Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:April:06 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ
http://csua.com/feed/
2006/4/6 [Computer/SW/Security] UID:42696 Activity:high
4/5     Problem: sshd acting weird. Platform: Linux 2.6.x. Symptoms: Ssh
        connection got stuck all of a sudden. Cannot ssh into the machine.
        Ping ok, and apache2 apparently working. Console log-in takes +5 min &
        nothing weird in /var/log/*.log. Restarted sshd a few times, no luck.
        Restarted the machine, everything's normal. Two hours later, sshd
        is weird again. Same symptoms. What are some possible culprits?
        \_ NIS or NFS?
        \_ Hmm... any chance you have a bad disk?  sshd's virtual memory is
           writing to bad blocks, which causes it to run very slow?  Or the
           blocks where your auth.log or something else that gets written to
           on login? -dans
2006/4/6-7 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42697 Activity:high
4/5     What do you think the optimal human population of the Earth would be?
        As in, what would provide the best balance of happy, safe population,
        with enough people to conduct large-scale projects but minimize
        competition for resources and damage to the environment?
        What benefit is there, given current tech and resources, to having
        more than say 500 mil people living at once?
        \_ Why is 500 million people the mark?  Why not 6.7 billion, the
           current population?  I've heard people argue that the population
           will level off in the next 50 years, but don't know enough facts to
           know if I should beliieve it or not. -dans
           \_ Issue of poverty and population can be best examplified by
              records of Imperial China.  Through out the imperial history,
              Emperor was obsessed with "average agriable land area per
              person" as leading economic indicator.  "Economic stimulous"
              usually involves on how to increase "agriable" land, and
              irrigation infrastures.  It is true, that at much poverty was
              due to imbalance in land ownership.  But at some point,
              one would reach the limit of how much agriable land one can
              increase... limited by amount of water.   Yellow River used to
              be larger than Mississippi.  It has literally being sucked
              dry.  Not to mention completely destruction of natural habitat.
           \_ Because with the current population, the majority of the people
              live in poverty, and we have a lot of pollution and environmental
              concerns, and resource scarcity such as oil. With 500 mil
              worldwide, we could all be relatively rich, and live in nice
              places on the coast and such. Why is more better given the cost?
              I doubt the population will level off soon globally (why will it
              exactly?) but that is sort of irrelevant to my question.
              \_ There is far more than enough food around today to feed
                 everyone, and enough space to house everyone.  Poverty is
                 more due to inefficiencies in distribution and excessive
                 concentration of population than overpopulation.  How you'd
                 solve this I don't know (we've seen that planned economies
                 don't help.)  I think dans touches on a good point below,
                 that agrosubsidies in the rich world are a start.  Now when
                 you start hitting 10-15 billion people, that's a new
                 ballgame.  As for the "500 million people would all be rich
                 and happy", that's illusory; you wouldn't have the
                 concentrations of population to maintain a modern industrial
                 society.  Maybe when we have robots for everything, that'll
                 be true.  -John
                 \_ "There is far more than enough food" -- assuming oil &
                     natural gas are cheap and plentiful.  It took 10 calories
                     of fossil fuel to produce every 1 calorie you are
                     consuming.
                 \_ I question the "more than enough food"... at least, I am
                    approaching the question not as what is physically possible
                    but what is optimal, i.e. what is most sustainable and
                    pleasant for those who are alive. I don't think it's
                    illusory; you would have as much industrial concentration
                    as is necessary... you wouldn't need that much of it and
                    anyway, modern industrial society has a lot of problems
                    and isn't unquestionably good as it currently exists.
                    \_ No, my poiont was that given what we currently have, 5
                       to 6 billion is very sustainable in terms of food,
                       resources and comfortable living space.  It should be
                       a breeze keeping everyone fed and housed; the fact that
                       we are unable to allocate limited resources in a more
                       efficient (note that I don't say equitable) manner,
                       at least to some sizeable degree due to hokum such as
                       agrosubsidies, is pretty lamentable.  I fear that 10
                       to 15 billion won't work out terribly well, although I
                       think it's possible--but we'll have a fairly unpleasant
                       time figuring out how to manage.  In the meantime,
                       stupid shit like the catholic church railing against
                       contraception is pretty worthy of a good smacking. -John
                    Anyway I take it your answer is 10-15 billion? I think
                    many people seem to approach this issue as "how many CAN
                    we have" rather than thinking what is optimal.
