Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:November:04 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
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/Sports, Recreation/Computer/Games] 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!
2017/09/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/19    
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:November:04 Friday <Thursday, Saturday>