Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:January:04 Wednesday <Tuesday, Thursday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2006/1/4-6 [Transportation/Airplane, Reference/Military] UID:41216 Activity:low
12/4    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060103/od_nm/germany_airport_dc
        German passengers filed "false imprisonment" after plane delay.
        \_ 7+ hours stuck in a cramped airplane.  I'd call that bullshit.
           At least let the passengers back into the airport lounge.
           \_ I'm convinced that this is the *only* reason they have that
              "no cell phone use" rule on planes.  It keeps people from calling
              lawyers and cops in these situations.
           \_ Yeah, except that the FAA counts an "on time" departure if the
              plane is away from the terminal even if you sit on the tarmac for
              hours.  Which is probably why the pilot didn't want to return to
              the terminal.
                \_ or more specifically, when the aircraft door closes - this
                   timestamps the departure. When aircraft door reopens at
                   destination, this is the official arrival time. Going back
                   to the subject, why can't they just cancel the damn flight?
              \_ My wife and I got stuck on a plane in London for 6 hours
                 after they found the wingflaps faulty. They said they
                 couldn't allow the passengers back in the terminal because
                 we had cleared customs. On the plus side, they said we
                 were clear to enjoy any duty free goods because we had
                 technically "left the country" (the plane actually took
                 off, flew for 30 minutes, and then returned to London
                 when the faulty equipment was discovered.)
                 when the faulty equipment was discovered.) -bz
        \_ We were stuck in a plane on the runway for 6 hours (once we got off
           the ground it was a 6 hour flight)  I'm never flying through Newark
           again.  --dbushong
        \_ There was a case sometime in the last 5 years of a plane being
           stuck on the runway for more than 10 hours, maybe as much as
           20 (I forget the exact incident.)  -John
2006/1/4-6 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany] UID:41217 Activity:low
12/4    12 US minors trapped, 12 German skaters died, dozens of
        Indonesians died in landslide. Apocalypse? Rapture?
        \_ 12 days of Christmas
        \_ I know you're just being snarky, but this is just the same old
           "if it bleeds, it leads" shitty journalism the media has
           produced since forever.  Anything good happening appears as a
           light and fluffy human interest story in the home & garden
           section's 3rd page.
           \_ Actually the big story on the front page of the Merc was
              about how 12 miners were found alive!  Whoops.  But see
              the feel good story was TOP OF THE NEWS.
        \_ minors?
        \_ Rapture? It wasn't the rapture when hundreds of thousands died
           in the tsunami.  It wasn't the rapture when tens of millions
           died in WW2.  Maybe you could call the greenhouse baking of
           the earth in 50-100 years time "rapture" but that's man made ...
           Why don't you just call it what it is: a desperate hope of fairy
           tales being proven "true" any way possible.
           tales being proven "true" with the loosest test of "truth"
           possible.
           \_ Rapture is when yermom finds a banana.
           \_ The religious nutjobs weren't in charge yet back then.
              Oh wait, I guess they were during the tsunami.  -John
2006/1/4-6 [Uncategorized] UID:41218 Activity:nil
1/4     My kitchen sink is stainless steel and after a year's use it's
        kind of scratched up. I'm thinking about fixing it up myself using
        a high speed Dremel tool with the polisher and buffer attachments.
        Has anyone actually done this successfully?
        \_ Nope, but let me know how it goes. I am sceptical.
2006/1/4-6 [Uncategorized] UID:41219 Activity:nil
12/4    After monitoring motd for a very long time, I've concluded that
        the chicom troller is ecchang and the trollee is tse. Congrats.
        \_ Even assuming you're right, why would you name them?  That's
           no fun at all.  As if the rest of us either didn't already know
           or couldn't have figured it out if we cared.
           Censored for continued humor value.
        \_ You are an idiot.  There is more than one Chicom Troll!
                             - the one and only Chicom Troll.
        \_ You should monitor harder.
