2/2     Democratic plot to embarrass honest and humble Dubya NASA appointee
        exposed:  http://tinyurl.com/9wb8b (Wash Post)
        \_ WTF?  How is FBI-led watchdog agency a democratic plot??? Please
           go back to Kansas and go tend to ur cows.

2/3     Hello, I'm trying to create an HTML page that'll give you live
        "tail -f logfile.log" output. I can do it with regular HTML,
        but the problem is the user has to constantly scroll to
        the bottom. Is there a javascript or something that'll
        simply scroll to the bottom for you? Thanks.
        \_ Every time there's an update, just output the data to the page and
           end it with (replace 42 with number of new lines):
           <script>window.scrollByLines(42);</script>
           This might not work in IE, though.  You could do something with
           plain window.scroll(x,y), but it will be more work.  --dbushong
        \_ Any reason you don't put a "<a name="end">" at the end and then go
           to the page as "page#end"?
           \_ I don't think that would repeatedly move you to the end, which
              is what (s)he's trying to do.
              \_ I'm pretty sure you could jump to the anchor with an onload
                 action in the body tag. -gm
                 \_ You're missing the point, this is a continuously updating
                    page that you keep occasionally adding new data to.  An
                    onload only fires once.  A #fragment only fires once.
                    \_ meta refresh?

2/3     Watch Enron:  The Smartest Guys in the Room, also up for Best
        Docmentary.  Out on DVD / Netflix a couple weeks ago.
              \- it is worth seeing just for the "are you on crack" scene.
        \_ Why do you hate America?
           \_ When did you stop beating your wife?
           \_ Haliburton!
              \- it is worth seeing just for the "are you on crack" scene.

2/3     Rumsfeld self-Godwins.
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060203/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld_chavez
        \_ Your abuse of the term "Godwin" isn't funny.
           \_ Not abuse at all.  He compared Chavez to Hitler.  Classic self
              Godwin.
              \_ You misunderstand Godwin.
                 \_ Kids these days....
              \_ <DEAD>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law<DEAD>
                 \_ And from this point forward, there is no use debating
                    with Rumsfeld about Chavez' legitimacy. Yeah, that's a
                    Godwin.
                    \_ And you clearly are still misunderstanding Godwin.
                       \_ Since nothing in the wikipedia article would seem
                          to contraindicate the application of Godwin to
                          Rumsfeld's comparison, what the hell is your
                          problem?  Does Godwin only apply in your mind if
                          Rummy had brought it up on Usenet?
        \_ I don't care who's the president of Venezuela, as long as they
           produce more Alicia Machados.
        \_ Where did these people learn how to write?
           "He has accused President Bush of backing efforts to overthrow his
           leftist government, and specifically has charged that the United
           States supported a short-lived coup in 2002, fomented a devastating
           strike in 2004 and expelled some American missionaries from
           Venezuela for alleged links to the CIA."  Watch the subject shift.
           \_ Whew, and I thought you were going to slam them for something
              serious.  A mere subject shift in modern journalism which in a
              paragraph that is otherwise mostly correct isn't all that bad.
              (Drat, tried to get a subject shift in there but I couldn't
              fit one in.  I'll have to stick with a wide spread between
              subject and object).
           \_ wow, that's pretty bad.  subject changed from Bush / U.S. doing
              it to Chavez doing it at "expelled".
           \_ wow, that's pretty bad, though I haven't seen one in a while.
              subject changed from Bush / U.S. doing it to Chavez doing it
              at "expelled".

2/3     Soda way unstable? It's definitely slow and hard to log into.
        \_ Me too.  I think it's having network problems.

2/3     Quick poll, where did your ancestors come from? Mayflower?
        France? Iceland? Norway? Italy? Russia? I'm curious :)
        \_ I'm 1/3 Cherokee, so I'm told.
           \_ that's some strange reproduction there!
              \_ How so? If one side is 1/4 (3/12) and the other side
                 is 1/12, then 3/12 + 1/12 = 4/12, or 1/3. On the other
                 hand if he said 1/5, I'd be suspicious.
                 \_ How can you be 1/12?
                    \_ hold on, let me think about it and get back to you.

