Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:December:08 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2005/12/8-9 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:40917 Activity:moderate
        Once again the left proves they don't believe in free speech.
        \_ So these students were agents of the government threatening Ann
           Coulter with jail or worse for speaking?  Free speach does not
           mean what you think it means.
        \_ Fuck you.
           \_ See?
              \_ Fuck you.
        \_ The left has no tolerance for rants, hate speech, and stupidity.
           And you sir, are full of rants and stupidity. Sign your name.
                                                -i hate stupid people
           \_ "Sign your name".  Neither of you signed.  How are you any
              better than the OP unless being a hypocrite is a good thing?
              The motd is a weird place.
           \_ Uh oh, someone didn't RTA.  You and the OP are both off on
              what happened there.  Why bother posting links at all?
           \_ I can't find a single example of hate speech in the article.
              Would you care to quote something?
        \_ "No free speech for fascists!" --chanted on the steps of sproul
           my freshman year.  Winners of that year's "clueless" award.
        \_  '"I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I
             am," Coulter told the 2,600 people at Jorgensen Auditorium.'
            Of course she loves it; it must be a rare opportunity.
            \_ stupid is as stupid does!
2005/12/8-9 [Uncategorized] UID:40918 Activity:moderate
12/7    Looking for a general, nicely written consumer complaint letter
        to the corporate offices of companies so that I can report on
        employees who are really rude to customers. I'm tired of writing
        letters to Frys, Savon, and others.  What is a good complaint
        letter generater? Thanks.
           \- dont you think this would benefit by NOT being "general"
              but specific. also this needs to be what ... 4-5 sentences
              long at most? it doesnt appear from your inquiry you lack
              english fluency. just out of curiosity, what is you goal in
              writing these letters ... catharsis, or some kind of reply,
              punishment or compensation? Most of those would seem to be
              better served by a non-generic letter.
              \_ English is hard.
           \_ It's not a good complaint letter generator :(
        \_ Mr. I Abelman, Mongoloid, Esq.: We have received via
           post your absurd comments about our trousers...
           \_ I'm pretty sure if Ignatius had a csua account we would
              have heard from him already, though i'm quite glad to be
              hearing from him now.
2005/12/8-9 [Computer/HW/Laptop] UID:40920 Activity:kinda low
12/7    Is there such a thing as a portable LCD monitor?  I mean something
        like a laptop but just with the display (and interface).
        \_ There are the ones that mount in racks with a keyboard that flip up.
           They are about the size of a laptop. However, most LCDs are
           by their nature about the same/size weight as a laptop.
        \_ I've been wondering the same. I'm debating getting a Mac Mini.
           I don't need to use it while in transit, but it would be nice
           to have a monitor I could set up when I get to my destination.
           I've been considering a Head Mounted Display:
           \_ I posted the question for exactly the same reason, but Head
              Mounted Display is too exotic for me.  Is there something cheap
              and ordinary that I can put in a backpack?  I don't know why pp
              says most lcd monitor is about the same size/weight as laptop.
              \_ Because they are? We're not talking about a 20" LCD here,
                 but a small one. Here's one:
                 but a small one. Here's some:
        \_ Take a look at some of the portable LCD's that are used in cars.
2005/12/8-9 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:40921 Activity:very high
12/7    Yesterday on the radio I heard a lady say (paraphrased)
        "Palestinians have the right to participate in the armed
        resistance."  What does this mean?  The only meanings  I can think
        of are either meaningless or ludicrous.
        \_ That's why I like to call NPR "National Palestinian Radio".
           Sympathy with terrorists, pretentious boring shows and shitty music,
            now that's a winning combination.
        \_ Without the context of the discussion, it means even less to us.
           Was she talking about Israel?  Iraq?  The US?  Mars?
           \_ I only caught a snipit, but she was talking about how evil
              Israel is.  The real quote went more like, "The wall
              continues, and the Isreali soldiers beat or arrest any
              protesters in the way.  And those are the ones engaged in
              non-violent resistence.  You know what happens to those in
              the armed resitence.  The Palestinians have a right to do
              participate in armed resistence, you know."
              \_ Consider two questions: Did the colonies have the right
                 to declare independence and take up arms against the
                 British?  And, did the Confederacy have the right to secede
                 and take up arms against the Union?  I think most
                 Americans would say yes to the first and no to the second,
                 but that's because history is written by the winners.  -tom
                 \_ Because the concept of "rights" is illusionary.  As you
                 \_ Because the concept of "rights" is very ephemeral.  As you
                    say, history is written by the winners which is just
                    another way of saying Might Makes Right.
                    \_ The concept of rights is the basis of civilization. -tom
                       \_ Not sure I agree. Individual rights (or lack
                          thereof) have little to do with the rise of
                          civilizations and there are probably savages who
                          afford many rights to their tribe members.