2006/1/4-5 [Uncategorized] UID:41220 Activity:nil
12/3    I'm building a project that requires a lot of bright LEDs.  What's a
        good place to buy 20-30 white LEDs, running at 1.5-3V, cheap?
2006/1/4 [Uncategorized] UID:41222 Activity:nil
1/4     It's 1/4 not 12/4.
2006/1/4-6 [Computer/SW/Mail, Computer/SW/OS/Linux] UID:41223 Activity:nil
1/4     Linux question: when I do a ypcat passwd on a Linux NIS client,
        I see 11-13 lines, then a long pause and then it continues.  On my
        sun boxes and a few other Linux machines the whole map appears
        instantly.  Any ideas?  netstat -i doesn't report any errors on the
        client or nis server.
2006/1/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41224 Activity:kinda low
1/4     Hey, why pass laws at all when you have a king?
        http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban?mode=PF
        \_ What's the big deal? He's only going to ignore the law if he wants
           to ...
        \_ Another reason to block alito.
        \_ URL tinyfied to please annoying, anal retentive motd block warden:
           http://tinyurl.com/bdj8g  -John
        \_ I would like to hear Bush supporter's point of view on this one.
           Please enlighten us.
           \_ I'm not a Bush supporter but I can guess: Protecting the American
              People! War on Terror! Liberty! Freedom! 9/11! Liberty!
              Freedom! Terrorists! Freedom! Liberty!
           \_ If you believe in an strong executive then it follows that
              the inherent emergency power of the executive is subject
              only to those limits explicit in the constitution. As there
              are no applicable limits (the eighth arguably does not apply
              as torture is not used as a punishment in this context), it
              is within the executive's discretion to employ torture. This
              view also implies that the executive's decisions are above
              court review except in cases where there is direct conflict
              with the text of the constitution.
              [ Note that there is a "fifth freedom" view which says that
                even the constitution is not a limit on the executive's
                power when the survival of the republic is threatened.
                BUSHCO does not seem to publically adhere to this view. ]
              \_ Who does adhere to that view? (There is nobody to
                 review if said survival is sufficiently threatened.
                 By some accounts, sodomy threatens the republic...)
                 \_ While I do not know of any prominent figures
                    who publicly endorse the fifth freedom view,
                    I would argue that people like Amd. Poindexter
                    implicitly accept it.
                    For the sake of argument I will say that the
                    majority of America has implicitly acquiesced
                    to the fifth freedom view. I think that the
                    framers conception of the CinC power or other
                    limits on the executive power cannot be reco-
                    nciled w/ the fact that 1st strike is basically
                    entrusted solely to the President's discretion.
                    If the President chooses to exercise this cap-
                    ability, there will realistically be no review.
                    This to me suggests that the modern Presidency
                    has practically unlimited powers.
                    In day to day terms, it probably means the
                    while the President can't shoot you in broad
                    daylight for being a democrat, he probably
                    can deploy any covert means against you for
                    the same w/o any real review.
                    \_ "Stroke of the pen, law of the land.  Cool!"
                    \_ First strike and other military defense issues
                       I think fall under the general head-of-military
                       designation. For Iraq, Bush was sort of pre-authorized
                       to decide on war, and the same situation exists for
                       the nukes I guess. Some of the smaller operations
                       might be weaseled around by questioning the
                       definition "war". Anyway, I don't think we
                       are at a point where the Constitution does not
                       at least in theory grant US citizens protection
                       versus military operations, covert or not.
                       I suppose if they did their job well enough then
                       practically the question would not come up.
                       \_ I agree that the modern interpretation
                          is that the CinC power encompasses the
                          ability to deploy the nuclear arsenal.
                          but my point is that the framers prob.
                          did not intend to vest a single man w/
                          the power to unilaterally decide the
                          fate of every living thing on the
                          planet.
