| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2005/12/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:41112 Activity:nil |
12/21 http://www.hugi.is/hahradi/bigboxes.php?box_id=51208&f_id=1471 I'm looking for another funny video of the icelanders like the one above. The one above says too many connections. Where else can I go? Thanks. \_ gay gay gay. If this is what's popular in iceland now, then they are 30 years behind our superior American pop culture. \_ Hmm, that's a song in English. Our superior American pop culture did not feature songs in Icelandic. |
| 2005/12/22-23 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:41113 Activity:moderate |
12/21 What's the quietest, most reliable 300-500GB HD out there these
days? I'm mainly concerned with reliability/sound/price per GB
to store lots of media stuff, and I'm not too concerned about
performance. Also a related question, when do you guys think
1T drives will come out, 2008? 2009?
\_ in my experience, seagate drives tend to be quieter than others
\_ Generally speaking, faster spin = louder. Go check out a hardware
review site like http://tomshardware.com, anandtech or sharkeys (and many
others) for specifics on various popular/common drive models.
\_ http://storagereview.com
\_ I have two Seagate ST330831AS 300 GB SATA drives in my G5. They
are pretty quiet and have been fairly reliable. Not bad for about
$100 each.
\_ Define "fairly reliable".
\_ Stores bits correctly 9,999,999 times out of 10,000,000
times?
\_ I've had them for a little under a year and haven't had
any problems in terms of slow performance or read/write
errors (I can't say the same about Maxtor drives I've
owned in the same time period). No errors in terms of
SMART status either.
owned in the same time period). I usually check the SMART
status as well using DW and I haven't noticed anything
abnormal (w/ Maxtor drives I've seen errors w/in 3mo). |
| 2005/12/22-23 [Politics/Foreign, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41114 Activity:kinda low |
12/21 Liberty is dead. All voice, email and most likely fax and data are
being monitored: http://csua.org/u/eeq
\_ Thank you peterl. You're now on my watch list. -Big Bro
\_ Hmm, maybe you should use the NSA's technology so you
will get the right username next time. --peterl
\_ Very well. Thank you peterl. You're on my watch list now -NSA
\_ Ever hear of Echelon? Liberty has been dead for a long time.
\_ God damn, what is the login you use for the post?
\_ http://bugmenot.com
\_ You don't need a login. Is this a ploy to prevent people
from reading the article? |
| 2005/12/22-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41115 Activity:kinda low |
12/22 Can't get any Americans to volunteer for your illegal war? No
problem, just hire mercenaries, 100,000 and counting...
http://csua.org/u/eev
\_ everyone has a price.
\- you know i dont really feel that sorry for the
highly paid mercenaries who take jobs in the
security sector. i'd spend your sympathy points
on people like the poor [financially] nepalis
duped into jobs in iraq and then killed or
people serving in the military/reserves in
iraq who are under ORDERS to do things like
this for shit pay and no option to walk away.
you can (not love) cigarette and gun mfgrs and
still believe they should not be sued for
lung cancer/gun deaths. you seem to be an
incoherent liberal. i say that dispassionately.
\_ All the poster mentioned was about hiring
mercenaries. Where the hell did you come
up with that other stuff?
\_ Interesting, mr. or mrs. dispassionate. I don't find any
implication about sympathy for the mercenaries in either the
above post or the article. So far, between the two, I'd
choose yourself if I had to pick who is "incoherent". Which is
a shame, since all your other points are good - if applied to
a different discussion perhaps.
\-hello you may wish to see:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-09/01/content_370757.htm
and
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1018/p01s04-usmi.html
the incoherent liberal comment comes from using expressions
like "illegal war" and the general tone of the comment.
it's the article which raises the issue of whether
the killed mercenaries were "wronged" and the OP appears
to be in sympathy with that position. cigarette companies
have fave funded bogus science and engaged in sleazy
advertizing but i have little sympathy for people suing
them.
