4/1     April is the cruelest month.
        \_ breeding lilacs out of the dead land,
           mixing memory and desire, stirring dull
           roots with spring rain.

3/31    This thread nuked for lack of context or commentary.

4/1     Whoa! I was gonna delete stupid drivels but someone's been doing it
        for me while I was gone. I don't know who you are but you're doing a
        great job. Team work rules!
        \_ You can't keep the motd censored for several reasons:
           1) there *is* a class of people with more time than the moronic
              self-proclaimed grad student: the multiple government employees
              here who all have scripts that can undo the damage caused with
              a button press who want the motd free of your ugliness.
           2) there are dozens of others who will never stop posting new
              political topics to the motd and restoring censored threads
              when they notice censorship (with their own detect/restore)
              scripts.
           3) they all care about this way more than you do.
           4) you're way outnumbered.
           5) censorship has been tried many times in the past and always
              failed for the above reasons, you're nothing special.
           Good luck with your petty and childish plan to force other people
           to talk about only what you want them to talk about.  If you go
           too far and auto-script it, you *will* get caught and then we'll
           be debating squishing you.  You won't be missed.
           \_ Please don't underestimate the power of super bored grad
              students. We will ILYAS your crap for as long as it is
              necessary. We have the time, and we have the number. There
              is no way you can match our power. Bring it on.          -op
              \_ There's nothing to bring and that's where your plan falls
                 down.  We're just going to keep restoring censored items and
                 adding new ones, business as usual.  You have to go out of
                 your way to censor.  I find it ironic that in order to
                 selectively kill political posts you're going to have to read
                 them.  Welcome to the old world order.
           \_ You have presented the stick, which will win in the end.  Let me
              also introduce the carrot.  OP may not be able to understand
              why some people are interested in what he thinks is "drivel",
              but that "drivel" is part of what keeps dozens of old, experienced
              software and IT professionals reading and posting to the motd for
              years and years.  Those people can answer questions that would
              have taken a lot of work to answer on one's own, and can help
              one find a job.   Think of the politics trolls as a fee you have
              to pay for the service of having this technical forum which
              experienced technical people read and post to.
              \_ All true but I doubt the op cares.  He's going to hide in
                 academia forever where he'll get kudos for spending time
                 re-solving solved problems.
           \_ It's disingenuous to call cleaning up the motd censorship, and
              demeans the damage done by genuine acts of censorship.  The motd
              is a private community resource.  When members of this community
              nuke threads they feel are drivel, it's not censorship, it's a
              speech act that expresses their opinion, namely that those
              threads are a waste of time.  If you so desire, you may express
              your opinion by putting the threads back.  Seriously, if you
              really care about censorship and want to fight it, there are
              *far* more important battles to be fought than on the motd,
              which, when you get right down to it is basically a playground.
              -dans

4/1     Theo's blog:
        http://deraadt.livejournal.com

4/1     A 1st Folio is up for auction in July:
        http://books.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1743711,00.html

4/1     Freepers react to kidnapped reporter saying her statements were
        coerced.  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1607576/posts

4/1     Why does Esquire claim navy is the most versatile suit color?
        It seems to me that charcoal would be...
        \_ Greys and blacks can appear too somber for many events.  A dark
           navy suit is appropriate at somber events like funerals as well as
           more typical, festive events. -dans