                          What if the President exercises this
                          power in circumstances (objectively)
                          not constituting a threat to the repu-
                          blic? Who really will be left to reve-
                          iew the decision? What remedial action
                          can really be taken? I think that the
                          answer is that no one will review and
                          no remedial action is available. This
                          to me means the President possess uni-
                          lateral discretion to wield almost abs.
                          power as the CinC.
                          From this one could argue that under
                          this power, the President could deploy
                          less than abs. force against arbitrary
                          targets w/o any limits on his power.
                          From this one could argue that the Pres.
                          could deploy less than abs. force w/o
                          limits on his discretion under the same
                          power.
                          Re Pre-authorized: If the President has
                          been preauthorized to act under certain
                          conditions, what happens when he acts
                          outside of those conditions? Will there
                          really be a Congressional hearing? If
                          not, then Congress has basically given
                          him unlimited discretion.
                          \_ Why wouldn't there be a hearing? They can
                             impeach the president. He could mess things
                             up pretty royally before then, perhaps
                             irrevocably, but it doesn't really nullify the
                             separation of powers except in the apocalyptic
                             sense. Basically he could destroy the other
                             branches of government. Maybe Nixon, instead of
                             resigning, could have started WWIII instead. But
                             outside of war, I can't see that the distinction
                             is noteworthy. The power to destroy isn't the
                             same as absolute power.
                          no remedial action is available.
                          If the President possess unilateral
                          discretion to wield almost absolute
                          power via the CinC power, is it real-
                          istic to say that there are limits on
                          his ability to deploy less than this?
                          not, then the President has been pre-
                          authorized to act in any situation and
                          Congress has implicitly given him abs.
                          power (one wonders if Congress can do
                          this).
2006/1/4-6 [Uncategorized] UID:41225 Activity:nil
1/4     Wow!  More than 4% gain in 2 days.  Not a bad start for 2006.
        \_ Yeah, but my NYE resolution was to lose 10 pounds, not put on 10.
2006/1/4-6 [Computer/SW/Security, Computer/Theory] UID:41226 Activity:nil
1/4     "Mo. Researchers Find Largest Prime Number"
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060104/ap_on_sc/largest_prime_number
        Why are people interested in finding large prime numbers?  They already
        know that there are infinte number of primes, so what's the point of
        finding them?
        \_ because they are there.  finding more may help with proving
           (or disproving) conjectures about dist. of primes, etc
        \_ You know that prime numbers have a lot to do with public key
           cryptography right?
           \_ Yeah, but with a prime as large as 30 million bits?
        \_ This is usually tangential to burning in a new supercomputer.
           They let it sit there and compute prime for a bit. As computers
           get ever faster, they find new primes and it generates a little
           PR for the guys running the new computer. At least this is how
           most of these ginormous primes are discovered.
              \_ Learning how to work with large primes has value.  We used to
                 compute pi to billions of digits.  Now we test primes.
                 \_ This particular project is more like SETI-at-home and
                    is validating a s/w concept re: distributed computing.
                    Lots of these primes are incidental discoveries.
        \_ This is usually tangential to burning in a new supercomputer.
           They let it sit there and compute prime for a bit. As computers
           get ever faster, they find new primes and it generates a little
           PR for the guys running the new computer. At least this is how
           most of these ginormous primes are discovered.
2006/1/4-6 [Uncategorized] UID:41227 Activity:nil
1/4     Geez, what is it, the day after 9/11?
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060104/ts_nm/life_passenger_dc
        \_ I don't understand why he wasn't shot on the jetway.
        \_ Flying under the influence?  Guess I'm guilty too, then.
        \_ I don't understand why he wasn't shot on the jetway, since he was
           a clear threat.
2006/1/4-6 [Computer/HW/Laptop, Computer/Companies/Google] UID:41228 Activity:nil
1/4     There is speculation Google will offer a $200 non MSFT computer
        (at Walmart).  What OS do you think they'll use?
        \_ Their own Linux distribution.
