Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:March:13 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2006/3/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:42203 Activity:high
3/13    Why do Reagan admirers say that the Soviet Union collapsed because
        of Reagan's policies?  I know he called SU the "evil empire" and
        also started a Star Wars weapons program.  What else did he do, and
        how did these contribute to the SU's collapse?
        \_ Those Reagan supporter think that by escalating the
           arms race, we effectively bankrupted the Soviet much sooner than
           we would of otherwise.  Also, these guys were proud the fact that
           we fought "Communism" on every 3rd world countries we can think of
           by supporting dictatorships / islamic extremist all over, which also
           bankrupted the Soviet (Congo, Afganistan, etc).
           In their simple logic, "Communism" is "absolute evil" and everything
           else is "lesser of the two evils."  Notice the similar mentality
           is in "war on terror" today (Saddam Hussin is evil and every one
           else is a lesser of the two... now, it's Iran's turn :p)
        \_ Everyone likes to take credit for SU's collapse but what really
           brought SU down were Gorbachev's inept policies. He realized what he
           had done after 1990 and tried to change his course of action but it
           was too late by then. All other factors were just catalysts.
        \_ Those Reagan supporter think that by escalating the arms race, we
           effectively bankrupted the Soviet much sooner than we would of
           \_ "would have"
           otherwise.  Also, these guys were proud the fact that we fought
           "Communism" on every 3rd world countries we can think of by
           supporting dictatorships / islamic extremist all over, which also
           bankrupted the Soviet (Congo, Afganistan, etc). In their simple
           logic, "Communism" is "absolute evil" and everything else is
           "lesser of the two evils."  Notice the similar mentality is in
           "war on terror" today (Saddam Hussin is evil and every one else
           is a lesser of the two... now, it's Iran's turn :p)
           \_ Interestingly, a common fallacy of people seeking to debunk the
              "Reagan bankrupted the Soviets" argument is assuming that all
              governments/countries/armies/whatever against which the US
              supported organizations that were thuggish, fascist and evil to
              varying degrees, were actually any less worse than our own
              stooges.  -John
              \_ it is true in Europe.  But in Asia, Communism has much less
                 to do with Maxist Idealogy than Idealogy of self-determination
                 champaigoned by W.Wilsons, and FDR.  Most of these "Communist"
                 were fighting European Imperial Power before WW2 ended.
                 If you are a Vietnamese and being brutally ruled by French
                 for past 100 years and suddently French says they really care
                 about human right and democracy.  Would you believe it?
                 \_ And very often, the communists piggybacked conveniently on
                    the back of a nationalist movement--Viet Minh/CPVN is
                    a fantastic example of this.  Note, I'm not saying the end
                    justifies the means or that any particular one of the
                    scumbags or dubious regimes the US supported during the
                    Cold War was excusable, just that you need to see this in
                    a bit of context; sometimes the alternative really was less
                    worse.  -John
              \_ I think if I lived in a repressive regime and got two choices
                 1) Live life like it is now, where there are large chunks
                    of things I can't say/do without a risk of dissapearing.
                 2) Live through a bloody civil/proxy civil war which
                    devistates the economy and civilian population (which
                    those kinds of wars have a real bad habit of doing) just
                    to live in another version of #1 one above.
                 I'd really prefer that the global super powers butted the
                 fuck out and let me live in relative peace.
                 \_ You said it, "powers".  -John
                  \_ Huhwha?
                    \_ As in "powers" as opposed to "power".  Plural.  -John
                     \_ Ahh, yeah.  That was intentional.  It's just that
                        I care more when it is my country behaving badly.
           \_ Hasn't the US been fighting proxy wars with the SU and its
              stooges since the end of WW2?  Korean War, Vietnam War, etc.?
        \_ He basically forced them into an arms race which bankrupted
           their country (and ours kind of...)
           \_ But I thought the Soviet Union has been in an arms race with
              the US since the end of WWII ?
              \_ This is true. Reagan admirers say that Reagan upped the ante
                 and thereby sped up the economic collapse; detractors say
                 that he was merely the sitting pres. when the fruits of years
                 of arms race ripened. Cf. Bush I and fall of SU; Clinton and
                 economic prosperity in the late 90s; and Bush II and the
                 current economic crisis. The real story, of course, is a lot
                 more complex than who was sitting in the Oval Office. --e_red
              \_ The scale of the arms race w/o a real war was significant
                 For example, Carter canned just about every program, gutted
                 the military - results were operation eagle claw.
        \_ Reagan's support of Poland and his Zero Option undermined Soviet
           power in Europe, which contributed significantly to the collapse
           of the USSR. His personal relationship w/ Gorby is also another
           factor that is also often overlooked. I agree w/ e_red that
           Reagan cannot be given all the credit for the collapse of the
           USSR, but he does deserve some credit.
           WRT the current terrorist situation - I personally think that
           Reagan would have used far better judgment than Bush2 in dealing
           w/ this situation. I also doubt that he would have involved us
           in Iraq, &c.
           \_ Because he did so well at the marine barracks?
              \_ Because he understood that you don't invade countries bigger
                 than a small island, and even then you only do it if you
                 have an exit strategy. -!pp, !reagan-admirer
                 \_ Like how we bailed after putting 500+ marines in a barracks
                    in a war zone and the gate guards didn't even have bullets.
              \_ Because Reagan wasn't a reactionary. He had good advisers
                 who understood the value of a strong US-Europe relations
                 and were willing to negotiate and compromise on many things
                 in order to achieve their long term goals.
        \_ Without getting deeply involved: there is a genral sense after
           the Soviet invasion of Afganistan, US policy shifted from
           Kennan's "containment" to "rollback". You can google/wiki
           for those terms. --psb
           \_ and it worked well has no ill consequences afterwards, no?
              \_ it was a conflict, genius.  if there was a perfect one shot
                 we-win! answer, it would've been done on day 1.
                 \_ you don't get it, don't you? Afganistan was much better
                    off under Communist rule.  Women enjoys equal rights,
                    opium export was under control.  After all these years,
                    don't you get it that "Communism" is not an absolute
                    evil?
                    \_ When exactly was this fantasy era for Afghanistan
                       when women had equal rights to men, there was an
                       economy based on something other than weapons and drugs
                       and the children played in rivers of chocolate?