                    \_ No, my poiont was that given what we currently have, 5
                    \_ No, my point was that given what we currently have, 5
                       to 6 billion is very sustainable in terms of food,
                       resources and comfortable living space.  It should be
                       a breeze keeping everyone fed and housed; the fact that
                       we are unable to allocate limited resources in a more
                       efficient (note that I don't say equitable) manner,
                       at least to some sizeable degree due to hokum such as
                       agrosubsidies, is pretty lamentable.  I fear that 10
                       to 15 billion won't work out terribly well, although I
                       think it's possible--but we'll have a fairly unpleasant
                       agrosubsidies, is pretty lamentable.  We also have the
                       technology to grow massive amounts of food in a fairly
                       sustainable manner; we don't because it's currently
                       uneconomical to do so.  I'm also convinced
                       that getting rid of a lot of the mechanisms standing in
                       the way of getting people fed would create more
                       prosperity for a lot of the currently "poor" world, and
                       prosperous people tend to crank out fewer babies.  I
                       fear that 10 to 15 billion will be very tough, albeit
                       somehow possible--but we'll have a fairly unpleasant
                       time figuring out how to manage.  In the meantime,
                       stupid shit like the catholic church railing against
                       contraception is pretty worthy of a good smacking. -John
                       \_ It may be sustainable. But is it better than if we
                          had 500 million instead? Would those 500 mil be
                          better off? That's my point. I guess it's debatable
                          whether, if that's so, we should expand to 10 billion
                          and be more crowded and "rat-racey" just for the sake
                          of having more people living at once... it's not
                          clear to me that there's any benefit to that.
                          \_ I can't argue whether it'd be "better" or not--I
                             suppose this goes pretty strongly into subjective
                             criteria.  I like having big cities available,
                             but I'm not fan of huge crowds; off the top of my
                             head, I'd state a number of around 1-3 billion as
                             "optimal", but that's just an unfounded guess as
                             to how you'd have enough nice seaside plots for
                             everyone available.  -John
              \_ Is poverty a function of population, or a function of
                 relative wealth?  If it's the latter it won't go away by
                 decreasing the population.  Did you know that we produce way
                 more food than the current population of the food can
                 consume?  Unfortunately, between subsidies and transportation
                 costs, it is not economically viable to ship food from the US
                 and Europe to feed starving Africans.  Sad but true.  The
                 argument for population levelling off is that population in
                 developed countries is in decline (or expected to in the next
                 1-3 decades), and that population in the developing world is
                 stabilizing due to hunger, disease, etc.. -dans
                 \_ Well I understand that removing population also removes
                    output obviously... but the fact remains that certain
                    things are obviously limited such as land and oil.
                    Lots of related environmental issues to that. And just the
                    simple economics of everyone owning a nice home instead of
                    being, say, packed into apartment blocks. Food is not
                    a big problem right now, however, there are related
                    issues to ever-increasing productivity demands and
                    industrial farming, and issues such as collapse of fishing
                    stocks. Pollution output would be much more manageable.
                    Relative wealth isn't much of an issue in a world without
                    such inherent scarcity of productive land, water, etc.
                    (re: stabilization due to hunger/disease... the quality of
                    life by this point is atrocious. Plus they colonize other
                    places... Europe is on a path towards a Muslim majority.)
                    Could we sustain the consumption level of the first world
                    for all the current population? I doubt it. I think
                    increasing pop to the point where it's leveled by hunger
                    and disease is clearly not optimal.
                    \_ I share many of the doubts you have, but I disagree
                       with your implication that they are foregone
                       conclusions.  Economists at beginning of the 20th
                       century projected that the world would be buried in
                       horse manure if the population trend and use of horses
                       for transportation continued.  What they didn't predict
                       was the rise of automobiles.  What point are you trying
                       to make about the growth of the Muslim population in
                       Europe?  Are you suggesting that Muslim culture is
                       somehow backwards or incompatible with traditional
                       Western culture?  Sure, the news is full of examples of
                       this, but you're also conveniently ignoring the
                       millions of Muslims peacefully co-existing in Europe
                       today that serve as the counter-example.