        \_ I was going to build http://www.mini-itx.com/projects/knex over
           Christmas, but I had to deal with backyard flooding instead.  I
           wonder what form facter the allegedly GooglePC will have.
        \_ How about the $100 hand-cranked laptop?
           http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/ptech/11/30/laptop/index.html
           \_ Remember, you must crank for 8 hours before using for the first
              time.
        \_ If they do (and if it's more than just putting their logo on
           a machine built by someone else), it might finally be time to
           short GOOG.  -tom
        \_ Uh, it's already been refuted.
           http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060104-5882.html
2006/1/4-6 [Computer/SW/Languages/Perl] UID:41229 Activity:nil
1/4     How can I kill a win32 process in perl that I created from fork?
        I tried fork + Win32::Process::KillProcess, but I don't think that's
        the right process id.
        \_ One would assume you could just call kill() on whatever id you got
           back from fork(), but that probably makes too much sense.
           \_ I've tried kill, and it doesn't kill the proc.  I of course tried
              that first.  It works fine on Unix.  I'm using activestate perl.
        \_ what are you forking?
           \_ The child proc exec's mplayer, the parent monitors it and kills
              it under certain conditions.
2006/1/4-6 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41230 Activity:nil
1/4     12 miners reported alive actually dead. God works in mysterious ways...
        http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551516/posts
        \_ And coal mining deregulation works in pretty damn mysterious ways
           too.
           \_ I like how the LA Times reported today the Clinton-era guy
              saying mine citations were way down in the Dubya era, yet that
              particular mine had citations up the wazoo recently.  The logic
              here is that the mine owner must have really neglected safety
              issues to do so poorly with even relaxed inspections.
        \_ That's beautiful.  god, God, GOD did it!  He's all powerful, he
           controls everything he... oh, wait, what?  <no more mention of God
           being involved in, you know, death>  It's media-bashing time!
           \_ The media is obviously a tool of the devil!
           \_ The best part was back when there was a mine flood, but the 9
              trapped miners were rescued.  Bush vowed to himself never to let
              mining companies be burdened by survivors, and promptly cut
              funding for enforcing mine safety laws.  Pro-life!!
2006/1/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:41231 Activity:moderate
1/4     Holy crap.  I never knew Letterman was such a tool.  O'Reilly's a jerk,
        but Dave just dismisses fact with "I don't believe you".  Nice
        interview Dave.
        http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/04.html#a6571
        \_ You're confusing "fact" with "editorializing"
           \_ No, when Letterman said "I don't believe you" O'Reilly had just
              noted examples where Christmas imagery, etc. was censored.  Those
              were facts reported in the AP, etc.
              \_ Sorry, I hadn't watched the whole segment.  I didn't realize
                 "I don't believe you" was a direct quote from another part
                 of the interview.  But still, you think this shows letterman
                 as a tool?  To me it shows he's a busy comedian without enough
                 time to have read and fact-check O'Reilly's entire list of
                 "proof" of a war on Christmas.  If he was sent the story,
                 I'm sure his reaction would be the same as mine: "Well, that's
                 silly..  But really, war on christmas?"
                 b.t.w., A few of O'Reilly's (and others') facts:
                 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901802.html
                 http://tinyurl.com/cu6lo (washingtonpost.com)
                 \_ O'Reilly didn't say there was a war on Christmas. -emarkp
                    \_ Not in the interview, but that's been his line for the
                       last two months.  Ergo the "how have your holidays been"
                       line getting a laugh.
                       \_ I haven't watched his show for quite a while.
                          However, what he said on Letterman's show was:
                          "There is a movement by politically correct people to
                          erode traditions.  And this Christmas tradition is
                          the most cherished in the country." -emarkp
                 \_ Before you added this URL (shorten it please) I added the
                    one below that also debunked the "silent night" claim.
