Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:January:23 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2006/1/23-25 [Recreation/Dating] UID:41479 Activity:moderate
1/23    Sara Stone, all natural.
        \_ so are these
           \_ Yeah, but these aren't naked.
        \_ Yay, motd boob-guy!  --motd boob guy #1 fan
        \_ Who is Sara Stone?
           \_ Just another busty chick who's not fat, ugly, or surgically
              enhanced, which is not common these days.
              enhanced.  This is not common these days.
              \_ A Google search turns up nothing.
                 \_ First result from Google:
                    \_ Is it just me or it seems like she's kinda fat?
                       \_ It's just you. Stop dating skinny Asian chicks
                          with no chest.
                          with no chest (or ass).
                          \_ It can be worse.  Not-so-skinny Asian chick with
                             no chest, like my wife.
                    \_ *That's* surgically enhanced. By the way, I
                       actually used Yahoo!, which can't (easily) find her.
                       \_ Looks fairly natural to me; she's got the body
                          fat to support a large rack.
                          \_ Possible, but unlikely. Way too perky.
2006/1/23-25 [Computer/SW/Languages/Java] UID:41480 Activity:nil
1/23    I'm trying to make somebody else's code thread-safe and it seems like
        my synchronization blocks are not being respected.  Does anyone know
        a problem with this code?
        class FooPoller {
          protected static Boolean lock = new Boolean(true);
          private static void poll() {
            // do some stuff
            synchronized(lock) {
              // modify some static member objects
          Public void addToList(Vector addable) {
            // do some stuff
            synchronized(lock) {
             // modift some static member objects
        I then have one thread calling FooPoller.poll() in a loop, while some
        other thread is calling addToList() on an instance of a subclass of
        FooPoller.  Do the instance method and the static method see a
        different lock?  Do the base class and the subclass see a different
        lock?  This is really stumping me. -dgies
        \ What Java version? Perhaps something weird is happening
          with Boolean autoboxing if >=1.5. Try an Object instance
          as the lock. - gojomo
        \_ did you revolve this?
2006/1/23-24 [Computer/Theory, Computer/Domains] UID:41481 Activity:nil
1/21    The authenticity of host ' (' can't be
        RSA key fingerprint is e1:9c:e5:c7:f9:9f:f3:af:04:ef:df:2d:63:b0:84:4a.
        Are you sure you want to continue connecting (yes/no)? yes
        Warning: Permanently added '' (RSA) to the list of
        known hosts.
        soda [1]

        Errr, wasn't that domain name supposed to stop working like, a decade
        \_ Why would it?  -tom
           \_ Because for months/years they've been insisting they're going
              to stop hosting most top-level berkeley hostnames in DNS.
              \_ Who has been insisting that?  Certainly not CNS.  -tom
              \_ regime change
2006/1/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41482 Activity:nil
        "President George W. Bush rejected charges his domestic eavesdropping
         program was illegal on Monday, while other administration officials
         said the war on terrorism has made the federal law on electronic
         surveillance outdated."
        So which is it? Is it against a law that the administration wants
        revised, or is it within the law (which would imply that the law is
        timely and supports the Pres.)?
        \_ Dubya said it's legal, from a resolution Congress passed.
           His people are also saying the power of the unitary executive
           also makes it legal.
           Gen. Hayden said that three NSA layers wrote independent opinions
           saying it was legal.
           \_ Uh, Dubya asked congress to include the US on the list of
              countries in the afghanistan resolution.  congress said no.
              he wanted it in the patriot act.  congress said no.  dubya
              said "fuck congress".
           \_ So if it's legal, why are his people saying the law is outdated?
              \_ I think it's because of "URL 2" indicated in new post above.
2006/1/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41483 Activity:moderate
        "The general said three NSA attorneys provided independent opinions
        that the [eavesdropping] program was legal."
        \_ Major shock: the NSA thinks it's OK to wiretap without a warrant.
