| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2005/12/10-11 [Consumer/GPS] UID:40950 Activity:nil |
12/9 Want to buy wife a GPS unit for car. Any recommendations? She is not
a tech freak, so it needs to be non-geek friendly. It would also be
nice to know which ones to avoid. TIA.
\_ garmin c320, $400 @ amazon |
| 2005/12/10-11 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:40951 Activity:insanely high |
12/9 "Use democracy to DEFEAT LIBERTY.
Turn the people against their own liberty. Convince them that
liberty is licentiousness - that liberty undermines piety,
leads to crime, drugs, rampant homosexuality, children out of
wedlock, and family breakdown.
And worst of all, LIBERALISM is soft on communism or terrorism - (or
WHATEVER happens to be the enemy of the moment.)
And if you can convince the people that liberty undermines their
SECURITY, then, you will not have to take away their liberty; they
will gladly renounce it." -Irvine Kristol, father of Neoconservatism
\_ This is really dishonest. This is not a quote of Kristol as you
claimed. This is actually a quote of Shadia Drury from her essay
"Saving America--Leo Strauss and the neoconservatives". This is
not what Kristol said; this is Drury's spin on what Kristol said.
And then on top of misrepresenting the quote, you threw in some
extra capitalizations that were not in the source. Advocacy is one
thing, outright lying is quite another. You should be ashamed.
(http://evatt.org.au/publications/papers/112.html has the original
Drury essay.)
\_ I am not sure if I am ashamed, but I am glad to be set straight.
Serves me right for using a random partisan blog as a source.
\_ What? A partisan blog lied and misrepresented an opposing
view? I'm *SHOCKED*! Nay, I'm *SHOCKED*! *laugh* When you
get your info from shitty biased sources, of course you'll get
propaganda and be misled as to what other people have said
and think and you'll end up hating them. The motd is a great
example of this. BushCo lied, People died! Halliburton!
Damn, this is funny. I'm busting up.
\_ Actually, the motd is much better at correcting errors
than most media sources.
\_ You are right, Bush told the truth and no one has died
in Iraq. And Halliburton has not many any money from
War Profiteering. Anyone who says otherwise is a partisan.
\_ BushCo lied, people died implies that Bush knew the
the true situtation in Iraq and chose to act anyway.
His knowledge of the true situation has not been
convincingly demonstrated.
\_ We know that he has lied about Congress having
"the same intelligence" that he did. We know that
he fired generals who told him planning requirements
that he didn't like, whose predictions have turned
out to come true. If Bush didn't lie, he was simply
incompetent. I don't know which is worse.
\_ Gee, isn't this pretty disingenuous? The fact
that the slogan is "BushCo lied..." says pretty
much that lying is worse.
\_ The word "lie" has more than one meaning, as anyone
with even a casual knowledge of the English language
knows. You have chosen, for entirely partisan reasons,\
to pick the meaning that makes the people that use
knows. You have chosen, for entirely partisan reasons,
to pick the meaning that makes the people that use
it look the most extreme. You are being disingenous
yourself, to put it charitably.
\_ I'm surprised _your_ lie has been allow to sit
here unquestioned for so long. The common and
primary usage of the word "lie" is the one that
involves intentional and knowing deception. This
is *not* the "extreme" definition of the word
"lie". It is *the* definition of the word "lie".
Any other definitions you might like to use would
not only be uncommon but would lead to confusing
your audience if you didn't mean "intentional and
knowing deception". You are being extremely
intellectually dishonest. A 2 second dictionary
check would have shown that. So would asking any
normal human being on the street or any 5 year
old what they thought the word "lie" means.
You're just struggling to save the "Bush Lied,
People Died" rhetoric and doing a bad job of it.
Bush, the CIA, several other western intelligence
agencies, the Russians, and the entire Clinton
administration were wrong about WMD in Iraq.
None of these people lied, as we found out later
Saddam's own people were lying to him telling him
he had weapons and capabilities he didn't have.
The upper tiers of Iraqi government thought they
had WMD. Come play again anytime and bring a
dictionary or a 5 year old next time.
\_ Lie \Lie\ (l[imac]), n. [AS. lyge; akin to
D. leugen, OHG. lugi,
G. l["u]ge, lug, Icel. lygi, Dan. &
Sw. l["o]gn, Goth. liugn.
See {Lie} to utter a falsehood.]
2. A fiction; a fable; an untruth. --Dryden.
[1913 Webster]
Quite seriously, your English skills, as well
as your ability to use simple research tools,
such as a dictionary, must be seriously
deficient. In the English language, words
\_ You are an idiot. "dict lie" and look
for the definition that covers truth
and not physical position. You'll see
quite clearly that to lie means to
intentionally deceive. If this wasn't
the motd I'd be stunned that someone
would have the balls to present some
random fuck #2 definition from some
unknown place they've carefully chosen
to cover their first lie and then
falsely accuse someone else of having
poor research skills or English language
ability. If this was something as
low level as Rhetoric 1A you'd get an
"F" for an argument like that. But
since this is the motd, I expect lies
(intentional knowing falsehood) as a
weak attempt to bolster a weak partisan
position.