                    Also, while your link criticizes O'Reilly's statement about
                    red/green on his show, he corrected himself on Letterman's
                    show. -emarkp
              \_ You gotta love "60% of what you say is crap."  That sounds
                 like about the right ratio to me.
                 \_ Never watched O'Reilly myself, since I gather it's mostly
                    crap.  But does anyone here actually watch enough O'Reilly
                    to know it's mostly crap, or is this just some urban
                    legend?
                    \_ Yes, I watched O'Reilly.  It's mostly crap.
                       \_ Would you say the Letterman interview is
                          representative of O'Reilly crap, or is O'Reilly's
                          show worse (normalizing for the length of the
                          interview vs. the show, of course)?
                          \_ Let me give you my definition of O'Reilly crap:
                             O'Reilly summons dumb liberals to his show and
                             beats the crap out of them.  Usually with facts.
                             \_ So he picks low-hanging fruit and it's not
                                fair?  That isn't quite the same thing as
                                crap.
                                \_ It is to me.  Krugman v. O'Reilly is better,
                                   and the show would be less crappier if he
                                   took on as many people like that as
                                   "low-hanging fruit".
                                   Otherwise it's like the Jerry Springer
                                   show for the college-educated (and less
                                   the near-physical confrontations).
                                   \_ I have yet to see /any/ liberal on these
                                      shows discuss facts.  Including Krugman.
                                      \_ Cf. Get smart moderates/libs on the
                                         show.  Also, Krugman wasn't on
                                         O'Reilly as far as I know; they were
                                         on Russert's show.
                                         \_ Is "fair" interviewee ~= O'Reilly,
                                            or interviewee > O'Reilly, or
                                            interviewee = smart?
                                   \_ What makes you think Krugman v. O'Reilly
                                      is fair?  We need a handicapping system
                                      like horse racing or golf.
                 \_ O'Reilly used to be interesting, but he's now all about the
                    cult of O'Reilly.  And he's a scumbag (the sexual
                    harassment case).  But the things he claimed in this
                    interview as facts were solid.  And Letterman blew it off,
                    unable to make a coherent point.  [Addendum--looks like the
                    "silent night" lyrics issue is not what some conservatives
                    have said it is. http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=1387602]
                    -emarkp
                    \_ Letterman's a comedian.  If he were a news analyst by
                       profession, you might have a point.
                       \_ Then maybe he should shut his pie hole or if he's
                          going to be a jerk to his guests he shouldn't invite
                          them on. -emarkp
              \_ Not exactly AP, but I believe it happened, and the library
                 people allowed Baby Jesus, et al. back in the nativity scene
                 a day after the first http://worldnetdaily.com article.
                 http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47767
                 http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47788
                 \_ I don't find an AP article on the manger scene, but there
                    are plenty of reputable sources with the story.  See
                    http://csua.org/u/ehw for some.
                    \_ Local paper, Local TV, and Washington Times.
                       I agree that this nativity thing happened, as
                       characterized.
        \_ I really dislike O'Reilly, but Letterman seriously screwed up
           that interview.  O`Reilly comes off as likeable and honest, and
           Letterman comes off as an ignorant tool.  That's pathetic.
           \_ I don't know.  O'Reilly always comes off as seriously misguided
              and fooling himself, to me.  Letterman comes off spot on
              intuition wise, if not fact wise.  (Yes, I acknolwedge it is
              lame to not have facts.)
              \_ I would guess that's only because you agree with
                 Letterman.  Try putting yourself in the shoes of someone
                 who is not familiar with O'Reilly.  (If such a person
                 exists) To paraphrase Letterman, "I'm not smart enough
                 to know the facts, and I've never seen your show, and I'm
                 not familiar with the subject we're talking about, but
                 you're wrong." WTF?
                 \_ Yes, I agree that Letterman screwed the pooch for
                    uninformed viewers who don't know who O'Reilly is and
                    are inclined to believe there is a war on Christmas.
                    viewers who aren't familiar with O'Reilly and who are
                    inclined to believe there is a war on Christmas.