4/1     The fellow who as been the editor of the e'ist for the entire adult
        lives for most of you is stepping down. Interesting farewell
        restrospection at:
          http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=6744590
        Main topics: 1. globalization 2. poverty 3.iraq
        --psb
        \_ Synopsis: fact #1 fact #2 ... fact #n ... that's why
           the Iraq War is a good thing and we should redouble our effort."
           Economist's view is that "Conservative think tanks are the
           answer to liberal academia." Go figure.
        \_ thanks for the article.  his big cop out was arguing that
           his support for the Iraq war was right, but that George Bush
           let us down.  Please ... you cannot decide whether to support
           a war without taking into consideration the capabilities of
           the leadership taking charge of the war and its aftermath.
           Even a really good leadership would have a very difficult
           time in the case of Iraq, and would likely make things worse
           instead of better, and also tie us up for a long time.
           That's why the war is a bad idea.  He
           should just say, "we're wrong", and I will have more
           respect for him.  I like Economist better before him
           Economist also become more pro-American from a
           politics standpoint instead of representing a more multi-
           faceted worldview.  I don't necessarily disagree with that,
           but alternate viewpoints tend to be fresher and more
           interesting, as opposed to feeling like just another
           US based rag.
           \_ He should have been more skeptical, but many thinking people,
              myself included, had no inkling of a clue that this would be
              so horribly mismanaged.  Afghanistan was pulled off fairly
              handily, and despite it being pretty obvious from the get-go
              that the whole WMD thing was a sham, I am still in favor of the
              invasion of Iraq, for reasons I've stated repeatedly.  There
              is no inconsistency in that article whatsoever.  -John
              \_ Actually many thinking people, myself included, know that
                 the aftermath would be terribly difficult to manage.
                 That he didn't have a clue, doesn't mean he was dumb,
                 but it does mean he was wrong.  Afghanistan was a country
                 that was totally exhausted from years of war, and anything
                 was better than the Taliban, and there was international
                 support, and Osama bin Laden was there, so our goal and
                 aim was clear.  OBL was our target.  Nation building was
                 a secondary goal.  If it worked out, great, if it didn't,
                 it was okay.
           \- I wish he had used stronger words of condemnation too
              but he does say: 1. maybe we should have been more skeptical
              of governments, as we are inclined to be 2. recall they did
              run a cover story called RUMSFELD RESIGN ... did any other
              not-obviously left papers say anything comparable?
              not-obviously-left papers say anything comparable?
                  I supported an Administration I didnt
                  trust believing that the consequences
                  would repay the gamble. Now I realize
                  that intentions do shape consequences.
                    --Michael Ignatieff, NYT Magazine
              --psb
              \_ I wrote the above before reading the last
                 paragraph, so yes, it's a little bit better,
                 but I think my above comments stand.
                 The other change for the worse, at least from
                 my standpoint, is a shift in weight towards
                 an Atlantic centric coverage.  There also seems to
                 my standpoint, is a slight shift in weight towards
                 a Atlantic centric coverage.  There also seems to
                 my standpoint, was a shift in weight towards
                 an Atlantic centric coverage.  There also seemed to
                 be a change in the people covering asia, or at
                 least east asia.  I find the analysis and
                 insights not as astute as before.  One example
                 was the coverage of Taiwan politics, for
                 instance.  The Economist was all enamoured
                 was the coverage of Taiwan politics.
                 The Economist was all enamoured
                 with the "upstart" DPP and Chen Shui Bian,
                 Taiwan's current president.  I haven't read
                 Taiwan's current president.  I haven't read a
                 single article even slightly negative about
                 him since his first election 6 years ago.
                 Such one-sided coverage is more akin to
                 Newsweek as opposed to the old Economist.
                 Newsweek than to the old Economist.
                 Economist is still good, but my favourite
                 these days is WSJ.  And I agree with the
                 poster below about the jab at China.  China
                 pretty much laid out its bottomline pretty
                 laid out its bottomline pretty
                 clearly.  And the likeliest miscalculation
                 would be from the Taiwan side, at least for
                 the coming few years. 15 years from now, it's
                 the coming few years. 10 years from now, it's
                 harder to say.  What do you think of the
                 Economist's coverage of South Asia?  I don't
                 know enough about the region to judge.
                 Economist's coverage of India?  I don't know
                 enough about India to judge.
        \_ I think he completely down-played China's role on reducing
           proverty.  Instead, he emphasis on China might 'mis-calculate"
           over issue of Taiwan.  If he actually pays attention to the issue
           of two Chinas, he will know it's Taiwan that has been provoking
           the mainland for past 10-13 years.
           \_ There is only one China.
              \_ Agree, and it is called Taiwan.        -FreeTai Troll
                 \_ you mean Chinese Republic :p
           \- the e'ist takes jabs at lots of people. like the "greetings
              earthlings" cover, the man-mountain kohl cover, poking at the
              french, the notorious "chink in their armor" comment etc.
        \_ I second the thanks for the link and the frustration with
           his analysis of the Iraq war. Most galling is his comment that
           given the information at the time, invasion was the right decision.
           Regardless of whether or not Saddam was trying to develop WMD,
           it was clear that he was not a threat to anyone in the region,
           much less the Europe or the US. Unfortunately, at the time, it was
           made to seem that the opposition to the war came mainly from
           intelligent, though admitedly lunitic fringe types like Chomsky and
           Said, but many respectable people who concede that force is
           occasionaly necessary were also against it. Here's Ken Waltz's take
           on it at the time:
                http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people3/Waltz/waltz-con6.html
           (I'm not sure who this is aimed at, as psb probably knew that, and
           the ecst doesn't read the motd...) Bill Emmott did win points in
           my book when he wrote that letter to Dan Savage, though.
           \_ What about all those blank missiles Chine fired towards
              Taiwan? What do you call that? Fuck you ChiCom.  -Free Taiwan
           \_ It's very simple:  Taiwan will never willingly join the PRC
              until the PRC gets its shit together and creates
              until the government gets its shit together and creates
              a predictable, fair and democratic form of government.
              \_ It's not so simple.  TW's government is so fucked up and
                 current government is not even legit in many people's eye
                 due to election fraud back in 2004.
             \_ Which govt?  Taiwan, PRC, or US?
                \_ All three. When all of them function with integrity
                   and honesty like Denmark, we'll all live in harmony.
                \_ ^government^PRC
             \_ I was under the impression Taiwan was basically an oligarchy
                these days anyway.
                \_ And what in the world gives you that impression?  They
                   have more parties that could legitimate win the election
                   each year than we have here in the US with our two party
                   system.
                   \_ you have no idea.  The comment on oligarchy is actually
                      a more accurate description of TW's politics today.
                      \_ Feel free to qualify your statements at any time.