Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:December:22 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2005/12/22-23 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:41112 Activity:nil
        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, anandtech or sharkeys (and many
           others) for specifics on various popular/common drive models.
        \_ 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
              \_ 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:
        \_ 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?
           \_ 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...
        \_ 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:
                    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
        \_ 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
           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:
        \_ ?  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. (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
        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
                          \_ Yep.  If we had a recession, everything would be
                             \_ 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?
                           \_ (,
                              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
                          \_ 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
                          \_ 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
                             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
        \_ 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...
                 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. --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
        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):
        \_ why those cheeky people.
           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/OS/Windows, Computer/SW/Unix] 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.
2019/01/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2005:December:22 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>