                       Unfortunately, $ETHNIC_MINORITY peacefully co-existing
                       usually isn't newsworthy.  Many people are happy to
                       live in crowded cities, New York, San Francisco, and
                       Tokyo all serve as examples of this. -dans
                       \_ That point was simply that third-world immigrants
                          can and do come in to places where growth might
                          otherwise have stopped, and apparently retain high
                          growth rates. Please don't insinuate all this stuff
                          where it's not warranted.
                          \_ Moving people from place A to place B does not
                             create a net growth in population. -dans
                             \_ Not directly but it does allow a growing
                                population more room to continue high growth
                                rates.  There's a minimum amount of food, water
                                etc etc that each person needs to survive.  By
                                spreading out, there will be more people after
                                a generation or two than there would have been
                                otherwise.
                                \_ That's a rather simplistic model.  As I
                                   understand it, developed countries are
                                   expected to have zero or negative population
                                   growth rates even after you account for
                                   immigration and the possibility that
                                   immigrants will exceed the local birth
                                   rate.  You seem to make many of the same
                                   wrong assumptions that proponents of planned
                                   (ne utopian) communities, population
                                   controls, and eugenics made in the early
                                   20th century. -dans
                                   \_ you seem to misunderstand what i'm saying
                                      and actually make one of my points in
                                      your response.  the region the people
                                      are moving to overall may end up with
                                      zero population growth as you say but
                                      that is only because the new comers
                                      are in fact continuing to breed at
                                      higher rates, as i said.
                                      \_ Net zero or net negative.  If the
                                         same immigrants did not move to
                                         developed countries, do you think
                                         they would have fewer, the same, or
                                         more children in their country of
                                         origin?  If you think they would have
                                         more children in their country of
                                         origin, how many do you think would
                                         survive to adulthood? -dans
                                         \_ I think in many cases they have
                                            more than they would at home. Their
                                            kids are cared for and educated by
                                            welfare networks and the parents
                                            are also taken care of with
                                            generous unemployment support and
                                            maternity sabbaticals. I think
                                            one reason growth rates are low
                                            in EU and Japan is the high freedom
                                            of women. Culturally, third world
                                            women don't have this freedom and
                                            this is also embodied into orthodox
                                            Muslim religion. But like I said
                                            originally, this whole argument is
                                            a tangent. -op
                                            \_ Tangent to what?  What is your
                                               point?  You can't have a
                                               discussion about the `optimal'
                                               population without considering
                                               that maybe this will be
                                               acheived naturally without
                                               human meddling.  Growth rates
                                               \_ What? Why not? It's really
                                                  _not_that_complicated_.
                                                  I didn't talk about making it
                                                  so, just what it might be.
                                               in the US are low too.  The
                                               above ideas about welfare
                                               networks and `generous
                                               unemployment support' are not
                                               particularly informed.  Also,
                                                 \_ Ok, why not?
                                               did you know that the infant
                                               mortality rate for families
                                               below the poverty line in the
                                               US is incredibly high?  The
                                               under 18 mortality rate for
                                               people below the poverty line,
                                               which includes infant mortality,
                                               is also very high.  You asked
                                                 \_ ok... so is that good?
                                                    maybe there wouldn't be
                                                    that kind of poverty if
                                                    there were a few billion
                                                    less humans.
                                               about the `optimal' population
                                               of the earth.  That is,
                                               frankly, a very scary idea
                                               couched in unassuming, sterile
                                               scientific terms.  There are
                                               only two ways to reach the
                                               optimal population:
                                               One is to let nature take its
                                               course and hope things balance
                                               out.  This is scary because, it
                                               might not work out and we might
                                               make ourselves extinct.  Then
                                               again, a combination of human
                                               ingenuity, foresight, and
                                               nature's funny habit of
                                               balancing things out might save
                                               us.
                                               \_ My question wasn't so much
                                                 directed at fears for survival
                                                  but on the academic question
                                                  of whether we'd all be better
                                                  off with fewer people.