                       \- if you go back enough generations you can get
                          enough small terms so they approach 1/12th.
                          say you go back 10 generations to where you have
                          1024 ancestors and say 85 of them are 100%
                          cherokee and 940 are 100% french, then you are
                          about 1/12 cherokee.
        \_ 15/16th Chinese, 1/16th Japanese.
        \_ 1/2 Danish, 1/4 Irish, 1/4 Polish --erikred
        \_ 1/2 German, 3/8 English, 1/8 Scottish
           \_ was not aware that English!=Scottish. All the same to me.
        \_ 100% honkey.
        \_ 1/2 Scottish, 1/4 German, 1/4 English
        \_ Geeze, how do the rest of you know to that degree or are you just
           guessing?  1/? Russian, 1/? Ukranian, 1/? Polish, 1/?? German,
           1/? ????.  --vaguely eastern european
           \_ Relatives who have retired and discovered the joys of genealogy.
           \_ Just 'round off' once you don't know the genealogy any further
              back.
        \_ 50/50 German/Swedish
           \_ HEIL GERMAN JOHN!!!
              \_ Actually, 49% Swiss, 12.5% Scot, 12.5% Welsh, 12.5% Irish,
                 12.5% English, 1% French/Jewish.  Close, though.  -John
        \_ 3/8 German, 1/4 English, 1/8 Irish, 1/8 Dutch, 1/8 Cherokee
           (this is just an estimate, there is also some French and Swede)
        \_ India.
           \_ What tribe?  /me ducks
        \_ 1/2 polish, 1/4 german, 1/8 irish, ..., 1/2^N mongolian horde
        \_ Mayflower
        \_ 1/2 Peru, 1/2 Nepal, but dont know which half is which.
        \_ Mayflower
        \_ 1/2 Cantonese, 1/2 Shanghainese

2/3     Titanic-size shipwreck, casualty-wise:
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060203/ap_on_re_mi_ea/egypt_ship_sinks
        \- hello you may wish to read: http://csua.org/u/evv
           somewhat interesting discussion of estonia sinking.

2/3     US wage growth not keeping pace with inflation
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060203/ts_csm/apocket
        \_ CEOs wages are, everyone else doesn't deserve it.  Work harder,
           peons!

2/3     OpenSSH 4.3 is out. Mostly bug fixes.
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=secure-shell&m=113881090315376&w=2

2/3     dim, why is your vi process taking 100% CPU?
        \_ Dunno, but I killed it.

2/3     Any recommendations for a place to buy a 42" Panasonic TV either
        online or in Fresno? I'm looking for a place that will give the
        best price basically.
        \_ http://nextag.com, http://shopping.com
        \_ http://newegg.com

