| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2005/11/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40432 Activity:nil |
11/4 Rule can head off dirty tricks at CIA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1514509/posts -jblack
\_ http://zapatopi.net/afdb |
| 2005/11/4-8 [Computer/SW/Unix] UID:40433 Activity:nil |
11/3 Has anyone noticed how shitty citysearch is? their website is
incredibly slow, non-intuitive to use, and very inflexible.
does anyone else have this problem?
\_ I think it's great. What I do is start with an address, then
pick a food category, then a price level, then sort by distance
(for restaurants). |
| 2005/11/4-15 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:40434 Activity:moderate |
11/11 http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1513442/posts Massachusetts Attorney General Supports In-State Tuition for ILLEGAL Immigrants \_ Is he really that desperate for votes? |
| 2005/11/4-5 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration, Reference/Law/Visa] UID:40435 Activity:nil |
10/27 Jobs program tries to discourage immigration to U.S.
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1510519/posts |
| 2005/11/4-8 [Consumer/PDA, Reference/Military] UID:40436 Activity:nil |
11/4 Handheld laser gun:
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000253066406 |
| 2005/11/4-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40437 Activity:high |
11/4 New Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeachment;
ImpeachPAC is Launched to Support Pro-Impeachment Candidates
By a margin of 53% to 42%, Americans want Congress to impeach
President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a
new poll commissioned by http://AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots
coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President
Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
The poll was conducted by Zogby International, the highly-regarded
non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,200 U.S.
adults October 29 through November 2.
The poll found that 53% agreed with the statement:
"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for
going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him
accountable through impeachment."
\_ My copy of the constitution seems to require "treason, bribery,
or other high crimes and misdemeanors" for impeachment. Unless
you have proof that haliburton (or whoever) bribed the chimp
into going to war, I fail to see how the threshold for removal
from office has been met. He is no worse than many who have
held the office. [I think that the threshold for removal was
not met wrt Clinton either, I do not know enough re Johnson
to comment]
\_ I'm with Bill Maher on this one: We need a California-style
recall election on Dubya, complete with Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Gary Coleman, and Mary Carey as candidates.
\_ You don't consider it a high crime to send troops into
battle for your own personal agenda?
\_ What personal agenda is that?
\_ http://www.newamericancentury.org -tom
\_ "I really don't like Saddam, so I'm itching to find a
reason to invade his country."
\_ "He tried to kill my daddy!"
\_ That didn't happen, and your repeated assertions don't make it
true. -emarkp
\_ emarkp, I've always wondered how the strict war
mongering Republican saddam toppling sending home
thousands of US soldiers with missing limbs just
so George W Bush has some sort of legacy side Right
Side of your brain coexists with the Left Side we
will bring the miracle of eternal progression to
all of god's children one love Mormon side of your brain.
\_ Hi anonymous troll! For one thing, I'm not R. When did
you stop beating your wife by the way? -emarkp
\_ If the anonymous troll is also a mormon, you might
need to specify which wife.
\_ Ah, but then he'd be a member of a splinter group,
not the SLC-based church. So your "also" is
wrong. -emarkp
\_ OTOH, there are plenty of religions that allow
polygamy besides these mormon splinter groups.
It's not at all clear to me that any religion
based on the Bible should prohibit polygamy.
\_ Your assertion that it didn't happen doesn't make it so
either. However, I wasn't asserting it, as in fact I don't
know. I suggest only that it is impeachable if true. But
what is being investigated now if you're so sure this is
untrue?
\_ Apologies. I didn't connect the logic to the parent
posts. However, "If President Bush did not tell the
truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq" is
not the same as "send troops into battle for your own
personal agenda". -emarkp
\_ Unless "the truth about his reasons for going to war
with Iraq" is the same as "his own personal agenda",
aren't the two accusations the same? -gm
\_ Okay, I amend my comments to "not /necessesarily/
the same". -emarkp
\_ No. I do not. Art 2 Sec 1 cl 1 gives the Pres. sole executive
pwr of the entire US. Art 2 Sec 2 cl 1 gives the Pres. complete
control of the Army and Navy (Yes, I know Congress has to give
the Pres. the pwr under Art 1 Sec 8, but they did give him the
pwr in this case - a sufficient showing of false pretenses has
not yet been made; please make one if you believe otherwise -
M. Moore video inanity is insufficient, I'm asking for real
proof).