                       \_ Afganistan is no paradise by any mean.  But at least
                          during the Communist rule, women get education, they
                          can put lipsticks and high-heel on if they can
                          afford it.  almost anyone who has slightest
                          knowledge about that part of the world would tell
                          you women was much much better off during the rules
                          of US-backed Mujahedeems.
                          \_ Still waiting to hear when this fantasy era of
                             goodness and chocolate rivers was.  Are you
                             related to ChiCom troll?  I think you are.
                             \_ from the perspective of economy, human rights,
                                etc.  Communist Afganistan was much better off
                                than the Taliban US supported, not to mentioned
                                that Afgan became a heaven for terrorist after
                                the fall of the Socialist regime.  Just admit
                                the policy and you are myopic and stupid.
                       \_ About 4000 years ago, during the height of
                          the Indus valley civilization.
                          \_ I don't think AfghanComTroll is talking about
                             4000 years ago.
                    \_ What do you call the fallacy of logic where one ignores
                       the faults of a system they prefer and justifies this
                       by pointing out problems with the current system? It
                       happens a lot on the motd
2006/3/13-14 [Academia/GradSchool, Industry/Jobs] UID:42204 Activity:high
3/13    Is it hard for new-grads (CS/EE) to get entry-level jobs in this
        market?
        \_ The type of jobs that I've been involved and have been interviewing
           people for in the last 10 years require excellent coding skills
           as well as thorough thought processes. The best coders are those
           that come from decent schools and have decent GPAs (above 3.0).
           Interestingly, some of the WORST programmers I've hired have
           really high GPAs (above 3.8) or those that have PhDs. They are
           smart and are good theorists, but they aren't necessarily
           hard workers or good team players. They are brilliant in their
           little own worlds, but have very little common sense and don't
           embrace the work culture. Many of them are lazy or think that
           existing code is trash ("I'm holier than thou") thus don't
           contribute much except for their snide and occasionally
           insightful comments; but talk is cheap, and they contribute
           very little. They also tend to get bored and leave quickly, or
           apply to MBAs/grad school and leave. I don't hire super smart
           overachievers anymore. So don't worry about your GPA and such. Just
           present yourself clearly and do well on the interview and you'll
           be fine.                                     -old alumni
        \_ There is always a job for smart, likable people.  The obnoxious
           and stupid will have a hard time in any market.  Right now, things
           have/are switching back to the job seeker's side.
           \_ What's the salary like for an average new-grad from an average
              school?  What about for someone with kinda good GPA, say 3.5,
              from Cal?  I don't mean the super-talented.  Thanks.
              \_ Entry-level jobs are some of the easiest to get. Who doesn't
                 like smart people for peanuts? Yes, they are sometimes
                 not immediately useful, but that doesn't seem to matter.
                 By the way, why do you think your GPA matters? With a 3.5
                 you could go to a good grad school, which is what you
                 might want to consider. That's a very good GPA and your
                 employer won't even care. They will most likely lump you
                 in with the guy who got a 3.0 at San Jose State. Grad schools
                 will care a lot more, if that's important to you.
                 \_ I heard that there are many really cool companies where
                    programming staff, HR, etc is dominated by alumni from top
                    CS schools and they generally do pay attention to where the
                    applicant is coming from. Of course, the university degree
                    is only a part of the equation.
                    \_ Sure, they look at where you went to school. However,
                       I doubt they care about your GPA. If they do, I
                       would question why they do. I once had an interview
                       where the woman asked me why I was so bad at math,
                       because I had B's in most of my upper division math
                       classes (I was a math major). I wanted to slap her
                       and say "If they were all A's I'd probably be
                       at Princeton right now and not applying for your
                       crummy job."
                    \_ Well, I generally filter new grads based on school
                       and then gpa.  The school filter is mostly practical.
                       I'm more likely to find pearls amongst a pool of MIT
                       grads than among a pool of Bob's State U grads.  Not
                       that there are noone excellent from Bob's; it's just
                       that they are rarer and take more effort to discover.
                       Also, interviewers tend to know more about the program
                       at the big noise schools (e.g., I know to be suitably
                       impressed by someone who did well in 6-111), and
                       that makes the resume screen more meaningful.  At least
                       for me, GPA usually works as a high-pass filter, and
                       I don't stress too much over the difference once the
                    \_ Well, I generally filter new grads resumes based on
                       school and then gpa.  The school filter is mostly
                       practical.  I'm more likely to find pearls amongst a
                       pool of MIT grads than among a pool of Bob's State U
                       grads.  Not that there are noone excellent from Bob's;
                       it's just that they are rarer and take more effort to
                       discover.  Also, interviewers tend to know more about
                       the program at the big noise schools (e.g., I know to
                       be suitably impressed by someone who did well in 6.111),
                       and that makes the resume screen more meaningful.  At
                       least for me, GPA usually works as a high-pass filter,
                       and I don't stress too much over the difference once the
                       GPA meets the reasonable criterion.
                 \_ Personally, I don't put my GPA on my resume, and never
                    have.  It's a terrible filter, because it automatically
                    filters out smart, creative hackers that don't care about/
                    are bored by school.  That may be okay for large software
                    companies writing, say, tax software.  It's disasterous
                    for companies that want to be nimble, and hire the best.
                    I am in no way insinuating that all people with bad GPA's
                    are bright creative hackers, or that all people with good
                    GPA's are dumb automatons.  Putting your gpa on your
                    resume implicitly supports this practice.  Not putting it
                    on there may at least earn you a call back inquiring for it
                    which gives me the opportunity for me to explain why it's
                    not there.  If a company still refuses to move forward
                    after that, I say ``Thank you very much for your time, but,
                    if you are unable to flex on this, I don't think I'd be a
                    good fit for your company culture.''  Incidentally, my GPA
                    sucked, but it has never gotten me filtered out of a job
                    once I reached the interview phase.
                    -dans    Disclaimer: tom believes I am Paolo's stooge/tool.
                             If you're not with tom, you're against him, so
                             you may want to ignore the preceding, lest you
                             incur tom's wrath.
                             \_ Was it really necessary to stir this up again?
                                Why is it so important that you get the last
                                word in this argument?