                                               The other is to assert an
                                               optimal population number, and
                                               try to engineer society to meet
                                               it.  This is really scary
                                               because the only way to do this
                                               is for someone(s) to
                                               subjectively decide who
                                               deserves to live, and who
                                               should be killed (or not
                                               allowed to live in the first
                                               place).  If you cannot see why
                                               this is a sick idea, you have a
                                               serious problem. -dans
                                               \_ Again, this is all a bunch of
                                                  irrelevant posturing. You
                                                  freak out at the implications
                                                  of the question, but those
                                                  implications are your own
                                                  unwarranted fantasies.
                                   \_ What wrong assumptions? Who expects this
                                      growth rate and for how long into the
                                      future? The point is, the Europeans
                                      themselves that have low growth aren't
                                      even a major factor. It's the rest of
                                      the world that's growing, and declining
                                      Euros means a demographic shift.
                                      Growth is exponential.
        \_ I mean this in the most genial way possible, but I think there's
           a problem with the phrasing of the question. The issue is not
           population control; it's lack of frontier. We need to terraform
           some other planet, and quickly.
           \_ yeah, because Europe has so many fewer people now than it did
              before they colonized the Americas.  -tom
           \_ It's a simple question given the current technology and situation
              which won't include a terraformed alien planet in the foreseeable
              future (at least not supporting a significant pop). So, what's
              the problem? Your answer is not to answer and just say we need
              frontier. But we don't have it so that's a non-answer.
              \_ What I'm trying to say is that thinking in terms of
                 conservation is smart, but devoting all of our energy to that
                 and none to solving the problem of limits is not.
                 \_ There *is* no realistic frontier.  Period.  Any possible
                    frontier offplant is tens of generations away from being
                    viable, and will never absorb significant "excess"
                    population.  Unlimited energy could allow undersea
                    living in artificial habitats, and underground living,
                    but is that any way for humans to live?
                    \_ Yes. Make it possible, and see who goes for it.
2006/4/6-7 [Science/Space] UID:42698 Activity:nil
4/5     Transitional form of water to land animal found:
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1748005,00.html
2006/4/6-7 [Reference/History/WW2/Japan, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42699 Activity:nil
4/5     Amusing little short story by Dan Simmons
        http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message.htm
        \_ After having slogged through Illium let me just say, wow
           he can write crappy short stories as well!
        \_ I prefer the smooth stylings of Don "No Soul" Simmons.
2006/4/6-7 [Reference/Law/Court, Recreation/Media] UID:42700 Activity:nil
4/6     Netflix sues Blockbuster for patent infringement:
        http://tinyurl.com/qvqpw (reuters.com)
2006/4/6-7 [Reference/RealEstate] UID:42701 Activity:nil
4/6     I *THINK* I know how to calculate "time value of money." and I
        know how to convert APR to "real interest."  But I don't know
        how to calculate mortgage payment. The part that I don't understand
        is for monthly payment, there is a certain percentage of it goes
        toward principle.  But the percentage (of total monthly payment)
        is different from payment to payment.  Where can I find the
        math/formula on how to calculate this percentage?  Thanks.
        \_ Look for "amortization".
        \_ Look up "amortization".
           http://www.hughchou.org/calc/formula.html
2006/4/6-7 [Uncategorized] UID:42702 Activity:nil
4/6     I know nothing about finances, but I do want to start learning
        about it. Does anyone have any recommendations (books/websites/
        anything) that offers a good, thorough overview of what I should
        know? People in the know have said to "find a good mentor", but
        unfortunately I don't have accesss to anyone with those skills.
        Any ideas? Thanks.
2006/4/6-7 [Uncategorized] UID:42703 Activity:nil
4/6     For Able Danger/Curt Weldon #1 fan guy:
        http://mydd.com/story/2006/4/6/143946/4292
        You trust this guy?
2006/4/6-7 [Computer/SW/Security, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:42704 Activity:nil
4/5     Problem: sshd acting weird. Platform: Linux 2.6.x. Symptoms: Ssh
        \_ I thought Soda ran FreeBSD
        connection got stuck all of a sudden. Cannot ssh into the machine.
        Ping ok, and apache2 apparently working. Console log-in takes +5 min &
        nothing weird in /var/log/*.log. Restarted sshd a few times, no luck.
        Restarted the machine, everything's normal. Two hours later, sshd
        is weird again. Same symptoms. What are some possible culprits?
        \_ NIS or NFS?