The Pres. can use his discretion in deploying these forces into
action under the authority conferred by Congress.
I am even willing to say that the principle of "what is good
for GM is good for America" could be applied even it was shown
\_ Works for me. -gm
that he was motivated by a purely personal economic interest
(other than a direct bribe) as many US companies and thier
employees have prospered as a result of this engagement.
[I do not believe that the decision to depoly in Iraq was
correct, nor do I believe that the civilians have handled
the operation properly. But I do not consider the admin.
failures to be impeachable.]
\_ Treason is, by secondary and tertiary definition, a betrayal
of trust or disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior. The
standard can be as high or as low as one wishes to put it.
That said, if Clinton is the bar, I fear Bush has cleared it.
\_ Treason is a legal term. You can make up any definition
you want but it means nothing. And Clinton was not convicted
of anything. Impeachment is just a trial phase. He was
found 'not guilty' by the Senate so there is no 'Clinton bar
for treason' since he didn't get convicted of it and wasn't
on trial for it in the first place. WTF are you talking
about?
\_ Exactly. Bush should be put on trial: impeachment.
\_ Please point out an offense committed by the Pres.
which qualifies under Art 2 Sec 4.
\_ He violated the Geneva Convention by authorizing
torture and other War Crimes against the detainees
in Gitmo and elsewhere. That is a high crime and
a bunch of people at Nurenberg were hung for it.
\_ As much as you would like the Geneva Convention
to apply, it most likely doesn't therefore no
"high crime" has been committed by the Pres.
[For the present purposes I will ignore the
fact that Geneva is not self-executing thus
cannot be used directly to gain relief or
indict.]
The 3d convention applies to the treatment of
prisoners of war and you are correct that as
a contracting party the US is bound to follow
the convention wrt pows even though the
terrorist do not (Art 2).
But, Art 4 specifies prerequisites for prot-
ection and arguably no terrorist qualifies.
Furthermore, Art 5 only provides protection
to those whose status is in question until a
competent tribunal, such as a US military
tribunal, makes a determination re status.
Once a non-protection determination is made
by the tribunal any means may be used.
If a non-citizen is held outside of the jx
of a fed dist ct, then that person would not
have standing for habeas or 8th amend. relief
either so they could be treated in any manner.
[I think that is is stupid to authorize
torture, &c. but in relation to non-
citizens who are non-state actors and
are held beyond the reach of fed dist
cts, there is no legal bar to the Pres.
authorizing any and all means be used.
If you can point to authorization to use
torture, &c. PRIOR to the Art 5 status
determination I will agree that the Pres.
has acted beyond his authority; however
you will need to show an actual instance
of torture, &c. being used PRIOR to an
Art 5 determination under authorization
of the Pres. to make out an indictable
"high crime"]
\_ Almost none of the detainees have had
their military tribunals yet. Are you
talking about the hearings where they
determine the detainees guilt or in-
nocence, or some other hearing where
they determine their POW status? I do
not know about the latter. In any case,
I am sure there are some violations in
the sense that some people were tortured
before their hearings. I do not know of
any specific cases, but could find some
easily. The point being, there are ple-
nty of crimes out there that Bush has
committed that he could be impeached
for if he became politically unpopular
enough. I think we learned during the
Whitewater investigation, impeachment
is not really a legal process, it is a
political one.
\_ I am specifically talking about a
process to determine Art 4 status.
Until the cessation of hostilities,
a trial on the merits is not requ-
ired (for non-US citizens) only a
process to determine Art 4 status
is required. Given the realities
of war, almost any determination
(even a 5 min summary process by
a jag officer) will satisfy this
requirement.
In order to find a "high crime"
you need to show (1) that someone
was tortured PRIOR to an Art 4
determination and (2) this was
authorized. I'm almost certain
you will not find proof of (2)
b/c any memos/eo/er written by
the Pres., &c. will have enough
ambiguity to suggest that torture
was authorized ONLY if the person
was not protected under Art 4.