2/3     http://tinyurl.com/a2gsf (nytimes.com)
        IAEA ready to vote to send Iran to Security Council, but U.S. lone
        holdout on new Egypt-introduced / UK-modified language which says
        Middle East should eventually be WMD-free (meaning Iran may be able
        to complain about "why does Israel get to have nukes").
        Western official:  "This resolution is about Iran"
        European official:  "It's five against one"
        Current text:  "a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue would
        contribute to the goal of a Middle East free of all WMDs, and their
        means of delivery."
        My prediction:  The U.S. will cave, and perhaps throw some bullshit
        language in there that everyone knows won't mean anything other than
        being a face-saving gesture.
        \_ Maybe... maybe not.  We've taken a hard line on Iran and I don't
           think we're going to trade away Israel's existence in exchange for
           sending Iran to the UNSC, a toothless organization which lacks will
           or even sufficient self interest to care.
           \_ The thing is, UK's language != "trade away Israel's existence".
              I predict the U.S. will realize that they're actually not giving
              much away using this language.
              Also, the Sec Council, as with all neutral and states which are
              traditionally opposed to the U.S., has its uses.  George H.W.
              Bush understood this, and was able to forge a truly international
              coalition (including Arab states) to kick Saddam out of Kuwait in
              Gulf War I, while saving enormous amounts of U.S. dollars and
              preserving the lives of our soldiers.
                \_ Yeah but he was a pussy
           \_ I probably should not respond to such a blatant troll, but how
              does agreeing to a nuclear free Middle East equate to agreeing
              to trade away Israel's existence?
              \_ It isn't a troll.  Let's see, tiny country of a few million
                 surrounded by hostile enemies numbering in the hundreds of
                 millions who have already launched several wars with the
                 intent of wiping them off the face of the map and "driving
                 them into the sea".  Several/most of those countries are
                 still officially in a state of war with Israel.  You think
                 something other than the threat of being nuked has kept
                 them at bay?  Either you're woefully ignorant or you're the
                 one trolling here.
                 \_ Well, there is the part where they keep losing...
                    \_ Israel only needs to lose once and it's over forever.
                       They barely made it the first time with heavy losses
                       and again later they only won due to sheer incompetence
                       on the part of the attackers.  Tell me again how a
                       nuke free Israel can survive when (not if) they get
                       attacked again?  Seriously, all of this is very public
                       \_ there's this thing called the United States.
                       knowledge.  The details are historic facts of these wars
                       are agreed upon by all sides and out sider observers.
                       Blowing up kids in discos and pizza parlors is what
                       the enemy does when a land invasion would result in
                       getting nuked.  It isn't due to the heart warming and
                       cheery good nature of their Arab neighbors that they
                       haven't been attacked since 73 which corresponds very
                       closely with the time Israel is assumed to have
                       acquired the nuke.  I'm sure it's just a coinkydink....
                       \_ there's this thing called the United States.
                          \_ So what?  It is sheer insanity for one country to
                             make its very existence dependant on the direct
                             military action of another country thousands of
                             miles away.  At best the little country becomes
                             a vassal/colony state, at worst they get crushed
                             and genocided anyway while their Lords debate over
                             sending American Boys(tm) to fight someone else's
                             war.  I can't believe I'm still bothering with
                             this.  Go read some very basic history of the
                             world.  I'm done being trolled.
                             \_ Israel has traditionally been a vassal colony
                                of more powerful nations throughout its
                                history. In fact, the period referred to
                                within the Bible when Israel was an independent
                                nation lasted for a relatively short period
                                of time (and obvious dissension caused the
                                early state to rift in two, resulting in
                                easy pickings for the neighboring mideast
                                countries). Anyone with a basic knowledge
                                of world history would've known that.
                                \_ "We did a stupid thing thousands of years
                                   ago, so let's repeat it today!"  What does
                                   all of what you're saying about history
                                   have anything to do with Israel today?  I
                                   would take it as a lesson to *learn* from
                                   the past, not attempt to mirror the horrors
                                   of it.  I don't see what point you're
                                   trying to make that regarding Israel today.
                                   You get an "A+" for Ancient History Of The
                                   Middle East if that makes you feel any
                                   better.  An "F" for being on topic.

2/3     muslims are intollerant.. solution: threaten to nuke mecca..
        maybe they'll stop
        \_ Sodans can't spell worth a shit.  Solution: threaten to nuke motd.
           Maybe they'll stop.
           \_ Note that this would make the tolerant muslims somewhat lest
              tolerant.  Or rather, they wouldn't (and shouldn't) tolerate
              that.