                                \_ Who's stirring things up?  I'm providing a
                                   public service.  In fact, when I have time,
                                   I'm plan to write a utility that allows
                                   people to add a disclaimer they write to
                                   their own motd posts.  Additionally, it
                                   will allow everyone to write disclaimers
                                   about others.  All these disclaimers will
                                   be viewable via the web, but only the most
                                   popular (as chosen by majority vote) will
                                   be added to entries on the motd.  Of
                                   course, it would be against policy to run
                                   this tool automatically via cron or script,
                                   so people will need to run it by hand.  I
                                   also plan to add an option to run it that
                                   strips out disclaimers, so people who don't
                                   like the utility can remove them. -dans
                                   \_ Well, the utility does sound pretty neat,
                                      but I was referring to your referencing
                                      the Paolo Incident.  Repeatedly spamming
                                      motd with it doesn't seem to be resolving
                                      anything.  Oh well.  n/m   -mice
                             \_ Wow, you must really enjoy losing debates
                                badly, to bring it up again.  -tom
                                \_ Seriously, you two ever graduate from
                                   grade school?  You bicker like a couple of
                                   10 year olds.  Grow up. -jrleek
                                \_ Tom, we already know that, insofar as this
                                   matter is concerned, you have a completely
                                   and utterly distorted view of reality.
                                   Frankly, I have no interest in arguing it
                                   with you any further as I am not your
                                   psychotherapist.  If I was, I would
                                   recommend medication since you clearly
                                   haven't responded to talk therapy. -dans
                                   \_ Dude you are no better. Tom's view wasn't
                                      "utterly distorted". He simply claims
                                      Paolo violated policy, wasn't punished,
                                      and lied about it. You have not shown
                                      that to be wrong. You've just written
                                      pages of allusions to secret concerns
                                      about hate speech and stuff that is
                                      frankly not a plausible explanation.
                                      The fact you're bring it up again shows
                                      maybe it hits you harder than you let on?
                    P.S. I don't know what the new grad market is like, but my
                    anecdotal sense is that the market is good and getting
                    better.  If you know your stuff, you should have no
                    difficulty finding a job.  The disclaimer applies to this
                    as well.
                    \_ There are real problems with hiring people with
                       good GPAs. Some of these are the same problems I
                       find with hiring people who are perhaps overeducated
                       for a particular job. They get bored easily and
                       bored turns into lazy, for example. They question
                       decisions made above them. In short, they are not
                       always good worker bees. You *can* have too many
                       chiefs and not enough Indians. Everyone wants to
                       feel important and everyone wants a challenging
                       job with opportunities for advancement, but no one
                       wants to work with someone who feels that they are
                       'doing time' until something better comes along
                       or they run off to grad school or whatever. Real
                       life story: I had a Caltech CS grad and a guy who
                       dropped out of a liberal arts college with the
                       equivalent of an AA. The latter guy was so much
                       better. He worked hard. He asked questions. He
                       put in extra hours. The Caltech guy had to be told
                       what to do and when he was done he showed no
                       initiative or desire for increased responsibility.
                       He saw work as a series of tasks to be completed.
                       He flirted with medical school and then grad school
                       and we all knew he'd be gone. We were glad when he
                       was. He was a smart guy who coasted along doing just
                       enough to get by. He was a terrible employee with
                       an inflated sense of self-worth and he was bad for
                       morale with his attitude. He really didn't care for
                       hard work and getting him to do mundane crap (as he
                       was, after all, entry level) was impossible. When
                       he did get a real task he'd suddenly take off skiing to
                       Mammoth with his friends, missing the deadline. In
                       short, a high GPA means you will probably do well
                       in grad school, not that you'll be a good employee.
                       \_ Nod.  I've had this discussion with many people, and
                          I'm glad to see that support exists for this
                          viewpoint on the motd too. -dans
                \_ Companies don't care about GPA now?  When I graduated
                   in 1996, Intel would only talk to people who met the
                   "cut-off GPA", which was 3.5.  AT&T's cut-off point
                   was 3.0, so was TI.  And these requirements weren't
                   from individual hiring managers but from their HR
                   department.
                   \_ Yes, and it's stupid. So someone graduates from Cal
                      with a 3.4 and is rejected, while someone from, say,
                      Stanford (being generous) with a 3.5 is interviewed?
                      Stanford, while a good school, has incredible grade
                      inflation. Maybe they should hire based on SAT scores
                      or GRE scores or something. I think that would
                      actually be more meaningful than comparing GPAs
                      across programs and across universities - even as
                      a simple high-level filter.
                      P.S. I realize that a GPA shows a remarkably
                      different aptitude than a standardized test, but at
                      least the test scores can be compared reliably - at
                      least against others from the same testing year.
                   \_ I'm sure that many companies today do care about GPA,
                      and will continue to do so.  I simply have no interest
                      working for a company that a) cares about GPA and b) is
                      so rigid wrt a) that a group or hiring manager can't get
                      them to ignore it.  It's a personal choice, which, thus
                      far, has done well by me. -dans
                        \_ Removing the GPA from my resume was the fastest way
                           to turn getting no responses to lots of responses.
                           Turns out most people didn't really care, and it
                           only served to reduce offers.  I'm sure it would
                           have helped if I had a 3.8 GPA.  I still have an
                           almost 100% interview:job offer ratio.
                           \_ Last I talked to Google (2004), they kept
                              telling me over and over and over again that
                              they placed a lot of value on GPA.  I
                              suspect they still care a lot about it now.
                              \_ Yes, this is true.  Google places a lot of
                                 value on GPA for new college grads.  Which
                                 means that, if you put your gpa on your
                                 resume, it is below their threshold, and you
                                 submit your resume cold (i.e. not through a
                                 contact that works there), it is rejected
                                 outright.  They may reject what appears to be
                                 a ncg app outright if it does not include a
                                 gpa, in which case, if your gpa sucks, damned
                                 if you do, damned if you don't.  Or the
                                 absence of a gpa may get it past auto filters
                                 and into human hands, which is what you want.
                                 Also, note that Adam Bosworth works for
                                 google.  He would utterly fail the gpa/degree
                                 test.  But he's a superstar so, he's not
                                 necessarily pertinent to the discussion at
                                 hand. -dans
                                 \_ New grads?  I had been working for 10
                                    years when I interviewed with them.  I
                                    could only assume it was their polite
                                    way of saying, "sorry, your GPA sucks".
                                    Needless to say, they didn't extend me
                                    an offer.
                                    \_ Now that they're post-IPO why would
                                       anyone want to work there anyway?