                    \_ ...in other words, the sort of folk likely to tune in
                       to O'Reilly in the first place. Unless, of course,
                       they're turned off by his brusque shouting on a
                       comedy show?
2006/1/4-6 [Computer/HW/Scanner, Computer/SW/Virus] UID:41232 Activity:nil
1/4     There was a short thread about AV scanners for Windows recently-
        someone asked "Hmmm, getting my AV ware from dodgy people?" --
        No, that was not the implication--I just said that many people
        "in the know" are pretty sure that Kaspersky has good connections
        to people who write viruses, and get some inside info from them.
        This is not to imply that they in any way commission or endorse
        them.  -John
        \_ I understood.  I just don't like the idea of my AV ware coming
           from black or grey hats.
           \_ They are neither.  It's one big happy community.  Many
              good security people hang out at the same conferences. -John
        \_ Hey sodans, jameslin said among free antivirus scanners,
           avast! > AntiVir.  ClamAV does not do real-time scans.
           Anyone have an opinion where AVG fits in the ranking?
           \_ AVG used to be good when it was the only free program around.
              Most people say that Avast! and AntiVir are better, though.
              http://urlx.org/episteme.arstechnica.com/e0fc
              --jameslin
              \_ doh, one of the referenced urls says "All external studies
                 referenced...unanimously rank... 1. AntiVir 2. Avast 3. AVG"
                 http://wiki.castlecops.com/AntiVirus_Comparison
                 Also, this June 2005 test shows better numerical scores
                 and better comments for AntiVir over avast!
                 http://tinyurl.com/cqfdy (virusbtn.com)
           \_ It also appears that ClamAV can't repair files.
2006/1/4-6 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:41233 Activity:moderate
1/4     Full of crap?  http://mediamatters.org/items/200601040009
        We report, you decide.
        \_ Well, he was right about the nativity thing, so that makes him
           about 50% full of crap.
           \_ "Right"...  He pulled a report from the echo chamber.  Note that
              the other stories in the wapo article took a similar route.
           \_ The unfortunate part is that 50% hit is probably pretty good
              for talking heads.
        \_ "Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit,
           501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated
           to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting
           conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."  Just for the sake
           of full disclosure, of course.  Which by the raises an interesting
           question in my mind.  Would we be just as receptive to quotes from
           a conservative research and information center dedicated to
           comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting liberal
           misinformation in the U.S. media?  Moot question in this case,
           of course.
           \_ Um.. heard of http://factcheck.org?
              \_ http://Factcheck.org isn't conservative.  Now, Media Research Center
                 is.
                 \_ Media Research Center doesn't "analyze and correct".  It
                    just says "look at what they say! bias bias bias!".
                    MediaMatters does some of this, but is closer to factcheck
                    than mediaresearch is.
           \_ The spin and media control exhibited by the Dubya administration
              dwarfs that of any past presidential administration.</opinion>
              \_ I always wonder when people say stuff like this (not re
                 Bush specifically, but any statement of the form "the
                 mostest ever") what their qualifications are, and, if they
                 actually considered their qualifications, whether they
                 would still make the same unqualified comments.
                 \_ bush is the worst president ever
                 \_ I always wonder, when someone attacks an individual
                    making a statement, whether they personally think the
                    statement itself is accurate or not.
                    \_ I wouldn't know.  I haven't made a study of historical
                       presidential control of media.  I would have said
                       "an incredible amount of" or maybe qualified it with
                       "that I've known".  That's all highly defendable.  But
                       "dwarfs that of any past"?  That seems to require a
                       lot more study and thought.   So would you tell us
                       how you reached the "dwarfs that of any past"
                       conclusion?  That begs for a run down of each past
                       president's relation with the media.  Care to start
                       with Gorgeous George and work your way down?