2/3     Amazing view, simply amazing:
        http://www.forbes.com/feeds/2006/02/02/cx_sc_0203homeslide_7.html?thisSpeed=6000
        \_ No backyard.
           \_ These are all like living in a hotel. I don't see the
              allure, except for perhaps the one in NYC where there are
              no real alternatives nearby.
              \_ yes you're absolutely right. Every single person on this
                 planet prefers living in the suburb that's nice and
                 big and quiet and have huge backyards. People who think
                 otherwise are dim-wits, like the ones who live
                 in the city.
                 \_ I never said that. I said that it's like living in
                    a hotel. The city is fine, but paying $15 million
                    to live in a hotel isn't my cup of tea. Most of those
                    cities (except NYC) have pretty nice housing
                    available, so why live in a hotel except for the view?
                    \_ some people prefer the view over other things. Somehow
                       you seem to think that people like what you like.
                       In case no one ever pointed this out to you, you
                       seem pretty narrow minded and above all, dim-witted.
                    \_ It's..."different".  We have a penthouse in Santiago
                       that looks over the city (no, not anywhere even near
                       any of these places, but a nice duplex that we got a
                       good price on during our stay here.)  It's furnished
                       and has maid service, but it's not like a hotel at all.
                       I'm used to both houses in the countryside and city,
                       as well as apartments, and it's just something you get
                       used to.  And frankly, if I had the kind of wealth that
                       let me blow $15 million on a place that I really really
                       liked, why not?  -John
                       \_ Anyone blowing lots of money on condos, apartments,
                          and such either has no financial sense, or is
                          just stupid. If I had so much money I'd invest
                          in a nice single family home where I have a lot of
                          space and freedom, where I have a nice
                          garage to do garage/repair work, a nice yard with
                          dogs (you can't have pets in the city), and a
                          nice driveway where I can wash my car. When you
                          live in the city, you have no privacy and you
                          have no freedom.
                                        -pp and I maintain that the
                                         city life is for stupid people
                          \_ I guess arguing with someone as open-minded
                             as yourself is going to be rewarding, but then
                             again, it's nice that you are so clear about
                             your preference in housing choices.  This sounds
                             vaguely like the bitter people you see scoffing
                             at the guy having a great time in his Ferrari
                             (who doesn't realize they're there.)  And by
                             the way, we're getting a dog, my building has a
                             nice clean car wash space, I have no neighbors
                             peering over my fence, and a whole city's worth
                             of space.  But your choice, more for me.  -John
                       \_ Are houses (and penthouses) more affordable
                          in Santiago? Are we talking about Chile or
                          Dominican Republic Santiago, Panama Santiago,
                          Minnesota Santiago USA, Spain Santiago Compost,
                          Cuba Santiago, or Argentina Santiago del Estero?
                          \_ Pedant!  :)  Yes, Chile, and they're vastly more
                             affordable than in the US.  -John
        \_ I used to work at a company that occupied the whole penthouse of
           the Great Western Building on Shattuck.  Not much view, though.
           \_ Gee, that's what ... a short bldg in the middle of Berkeley?

2/3     Some nice messages of religious tolerance
        http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13501917,00.html
        \_ So that God Hates Fags guy is representative of most Christians?
           Or maybe you prefer Jerry Falwell and the 700 Club?
           \_ "guy"?  These are large demonstrations, all around europe and
              in the middle east.
        \_ Every day should be "offend a religious nutjob day."  -John
           \_ Hear, hear.
           \_ It's not like you have to work hard to offend them.
              \_ Exactly.  Maybe Hallmark can print up cards or something
                 like that.  -John
              \_ actually, it's the anti-religious people who are most
                 easily offended.  just say "gay is bad", "evolution
                 is just a theory", or "I support school prayers" and
                 they get all riled up.