        \_ Hmm... any chance you have a bad disk?  sshd's virtual memory is
           writing to bad blocks, which causes it to run very slow?  Or the
           blocks where your auth.log or something else that gets written to
           on login? -dans
        \_ NFS mounted home dir on remote file server.  DNS lookup failure
           on that NFS mount, or DNS reverse lookup failure on remote host
           but the console login delay implies NFS failure.  Or it could be
           something entirely different.  :-)  But I'd check those two first.
2006/4/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:42705 Activity:nil
4/6     Man tells Dubya he has never been more ashamed of the leadership of
        his country at North Carolina town hall
        http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060406/480/ncgh11404061755
        (Notice the audience reaction)
        \_ What about the reaction are we supposed to notice?
           \_ doesn't it look a bit like Jerry Springer?
2006/4/6-7 [Computer/SW/Security, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:42706 Activity:low
4/6     /var/mail is full.  I'd mail root, but...
        \_ soda: [~] % du -h /var/mail/kislyuk
                      16G    /var/mail/kislyuk
           \_ Last login Sun Dec  4 18:44 (PST) on ttyB5 from ....
           New mail received Thu Apr  6 09:12 2006 (PDT)
                Unread since Sat Dec  3 12:47 2005 (PST)
           \_ Isn't there a 25M quota on /var/mail?  How did it get to 16G?
2006/4/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42707 Activity:high
4/6     http://nysun.com/timesleak.php
        Original New York Sun story on Bush involvement in leak.  Basically,
        according to Libby's grand jury testimony:
        (1) The NIE (the official joint judgment of all the intelligence
            agencies) disputed Joe Wilson's criticisms about Iraq uranium
        (2) Bush told Cheney to get the NIE information out.
        (3) Cheney told Libby this.
        (4) Libby asked Cheney's lawyer, David Addington.  The lawyer said
            Bush's permission to disclose "amounted to a declassification of
            the document"
        (5) Libby told Judy Miller, et al.
        Therefore, Libby never leaked classified information, because what he
        said became unclassified the moment Bush said to get it out.
        \_ But then later they claimed it was still classified, and they hadn't
           bothered to tell anyone else that they had declassified it.
        \_ I'm relieved, for a moment I thought that both Bush and Cheney had
           committed treason! Now I know better ... The [Vice] President has
           the authority to give aid and comfort to our enemies legally, since
           if they do it, it can't be illegal!
        \_ For those interested, backup on point 4 from 2003 -op
        \_ For those interested, backup on point 4
           http://hnn.us/articles/1753.html
           For completeness, an article questioning the declassification
           powers of Dick Cheney -op
           http://csua.org/u/fgb (fas.org)
        \_ "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know
           Who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference
           during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person
           has violated law, that person will be taken care of.
           "I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the
           Justice Department will do a good job.
           I want to know the truth," the president continued.
           Leaks of classified information are bad things." -Dubya 2/2004
           Justice Department will do a good job. I want to know the truth,"
           the president continued. Leaks of classified information are
           bad things." -Dubya 2/2004
           I guess it all means what is is, right?
           He added that he did not know of "anybody in my administration who
           leaked classified information."
           \_ See "became unclassified the moment Bush said to get it out".
              \_ Some pigs are more equal than other pigs.
        \_ I should also note that the NIE was wrong about the vigorous attempt
           to obtain uranium (recall that the Duelfer report said that Saddam
           was trying his best to keep his programs dormant so he could escape
           sanctions, after which he would resuscitate the WMD programs as soon
           as people stopped looking), and Wilson's findings about the Niger
           forgeries were right, but didn't make it into the NIE for reasons I
           would say are due to a spectactular combination of incompetence and
           intent to get Saddam.  Cf. the delay of the investigation into the
           political use of Iraq intelligence that was promised after the '04
           election. -op
2006/4/6-7 [Reference/Law/Court, Computer/SW/Security] UID:42708 Activity:kinda low
4/6     http://csua.org/u/fg6 (orlandosentinel.com)
        Lawyer for DHS ICE Operation Predator chief (who pleaded no contest
        to exposing sexual organs and disorderly conduct), says he could have
        won the case:
        "The victim's account is not credible, Phillips said, saying that if
        the teen could see 2 centimeters of flesh from 20 feet away when others
        sitting much closer to Figueroa didn't notice anything, 'she has the
        visual acuity of most birds of prey.'"