                          \_ But how much is that predicated upon relative
                             isolation and plenty?
                          \_ I'm with tom on this one.  Without some form of
                             encoded rights (Hammurabi comes to mind), you
                             don't have much of a civilization.  I differ
                             from tom in that I see them as something that
                             can be granted or taken away by the stronger,
                             whereas I believe he sees them as a natural
                             right and a part of being human.  If I have
                             stated his position incorrectly, I hope he'll
                             step in and clarify.
                             \_ More important to civilization:
                                  \_ hunter/gatherers dont have civil.?
                                government (does not equate to rights)
                                  \_ tribal chief?
                                  \_ atheist societies cant have a civil.?
                                  \_ plenty of non-western societies without
                                     school systems.
                                  \_ or cash.
                                arts and writing
                                  \_ or writing, but yes they all have art
                                Hammurabi was the king of an already powerful
                                \_ There are implicit rights inherent in
                                   most of what you list.  Currency and
                                   agriculture both require property rights.
                                   Education, religion, and the arts
                                   require the right of expression.
                                   The existence of a government requires
                                   a right of government.  -tom
                                   \_ Yes, but these "rights" can be limited
                                      to a small subset of individuals,
                                      perhaps the ones with weapons. I
                                      wouldn't really call those rights.
                                      If someone with a gun tells me to
                                      dig a hole then what rights are
                                      encoded there? His right to threaten
                                      \_ Your right to dig a hole.  ;-)
                       \_ Yes.  However, they only exist if everyone agrees
                          they do and enforces them.  A stronger entity who
                          chose to violate a weaker entity's "rights" would
                          find little to no impediment leaving the weaker
                          with limited recourse.  "Rights" are a noble concept
                          and a good theory but they don't exist without both
                          the strength and will/desire to enforce them.
                          \_ Your commentary is fairly circular, here.
                             Anyone can have the strength and will/desire
                             to take up arms against a nation; that doesn't
                             mean they all have the right.  I would argue
                             that Osama bin Laden had very little right to
                             organize the 9/11 attacks against US civilians,
                             despite the fact that he had the strength and
                             will to do so.  On the other hand, Eritrea
                             had a strong right to defend itself against
                             Ethiopia (and Kuwait against Iraq).  The
                             question is where Palestinians fall on that
                             spectrum.  -tom
                             \_ Circular?  Not at all.  Might -> Right.  Very
                                direct.  It just so happens that reasonably
                                good people run most of the planet right now
                                so we have "rights".  If the Nazis had won WWII
                                or the Soviets had won the Cold War, there
                                wouldn't be a whole lot of talk about human
                                rights violations around the world.  As was
                                already said a zillion times, the winners write
                                the history.  They also declare what rights,
                                if any, everyone has afterwards until the next
                                \_ "might->right" is a thought-ending cliche.
                                   Does a murderer have a right to shoot
                                   someone else, just because he has a gun?
                                   \_ No, of course not.  Society has more
                                      might than the murderer and says they
                                      don't.  There have been societies where
                                      the answer would be "yes" if, for
                                      example, the killer was a noble and the
                                      victim a peasant.  Fortunately, we don't
                                      live in a society like that.  Although
                                      you're mixing personal interaction with
                                      international affairs, the same M->R
                                      concept still applies quite readily.
                                      \_ No, it doesn't apply in either case.
                                         Taiwan may not have the *ability*
                                         to resist a Chinese takeover, but
                                         they certainly have the right to.
                                         \_ The Chinese would say otherwise.
                                            And that's the point: rights are
                                            not absolutes.  They do not exist
                                            as laws of nature, physics, etc.
                                            They are an issue of ethics or
                                            possibly morals which is the realm
                                            of Man where the only rights you
                                            have are those you can keep by
                                            force or those a stronger entity
                                            chooses to allow you to have.  In
                                            either case they are not "rights"
                                            as you seem to be defining them in
                                            the Natural or Physics sense.
                                            \_ There's this thing called
                                               'Philosophy' which allows people
                                               to deal with abstracts that
                                               aren't necessarily quantifiable.
                                               \_ Yes, we've been discussing
                                                  it in those terms for about
                                                  2 hours now.  Join us if
                                                  you'd like.
                                                  \_ No, I've been discussing
                                                     philosophy, and you've
                                                     been spouting cliches.
                                                     \_ Too bad you chose to
                                                        end it like that.  Oh
                                                        well.  And here I was
                                                        beginning to think
                                                        you could actually
                                                        engage in an honest
                                                        intellectual discussion
                                                        without resorting to
                                                        that.  My mistake.
                                                        I'm done here.