2/3     Apple sued based on iPod volume:
        http://tinyurl.com/892c8
        It's lawsuits like this that make our legal system look sue-happy.  I
        find that portable music players in general aren't loud enough and
        occasionally have to use software to increase the volume on my mp3
        files.  Yet these type of suits force manufacturers to lower the
        volume.  I like listening to my music loud, being totally engulfed in
        it.  I know I'm putting my ears at risk, but that's my choice, just
        like it was for this plantiff.  It's common sense.  If I ride my bike
        down a steep hill in SF I could lose control in crash, should the bike
        manufacturer put a warning that gravity could impact my ability to
        control a bike on steep hills?  NONSENSE!
        \_ Uhm, did you ever figure that maybe you need to turn it up so high
           because you have *already* damaged your hearing?
           \_ Yep, and that's ok, it should be my choice. You only live
              once, and if that means enjoying music at a nice loud
              volume, but having to ask people to speak up or repeat things,
              that's ok.  Just because Oreos make me fat doesn't mean they
              should be sued because I choose to eat a row a day, imparing my
              health.
              that's ok.  Just because Oreos make me fat doesn't mean
              Nabisco should be sued because I choose to eat a row a day,
              imparing my health.
              \_ All true but not really what I was getting at.  But I guess
                 if you're willing to spend half your life unable to hear in
                 exchange for loud music today... shrug.  I suspect your 50+
                 year old self will curse your 20-30 year old self when the
                 time comes.  Let us know how that goes.
                 \_ "If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have
                     taken better care of myself."
        \_ It would be interesting to see how much power it puts out of the
           headphone jack compared to an early 80's Walkman.  I suspect it is
           about the same.
           \_ Read the article; it claims most players put out 100db, the
              iPod puts out 115db (except in Europe, where Apple was
              required to limit it to 100db).  -tom
        \_ The 80's guy has a point, walkmans used to be louder, before
           the lawsuit against Sony in the 80's.  That's why all their
           players now have AVLS, which lowers the volume down to a whisper.
           There's actually hacks for some Sony walkmans to unlock the true
           volume potential (http://tinyurl.com/b2ecw
           \_ My Sony CD Walkman from 10yrs ago has a switch to turn off AVLS.
              It has three settings: Off, AVLS 1 (less reduction), AVLS 2 (more
              reduction).
        \_ The earbud headphones are much more likely to damage your ears,
           especially the iPod ones because 1) The speaker is much closer to
           your ear canal and 2) It doesn't block out outside sound as well
           which means people crank it up higher to filter out the world.
        \_ This really is ridiculous.  They have clear notices that cranking
           it up can hurt you.  We don't speed limit cars to 5mph because any
           faster "could hurt or kill you".
           \_ Actually, we do put speed limiters on cars.
              \_ objection, argumentative.
        \_ This reminds me of the McDonald lawsuit which a lady ordered a cup
           of hot coffee, put it between her legs, drove off, spilled, burnt
           herself, and sued because the hot coffee was hot.  I think McD
           should avoid future lawsuits by changin its menu offering:
           Customer: One hot coffee please.
           Cashier:  Hot or cold?
           Customer: Hot coffer please.
           Cashier:  The hot kind of hot coffee or the cold kind of hot coffee?
           Customer: ......
           \_ Stella Liebeck: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
              During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than
              700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992.
              McDonalds ... held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees ...
              Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower
              temperatures. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments,
              sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.
              McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to
              work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the
              companys own research showed that customers intend to consume
              the coffee immediately while driving.
              For those preferring a biased source:
              http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/8/1/141345/4615
              \_ Just because the other establishments mislabel their warm
                 coffee as hot coffee, it doesn't mean McD should be required
                 to follow this practice.
                 \_ Now you're just trolling.  If you don't know wth the case
                    was about, do us all a favor.
              \_ If Liebeck thought the coffee was too hot, why was she
                 drinking it while driving?  She wanted to burn her throat and
                 stomach?
                 \_ Well, I'd assume that she didn't know it was 'too hot'
                    until she'd already sustained severe burns.  Your comment
                    suggests that either you didn't read the lectlaw link,
                    or that you missed some rather important details while
                    skimming it.  Perhaps you should, at least, reread the
                    article.
                    \_ Erm who gives a shit?  PP is right, why was she
                       drinking it while driving?  A normal person will take
                       a sip, realize it's too hot, and wait.  -John
                       \_ 1) she wasn't driving.  2) the vehicle wasn't in
                          motion. 3) the coffee was 185F.  Do your homework
                          or STFU.   Or don't.  Whatever's funnier.  *shrug*
                          \_ Actually, reading you get annoyed is pretty
                             funny.  -John
                             \_ Yeahyeah, bite me.   Punk.   :P
                          \_ I have to agree. McD coffee has always been
                             nukingly hot, and takes forever to cool down in
                             its insulated container.  annoying.
        \_ Apple Discontinues Sales To Stupid People:
           http://tinyurl.com/dg9q7

2/3     Hasn't Rumsfeld proved himself to be incompetent? Or else a liar.
        http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18028837-38198,00.html
        Iraq costs > $440 bln
        White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey was pushed out of
        his job when he suggested in September 2002 that the Iraq war
        could cost as much as $265billion.
        Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put the figure at about $66
        billion, but told Congress that no one could be sure.
        "It's not knowable what a war or conflict like that is going
        to cost. You don't know if it's going to last two days or two
        weeks or two months. It's certainly not going to last two
        years, but it's going to cost money," Mr Rumsfeld said six
        months before the invasion in March 2003.
        \_ A year or so ago Rumsfeld's competence was questioned and he
        \_ A year or so ago Rumsfield's competance was questioned and he
           responded saying "he's too old to care anymore, he's tried to
           quit the job a few times but Bush won't let him".  I thought this
           was pretty funny but scary at the same time.
        \_ mebbe he was just thinking of "major combat operations"
        \_ hahah, hasn't time proven that Bush and company will
           say anything to get people to follow their lead.  I mean, come
           on, why in the world would our US president ever lie?  He's
           an outstanding president with outstanding morals.....
                \_ Well he has to be in order to bring honor and integrity
                   back to the White House.