        \_ 2 centimeters? Now I feel sorry for the guy ...
        \_ It's not too hard to see 2cm at 20 feet distance.
        \_ He thinks the average juror Joe would know how long a centimeter is?
        \_ because clearly, 20 feet from someone is a safe distance to be
           masturbating.
2006/4/6-7 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:42709 Activity:nil
4/6     What's the name of some free Windows software that lets
        me burn a bunch of files to a DVD?  The builtin CDR writing
        stuff isn't working for me.
        \_ BurnISO?  Don't know if it does DVD
2006/4/6-7 [Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:42710 Activity:moderate
4/6     Deal Would Put Millions on Path to Citizenship
        http://csua.org/u/fg7 (nytimes.com)
        Tancredo / Pence 2008
        \_ curious... what is wrong with deporting 12 million of illegal
           immigrants?
        \_ I believe the strategery is for Dubya to publicize his guest worker
           program as much as possible to obtain Latino support, but count on
           the House to make sure nothing changes (no guest worker program,
           illegal immigrants remain illegal and still provide cheap labor)
           illegal immigrants remain illegal and still providing cheap labor)
           to retain conservative support and to not be blamed for the fucking
           of the economy.
        \_ Here's the reward for breaking the law.
        \_ You know in the UK if you live there for 10 years, legal or not,
           you get citizenship.  (It only takes 5 if you are legal.)  These
           sorts of things are not uncommon.
           \_ pls post this to http://freerepublic.com and watch yourself get
              banned in < 1 hour.  Try here:
              http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1610298/posts
           \_ URL please?
           \_ Well, no.  I refer you to the British Home Office
              http://csua.org/u/fgd .  "276B. The requirements to be met by
              an applicant for INDEFINITE LEAVE TO REMAIN on the ground of
              long residence in the United Kingdom are that: (i) (a) he has
              had at least 10 years continuous lawful residence in the United
              Kingdom; or (b) he has had at least 14 years continuous
              residence in the United Kingdom." [emphasis added].  So 1) you
              got the time frame wrong, and 2) the long residence applicant
              get an "indefinite leave to remain" and not "citizenship".
              residence in the United Kingdom... (ii) having regard to the
              public interest there are no reasons why it would be
              undesirable..." [emphasis added].  So 1) you got the time frame
              wrong, 2) the long residence applicant get an "indefinite
              leave to remain" and not "citizenship", and 3) subject to
              discretion of the Home Office.
2006/4/6-7 [Reference/Military, Politics/Domestic/President] UID:42711 Activity:low
4/6     Lookout! The elite Venezuelan housewife army is ready to repel any
        US invasion.
        http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060403/wl_nm/venezuela_reservists_dc_1
        \_ If they're anything like the S. American women I've been running
           into, they'll sit around overweight in ugly dresses and sneer
           a lot.  Real deadly.  -John
           \_ Sucks to be you. Where are all the Miss Universe contestants?
              I have a Colombian friend and she is gorgeous. Thin. Tall. Fair
              complexion. Big eyes. Amazing cheekbones. Overall, I think
              South American women are some of the most beautiful in the
              world, especially if they have a lot of Spanish blood.
        \_ I thought it was about a new porn site ......
        \_ Is it lead by Alicia Machado?  I sure would want to invade to face
           her on muddy battleground.
2006/4/6-7 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:42712 Activity:nil
4/6     Commerical plug-in mod for a hybrid:
        http://www.edrivesystems.com/news.html
        \_ so $1 will save you...$1
2006/4/6-7 [Computer/SW/Database] UID:42713 Activity:kinda low
4/6     mysql expert, I've created a db with mixed innodb and isam tables.
        The isam tables have *.MYD and *.MYI (data and index). However the
        innodb tables only have a small *.FRM file. Copying isam tables
        works (when your db is shutdown) but it's not true with innodb.
        Where is the actual data and index located for innodb and how
        do you copy them? Thanks.
        \_ IANAE, but... the data is inside the ibdata* files (see
           innodb_data_file_path setting, but probably named ibdata[0-9]+).