                          \_ "[R]ight, as the world goes, is only in question
                             between equals in power, while the strong do what
                             they can and the weak suffer what they must."
                          \_ "But God chose the foolish things of the world to
                             shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the
                             world to shame the strong."
        \_ They have a right to be homocide bombers!
           \_ Oh, I didn't know those Palestinians are fighting against gay
              \_ They're more like flaming.
        \_ It means someone has an opinion that you don't understand. Congrats.
           Your next step will be reading books without pictures in them.
           \_ Wow, what an amazingly moronic troll.
        \_ The main difference is that their side has used suicide bombers on
           civilians, and people are kind of pissed about that.
           \_ suicide bombing is a highly evolved method of resistance
              twisted, but ingenious
              \_ On civilians?
                 \_ Yes.  It's cheap, and among a demographic that's fucked
                    up enough to go for it, every bombing makes you even more
                    admired.  Now if, as in the case of Iraq, you're actually
                    hurting (directly or indirectly) the people you depend
                    on to some degree for support, well, then that's not very
                    ingenious.  -John
                    \_ Unless say you want to start a civil war and you're
                       only blowing up Shiites.
                    \_ Unless say you're a Sunni and your buddies are only
                       blowing up Shiites, and you want a civil war.
                       \- always an enjoyable read:
                       \_ Which they're not.  -John
2005/12/8-9 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA] UID:40922 Activity:moderate
12/7    Man jailed for 24 years exonerated in DNA test.
        \_ "The judge sentenced Mr. Clark to life. [Clark] interrupted, saying:
           'Your Honor, they had Tony here. I can't put him on the stand. He'll
           tell you I didn't do nothing but drive the car two weeks later.
           Y'all got him right here.'
           'Mr. Clark, you have had your trial,' the judge admonished. 'Just
           remain silent.'"
        \_ I wonder how the rape victim who misidentified him feels now.
        \_ What's the csua l/p for the nyt these days?
           \_ "bobbob" for both.
              \_ that didn't work.  @soda? @csua? @????  thanks.
                 \_ nevermind.  i figured it out.
2005/12/8-9 [Reference/Religion] UID:40923 Activity:very high
12/7    Iran sympathizes the Nazis. (Yahoo! News)
        "Official Iranian media frequently carry sympathetic interviews with
        Holocaust revisionist historians -- who attempt to establish that the
        number of Jews killed by the Nazis was wildly exaggerated."
        \_ I just want to point out that if Godwin's law weren't bullshit,
           this thread would already be dead.
        \_ That is not fair.  A lot of people were sympathetic with Nazi for a
           very simple reason: a lot of people has suffered greatly under
           British imperial rule. Nazi being enemy of Britian, many people
           are sympathetic toward them as result.  Moral of story:  there is
           a history before WW-2.
           \_ This has nothing to do with "my enemy's enemy is my friend".
              This has everything to do with agreeing with people saying "oh,
              wiping out xyz wasn't so bad."  -John
        \_ That's pretty bizarre.  Why wouldn't they be interviewing the people
           who brag that they killed lots of Jews?  Isn't Jew-killing a good
           thing to most Arab nations?
           \_ But that would confirm that Jew are victims, which would lead to
              "Jews deserve more", which is a bad thing to Arab nations.  I
              think "Jews screaming 'victims' to deceive world" is a better
              thing to most Arab nations.
           \_ Remember, to Muslim Arabs, Jews don't count.  Deaths of jewish
              children don't even register.  So maybe 6 million Jews were
              killed, but they're not really people, so....
               \_ you have no sense of history.   Jews traditionaly seek
                  refuge in Arab countries because Arabs were much more
                  tolerante of Jews than Christian Europeans.  This is why
                  you find Jewish temple in Bagdad.
                  \_ Not because any of the caliphates or their client states
                     had any particular love for jews or christians -- they
                     were just more pragmatic about tolerating certain groups
                     of infidels and not whacking them out of principle. -John
                  \_ You have no sense of the present. Muslim Arabs blame
                     everything on the Jews today, and extremists like Iran's
                     president don't think twice about killing Jews.
                     \_ I think he knew that.  No one replied because it was
                        a troll.
                  \_ Dude, there's no Jewish temple in Baghdad.  There's a
        \_ How do you know it wasn't exagerrated?
           \_ Because if you knew anything about it, you'd know the Nazis kept
              meticulous records about all of it.  Thank you for playing.
              \_ Not really. Not about x people gassed etc. I've looked into
                 this some. If you look at estimates they vary quite a bit, and
                 have changed over time, even from sympathetic sources so it's
                 nothing new. Where would you put the number?
                 \_ Quite really.  Where would your sources put the number?