\_ The most amusing thing about your
diatribe is that this definition above
comes from using "dict lie" on soda.
Are you trolling in a deliberate
effort to look stupid?
often have multiple meanings and it is not
incorrect to use an alternate meaning, though
perhaps confusing to some people. I talked to
a linguist about this, and he says it is an
example of a "contested case" where some
people believe their definition is correct
and the other definitions are incorrect, but
a simple use of the dictionary will show you
to be wrong. The word "lie" is used both
ways in the English language. You also
(deliberately?) misread my simple statement
about your picking the definition that allowed
you to paint the users of it as political
extremists. I said nothing about the "extreme
definition" of the word, you either twisted
or misunderstood what I meant.
or misunderstood what I meant. Five year
olds don't define the language.
\_ So, in your opinion, did the OP of this
thread lie? Should he be ashamed of having
lied?
\_ Sure, he (me actually) lied, by some
definitions of the word. He should be
ashamed of doing only casual fact
checking, which in this case was
a Google search of the quote, which
turns up many other examples of people
spreading this falsehood.
\_ So you are ashamed for not having
fact checked, but not ashamed for
having lied. So in your mind, the
lie was morally neutral? Afterall,
if the lie were morally reprehensible,
shouldn't you feel shame? Would you
say that in your case, "you lied" is
equivalent to "you said something
incorrect because you believed in the
wrong source"?
\_ Yes. If it makes you feel any better
I personally have stopped using the
construct "Bush lied" because of the
confusion it engenders. I prefer
the phrase "Bush is a bullshitter"
because I think it more accurately
describes the relationship that
the Bush White House has with
veracity.
\_ Great! I must tell you (and I
assure you that I do so without
any sarcasm whatsoever) that I
admire your honesty and integrity
in this discussion. I think Bush
was wrong, premature, lacked
planning and foresight, and a
whole host of other unpleasant
things. However, I do not think
he lied (in the sense of the word
that is morally reprehensible and
requires an intent to deceive).
\_ Here are some examples of the second use of
the word:
http://csua.org/u/e96 (Kerry lied)
http://www.techcentralstation.com/101405D.html
http://csua.org/u/e97 (Bush lied about attack)
Now all of these are politically charged
debates, but they all accuse the other of
"lies" when falsehoods would have been a
more clear statement. But nonetheless,
they used the word "lie" as many many
speakers of the English language do in
this situation.
\_ Sure! In the sense that 'Bush lied' ==
'Bush was incorrect in a morally neutral
way because he believed in the wrong
source". I'm ok with that. However,
'BushCo was incorrect in a morally neutral
way because he believed in the wrong source,
people died' doesn't have that nice ring
to it. OBTW, at least in your first 2
references there is a sense that the "lie"
were told with the intent to deceive. In
the Kerry case, one could reasonably assume
that Kerry knew what he did during and after
the Vietnam war, and the website claimed that
that Kerry knew he did during and after the
Vietnam war, and the website claimed that
Kerry gave a "scrubbed" version of his
activities later. The 2nd reference claimed
the media was "inventing" stories. I think
by definition invention requires on the part
of the inventor knowledge that the story is
not true. In the last case, the question
hinges on whether Bush knew he was wrong
when he claimed that the Irqais were in
charge. This was not addressed in the
link (though honestly I have not read
through all the comments), and therefore it
is not clear where the article and the
claim of "Bush lied" falls. Thanks for
proving my point, BTW.
activities during his presidential campaign.
The 2nd reference claimed the media was
"inventing" stories. I think by definition
invention requires on the part of the
inventor the story is not based on actual
truth.
inventor knowledge that the story is not
true.
\_ Waitasec. Are you saying that you believe
that Bush looked at all the information
and drew an impartial and logical
conclusion? 'Cos looking at the intel
now, I don't see how he drew the
conclusions he did without having a
distinct bias. It is clear now that he
had already made up his mind and he was
only looking for intel that supported
his ideas, and the rest could go hang.
In this regard, he intentionally withheld
the truth of the matter from the
American people, which, by your own
definition, constitutes lying.
\_ Nope. I think Bush looked at the
information he had and drew a
conclusion. Did he look at all the
evidence impartially, dispassionately,
whatever? Not likely. Still he
reached a conclusion. He believed
that his conclusion was correct, and
he led the country into war based on
that. Which means he may have been
stupid, premature, illogical,
emotional, short-sided, etc., but he
emotional, short-sighted, etc., but he
did not lie. Did he withhold "the
truth"? What truth? There's his
truth, your truth, my truth. Maybe
there's even *the* truth. Who knows?