           Good enough for me!  -tom
        \_ "Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my
           professional judgment that we would have detected some of the
           9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States, and we would have
           identified them as such ..." -Gen. Hayden
           but hadn't "we" identified them anyway w/o warrantless wiretapping?
              but hadn't "we" identified them anyway w/o warrantless
           \_ I think the daily show (or was it colbert report) put it best:
              we already had all the facts about the plans and identities of
              the 9/11 guys before 9/11.  The problem is that they were lost
              in a sea of too much intel.  How would collecting even more have
              solved that?
        \_ For a horizon of a few weeks, the President has essentially
           unlimited power during wartime, at which time he
           is expected to advise Congress of his actions.  Bush advised
           the Senate Intelligence committee about the wiretaps very early on.
           unlimited power during wartime, but is expected to ultimately advise
           Congress of his actions.  Bush advised the Senate Intelligence
           committee about the wiretaps very early on.
2006/1/23-24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Others, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iran, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:41484 Activity:nil
        Iran's "president" Ahmadinejad in front of an interesting painting.
2006/1/23-25 [Transportation/Car] UID:41485 Activity:nil
1/23    How not to free your car from the mud
        \_ What an asshole!  He'd deserve life in prison if he had killed
           \_ Long's Notes:
              23. Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education,
              or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin; the victim can't
              help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal
              capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and
              execution is carried out automatically and without pity.
        \_ The tone of this article is great.  "Sometimes becoming airborne"
2006/1/23-24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/911] UID:41486 Activity:moderate
        Who to believe?  Can you start tapping and then have 72 hours to get
        retroactive FISA approval (URL 1), or does the attorney general need
        probable cause before even beginning to tap (URL 2)?
        Note Gen. Hayden today went with URL 2.
        \_ But they wouldn't have even done #1
           \_ URL 2 says you can't do #1 without the attorney general
              establishing probable cause first.
              \_ URL 2 is disingenuous..  "We don't actually know how to fill
                 out a warrant application, so we shouldn't have to" is a
                 _stupid_ argument.
                 \_ The core of the argument is that Gen. Hayden went outside
                    of FISA to do "reasonable basis" wiretaps (calls going to /
                    coming from suspected Al Qaeda members / affiliates),
                    whereas FISA required "probable cause" (we have a credible
                    source or evidence obtained through other legal means that
                    person x has committed or is committing a criminal act)
                    required to even begin wiretapping.
                    Note that, if you go outside FISA, you need very little
                    other than some NSA person saying that one end of the call
                    may be coming from an Al Qaeda member / affiliate.
                    "reasonable basis" << "probable cause"
                    \_ Unfortunately there's that pesky little thing called
                       the constitution.
                       \_ Then you go back to:  They could do it outside of
                          FISA becuse the resolution passed by Congress gave
                          Dubya the power, and also through his role as
                          "unitary executive" (a power granted by the
                          Constitution according to Dubya's people).
                          \_ "could".  That's the claim.  The congressional
                             research service said they can't.
                             \_ Thanks for pointing that out.  Here's the URL:
                       (Wash Post)
        \_ [ I have not yet taken Crim Pro, but from what I understand ]
           The USSC has held that a wiretap is a search w/in the meaning
           of that term under the 4th amend. Thus a warrant to wiretap
           cannot issue w/o a showing of probable cause. The probable
           cause showing must relate to the time the search is INITIATED;
           evidence found after the search cannot generally be used to est.
           probable cause.
           The FISA procedures allow the AG to request the warrant upto 72
           hrs after the tap is started, BUT the AG must still prove that
           probable cause existed at the time the wiretap was initiated.
           Re the assertion of unitary power to wiretap - the relevant USSC
           \_ People need to start saing that Dubya is usurping "probable
              cause" for unreasonable searches in the 4th Amendment, and this
              will promptly throw out Dubya's "unitary executive" and
              Congressional authorization arguments.
           Re the assertion of unitary power to wiretap:
           The argument that Congress implicitly gave the Pres. this power
           runs into the Marbury issue; Congress cannot give gifts that it
           doesn't have the power to confer - arguably a complete waiver of
           the 4th amend. warrant requirement is beyond Congress' power.
           If such waiver of the FISA is w/in Congress' power, then the
           Pres. will probably win this under either Curtis Wright or
           Youngstown. Curtis Wright "one voice" in foreign affairs is
           probably the better argument b/c in ever case the purpose of
           the wiretaps were to stop terrorism by international forces,
           which is a foreign affairs issue.