\_ FTA: "Addicott, a retired Special Forces officer, estimates that the
number of civilian contractors in Iraq surpassed 100,000 this year.
'That takes into account not only people specifically hired to
provide armed security, but also those in transportation,
construction, food services, housing, laundry etc. Americans and
non-Americans.'"
Your claim of 100,000 "mercenaries" is exaggerated. Or do you call
people doing laundry "mercenaries"?
\_ Not the original poster, but "war" is not supposed to be a
business opportunity. It is the weight of the state brought
to bear to protect itself or its interests. Privatizing war
takes actions outside the sphere of influence of the state,
meaning the state responsible for war and all its fallout
cannot control the actors. This is dangerous for stability,
not to mention morality. This is EXACTLY what Eisenhower
warned us about. "100k mercenaries" is an exaggeration in
terms, not in numbers. Private interests fighting our wars
for profit is reprehensible.
\_ You're an idiot. Everything is a business opportunity. And
yes, it is an exaggeration of numbers if you're calling landry
workers part of 100,000 "mercenaries".
\_ You're an amoral fool who's blind to history and social
responsibility. Nice to know you.
\_ So I'm the one blind to history even though every war in
the past shows people moving in to make money AND help
people? You're quite a piece of work.
\_ I didn't say it doesn't and hasn't happened. I'm
saying it's wrong. Read up on Truman.
\_ Okay, so I'm *not* blind to history? Good. Now,
you need to understand that economic opportunity
!= bad.
\_ When it's based upon war, I posit that it is.
I posit that death is not a commodity that we
as a people should be proud to traffick in.
\_ So arms manufacturers shouldn't make any
money? Laundary soap shouldn't be sold at a
profit? Hell, first aid kits should be
free? What planet do you live on again?
\_ How the fuck do you imbeciles make the
leap from what I said to "should be free"
You're not worth bothering with.
\_ You missed the questions about selling
things for profit. Answer those if
you object to "for free".
\_ good luck with your crusade!
\_ People don't do things for free. Many American soldiers
especially those from low income or low education or
low opportunity - are in the army to improve their
lot in life. They're as mercenary as the contractors.
They're just willing to work for less.
\_ Do you really want to let this comment stay posted?
Do you know how stupid you sound?
\_ No wonder American GIs commit crimes like raping
schoolgirls in Japan. They are just low people at
their jobs.
\- you may wish to read the chalmers johnson
book sorrow of empire and blowback he is
a fmr ucb prof who went a little nuts.
see wall archive etc ok tnx --psb
\_ I guess you saw Jarhead |
| 2005/12/22-24 [Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:41116 Activity:nil |
12/22 French Anti-Americanism:
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=5323762
\_ ? This is news? The French have always gone their own way, at
least during their sovereign periods.
\_ Not news, just interesting reading. |
| 2005/12/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41117 Activity:nil |
12/22 These colors don't run, says Rumsfeld, they walk away slowly, not
making eye contact.
http://csua.org/u/eet (Seattle Times)
\_ A troop reduction does not constitute a full pullback. Some of the
moves makes sense. Iraquification continues onward...
\_ It makes absolute sense. It also contradicts everything
Rumsfeld and Cheney have said up to now.
\_ "depending on conditions on the ground" is pretty vague,
translates to, "whatever the hell I feel like" |
| 2005/12/22-24 [Politics/Domestic] UID:41118 Activity:nil |
12/22 http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/nycpolls/TS051221.htm Ah, racial disparities.. And lafe, please merge changes. You overwrote me --scotsman \_ Sorry, dude. -lafe |
| 2005/12/22-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41119 Activity:high |
12/22 Okay, we know Bush isn't going to be impeached. It's Reagan and the
Contra arms deal all over again, but with Bush saying he did it instead
of "I don't know/recall." But is the unauthorized wiretapping of
American citizens in these times an impeachable offense? Discuss.