                       \_ So, all in all, if we weren't talking on soda and
                          you were talking with a good friend of yours who
                          wanted your honest opinion, would you say the
                          original statement was accurate or not?
                          If not, how would you qualify it?
                          \_ "I wouldn't know.  I haven't made a study of
                             historical presidential control of media".   I
                             think also said how I would have qualified it.
                             If you can back up your claim facutally, I would
                             love for you to share your findings with us,
                             starting with Georgie Porgie.
                             \_ Let's say your good friend then asks you,
                                knowing what you know, or perhaps your gut
                                feeling, what's your impression or opinion
                                then?
                                \_ "I wouldn't know.  I haven't made a study
                                   of historical presidential control of media".
                                   I don't do ungrounded hyperbole.  I take it
                                   that you don't have any factual basis, and
                                   your claim is in fact ungrounded hyperbole?
                                   of historical presidential control of
                                   media". I don't do ungrounded hyperbole.
                                   I take it that you don't have any factual
                                   basis, and your claim is in fact ungrounded
                                   hyperbole?
                                   \_ Your friend says, "C'mon ... you don't
                                      have any opinion?  It's not like you're
                                      submitting an article to a scientific
                                      journal."
                                      \_ I'd tell him he's wasting my time.
                                         I'd also say that if we were more
                                         worried about the truthfulness of
                                         our statements and less about
                                         hyperbole, perhaps our civic discourse
                                         would be more productive and civil.
                                         \_ Fair enough.  I respect that
                                            viewpoint.
                       that I've looked at".  I certainly would never say
                       "dwarfs that of any past".
                                         would be more product and civil, which
                                         would be nice.
                \_ Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and countless others have been
                   screaming bloody murder about the "liberal media" for
                   decades now. Not to mention the numerous conservative
                   non-profits like the Hoover Institute, The Scaife
                   Foundation and the Cato Institute. The Cons have been
                   playing the refs for years, it is past time liberals
                   started doing some of the same.
        \_ "Peabody, Pea Soup, Peanuts-- they're all prestigiou awards." -BO'R
        \_ "Peabody, Polk, what's the difference?" -BO'R
2006/1/4-6 [Academia/Berkeley/Classes] UID:41234 Activity:moderate
1/4     Dear sodans. What do you do with your old notes, hw, & exams from
        math 1a/1b/50a/50b/55, physics 7a/b/c, stat 1XX, EE40/42,
        chem 1a/1b/8, cs60a/b/c, cs150/152/162/164/170/172/174/184/186?
        I have about 5 big boxes of these things in the garage and I really
        need space. I'm thinking about throwing them out. However, after
        looking at all the impressive stuff I wrote that I now no longer
        understand, I cannot get myself to throw them away, and at any rate
        there is always a remote possibility that I'll have to know something
        about physics/math in the future. As a working professional who
        has not touched anything remotely academic for over a decade,
        I'll most likely never use any of those stuff again nor will I
        ever review them. However, I just can't get myself to throw them
        away. What do you guys do with your boxes of old notes, hw, & exams?
        \_ I generally made that decision right at the end of the class,
           and stuck with that decision.  For useful classes, I still have
           the notes 8 years later, and sometimes use those notes.  For
           retarded, non-useful classes, I threw them out after the final.
           I still have my notebooks from my junior high math class from 16
           years ago, and I find that I take them out and look at them about
           once a year when my friends from junior high come over and we're
           reminiscing about our math class.
        \_ I have a couple of small boxes of old stuff like that.  Whenever I
           need to clean it up, I actually go through some of it, and decide
           item-by-item what might have future nostalgia value (or reference
           value) and what won't.  (That math homework you looked at and
           thought "wow, I can't even read this anymore": keep it.  The ten
           others from the same semester that aren't quite as impressive:
           probably not necessary.)  I keep anything I'm not sure about,
           or anything I feel bad about throwing away, but I still end up
           throwing out 3/4 of whatever I go through.
           need to clean it up, I actually go through it, and decide item-by-
           item what might have future nostalgia value (or reference value)
           and what won't.  (That math homework you looked at and thought
           "wow, I can't even read this anymore": keep it.  The ten others
           from the same semester that aren't quite as impressive: probably
           not necessary.)  I keep anything I'm not sure about, or anything
           I feel bad about throwing away, but I still end up throwing out
           3/4 of whatever I go through.