Please also note that the conven-
tion may not cover the practice
of handing pows over to non-sig-
natories.
\_ well said, many posters don't understand
that impeachment is purely a political process
the Senate can impeach the president on
whatever reason (see def. of "high crime").
and unlike a criminal process, there's no
appeal.
\_ Given that "high crime" are
specified in context of treason
and bribery, if the "crime" is
not of that magnitude, there may
be a separation of pwrs argument
to enjoin use of the impeachment
pwr. [If a "war crime" can be
shown, I think the Pres. has no
leg to stand on.]
\_ You honestly think that the USSC would
step in and tell the House that they
did not have the authority to impeach?
It would precipitate a Constitutional
crises. I think the USSC would step back
from that.
\_ Given that they interfered
in FL, I'm not entirely sure
that the USSC would stay out
wrt the current Pres.
\_ http://csua.org/u/dy7
\_ Please see above, one
can adhere to Geneva
and torture terrorists
b/c Geneva does not
cover them.
\_ http://www.answers.com/topic/high-crime
\_ Maybe they cut out Art 3 Sec 3 cl 1 in your copy of the
the const. but my copy says "Treason against the US shall
consist of levying war against them, or in adhering to
their enemies, or giving them aid and comfort."
Unless you can point out to me how Bush II conducted war
against the US or gave aid/comfort to the enemies of the
US, the threshold has not been met. (The argument that
Bush united the Islamic world against the US and thus
gave aid/comfort to the enemies of the US is far too
strained.)
[Note, I said that I do not think the bar was met w/
Clinton. This is one reason I chose not to vote for
Tom Campbell when he ran for re-election. As a law
prof. he should have known better than to vote for
impeachment regardless of the political pressure.]
\_ Outing of 2 undercover agents gave aid & comfort to our
enemies, especially KHAN.
\_ Outing of 2 undercover agents gave aid & comfort
to our enemies, especially KHAN.
\_ Can you prove that this was done under either
explict or implicit approval of the Pres.? |
| 2005/11/4-5 [Uncategorized] UID:40438 Activity:nil |
11/4 CNN: "Fiery riots spread beyond Paris". Night 8.
\_ Aren't they cute? They don't seem to involve much in the way of
firearms. They just set lots of stuff on fire. |
| 2005/11/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/911, Consumer/TV] UID:40439 Activity:low |
11/4 "Senate Sets 2009 Digital TV Deadline"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051104/ap_on_go_co/congress_digital_tv
"The move to all-digital will free valuable radio spectrum, some of
which will be allocated to improve radio communications among fire and
police departments and other first responders."
What I don't understand is: why don't they make the first responders
go digital instead? It'll impact fewer people, and the first
responders will surely appreciate clearer reception.
\_ because first responders, when the shit hits the fan, probably
prefer equipment with known behaviour where all the bugs are
either worked out or well understood. all-digital may sound
better, but I wouldn't want to be stuck with 1st gen gear in
an emergency wondering if it was goign to wig out on me.
Let the debugging cycles happen in the consumer market.
Also consider this, the big thing is not the digital but
the freeing up of radio spectrum that may be more useful
to first responders (police, fire, ems, sar). For instance
certain frequency bands perform better for low-power usage
(such as a handheld radio or even a car mounted unit) than
say for high bandwidth high power usage (d-tv), and vice
versa. Also, you still run a digital signal over that
versa. Also, you can still run a digital signal over that
"older" frequency band should you want (and someone makes
the gear, etc). We can get into a discussion of trunking
as well if you want. |
| 2005/11/4-8 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40440 Activity:nil |
11/4 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051104.html (findlaw.com, Dean) "Thus, from the outset of the investigation, Libby has been Dick Cheney's firewall. And it appears that Fitzgerald is actively trying to penetrate that firewall. ... Will Libby flip? Unlikely. Neither Cheney nor Libby (I believe) will be so foolish as to crack a deal. ... Libby's goal, meanwhile, will be to stall going to trial as long as possible, so as not to hurt Republicans' showing in the 2006 elections." \_ Any incentive for Libby to do that? It's going to be his ass regardless and Bush & Co is abandoning him... |
| 2005/11/4-6 [Recreation/Media] UID:40441 Activity:nil |
11/4 http://www.gamespy.com/articles/664/664147p1.html heh, article about the new game "The Movies" |
| 2005/11/4-6 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers, Computer/SW/SpamAssassin] UID:40442 Activity:nil |
11/4 I just received a piece of spam that's the most threatening I've seen
so far:
"<my-email-addr> is a nonprofit/charity contact email address right?
if so...