\_ Absolutely. And I think he _will_ be impeached, but not removed.
\_ you think a (R) controlled congress is going to impeach him?
you're totally off your rocker.
\_ Elections coming up here in 2006, and Repubs just unplugged
Grandma. It wouldn't even take a strong wind to swing this.
\_ While I share the general sentiment to a degree, I think
this is overly optimistic. Honestly, I doubt 06 will be
much affected by the budget cuts.
\_ The last time congressional approval rates were this
low was 1994. Granted, D now is _not_ R then, but
R's are rightly scared.
\_ Well, the GOP is certainly vulnerable right now --
a succession of scandals coupled with a general
decay of gung-ho support for our involvement in
Iraq has opened the door for change (not to mention
the bumbling efforts of FEMA during Katrina). Sadly,
as long as the economy is reasonably sound and
unemployment doesn't change significantly, there's
very little likelihood of any big shift from R to D.
It's a pleasant fantasy to imagine the Budget cuts
having a massive unintended impact, but I think the
reality is that it's not going to have any impact
*at all* when all considerations are taken into
account.
\_ Yep. If we had a recession, everything would be
perfect.
\_ Your reading comprehension is lacking. I said
"Sadly, as long as the economy is sound, change
will not happen". It is sad because one with
a reasonable ethical viewpoint would hope that
the succession of scandals would be sufficient
to bring about change without any other
external forces. Alas, this is not the case.
\_ neither. complete waste of time.
\_ Warrantless wiretapping is likely not an impeachable offense b/c
the Pres. has inherent emergency powers to authorize any means he
feels are necessary to protect the nation from its enemies in a
crisis. Consider that Lincoln suspended habeas on his own authority
despite a strong implication that only Congress had the right to
do this. If the suspension of habeas in direct violation of separ-
ation of powers is not impeachable, by no measure can one consider
warrantless wiretapping impeachable. Unlike your ave. motd poster,
most Dem. Congressmen and Senators understand that warrantless wire-
tapping is a common practice in intelligence gathering and they will
be reluctant to take this tool away.
Even if BUSHCO's assertion that an emergency is present is deemed
incorrect, there is a plausible argument that they were mistaken
and simply overreacted. In light of 9/11, Spain, London, &c. better
to overreact than underreact is a winning argument.
\_ It's sad that you believe that. Unchecked secret power grabs
are a terrible road to go down. Not in my country...
\_ Regardless of whether it is a terrible road to go down, it
is not an impeachable offense under Art 2 Sec 4. Given the
pressure to act in a crisis, it is not unforeseeable that
a Pres. might authorize these means. Given that these means
have been SOP for decades, BUSHCO is at most guilty of
expanding their use. Should they have resisted the tempt-
ation? Probably, but that doesn't mean it is impeachable.
It is our fault as voters that we did not select someone
better suited to resist the temptation. Fortunately, this
mistake can be corrected in a few years. Consider that the
A&S acts were repealed by Jefferson. There is nothing to
indicate that the next Pres. will be unwilling to restrict
the power that this Pres. has "acquired."
\_ "Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil
officers of the United States, shall be removed from
office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason,
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
High crimes and misdemeanors would certainly cover
\_ certainly? what web site told you that it is
"certainly" a "high crime and misdemeanor" to
order wiretaps like this?
\
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html
\_ http://tinyurl.com/bzaz4 (findlaw.com,
50 USC Ch 36) [ Same as the cornell url,
but you don't have to click through ]
warrantless wiretaps, especially if the use thereof
violates the current federal procedures. Although it is
SOP to begin wiretapping before asking for (and, in all
but 4 cases, receiving) a warrant to do so, it is
illegal to wiretap and NOT ask for a warrant within 72
hours; the latter has NOT been SOP for any administration
since the procedures were put in place except for this
administration. The legal requirement for impeachment
has been met; it now depends on the will of the Congress.