                                       If you're a superstar making $1MM plus
                                       stock a year to do whatever you want,
                                       sure.  But for the smart but otherwise
                                       normal people out there?  They have
                                       nothing to offer anyone like that now.
                                       Hours are long, pay is below average,
                                       without a PhD you're going nowhere.
                                       \_ Just what exactly do these PhDs
                                          do at Google, anyway? You only
                                          need a few good guys for
                                          algorithm development. Isn't
                                          Google basically a marketing/media
                                          company at this point?
                                    \_ You've been working for 10 years, and
                                       you still include your GPA on your
                                       resume?  That looks kind of pathetic
                                       and desparate. -dans
                                       \_ 12 years now.  I didn't include
                                          my GPA.  Google insisted on
                                          knowing that information before
                                          second round interviews.
                              \_ To me this is just another data point that
                                 Google's hiring criteria are stupid. I know
                                 people working at Google I'd never hire,
                                 but they look good on paper. From what
                                 I know of the hiring process they make
                                 you feel like you should be lucky to be
                                 working for them. Any company that does
                                 that sucks. It would be interesting to
                                 note when Google's hiring policies changed
                                 and why. From an outsider point of view
                                 they seem to be hiring 'superstars' more
                                 for PR than to address actual needs, because
                                 they can. I've seen this lead to disaster
                                 when all of the rats desert the sinking
                                 ship after they've cashed their options.
                                 I'm not saying it will happen again, but
                                 I think it's been shown time and again
                                 that teams of superstars (whether sports,
                                 entertainment, science, or business) tend
                                 to underperform relative to the hype. I
                                 view it as Google's way of creating a buzz to
                                 fool sucker drones into thinking that they
                                 have a better job than they do.
                                 \_ Google has put a lot of effort into
                                    recruiting phd physicists to work there,
                                    with hiring ads in Physics Today etc.
                                    As a phd physicist, this strikes me as
                                    totally retarded.  I'm a pretty good
                                    physicist, but you'd have to be an idiot
                                    to hire me to write code.  I wouldn't hire
                                    me to write code.
                                    \_ I assume the job isn't writing code,
                                       but instead working on a technology
                                       to transform the heat from all of their
                                       servers back into electricity. Duh.
                                       Either that or the warp drive they
                                       are building. Remember, Google is
                                       not just a search engine. It's a
                                       conglomerate that is going to change
                                       the world.
                                       \_ Which doesn't do evil!  (well, unless
                                          it has no other convenient choice).
                                 \_ Um, that's a nice rant, but the sensible
                                    conclusion is that you don't want to work
                                    for google because you feel their hiring
                                    practices are stupid, and leading to
                                    disaster.  It's a perfectly reasonable
                                    opinion, but others may differ. -dans
2006/3/13-14 [Computer/SW/Languages/C_Cplusplus] UID:42205 Activity:high
3/13    Star Trek fans.  Rank the series:
        STNG > Voyager > Original >> Enterprise > DS9
        \_ Hell no. Enterprise was definitely not better than DS9
        \_ DS9 > STNG > TOS > TAS > Enterprise > Voyager
           \_ I can agree with this.
           \_ What is TAS?
              \_ The ASS^WAnimated Series
                 \_ never heard of it.  thanks for the new trivia information.
        \_ TNG > DS9 > E = V  (didn't watch O)
        \_ B5 > Original > STNG > DS9 > Voyager.  Enterprise should never
        \_ Original > STNG > DS9 > Voyager.  Enterprise should never
           even have been made.  I never saw the cartoon.
           even have been made.  I never saw the cartoon. [I said B5.  I meant
           B5.  Don't edit my posts.  Add your own comments if you have
           something to say.]
        \_ not that many ST fans here.
        \_ TOS > TNG s3-7 > DS9 > TNG s1,2 = TAS > Voy
           That TOS is the GREATEST ST EV4R is self evident. No other ST
           show has eps. that come close to 'City on the Edge of Forever',
           'Amok Time', 'The Corbomite Maneuver' [ far better than the
           leem "Picard Maneuver" ], Trouble w/ Tribbles, Devil in the
           \- you must pay me 5cents.
           Dark [ "I'm a doctor not a bricklayer" ], &c.
           TNG also rates lower on than TOS b/c the Enterprise D was such
           a pos ("The Romulans are scowling Captain, sheilds down to 20%").
           It wasn't until the Enterprise E that Picard had a useable ship
           (though the Defiant/San Paolo was still better).
           TNG s3-7 are listed separately b/c TNG s1,2 are weak and s2
           included one of the worst characters in all of ST, Dr. Pulaski.
           She was worse than the retarded genetically enhanced Dr. Bashir
           on DS9.
           Enterprise is not listed b/c it is not Star Trek. It is a piece
           of festering maggot infested rancid week old meet that not even
           vultures will eat.
           A better question is rank the movies:
           TWOK > TVH > FC > TUC > TSFS > TMP > TFF > N > G > I
           Re B5 - What a total piece of crap. JMS sux. If he hadn't killed
                   of Good Kosh and Marcus, then I would say B5 > DS9, but
                   NO JMS had to kill off the two best characters. Not even
                   Garibaldi going rouge, Bad Kosh and the addition of Chekov
                   can redeem JMS. Nothing can.
           -stmg
           \_ STMG, isn't it true that TNG 1&2 were terrible because Rodenberry
              kept trying to recycle old ideas from TOS? Also, isn't it true
              that production values on TOS were so ridiculous that only the
              advent of Blake's 7 showed that you could could throw even less
              money and talent at a SF show and still inspire ludicrous levels
              of fan loyalty?
              \_ TNG s1,2 were awful b/c Rodenberry kept trying to recycle
                 TOS plot ideas that they didn't let him film during TOS b/c
                 everyone knew they sucked  (and then Majel Barrett aka
                 Nurse Chappel aka Loxanna Trio tried to double recycle them
                 for bad Andromeda/Earth Final Conflict plots).
                 I also don't like s1,2 b/c they have the bad uniforms and
                 Riker doesn't have a proper beard.
                 I don't know too much about B7. I try not to associate w/
                 B7 and Dr. Who fans. They are really weird, and totally
                 unlike normal people who watch Star Trek. -stmg
                 \_ Hey!  The correct term for a fan of the longest running
                    sci fi show in history is "Whovian".