                    And frankly, does it matter exactly how many millions once
                    you get into counting millions anyway?  It's stupid to
                    attempt to say that whatever the number was it was too low
                    to be important which is what the Iranians and others are
                    trying to claim for their own political motives, not
                    because they have an academic interest in WWII era history.
                    \_ I was going to put something here but you said it.  It
                       does not matter if it's 6 million or 6.5 million.  It's
                       a shitload according to all but the most determined
                       revisionist sources with an agenda.  -John
                    \_ Well I'm not attempting to say that. And that's not what
                       was mentioned by the op's blurb. Is there a difference
                       between 2 and 6 mil? I think it is relevant to study
                       the actual circumstances because it helps understand
                       how it happened. Ok yeah the Iranians have an agenda
                       here. I'm not arguing about that. But actually
                       sympathizing with revisionist historians is not
                       identical to sympathizing with Nazis. Shrug.
                        \_ most revisionist historians are nazi white
                           supremacist shitheads.
2005/12/8-11 [Consumer/Camera] UID:40924 Activity:nil
12/8    Anyone have any overall advice or comments for someone going to
        Sundance film festival for the first time?  Is it pretty much as
        depicted in South Park?
        \_ There is nothing for someone not in the industry to do there.
           It's a place to network and party a little bit. It's the
           equivalent of going to DECUS or something, but for small(er)-time
           film makers. I've never been, but my gf works for a film school
           which often submits films to all of the festivals (including
           Cannes). I have heard this sentiment from people who have gone.
           If your film is entered, then have a blast. If not, why go?
           \_ Because a good friend of mine's film is showing.  He's new to
              this stuff as well, and made his film for about 9k.  I was just
              planning to go for the day his film shows plus one more day
              to drive around Utah, and that sounds like about the right way
              to do it.
              \_ Stick with him. If it's a good film he will be your
                 ticket to fun and interesting things.
                 \_ That's the plan.  Thanks.
2005/12/8-11 [Transportation/Airplane, Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:40925 Activity:nil
12/8    Anyone who flew international recently. Did the check-in luggage limit
        got decreased from 70 pound to 50 pound? I'll be flying to China soon.
        \_ Great. Encourage more people to carry on luggage that they should
           be checking in.
        \_ Found it, it is 50 pounds now. Damn.
        \_ I want a passenger + luggage < 250 lbs limit NOW
           \_ I've been asked my weight when buying plane tickets before.  No,
              I'm not a fatass, but in single engine planes every pound
                \_ This is for fuel calculation though.  -John
           \- when did it change? i checked +65lbs last week of Nov.
              although i heard something about this the ticket i looked
              at had the old weight limits.
           \_ Why?
              \_ So I get more luggage allowance.  It doesn't matter if the
                 airplane is burning fuel to move fat or luggage.  Make the
                 400 pounders pay up instead of penalizing the rest of us.
                 \_ Yeah, I just can't wait for all those 110 pound women to
                    start bringing an extra 70 pounds of shit on the plane
                    to make up the difference with us 180 pound guys.
           \_ To hell with you. I'm 7' tall and 250lbs, and I'm still under-
              weight. Eat a sandwich and get over it. --erikred
        \_ I travel very frequently, and it's always been 32kg due to US
           labor laws.  I hope you live in the big ciy in China, though,
           because domestic flight within China has maximum weight of
           something like 20 or 25kg per lugguage, *ONE* lugguage per person.
           So, if you intent to transfer, don't bring too much stuff!
2005/12/8-11 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:40926 Activity:nil
12/8    Looking for a stat on the read/write time of a single 10K or 15K
        scsi disk.  don't care about scsi's ability to tranfer 320 MB/sec,
        I care at what speed I can actually write to the platter.
        Anyone want to point me to (or just give me) the info? tnx.
        \_ should have the benchmarks you're looking for.
2005/12/8-11 [Computer/SW/Mail] UID:40927 Activity:nil
12/8    Cannot write to client file
2005/12/8-11 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign] UID:40928 Activity:nil
12/8    Lawyer for 13 GTMO detainees filed a petition Mar 11 2005 (
        "Falkoff's petition quoted a section of the memo, but the quotation was
        blacked out in the unclassified version...Falkoff's interpretation...:
        'The government believes that Mr. Ahmad has information that it wants
        but that it cannot extract without torturing him.' ... because torture
        is not allowed at Guantanamo, 'the recommendation is that Mr. Ahmad
        should be sent to another country where he can be interrogated under
        "Falkoff's description was not disputed by U.S. government lawyers or
        by U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, who read the actual
        Pentagon document. The judge ruled in favor of the Yemenis on March 12
        \_ The LA Times has been found to be insufficiently patriotic and
           therefore in league with Emmanuel Goldstein.
        \_ Another violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
2018/07/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:December:08 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>