He told us what he believed was true.
If a child who just learned addition
told you earnestly that 7+8=13, did
the child lie? Or was he just honestly
wrong? If you write down the wrong
answer on a mid-term, did you lie?
Or were you just wrong?
\_ Do you think Bush told the truth?
\_ I think he told what he thought
was the truth.
\_ It is a yes or no question.
\_ Whose truth? Bush told
the truth as he understood
it.
\_ Bullshit.
"Iraq has weapons of
mass destruction" was
not a lie. "We have
evidence that Iraq
has weapons of mass
destruction" was, in
fact, a deliberate lie.
I think that Bush could
have stuck with the
first of these and
justified the war
(which I supported),
but he chose to lie
about the evidence,
and that is important
(impeachable, IMO).
\_ I take it that you
agree with my propo-
sition that if Bush
merely told the
truth as he under-
stood it, he did not
lie.
\_ Nope. Kerry repeated what he had been
told by other sources, that he believed.
It turned out that these guys weren't
even Vets, but Kerry had no way of
knowing that. The Kerry lied crowd knows
this but still accuse him of lying.
\_ If I may read between the lines, are
you saying the "Kerry lied" crowd
should not have accused him of lying?
If so, thanks for making my point for
me.
\_ I don't hold an opinion one way
or another on the morality of
accusing a politician of lying.
I am just pointing out to you how
the English language is used. I am
sure I could come up with hundreds
of examples, given enough time.
You could, too.
\_ Well, I am perfectly happy with
2 kinds of lie: one that is
honest mistake with no intent
to deceive, and the other that
is deliberately untrue with an
aim to deceive. I think there
is no moral stigma associated
with the first, and the second
is morally reprehensible. I
also think that, given these
two definitions of lie, Bush's
belong to the first category.
And, given there is no intent
to deceive, there is also no
moral probihition against it.
Like I said, I'm ok with the
formulation 'Bush lied' == 'Bush
was incorrect in a morally
neutral way because he believed
in the wrong source".
\_ I'd be more comfortable w/ 'Bush misled, people
bled' b/c lie specifically requires knowledge of
the truth. In this case, knowledge of the truth
has not, and likely cannot be, demonstrated.
bled.' To me lie specifically implies a knowledge
of the truth, which I do not think can be shown
in this context.
\_ 'misled'? What is this if not a euphemism
for 'lied'?
\_ Actually, no. "lied" requires the liar to
have knowledge of the truth, or at least
knowledge of the lack of the truth.
"misled" allows for mistake or ignorance
on the part of the misleading person. - !pp
"misled" allows for mistake on the part of
the misleading person. - !pp
\_ That would be 'mistaken.'
\_ Ummm no. Use 'misled' in a sentence.
Then use 'mistaken' in its place in
the same sentence.
\_ Clever, but not a direct substi-
tution. Instead of saying that the
President misled the people into
believing that the war was just,
I would say that the President was
mistaken in believing that the war
was just, and he therefore led us
into war while laboring under this
mistake. He misled us; in order to
do so, he engaged in deceit, also
called lying.
\_ No, you are wrong. A lie
is an untruth given with the
intent to deceive. Note that
it requires an intent. I would
not be lying to you if I told
you the sun rises in the west,
so long as I believe that to be
true. I may have been wrong
when I said the sun rises in
the west, but I did not lie,
because I did not intend to
deceive you with that untruth.
deceive you.
\_ And in that regard you
would have been *mistaken*,
and you would not have
_misled_ me so much as
_mistakenly led me to
believe_. Regardless of
which, Bush *chose* to
ignore every sign that his
intel and sources were not
correct and created an
environment in which any
evidence for an opposing view
was discarded out of hand.
When he said we had no choice
but to invade, he was imply-
ing that he had explored all
possibilities; that was a
lie. From that complexity
to "Bush lied, peoplde died"
is an unfortunate simplifi-
cation, I agree, but no
less true.
\_ An "unfortunate
siimplification"? Who's
into carefully chosen
euphemisms now?
\_ Pray tell, what is
"unfortunate simplifi-
cation" a carefully
chosen euphemism for?
\_ "Inaccurate"?
"Wrong"?
\_ If you look just one
paragraph down you will
see someone accused of
lying, who had no knowledge
that what he was saying was
false before he uttered it.
How can you ignore the
evidence right in front
of your eyes?
\_ An "unfortunate
siimplificatoin"? Who's
into carefully chosen
euphemisms now?
\_ Actually, this exactly
proves my point (and
it should, since I also
wrote that post). Since
the originator of the
thread posted in error
(or he was misled by his
partisan website, to use
the language of this
subthread), I did not
castigate him for "not
[being] ashamaed for
lying". I so stipulated
because to my mind, and
I assume to his (since
he is not ashamed) he
did not lie, since he
thought he posted a
truth. The OP was
merely mistaken. That is
why I took him to task
for not exercising his
critical judgement
instead.