                 \_ excellent posts STMG.  I agree Dr. Pulaski is an awful
                    character, and STNG seasons 1&2 were subpar.  I was wishing
                    the old ST came back.  But things got better after
                    season 2.
                    Why don't people like Voyager as much?  I thought it
                    was a good series worthy of the Star Trek name.
                    \_ Voyager had too many tired rehashed plots, and the
                       characters were not strong and didn't seem to have
                       chemistry, and the Vogager ship wasn't interesting.
                       I think the whole thing was sort of been there, done
                       done that. Maybe it would have worked better by being a
                       bit darker and edgier, more towards what Battlestar
                       Galactica is now.
                    \_ Although eps. where 7 walks around w/ in a skin tight
                       suit w/ high heels and a concussion phaser rifle set
                       to kill are entertaining, one gets to the point where
                       one begins to wonder if Jadzia would look better in
                       that outfit. And then one starts to miss Jadzia and
                       then it all goes down hill.
                       BTW have you ever wondered why the Voyager looks like
                       the result of a drunken one night stand between the
                       Enterprise D and the SeaQuest? Maybe Scotty spiked
                       the the Romulan Ale at the Utopia Planitia christmas
                       party some year.
                       BUT I must say that Voyager has ONE redeeming quality:
                       at least it was not Enterprise.
           \_ STMG, you made me laugh. I think that was brilliant. -- jsjacob
           \_ there was a history channel documentary about
                "How William Shatner Changed the World" or something
                like that.
2006/3/13-14 [Computer/SW/Security] UID:42206 Activity:nil
3/13    "Big Boost Begins March 19"
        http://www.actransit.org/news/articledetail.wu?articleid=c1e6ca52
        New transbay bus lines crossing the Bay Bridge and San Mateo Bridge,
        service increase to many existing lines, and the new All Nighter
        service.
2006/3/13-14 [Uncategorized] UID:42207 Activity:nil
3/13    For the person asking about mercury thermometer last week, here's
        another exchange program: http://csua.org/u/f87 (http://www.unionsanitary.com
2006/3/13-14 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42208 Activity:nil
3/13    Okay, the Z Machine produced over 290 terawatts:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_machine
        Please explain again why we can't store this output in some meaningful
        manner for re-use.
        \_ store it in what?  Energon cubes?  Centrifuges?
           \_ ZPMs.  DUH!  Don't you watch SG:Atlantis?
              \_ Exactly, use the fact that the sun will be experiencing
                 increased solar flare activity, thus changing the
                 gravitational constant near the outgoing wormhole, causing
                 you to go back in time, whereby you can find an ancient
                 and ask them how to do it.
                 \_ Or you can do what I do, I just call out "Thor?!  Are you
                    out there?" and he pops in looking like his usual rubbery
                    self.
                    \_ Yeah, he's kind of like a benevolent Q from STNG.
                       \_ But with less power, more needs, and a rubber face.
                       \_ I think Oma is more like Q, only nicer. -stmg
                 \_ Dude, all you need to do is to find an ancient repository
                    of knowledge, d/l the details into your brain, build the
                    storage device and then get Thor to restore your brain.
        \_ It's worth noting that while 290TW is huge, it only produces this
           output for a tiny fraction of a second, so the total energy released
           is not that great.  In any case, the Z-machine is not a power
           generator.  All that energy came from outside the system.
        \_ RTFA: "Z releases 80 times the world's electrical power usage for a
           few trillionths of a second. However, only a small amount of
           electricity is consumed for each test (equal to the usage of 100
           houses for two minutes)."
        \_ Look up ultra capacitors.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-capacitor
2006/3/13-14 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:42209 Activity:nil 57%like:42200
3/11    Americans full of contradictions, and as stupid as ever:
        [URL changed, now deleted, see kais motd]
        \_ Stupid?  Why?  Because a bunch of them don't share your black/white
           views on a very complex and highly charged topic?  If only the
           world was really as simple as you see it....
           \_ The OP is not alone.  http://www.slate.com/id/2137775
              \_ Did you actually read the slate article and compare to what
                 the OP is saying?  They're in different universes from each
                 other.  OP lives in his nice little black'n'white with-me-
                 or-against-me world, the slate article is all about people
                 with a variety of subtle and dare I say nuanced opinions.
                 BTW, thanks for the slate url.
                 \_ One person in the room raised her hand to say there are
                    too many abortions in the US.  No one else did.  Now,
                    do you think the OP is in the camp of that one hand-raiser
                    or of everyone else in the room?
                    \_ Apples.  Oranges.  What's your point?
2006/3/13-14 [Computer/Blog] UID:42210 Activity:nil
3/13    How not to store liquid nitrogen:
        http://csua.org/u/f89 (Corante, Chemist Derek Lowe's blog)
2006/3/13-14 [Recreation/Media] UID:42211 Activity:moderate
3/13    Why I love Walmart.  http://www.slate.com/id/2137955
        \_ That sounds great.  I could actually buy movies I want to see.
        \_ Sounds great.  This is only one step removed from legalized
           download on demand.
        \_ Hey, if Wal-Mart can pay a licensing fee per movie, why can't the
           guy who sells them out of the back of his van?
           \_ Welcome to the 21st century:
              rights of individual / rights of corporations = 0
           \_ Ability to police Walmart >> ability to police white van guy.
              Not to mention, scale of Walmart >> scale of white van guy, so
              ROI on Walmart >> ROI on white van guy.
        \_ FYI, movie ticket cost about $11-$12 USD on some of the nice
           theatres in Beijing.  Consider how much people make there, you
           can do the math.  *FURTHER*  the bigger problem is that the titles
           which is allowed to be shown in mainland is VERY limited.  People
           would much rather go to see an uncensored version on a much cheaper
           price.
           \_ I paid a quarter to see Waterworld in a crappy home theater in
              Xiamen about ten years ago. Despite that being about what the
              movie was worth, we split after fifteen minutes. --erikred
              \_ To apreciate Waterworld, you have to be living and working
                 at sea when you see it.  We used to watch this when I worked
                 on a boat, and it ruled.  "Dry land is not a myth!!!"
                 \- Is this the "have you served" form of movie
                    critic "vetting"?