\_ In your studied constitutional expert legal opinion the
requirements for impeachment have been met? I'm glad
we don't need to discuss it further.
\_ We could say something equally as fatuous about
your comments. In fact, I will. Grow a set.
\_ It is certainly more serious than lying about a
blowjob, which is what brought the last President
down. As I said before, impeachment is primarily
a political process, not a legal one. If enough
Americans think he should be impeached, he will be.
\_ You want to discuss this further, bring something
more than "No, he won't be impeached!" to the
discussion.
\_ I was replying to someone who did nothing but
rant and make grand sweeping statements and
put forth partisan agenda driven opinion as
fact. Excuse me for daring to question the
brilliant legal minds on the motd.
\_ You misunderstand the argument completely. I agree
that there are procedures re wiretapping and that
these procedures have been violated. I even agree
that authorizing these wiretaps in violations of
the USC is a crime UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
These are not normal circumstances. In an emergency
the Pres. has inherent powers to take any action
that he deems necessary to protect the republic and
its citizens. His inherent power trumps the requi-
rements of the USC, thus no crime has been committed.
[ I also disagree that this is the first admin. that
has explicitly or implicitly authorized wiretaps
in violation of the USC; I think that this type of
thing has been going on since the start of the Cold
War. It has only become more extensive under BUSHCO ]
\_ Yes, we know, the John Yoo argument. It doesn't
hold water. Even under non-normal circumstances
checks and balances must have a place. Otherwise
we are not the nation we claim we are. Are you
going to hold your tongue if nationwide elections
in 2008 are suspended because "we're in an emergency
situation"?
\_ If normal checks and balances must have a place
during emergencies then why was Lincoln able to
suspend Habeas? The constitution strongly implies
that only Congress has this power. If violating
horizontal separation of powers is not sufficient
for impeachment, what make you so sure that some
wiretaps in violation of a federal statute (not
the constitution) is sufficient?
wiretaps in violation of a federal statute is
enough?
If nat'l elections were to be suspended wouldn't
it have made more sense to do so last year when
there was the very real possibility that BUSHCO
would be sent home?
\_ Show me a declaration of war.
\_ The Pres. emergency powers are not depen-
dent on a declaration of war. If we use
the habeas clause as a reference, it is
possible to interpret "invasion" as any
attack on American soil, thus confering
authority to act. Note that the habeas
clause does not require a declaration of
war under Art I Sec 8.
\_ ITYM Sec. 9. Btw, Lincoln's suspension
of habeas was ruled unconstitutional.
\_ That is why the Star Chamber had him
assassinated. No man is above the law!
\_ No I mean Sec 8 (yes habeas clause is
in Art 1 Sec 9, but it does not requ-
ire Congress to declare war pursuant
to its power to do so under Sec 8).
While I agree that in Ex Parte Merry-
man the USSC found Lincoln's actions
to be unconstitutional, Lincoln was
able to ignore that decision and no
habeas relief was granted until after
the war (iirc USSC restored habeas
in Ex Parte Milligan). This suggests
that the President's emergency power
is so extensive that even the USSC
lacks significant power to limit it.
to me that the President's emergency
power is so extensive that even the
USSC lacks the ability to limit it.
If the defiance of the USSC was not
enough to impeach, please explain
to me why ignoring a wire tapping
provision is? [ Note: I do not think
that "perjury" was enough ]
Re Elections: I'm not sure what I
would do. My family lived through
a similar situation in the 70s and
everything worked out fine in the
end (elections/civil rights rest-
ored, &c.) so I might just go
along w/ it.
\_ With "enough to impeach", you
seem to be ignoring the political
dimension. Impeachment, as you
well know, isn't triggered by
the act of the impeached. It's
triggered by the political machine
of the Congress. "Enough to
impeach" is determined by the house
when it votes on articles. "Enough
to remove" is determined by the
senate when it votes to convict.