        \_ I recycled my college stuff years ago. I never really saw the
           point of keeping that stuff around. --ranga
           \_ agreed.
        \_ keep the basic math stuff.
        \_ ha ha ha - I look across the room, and see a similar set of 4
           big boxes in the closet :)  I've often wondered the same thing,
           will I ever use these again?  Do I really want to lug them
           around forever?  How much would it cost to pay someone to just
           scan them all in for me ;)
        \_ Haha! I have the same problem. My quantum mechanics homework
           especially scares me. I have no idea how I managed to do that.
           I am not sure that stuff has any value. I sometimes go through
           my texts, but I doubt you'll ever have use for the homework
           again except as a memento. Even if you take a similar class
           would you really pull it out again? I wouldn't.
           \- I recently threw away maybe 200lbs of stuff.
              I think a useful way to motivate yourself is to think
              "am I going to throw this out eventually?" ... if so,
              just get rid of it now.
              \_ 200 pounds of notes you wrote in 4-5 years of college?
                 Doubtful unless you're a triple major. 50 pounds more likely
                 \- more than just college notes. journals, printed out
                    articles, blueprint of evans hall [i am not kidding],
                    articles, blue print to evans hall [i am not kidding],
                    postcards, maps of museums etc. i threw away more than
                    50lbs in Economists alone. i have another at least 200lbs
                    in books waiting in the garage to be sold.
                    \_ Blue print to Evans hall? The authorities have been
                       notified ...
                 \_ 4-5 years?  You obviously don't know psb.
        \_ I kept some of my textbooks from CS classes but threw away the
           homeworks, lab books and projects.  I made a mistake of selling the
           CS164 and 186 textbooks right after the semester ended.  If I need
           to take the GRE later, I'll have to buy those two books again.
2006/1/4-6 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/Japan, Reference/History/WW2/Japan] UID:41235 Activity:low
12/4    This is awful, just awful. I have no idea how I could fit in:
        http://www.yesicanusechopsticks.com/capsule
        \_ That's so cool.
        \_ I like the bottle of Pocart? Sweat.
           \_ "Pocari Sweat".  You can find it in some Asian markets.
        \_ Can you imagine a fire or earthquake in a place like this?
           \_ Yes. If it's a fire, you get teriaki Japanese. If it's
              an earthquake, you get raw Japanese sushi.
              \_ I may be on fire, but I will not be for long. You, however,
                 will remain an idiot.
        \_ Similar, capsule homes, not hotels:
   http://compilers.cs.ucla.edu/~kchang/pix/funny/building/Nakagin_Capsule.jpg
   http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nakagin_Capsule_Tower
   http://www.kisho.co.jp/WorksAndProjects/Works/nakagin
   http://www.pingmag.jp/2005/09/05/micro-compact-home
   http://69.93.124.90/documentations/?number=19
        \_ http://gojapan.about.com/cs/accommodation/a/tokyocapsule3.htm
           "No female guests" hahaha
           \_ sigh, such a gender gap in Japan :P
        \_ I've stayed at a similar capsule hotel in Shibuya.
        \_ I've actually stayed at a similar capsule hotel in Shibuya.
           It was surprisingly comfortable. - ciyer (6ft. tall)
           \_ I bet they're terribly cozy.
2006/1/4-6 [Uncategorized] UID:41236 Activity:nil
1/4     NERF Rules of Engagement:
        http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2006/20060104h.jpg
2017/09/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/19    
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:January:04 Wednesday <Tuesday, Thursday>