2006/3/13-14 [Computer/SW/SpamAssassin] UID:42212 Activity:nil
3/13    Help me motd!  My soda email account only receives spam!  No one
        has sent a personal or business related email to my soda account
        in over six months.  Please help me think of use for my soda account
        besides receiving tons of spam and trolling the motd.
         --bored alum
        \_ Sign your name, and we'll see what we can do.
        \_ This is why we all forward our soda mail to our real (doesn't go
           down all the time and run out of quota) mail accounts with an
           automatic spamassassin bonus rating of 1 or 2.  --other alum
           \_ Hear, hear. I don't automatically give soda mail +1 / +2,
              but I think the Bayesian classifier has detected
              the spamminess and effectively does this anyway.
2006/3/13-14 [Uncategorized] UID:42213 Activity:nil
3/13    For those of you in mountain view, this is kinda a neat reference
        (for restaurants and which are open when):
        http://mv-hours.easilyamused.org
2006/3/13-14 [Reference/Tax] UID:42214 Activity:nil
3/13    I'm looking to start some part-time sysadmin contract works. Are there
        any sites that gives you tips on how to start? What kind of accounting/
        billing software can you recommend?
        \_ Unless you plan to hire employees yourself, you don't have to
           do anything.  You will just get a 1099-MISC form instead of
           W-2.  Just make sure you pay estimate tax.
        \_ Make sure the work you do is really 1099 and not 1040 disguised as
           1099.  Know the legal difference between the two.
2006/3/13-14 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42215 Activity:nil
3/13    Gallup Poll has Bush at 36% approval rating.  Now where's the
        motd guy who tells us why this doesn't matter.
        http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/13/bush.poll/index.html
        \_ Hey, I'm still here.  And I still believe it could go to zero and
           wouldn't matter so why would 36% matter to me?  I've explained why
           it doesn't matter.  You've said why you think I'm wrong.  I
           disagree.  Whatever.
           \_ Do you believe that national policy changes only after
              elections?  -tom
              \_ I think the current administration won't change a single
                 thing based on any poll numbers.  Politics is fluid and thus
                 fantastically low poll numbers may have an effect on what
                 Congress does but overall, no in this case I don't think
                 the admin cares about poll numbers or will change anything
                 based on them.  When he rapes a goat on TV I'll be convinced
                 that the followup poll numbers will mean something.  Anyway,
                 his numbers *are* low but still not dramatically lower than
                 other modern presidents at various times during their terms.
                 \_ Bush's lack of popularity has already changed policy;
                    the Dubai deal goes through if his numbers are high, for
                    example.  His administration is more or less crippled
                    right now because he's so unpopular that none of the
                    Republicans want to get behind him.  -tom
                    \_ Dubai is pretty minor as policy issues go.  If he was
                       crippled, the troops would be on their way home right
                       now.  Dubai falls under the "fluidity of politics"
                       concept:  no one wins them all every time and this is
                       one of them.  He lost far more major things earlier
                       when his numbers were higher.  At this point I don't
                       think he has any other major policy initiatives left
                       that haven't either gone through or been shot down so
                       it doesn't really matter, IMO.  If this was a year into
                       his first term, then yeah totally crippled, absolutely
                       I would agree.  But not now.
                       \_ The point is, he can't make any major policy
                          initiatives, because everyone is running away from
                          him.  -tom
                          \_ I understand your point.  As a general concept
                             I don't disagree.  In this case, I do because
                             I don't think he has any initiatives left
                             anyway.
2006/3/13-14 [Computer/Companies/Ebay] UID:42216 Activity:nil
3/13    Who here works at eBay? I have a question WRT feedback policies.
        I hate to do this because my eBay rating is over 100+ and 100%
        positive rating so far-- A newbie buyer on eBay has been harrassing
        me because he's unhappy with an item he bought even though I stated
        clearly what the item is (he didn't read). Now he's asking for full
        refund WITH his shipping as well, and cussing and getting really
        childish about it. Ideally I'd like to warn the rest of the community
        members by giving him a bad feedback. The feedback policy says you
        have 60 days to give a feedback, does that mean you can't give a
        feedback at exactly the 61th day? If so, I'd like to give him a
        bad feedback on the 60th day so that by the time he sees it, he
        can't retaliate anymore.
        \_ ah, feedback sniping.
2006/3/13-14 [Health/Disease/General] UID:42217 Activity:nil
3/13    Might be time to unload cattle futures.
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060313/ap_on_go_ot/mad_cow
        \_ Oh no. Now Japan will never import American beef again.
           \_ Ever!  Because suddenly Japan's land crunch will end!
        \_ buy EMRG
2006/3/13 [Reference/Religion, Recreation/Media] UID:42218 Activity:high 87%like:42219
3/13    Isaac Hayes (Chef) quits South Park over religion:
        http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/03/13/entertainment/e133318S62.DTL
        \_ Dude, he's a Scientologist!  Hah!
2006/3/13-14 [Recreation/Media] UID:42219 Activity:nil 87%like:42218
3/13    Isaac Hayes (Chef) quits South Park over
        religion^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HScientology:
        http://tinyurl.com/lo98q
        \_ Well, in fairness the scientology episode may have awakened him
           to his own hypocrisy, but yeah, probably not.
        \_ "James Taylor, what the hell are you doin' in here?! Singing'
           about prostitutes to the children! Get out of here!"
2006/3/13-14 [Recreation/Computer/Games] UID:42220 Activity:kinda low
3/13    Anyone have an idea where I could find high quality sounds of a
        tank being hit by an AT round and blowing up?  -John
        \_ extract from a movie/DVD/game?
           \_ Many movies/games might just use a generic explosion sound.
        \_ not free: http://www.leonardosoft.com
        \_ My roommate Mike is a sound artist/engineer.  I'll ask him and let
           you know.  He can almost definitely point you to a great non-free
           source, and may know of a good free one. -dans
           \_ That'd be awesome.  I'm helping a friend look around for
              various war-sounds; he's putting together sound packs for a free
              game mod (Forgotten Hope, pretty awesome.)  I dunno if these
              types of companies ever donate anything?  -John
              \_ What game, John? --erikred
                 \_ Ah, BF1942, gotcha. --erikred
                    \_ Forgotten Hope actually--nice historical accuracy mod
                       that's done nutso things with the EA engine.  -John
              \_ To my knowledge, they rarely make donations, but, in recent
                 years they moved from a model of buy this sound library with
                 hundreds of sounds for thousands of dollars, to a model where
                 you can buy just one sound for, say, five bucks. -dans
2006/3/13-16 [Reference/Religion] UID:42221 Activity:high
3/13    The scripture says: "Resist not evil: but whosever shall smite thee on
        thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."