           \_ Well, if it goes to the Supreme Court, then I think that's it.
              4th Amendment, "probable cause", Dubya violated it, game set
              \_ I talked to my Con Law prof about this and the real problem
                 is getting standing to bring a 4th amend. claim. Unless the
                 AG screws up really badly, defendants will not have a factual
                 basis to claim that their 4th amend. rights were violated.
                 [ The ACLU has filed a suit saying that the named plaintiffs
                   were likely to be tapped, but this is probably not enough
                   to show actual harm necessary to get standing ]
                 \_ You can ask your prof what they think of this with respect
                    to the notion that you can't get plaintiffs with standing
                    because, by nature of the program, you can't find out if
                    your 4th amendment rights have been breached.
                    I.e., you can have unlimited secret wiretapping because you
                    can't find anyone who knows if they've been wiretapped.
                    Your prof can either say "Too bad" or "Perhaps SCOTUS will
                    recognize the Catch-22 and review the case".
                    \- some people are concerned about the standing issue
                       int eh case of the ACLU suit but theirs is not the
                       only suit. a law prof whose name i do not recall but
                       is possible from gerogetown is representing a muslim
                       professor who allegedly said some crazy stuff and was
                       was suspected to have phone conversations with various
                       unsavories located in AFGANISTAN was smacked down and
                       he should pretty clearly have standing, but he is not
                       a very sympathetic defendent ... that might end up
                       being a case where there would have been probably
                       cause but the govt just didnt bother with the
                       warrants. the BURGER court certain carved into
                       the exclusionary rule so that trend may continue.
                       remember the constitution says the govt cant do
                       warrantless searches but it doesnt mandate the
                       exclusionary rule ... the court could conceivably
                       have said "we will sanction the fellow who obtained
                       the tainted evidence" or the unjustly seearched
                       party has a right to sue the law enforcement body
                       that violated his 4th amd or 5th amd rights for
                       money damage rather than a right to suppress the
                       \- update: the other suit is being led by the center
                          for constitutional rights. their clients have a
                          pretty good case for standing but may be less
                          sympathetic ... e.g. have made anti-american
                          public statements etc. but their claim is also
                          that the lawyers of these people who are american
                          citizens were monitored. i have to go now.
           Re the assertion of unitary power to wiretap:
           The argument that Congress implicitly gave the Pres. this power
           runs into the Marbury issue; Congress cannot give gifts that it
           doesn't have the power to confer - arguably a complete waiver of
           the 4th amend. warrant requirement is beyond Congress' power.
           If such waiver of the FISA is w/in Congress' power, then the
           Pres. will probably win this under either the Curtis Wright or
2006/1/23-25 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:41487 Activity:nil
1/23    Is there a URL that can tell me what the proper strokes are
        to write Chinese characters? MS Chinese recognizer doesn't
        recognize words when you write with wrong strokes. Thanks.
        \_ it's going to be a bit hard to find those.  There are
           certain stroke rules.  and beyond that, everything follows
           the rule.  Chinese tend to take these rules for granted so
           there is hardly any literature about it.
2006/1/23-25 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:41488 Activity:high
1/23    In the old days there were convection heaters. There were
        oil heaters, horizontal electric heaters, and heat dishes. While
        they worked, they created heat spots and didn't distribute heat
        evenly. Later someone had a brilliant idea of putting a fan in
        the heater, and today most of the electric heaters come with
        at least one fan-- usually something that blows a lot of dust
        into the air, and hums loudly at night. Well, fuck the dust
        and the noise. I have gone back to the good 'ol days. I just bought
        a regular Holmes aluminum convection heater. It is nearly silent
        and doesn't disturb me at night. Fuck modern technology. Go old
        convection heaters.                     -I really hate new things
        \_ I actually prefer the noise at night. I can't sleep in silence.
        \_ Costco carries heat dishes, if you prefer heat spots and uneven
           heating.  I bought one.
