
        Folding@home?  Thx.
2005/10/6-9 [Reference/Religion] UID:40004 Activity:nil
10/7    Score one for religious freedom -- Ancient mandean religion on verge
        of extinction in Iraq thanks to post-invasian chaos.
        http://tinyurl.com/79n52 (forgot URL last time)
2005/10/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:40005 Activity:nil
10/6   Bush:  "The militants believe that controlling one country will rally
       the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments
       in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from
       Spain to Indonesia." Replace a few words and you get the original
       Bush/neocon plan for spreading democracy in the Middle East. Neat trick!
        \_ Have you ever heard of the psychological term "projection"?
           90% of what comes out of that guys mouth is explained by it.
        \_ He and his gang of cronies may be a bunch of lying, incompetent
           fuckwits, but you need to seriously consider looking up the term
           "empire".  Or maybe that's one of your few words... -John
2005/10/6-9 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40006 Activity:nil
10/6    Bush approval rating down to 37%
        http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
        Will the Rove and Libby indictments get him into the 20s?
        \_ What can I say. Bush has inspired an entire generation of young
           Americans to a whole new level of mediocrity.
           \_ Maybe its not related, but I have noticed many more people on
              television have been using poor english and/or idiotic southern
              accents.  Perhaps since our president is such an idiot, it
              makes it "ok" for other tv personalities to be idiots too.
                -mrauser
              \_ being an idiot lets people recuse themselves of blame
        \_ Nope. At least 30% of the people will believe it's not Bush's fault.
           True believers.
        \_ Not a big surprise.  The Miers nomination is alienating his core.
           For me it's the last straw.
           \_ Does that mean you're among his core?  How is this the "last
              straw" for you rightwing drool monkies?  Haven't you gotten
              plenty of reactionary behavior out of him already?
              \_ This is borderline schadenfreude. As a liberal, I think
                 we need to fix this guy's mess, not gloat about it.
                 \_ And "we" can't even begin that while people continue to
                    back the party that rubberstamps him (and is in power).
                    If we're going to fix his mess, we have to keep showing
                    people what a FUCKUP he is.  And THEY have to start talking
                    to their R congresspeople (as well as the D's who vote
                    for shit like bankruptcy reform).
                    \_ I enjoy every SNL and Daily Show satire of Bush as
                       the next person. But that's all in good humor. I
                       also have a lot of friends who are R but they are,
                       for the most part, moderate. I don't think calling
                       for the most part, moderete. I don't think calling
                       them drool monkies is a good way to get them on my
                       side and making them realize what a screw up Bush
                       is.
                       \_ I wasn't drool monkey guy.  Sorry.  Didn't notice
                          that portion of the guy's comment.
                       \_ I wasn't drool monkey guy.  Sorry.
                    \_ You've got it backwards.  Bush rubberstamps bills from
                       congress.
              \_ He is only doing two things well: keep on the job in Iraq, and
                 cut taxes/keep them low.  He's dropping the ball on his
                 nominations, cutting spending, vetoing anything (George Will's
                 excellent example was McCain-Feingold), controlling the US
                 border, etc.
        \_ There is a limit to how low it can go, since both Democrats and
           Republicans contain a core of true believers who will always support
           their leader, unless he starts biting off the heads of puppies
           on live tv, because the "other guy" would always be so much worse.
           "Bush is spending money like a drunken sailor but Kerry would be
            spending twice as much, etc."
           \_ Our guy only bites off puppy heads! The other guy would be
              clubing baby seal!
              clubing baby seals!
           \_ Nixon bottomed out at 27%.
              \_ Kinda amazing, isn't it? It was pretty much obvious he'd
                 abused the government to allay his own fears and 27% of the
                 US was pretty okay with that. But then again, Reagan sold
                 arms to the "enemy" and was still hugely popular. Ah, Amurica!
                 arms to the "enemy" and was still hugely popular. Ah,
                 Amurica!
                 \_ Komrade, it is speeled AmeriKKKa.
2005/10/6-9 [Computer/SW/Security] UID:40007 Activity:nil
10/6    What's the easiest way to get the ip from the env var
        SSH_CLIENT="10.10.10.10 1212 22" in bash? I want to use it to
        set the DISPLAY env var.
        \_ see man pages for any/all of: sed, awk, perl, cut, tr (and many
           others).
        \_ Why are you doing this?  ssh will set DISPLAY itself if you
           run it with the right options, and it will do it securely.  -tom
           \_ Ah, thx.
              \_ ssh -X -l mylogin hostname
              \_ ssh -Y -l mylogin hostname
           \_ Ok, now it's slow. ;) What's the fastest cipher and mac
              to use? The choices are:
              rc4/blowfish/aes-128/192/256/twofish/3des...
              \_ plaintext.
              \_ IMO, blowfish is the best blend of speed and security
              \_ RC4 is by far the fastest, and secure enough for joe averages
                 using SSH2.
                 \_ After you log in, how do you see what cipher/mac is in use?
                    \_ depends on what ssh you use, obviously. i don't know of
                       a way for openssh. use -v to see what's being
                       negotiated.
           \_ Ok, now it's slow. ;) What's the fastest cipher and mac to use?
2005/10/6 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:40144 Activity:nil
10/5    On an IDE hard disk, if you have write cache turned off, is
        there any advantage to using data=journal mode rather than
        data=ordered mode?
2017/09/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/19    
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:October:06 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>