        So after 9/11, shouldn't we have fueled up some planes in SFO and
        invited some Al Qaeda types aboard? Instead of attacking Afghans?
        \_ No, no.  You're interpreting the Bible incorrectly.
        \_ Some Christians would agree with you.  I would say that while I have
           a right to make that decision for myself, I don't for others.  Hence
           there is no conflict between saying, "I personally forgive you your
           transgressions against me" while simultaneously upholding the law,
           or pursuing a war. -emarkp
           \_ What a cop-out.  "I believe in doing this personally, but
              supporting government and social actions that are the opposite"
              \_ No, emarkp is right.  I am only in a position to forgive if
                 I am the person injured.  I am not in a position to forgive
                 for the sake of the 9/11 victims and their family.  For
                 the victims, we seek justice.  Now, does invading Afghanistan
                 in attempt to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and other Al
                 Queda members the right way for justice, that is another
                 question.
                 the victims, we should seek justice.   - christian socialist
                 \_ This implies that seeking "justice" is the default course
                    and doing nothing (which is in action the same as offering
                    forgiveness) is the alternative course of action.
                    \_ If someone is murdered, raped, etc., yes, society
                       should seek justice for the person.  That's why we have
                       laws and the police force.  Yes, justice should be
                       the default cause of action.  And yes, sometimes
                       justice fails to be done, or is difficult to do.
                                                       - christian socialist
                       \_ You're confusing justice with a combination of
                          vengeance and sensible prevention.
                          \_ I think I have given my (or rather emarkp's)
                             answer to the question of "turning the other
                             cheek".  I have no interest in arguing with you.
                                                       - christian socialist
                             \_ In regard to the wars, I supported the one in
                                Afghanistan, grudgingly, but did not like the
                                invasion of Iraq at all.
                                                       - christian socialist
                       \_ Why should we have secular laws and police? God sorts
                          out the good and evil, and provides for the good.
                          \_ No, God want us "loose the chains of injustice
                          \_ God wants us "loose the chains of injustice
                             and untie the cords of the yoke", "provide the
                             poor wanderer with shelter - when you see the
                             naked, to clothe him", "spend yourselves in behalf
                             of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the
                             oppressed".  The parable of the Good Samaritan
                             also tells us that we cannot be apathetic.
                             also tells us that we must not be apathetic.
                                                   - christian socialist
                             \_ Is that reply in the right place? If so, your
                                quotes refer to personal deeds. It doesn't
                                follow that you need a police state to
                                do that stuff. Ask a libertarian.
                                \_ I disagree.  The quotes tell us that
                                   we have to actively fight against
                                   injustice.  Ensuring that our laws are
                                   just and are properly enforced is part
                                   of what we should do.
                                   of that.
                                  \_ Where? The "shelter" and "spend in
                                     behalf of hungry" is philanthropy.
                                     The other stuff is about not exploiting
                                     workers and so forth. In any event none
                                     of it requires setting up a police state
                                     to force everyone to do this; the passages
                                     tell you to do it personally. I find this
                                     contradictory: you are the one claiming
                                     that the "turn the other cheek" only
                                     applies to yourself, and the nation can
                                     justly behave opposite; yet here you
                                     take these words and say they must be
                                     enforced upon everyone.
                                     \_ sorry, but I fail to see what
                                        you are trying to argue about.
                                        also, why do you keep bringing
                                        up "police state"?
                                        \_ heh, you disagreed last time.
                                           this subthread is about the need
                                           for secular laws and police to
                                           enforce them. this is in response
                                           to your claim that we should seek
                                           justice against people who commit
                                           crimes instead of forgiving them.
                                           \_ Ok, but my beef was with
                                              your use of your claim "God sorts
                                              out the good and evil, ...."
                                              as justification for not having
                                              "secular" laws and police.  I don't
                                              see how one follows from the
                                              other.  And I think your claim
                                              and your use of it as justification
                                              showed that you misunderstood
                                              the bible, which is what I was
                                              pointing out with my Isaiah
                                              quotes.
                                              quotes.  As for whether our
                                              current laws and police force
                                              can or should be thrown away,
                                              my answer is "why?".  Instead,
                                              as Christians, we should make
                                              sure they are just.
                                              \_ Well, it's just that
                                                 "turn the other cheek" taken
                                                 far enough would obviate the
                                                 need for punishment of crime.
                                                 Also, OT quotes don't always
                                                 jibe with NT Jesusisms.
                                                 \_ If you want NT, there's the
                                                    Good Samaritan which I
                                                    mentioned above.
        \_ The Koran had something similar.  I don't know why Christians
           automatically assumes that they got the monopoly on all the good
           virtues while neither the Bible nor Koran can control those fanatics
           who slaughters innocents in the name of God.
           \_ I agree with you, except that I take issue with the claim that
              turning the other cheek is a "virtue".
              \_ Depends.  Would you take a nation to war over some tiny
                 sleight?  If not, why not?  Isn't that turning the other
                 cheek?  If someone scratched your car in a parking lot,
                 shouldn't you just kill them on the spot?  Why not?  If your
                 kid came home from schol crying shouldn't you find out why
                 and then kill whoever was responsible?  Why not?  Getting the
                 point now I hope?
                 \_ You realize you're an idiot, I hope?
                    \_ Ok, guess you didn't get the point.  I'm sure ad hominen
                       makes you much smarter than me.
                       \_ Sometimes when someone says something really
                          dumb, there's no point in responding other than
                          to point it out.
                          \_ more ad hominen.  thanks.
                             \_ ad hominem.  Are you sure you even know
                                what the term means?
                                \_ [ > 80 column comment expurgated ]
                                \_the best you can do is a typo slam? whatever.
                                   how about hitting me up for violating the 80\
columns rule too?  Can I get you for starting a sentence with a lower case lette\
r?  I note you don't deny my claim that your entire 'point' is just personal att\
ack and that you completely fail to address my point.
                                   [80 col. please]
                                   how about hitting me up for violating the 80\
columns rule too?  Can I get you for starting a sentence with a lower case lette\
r?  I note you don't deny my claim that your entire 'point' is just personal att\
ack and that you completely fail to address my point.