WE WILL EMAIL YOUR WEB SITE TO 2,500,00 0PT-IN EMAILS FOR [Free]
http://www.broadcastemailservices.org
......"
\_ they represent a threat to the CSUA. squish them. |
| 2005/11/4-6 [Politics/Domestic, Recreation/Media] UID:40443 Activity:nil |
11/4 Last night I was tuned into Air America on the radio, and the host
said, "we'll be listening to ATRIOS next from ESCHATON/blah".
I thought use of handles outside of geek culture only happened in the
movies. Welcome to the FUTURE!
\_ cb radios had handles long time ago
\_ ob cb nerds are a part of geek culture
\_ All those interstate truck drivers are geeks?
\_ Overweight, poorly socialized, generally libertarian,
and utterly convinced that you can't live without them?
Yeah, I'd say they're geeks.
\_ ok, truck geek culture |
| 2005/11/4-8 [Recreation/Computer/Games, Recreation/Sports] UID:40444 Activity:nil |
11/4 F.E.A.R. review: boring, repetitve set design (on par with Halo's
"Library" level) throughout the whole game. Paper-thin story which is
easily guessed in the first few minutes of the game. Doom3 with lights
on at best (but with less variation in the baddies). Avoid it.
\_ I completed it and have fond memories. It's true the cubicle levels
are ultra-dull.
\_ I haven't tried the full-version, but deathmatch is pretty fun,
and free. |
| 2005/11/4-5 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:40445 Activity:high |
11/4 My father is going to give me his 1999 Ford Taurus. I'll be using
it for grocery shopping and making occassional short trips aroud and
outside of the Bay Area on weekends. Can someone recommended a good and
affordable roadside assistance service? Also, can someone recommend an
auto repair shop that I could use for routine maintenance and any
problems that pop up?
\_ For roadside repair, AAA is The Standard. I think it's about $45/yr.
They also have a list of "AAA Approved" mechanics, which is how I
found mine (in Mountain View). If you don't get a personal
recommendation, I suggest you look there. -gm
\_ $45 includes free towing up to 3mi. They can even tow from your
home garage which is not exactly "roadside" and "emergency".
The next level of membership includes up to 100mi.
-- member since '92
home garage which is not exactly "roadside emergency". The next
level of membership includes up to 100mi. -- member since '92
\_ 7 miles, not 3 miles.
\_ Oops, both you and I are wrong. It's actually 5 miles:
http://csua.org/u/dxc (http://www.csaa.com -- member since '92
\_ well, it's 7 miles in SoCal (for my zip code anyway).
It's probably 5 miles where you are.
\_ yah, I agree AAA is great. My car died close to home, I
pushed it to the curb, the next day I called my mechanic to
let him know my car was coming, then called AAA and they
towed it to the auto shop without my needing to go.