Lincoln's actions, whether or not
a sufficient violation, did not
trigger impeachment because his
case was strong enough for Congress
not to bring it. In fact, Congress
passed the Habeas Corpus Act in 1863
which voiced their approval of his
act. Here and now, Bush is sitting
at a point comparable to some time
before ex parte milligan. To claim
before ex parte merryman. To claim
Bush has an inherent right because
of Lincoln is claiming stare decisis
in congressional acts. i.e. that
today's congress will do what
lincoln's did. It's optimistic at
best to hope that congress will
be so tied to precedent, especially
when the situations are so
drastically different.
\_ Right, and since we're fighting perpetual war
with Eurasia, Big Brother can do whatever he
feels is best for us.
\_ While there are some parallels between 1984
and the present situtation, I personally
find that the Alien and Sedition acts and
their repeal is a far better parallel.
\_ Isn't warrantless wiretapping what brought Nixon down?
\_ Only indirectly. It was Nixon using his office to stop the
wiretapping investigation that led to his resignation. In
this case, there is no cover-up, just the wiretapping.
\_ Bush is already trying to obstruct the investigation in
this case, but admittedly nothing has come out to the
degree as did in the Haldeman case. But it is probably
only a matter of time.
\- maybe there will be another SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRE
when ALBERTO is ordered to fire FITZGERALD and resigns
the HARRIET is ordered to fire him and resigns and then
JOHNYOO fires him and becomes AG/SG/CF in one! |
| 2005/12/22-24 [Recreation/Activities] UID:41120 Activity:kinda low |
12/22 Got some little cousins visiting the Bay Area from far away
over Xmas. They have never seen live snow. Where is the
closest place where there is snow without having to deal
with driving to a place like Lake Tahoe which will be
crowded/expensive?
\_ What sort of snow experience do you want? Look-snow, play-snow,
ride-snow, or ski-snow?
\_ The kind of snow experience where you get stuck on the highway
for hours and can't go to bathroom because the roads are closed!
--- !OP
\_ play-snow
\_ Low part of the Sierras, find a public park with a hill and
you can go sledding, make snow angels, have a snowball fight
etc. My favorite cheap sleds are the ones that are basically
a big plastic dish with handles.
\_ I heard that right now snow is only really over 8000 ft
because it's too warm. Might want to check reports.
\_ The storms in SF today may or may not make slush of
everything < 7000 ft.
\_ NOAA says no low snow... http://csua.org/u/ef0
\_ http://ohv.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=1233
Sno-parks are okay, but call because it's too warm.
\- you can drive to Ymte [the valley is more impressive
than a random patch of snow] and then walk to tioga
pass. http://www.nps.gov/yose/now/conditions.htm --psb |
| 2005/12/22-24 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Taiwan, Finance/Investment] UID:41121 Activity:kinda low |
12/22 Hi guys, I'm going to be visiting Taiwan next week. What's the best
way to exchange USD for Taiwan dollars? My guess is to buy AmEx
travelers checks (as an AmEx cardholder) in cash at an AmEx office, and
exchange the checks for NT$ at an AmEx office (for free) in Taiwan.
Is changing U.S. dollars in cash at the CKS airport for NT$ that much
worse? Thanks.
\_ before you leave airport, use your ATM card and withdraw local
currency. I do this all the time everywhere I go.
\_ AAA sells travellers' checks to members without fees.
\_ Yeah, I was looking at that. I even have a AAA-branded credit
card I can charge it to (no cash advance fee for travellers
checks). I'm just wondering what the fee is to cash them at
CKS airport I guess. My friend from Taiwan also says, "People
in Taiwan only know AmEx travellers checks", although the bank
and airport booth people probably know know Visa checks.
You buy Visa checks at AAA offices I believe.
\_ Are you sure AAA sells Visa checks? I remember last
time I bought traveler's check at AAA it was AmEx. This
was about 2 years ago, so things may have changed. As
changing money at CKS, I did it last time I was there.