                                   \_ Uhm, yeah, you missed a 'typo' up
                                      above.  And I'm not the some person
                                      you've been arguing with previously.
                                \_ the best you can do is a typo slam? whatever.
                                   how about hitting me up for violating the 80\
columns rule too?  Can I get you for starting a sentence with a lower case lette\
r?  I note you don't deny my claim that your entire 'point' is just personal att\
ack and that you completely fail to address my point.
                                   [80 col. please]
                                   how about hitting me up for violating the 80\
columns rule too?  Can I get you for starting a sentence with a lower case lette\
r?  I note you don't deny my claim that your entire 'point' is just personal att\
ack and that you completely fail to address my point.
                                   \_ I'm not the same poster you've been
                                      arguing with.  I'm not 'slamming' you,
                                      I'm offering a correction so you don't
                                      look like an ignorant boob that doesn't
                                      even know how to use a spell checker.
                                      Whatever.
                                      \_ Spell check on the motd?  You're
                                         kidding, right?  What the hell for?
                                         The motd is often amusing and
                                         sometimes educational, but not worth
                                         spell checking.  "Whatever".
                                         \_ Uhm, you do know that you can
                                            spellcheck your changes in lieu of
                                            the whole motd, yes?  Wow, I'm
                                            beginning to see why the other guy
                                            resorted to using 'ad hominen' so
                                            readily with you.  You know what?
                                            You win -- be an ignorant boob;
                                            it's your prerogative.  I'm done.
                                            \_ 1) why would I bother? 2) thanks
                                               for the laughs 3) get over it,
                                               its the motd, anyone anal enough
                                               to spell check their motd
                                               entries... well I won't resort
                                               to personal attack.
                 \_ Your "points" don't relate to this scripture. You are
                    saying "don't grossly overreact" but presumably, in your
                    theoretical system, a large offense will merit a large
                    response, which Jesus specifically decries. I don't think
                    there's anything morally interesting in the cases you
                    list.
                    \_ Presumably.  Or not.  You're presuming.  I think Jesus
                       was saying "don't react to petty offenses because the
                       *other* guy is likely to grossly over react".  By not
                       reacting at all you don't provide the other guy with
                       an excuse to over react and likely kill you which was
                       a likely outcome in more primitive times.
                       \_ Personally, I think it's less relevant what Jesus
                          really meant than the fact the "turning the other
                          cheek" has been used by the leaders of Christianity
                          to help enslave the masses for 2000 years.
                          \_ No.  Fear of burning hellfire and not getting into
                             a gold paved heaven has kept the masses in check.
                       \_ Well you are the one trying to say it only applies
                          to "slight" offenses. You pull that from your ass.
                          There's nothing there from which to draw that
                          limitation. But you feel free to invent whatever
                          interpretation you want to justify whatever
                          is convenient for your world view.
                          \_ I expressed my opinion.  You're entitled to
                             yours, whatever it might be since you didn't
                             bother to share it.
                             \_ I already did. I think it means what it says.
                                "Resist not evil." Where do you get this
                                about "petty offenses"?
                                \_ Most of the translations say, "Do not
                                   resist an evil person."  Some say, "Do
                                   not resist an evil person [who injures
                                   you]."  Couple this with the context
                                   (The next passage has "Love your
                                   enemies and pray for those who persecute
                                   you."), and one gets a more complete
                                   picture.  Simplifying to just "Resist
                                   not evil" (which translation did you
                                   get that from?) may mistakenly suggest
                                   not to resist evil even as an abstract
                                   concept or when it is done to others.
                                                    - christian socialist
                                   \_ KJV Matthew 5:38
                                      "Ye have heard that it hath been said,
                                      an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a
                                      tooth: But I say unto you, that ye
                                      resist not evil: but whosoever shall
                                      smite thee on thy right cheek, turn
                                      to him the other also."
                                      There's lots of great stuff in that
                                      chapter that most Christians ignore.
                                      I agree that the meaning of it is
                                      "resist not evil [done to you]" as
                                      opposed to, say, resisting doing evil.
                       \_ I think your interpretation is wrong.  Emarkp's
                          interpretation is correct.   - christian socialist
                          \_ You know for a fact what a guy who died 2000
                             years ago meant based on multiple translations
                             of books written after his death?  Ok.  you're
                             way smarter than me.  I'm going to stick to what
                             I *think* he meant and not make flat out
                             statements of fact about what he meant.  I'm glad
                             to know someone around here has this all worked
                             out as fact.  Let the pope know.
                             \_ ah, interpretation relativism - any one
                                interpretation is as good as another.
                                If you read the whole context (5:38 - 5:42 or
                                the whole of 5), your interpretation don't make
                                sense.  Also, Jesus almost always talk about
                                things that are fundamentally important,
                                whereas your interpretation is more of a
                                "technique".  From "an eye for an eye" to
                                "turning the other cheek" is part of the
                                "from laws to grace and faith" message of
                                Jesus, which runs throughout the NT.
                                                     - christian socialist
                                \_ Relativism?  No.   It's ridiculous to come
                                   here and say he *knows* not only what Jesus
                                   _said_ but what Jesus *meant* as well.
                                   \_ It's obvious what these words mean. I
                                      think it's up to you to show some
                                      reason to ascribe some different
                                      meaning to them.
           \_ Cf. the Hadith collected by Abu-Dawud: http://csua.org/u/f8v :
              "When one of you becomes angry while standing, he should sit
               down. If the anger leaves him, well and good; otherwise he
               should lie down."
        \_ In case you haven't noticed, most ppl are against the war in Iraq,
           not Afghanistan...
        \_ Pertinent question: are you a Xian looking for interpretation of
           scripture, a non-Xian looking to understand why some Xians are for
           war, or a non-Xian looking to criticize Xian support of the war?
           \_ Why does that matter?
              \_ Because if you're either the first or the second, this could
                 be an interesting thread, whereas if you're the last, this is
                 a waste of time.
                 \_ Let's say I'm 2.
                    \_ Then I would suggest that some Xians place more emphasis
                       on OT and/or the fiery evangelist portions of NT than
                       they do on the "Love thy neighbor" portions. It's a big
                       book, with justifications for everybody.
2017/09/25 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/25    
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:March:13 Monday <Sunday, Tuesday>