\_ If you believed Kristol (or anyone in this media age) would
be stupid enough to have actually said this, then you should
be too stupid to be admitted to Cal. If you're not ashamed
for lying, then you should be ashamed for not exercising
your critical judgement.
\_ If Bush can say dumbass things like "What an impressive
crowd: the haves, and the have-mores. Some people call
you the elite, I call you my base" and get away with it,
it is not that unreasonable to think someone like Kristol
might say something like that. Especially many years
ago, before the Internet, when people tended to speak
more freely in front of crowds. Or maybe I am just
a dumbass.
\_ I actually found it very reasuring when Bush said that,
since that crowd will never allow the Religious Right
to totally destroy American science and turn America
into a theocracy. The rich bastard section of the GOP
seems like the least loathesome faction, and they keep
the real fuckers at bay.
\_ You are just a dumbass.
\_ I assume you are not the same fellow criticizing
the anti-war crowd for saying that Bush lied, right?
If so, it would be pretty ironic.
\_ There are many ways to make money other than real estate.
I made more than 100k in the stock market since 2002,
with about 30% annual return. And the PE ratio of S&P500
is actually lower now than in 2002, unlike the ridiculous
Price/Rent ratio of homes in the Bay Area. |
| 2005/12/10-12 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA, Computer/SW/Security] UID:40952 Activity:nil |
12/10 Where can I find the new ssh keys?
\_ http://csua.berkeley.edu/computing/hardware |
| 2005/12/10-12 [Computer/SW/Languages/Java] UID:40953 Activity:kinda low |
12/10 Java is the SUV of programming languages:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2003/09/20#a1762
\_ A great title and a horrid horrid blog entry. The title alone
I could so get behind, but the authors reasons for his arguement
are beyond bad and often flat out wrong.
\_ Kind of sad that MIT students are having trouble with Java.
\_ I was hacking a little java together earlier today, but
then I couldn't find javac. Is it installed here? -mel
\_ don't tell me you installed JRE and expect to find javac.
\_ No, I was trying to use a common installation instead
of making my own and didn't find one. I worked on
the reference implementation for java 0.9 and am
quite familiar with the difference between the JRE
and the JDK. -mel
\_ Isn't the writer the ArsDigita guy?
\_ Yes, its philg of http://photo.net and arsdigita fame. |
| 2005/12/10-11 [Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:40954 Activity:low 85%like:40948 |
12/9 Prince of Russia:
http://tinyurl.com/dgazk (video.google.com)
\_ That is just fucking awesome. Thanks. -John
\_ Parkour also shown in the movie "Banlieue 13".
\_ Seconded, that was tight.
\_ Is the soundtrack French Rap?
\_ Yes. Parkour is big in france:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkour
Here is a video of founder David Belle in action:
http://tinyurl.com/9zaqe (video.google.com)
Personally I think the Russian guy is better. |
| 2005/12/10 [Uncategorized] UID:40955 Activity:nil 88%like:40958 |
12/10 RIP Richard Pryor:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/13378508.htm |
| 2005/12/10-12 [Uncategorized] UID:40956 Activity:nil |
12/10 So linxu, how are you planning to relate to the allumni?
\_ There's always motd. |
| 2005/12/10-12 [Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:40957 Activity:moderate |
12/10 Anyone here use Buzilla for work? On Windows? How's your experience
been? We're using an old version of DevTrack and would like to change
to something else.
\_ Bugzilla? Yes. What do you mean "On Windows"? You mean you want
to run on IIS?
\_ No, we're already running svn on apache2 for Windows (so it would
be with apache--we may be largely a windows shop but we're not
stupid enough to use IIS). Have you used anything other than
Bugzilla? How does it compare?
\_ We used Bugzilla on Solaris for years at PlanetOut. We are now
transitioning to Jira. I liked Bugzilla just fine. -ausman
\_ Why the transition then?
\_ The project managers and programmers didn't really like
it that much. It worked fine for IT project tracking,
but Jira is more flexible. I haven't used the latter
enough to have an opinion about it.
\_ I'm a programmer asking the question. What did the
programmers not like about it?
\_ We used Bugzilla on Linux for several years until Sun forced
us to switch to Bugtraq. Bugzilla wasn't perfect but it worked
fairly well. |
| 2005/12/10-12 [Transportation/Car] UID:40958 Activity:nil 88%like:40955 |
12/10 RIP Richard Pryor:
http://tinyurl.com/c445k (mercurynews.com)
\_ "Police in L.A., man, they got a chokehold they use on
motherfuckers. Do they do it here, do they choke you to death?
That's some weird shit. Cause I didn't know it was a death penalty
to have a parking ticket." |