However, I don't remember what rate "premium/fee" was.
\_ Not sure, but they only mention the Visa stuff on AAA web
pages now. The AmEx web page still mentions AAA though.
\_ This is true for Europe; that ATMs are usually your best deal in
terms of exchange rates. I tend to stay awake from Trav Chqs or
money changers. See if your ATM card has a Visa/Mastercard logo on
it, and you would only be charged the standard 1% foreign
transaction fee. Most ATMs in Europe and Singapore (don't know
about Taiwan) do not charge cash advance fee like in the U.S., so
you would only pay your home bank for doing business with other
ATMs. And if you carry certain balance with your bank (Citibank
comes to mind), they waive all ATM fees when you use other bank's
ATMs. If you bank with BofA, for example, they have affiliate banks
worldwide so that you won't get charged. Ask them for a list.
\_ If you do decide to go with the ATM route, make sure the ATMs
at your destination will accept your PIN. The last time I
travelled internationally, I found that a lot of ATMs,
particularly in airports, would only work with 4-digit PINs.
It took me a while to find a bank whose ATMs would work with
my longer PIN. -gm
\_ Oh, also remmeber a lot of non-US ATMs do not have alphas
on it, so if you're used to memorizing 4-alpha, get used
to memorizing the digits instead. |
| 2005/12/22-24 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Others, Finance/Investment] UID:41122 Activity:low |
12/22 For my motd investment buddy.
I was looking at TKF (Turkish Investment Fund) and I noticed the
following:
http://www.etfconnect.com/select/fundPages/global.asp?MFID=3857
Closing NAV: $18.97
Closing Share Price: $23.85
Premium/(Discount): 25.72%
As a comparison, IFN (India Fund) has a premium of 5.05%
And the CEE you also recommended has a discount of 3.9%
Would you be worried about the 25.72% premium?
\_ Yeah, it worries me. Especially since I own some TKF. I wish
there was some other way to get exposure to Turkey. Do you
know of any?
\_ I don't know any other. Thanks for the CEE tip.
I will sell half my EUROX first thing 2006, and buy
CEE with the money. 2006 so I don't pay capital
gains until 2007. |
| 2005/12/22-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41123 Activity:nil |
12/22 Remember Murtha's "80% of Iraqis want US to leave"? Here's where it
came from (and other useful info): http://factcheck.org/article366.html
\_ why those cheeky http://moveon.org people.
\_ http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault/story?id=1389228
Look at the bottom-most table.
Confidence in Public Institutions: Percent Confident
Police 68%
Iraqi Army 67%
Religious Leaders 67%
[...]
U.N. 31%
U.S./U.K. Forces 18%
To address the specific question of "when to leave":
Leave now 26%
Post-election 19%
Security restored 31%
Security restored and only Iraqi forces 16%
Longer 5%
Do you support or oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq:
Support 32%
Oppose 65%
To be accurate, I would say most Iraqis don't like us there,
but a little more than half want us to make sure things are stable
before we go ... |
| 2005/12/22-24 [Computer/SW/Unix, Computer/SW/OS/Windows] UID:41124 Activity:nil |
12/22 On XP, I have folders using Chinese characters. I also have
file names using Chinese characters. When I do a samba mount
from my Linux to XP, I can do everything if the file name
isn't using Chinese characters. How do I get around this
restriction? Thanks.
\_ you need to be specific on your XP's file system. FAT uses
legacy encoding. NTFS uses some sort of Unicode encoding
(I think it's UTF-16). I vaguely remember newer version of
samba handles unicode encoded filename rather well. |
| 2005/12/22-24 [Uncategorized] UID:41125 Activity:nil |
12/22 For driving during the holiday season from LA to the Bay Area, when
is usually the best time to leave?
\_ The morning of the holiday (Christmas, Thanksgiving or NY Day).
Seriously, it's open road then. |
| 5/21 |