        \_ Yeah, I had one at Cal, worked awesome, mainly because of the
           surface area and the principle of convection.  Much better than
           other heaters I've used.  Saved a lot on heating bills too!
        \_ I did a google search on "convection heaters", and this chart
           says the fan units heat your room much faster (but are noisier)
           \- I used to work on numerical and analytic models of heat
              transfer to analyze things like circuit board layouts.
              Obviously convection is a huge boost over mere radiation
              but it turns out you also want a turbulent flow rather than
              laminar for greater heat capacity/xfer, although in a wasteful
              system like this, those details dont matter too much. Berkeley
              Math/Mech Eng is a big place for fluid dynamics, tribology etc.
              I think HILFINGR has some affilation with the people who do
              some of the applied work here [e.g. COLLELA and MARCUS].
              some of the applied work here [e.g. COLELLA and MARCUS].
        \_ Why not get an air filter?  Works great for dust.  -John
           \_ Please recommend a make and model. -- ulysses
           \_ I don't have a specific recommendation, but a friend in the
              HVAC business told me to buy filters either really cheap
              or really expensive.  Don't buy anything in the middle.  He
              said those tends to starve your system of air.  Oh I am
              talking about built-in home system, not the portable stuff.
              \_ I had a big cylindrical one in colleage--I don't remember
                 the model, but it worked great.  About 30" high and 20" in
                 diameter, with a replaceable filter that wrapped around the
                 inside.  Worked a charm in a very dusty room.  -John
        \_ wear more. Thermal layers do wonders. Use less energy, save the earth
           \_ Seconded.
2006/1/23-24 [Reference/Religion] UID:41489 Activity:very high
1/23    Wacky Bible quote of the day:
        "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go
        out as the menservants do."
           --Exodus 21:7
        \_ ... and?
        \_ This is hardly wacky when you take it in context. It basically
           just states that female slaves will be treated differently from
           male slaves. The surrounding text has various laws on how slaves
           will be treated, etc. Apparently under Judaic law if you purchase
           a jewish servant they're bound to you for seven years. I wonder
           if this applies if you buy a non-jewish slave. I suppose the
           term "slave" isn't necessarily appropriate in this context, more
           like "indentured servant."
           \_ Yes, slavery? good!  nipples?  BAD!!!
           \_ So "God" is okay with slavery and selling of daughters?  Now I
              see why some people are so eager to promote Christianity in our
              \_ This sort of "point" makes me feel like I'm a freshman in the
                 dorms again.
                 \_ Then what is the above quote really talking about, if
                    daughter is not daugher and selling is not selling?
                    \_ Hello, I would like the use of your daughter as
                       maidservant for 7 years.
                       \_ You can't be serious. It's slavery. The daughter
                          has no say in the matter. And no, she doesn't
                          go free in 7 years, that's what the bible says.
                    \_ You're not going to get anywhere trying to convince
                       religious people that the Bible is inconsistent;
                       they already know and have accepted that fact.  -tom
                       \_ Really?  They why do they still say things like
                          "Foo is wrong because the Bible says so."?
                          \_ Because they want to.  Humans are
                             rationalizing creatures, not rational ones.  -tom
                             \_ Got it.  Thx.
        \_ I prefer the one about stoning to death anyone who tries to convert
           a Christian to another religion.  Deutoronomy (sp?) 1.
           \_ You're missing the point.  Jesus completely cancelled out the
              whole goofy OT... except the parts modern Christians still like,
              like the 10 Commandments.  He didn't cancel those out.  Or the
              stuff about gays.  But all the silly, obviously evil stuff is
              nullified.  Duh.
           \_ I like the one about stoning to death any bull that happens to
              kill a human. No you can't just kill it. Assemble the villagers
              and STONE that evil bull! Make it /SUFFER/!! Ahahahah!
2006/1/23-25 [Uncategorized] UID:41490 Activity:nil
1/23    What's the best web stats program? analog, awstats, other?
        \_ analog's a useful tool in a larger suite of tools to produce actual
           useful reports; i like webalizer for simple small-scale stuff as
           it's already got (for instance) parallel DNS lookups builtin
           \_ Thanks. -op
2019/01/19 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:January:23 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>