\_ free maps too, and their monthly magazine(so-so) and
other discounts to AAA members, like at Fresh Choice
\_ The downside to AAA is that they lobby strongly for more
car-friendly pork, often at the expense of, say, public
transportation and light rail. See:
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2003/02/11/warriors
for an alternative organization that will also provide roadside
bike assistance, albeit with a shorter towing radius. |
| 2005/11/4-8 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:40446 Activity:low |
11/4 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1515823/posts New Republic article condemning Libby indictment (compare this with the http://findlaw.com article) Rosen: "In fact, there's strong reason to conclude that no underlying crime was committed." Dean: "In short, because Libby has lied, and apparently stuck to his lie, Fitzgerald is unable to build a case against him or anyone else under Section 793 [the Espionage Act]" \_ While that's the analysis of many conservatives, Fitzgerald believes he was obstructed in his investigation (and he was the one charged to the the real analysis). And last I checked, that /is/ a crime. -emarkp \_ yah, not disagreeing with you, Rosen's point was there was no "underlying crime", besides the crime of perjury/etc., which he pretty much discounts to support his dubious thesis: "... [Fitzgerald] succumbed to the old temptation to indict otherwise innocent officials for misleading him and his investigators reminds us, once again, that the entire apparatus of special prosecutors is a menace." Of course, Dean's point is that there may have been an underlying crime, which is violation of the Espionage Act, and that it looks like Libby is protecting Cheney. \_ yah, not disagreeing with you, but Rosen's argument can be summed up as: (1) "Strong reason" to think there was no underlying crime. (2) Perjury/etc. is not really serious. (3) Therefore, eliminate special prosecutors. Dean's argument is: (a) By reading the indictment, Fitzgerald thinks there may be an underlying crime of violating the Espionage Act. (b) Perjury/etc. prevents this determination. (c) It looks like Libby is protecting Cheney from (a). \_ On another front, Larry Wilkerson, Powell's former CoS, said today that he has a paper trail that links Cheney directly to the prisoner treatment guidelines. \_ I read that. He said he "had" a paper trail. He got it when he was trying to figure out this mess with Powell when he was still Sec State. Wilkerson says he no longer has access to those documents. \_ Right, and I desagree with (2). Dean seems to be completely nuts--do you mean the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982?). The text of that act says the agent must be "serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." From what I've seen Plame doesn't qualify. That means that the spirit of the law may have been violated but no crime under that act could have been committed. -emarkp \_ From the findlaw article: "Count One, paragraph 1b ... 'As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure.' ... What is Title 18, United States Code, Section 793? It's the Espionage Act -- a broad, longstanding part of the criminal code." != Intelligence Identities Protection Act. (it's good that you asked!) \_ Thanks for clarifying. I'll have to read the findlaw article more carefully. -emarkp \_ yeah, I'm confused why everyone was talking about the 1982 act (which would be hard to prove a violation of) when there should clearly be a broad, all-encompassing law covering release of classified information. \_ That confusion is by design. That's how this administrations' propaganda machine operates. \_ So David Corn (author of "The Lies of George W. Bush") is an administrative lackey? He apparently was the first to raise the question of the 1982 act. \_ So, soda user, now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb. |
| 2005/11/4-6 [Finance/Investment] UID:40447 Activity:kinda low |
11/4 What's the purpose of having codenames for projects? To me, it's just
yet another piece of info per project that I need to remember.
\_ To facillitate communication across departments.
\_ Why not use the real name of the product?
\_ Because you get version number differences, branched products,
etc. Not every dev team requires codenames, but it's a common
thing to do just to keep everyone on the same page.
\_ Also, it depends on how you define "project". If it's a
product, it will have a name, but that name may change or
be unwieldy to use on a regular basis. If it's a version,
the business types could change the version name at any time
to support sales or marketing. If it's a set of features, it
may not have a well-defined short name, and "the code that
does all that new stuff" isn't terribly descriptive. -gm
\_ 1) project hasn't been named yet
2) project name is long and unwieldy
3) it's just a version change and maybe saying you're working
on "5.8.7" is annoying
Those are just off the top of my head --dbushong
\_ Project version number changes at last-minute.
\_ You can't say the full name of the project without laughing
\_ They're more fun
\_ Just ask Butt-Head Astronomer. -tom |
| 2005/11/4-6 [Transportation/Car] UID:40448 Activity:nil |
11/4 http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/04/D8DLRF301.html "A woman on crutches was doused in flammable liquid and set on fire earlier this week as she tried to get off a bus in a Paris suburb, a judicial official said Friday. She suffered severe burns." \_ Is she North African or Black? \_ The AP story doesn't say. \_ Extra-crispy. |
| 2005/11/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics] UID:40449 Activity:nil |
11/4 Huge Iceberg Breaks Apart in Antarctica - Yahoo! News
http://www.csua.org/u/dxd
\_ USA USA USA! |
| 3/15 |