           You can copy them just as you do the myisam files, when the server
           is shutdown.  There is no (free) way to do copies while the db is
           up (can't lock table like you can with myisam) but Innobase, sells
           an ibbackup tool. http://www.innodb.com/order.php -dwc
           \_ oh yea... if you're using 4.1 you could have per-table
              tablespaces.  See
              http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/multiple-tablespaces.html
2006/4/6-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:42714 Activity:moderate
4/6     BTW, this is another (long) artcle generating some waves:
        http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
        [SWALT is PhD ucb dept political scence, probably under KWALTZ].
        \_ I'm about halfway through but right in the opening paragraphs these
           guys are already making opinion based statements as statements of
           fact and have yet to back them up.  Maybe in the last half of the
           paper they'll come through and actually back up their opinions with
           something.  I doubt it though.  If I'd turned in this for any of
           my rhetoric classes I'd get a B- if I was lucky and the instructor
           liked me.  It's a good thing these guys are in PoliSci and not
           Rhetoric.
                \- Something like "Israel gets 1/5th of us foreign aid budget"
                   is a fact. Did you ever take a rhetoric class from
                   judith butler: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n16/butl02_.html
                   What grade would you give her article? [I think the
                   first paragraph is good raising the issue of "intention"
                   being key to anti-sematism, but the rest of the article
                   "making the point jews" != "israel" is too long.
        \_ I hope Jews knows that such action of hijacking American foreign
           policy will eventually backlash and rightfully flares anti-semitism
           to protect US Interest.
           \_ ZOG IS TAKING OVER THE WORLD!  ITS THE JEWS!  KILL THE JEWS!
              THEY OWN THE BANKS, THE MEDIA, THE INTARWEB AND NOW THEY OWN
              US FOREGIN POLICY!!1  ZOG IS HERE!  ZOG IS EVERYWHERE!  THINK
              OF THE CHILDREN!
        \_ Now I am really worried after I read this.  I am worry that USA
           is REALLY going to attack Iran...
           \- wow, that was fast. i got 3paragraphs in and got depressed
              and put it off. you may want to read the 80pp long "academic"
              version of the paper. BTW, WALT and MEARSHIMER are top top
              people in their field. they arent random people nobody had
              ever heard of until they wrote this. i had not previously heard
              of the fellows who wrote the FA article below and dont have a
              sense of their reputation and track record.
2006/4/6-7 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:42715 Activity:moderate
4/6     Another violator of Nuclear NPT... Let's bring this topic to the
        Security Concil and impose economic sanction...  wait... how to impose
        economic sanction upon ourselves?
        http://tinyurl.com/j6dfn  (LA Times)
        \- i dont think the analysis in this FA article is good, but there are
           some interesting facts in it: http://csua.org/u/fgi ... and it is
           generating some waves. i think that gaidar fellow in his comments
           raises the reasonable matter of "why should the us expect cooper-
           ation on iraq if the us is switching to a warfighting rather than
           deterrance stance." [it is possible the casualness of the argument
           is because it is in foreign affairs. i note the footnote a "more
           detailed article" in the forthcoming issue of IS, which may be
           better, but i doubt it]. --psb
           \_ this is why I don't believe in NNPT.  Without any sort of
              check and balance, USA *WILL* use nuclear weapon at their
              free will.
              \_ The USA had nukes long before anyone else.  We had the rest
                 of the world on it's knees, the only healthy economy, an
                 incredible industrial base, unmatched military might, bases
                 all over the world, an incredible logistics system and what
                 did the evil Americans do?  We rebuilt the world.
                 \- the us promoted free trade, the us loaned people money
                    [and set up the BW institutions], the us provided a
                    giant market ... "the us rebuilt the world" is like
                    ALGOR inventing the internet.
                    \_ Don't let history hit your ass on your way out the
                       door.  The US actively built and provided money to
                       rebuild the world.  And even if your version was the
                       only thing the US did that's still infinitely far from
                       what any and every other country in the history of the
                       world has or would have done in a similar position.
                       \- I think you've made the point you are a clown
                          quite nicely, e.g. "the us had nukes long before
                          anyone else" etc.
                       Thanks for helping to make my point.
        \_ They're going to modernize our nuclear arsenal, and with it they'll
           build a satellite controlled system to control and guide these
           missiles. THe system will of course be decentralized, and they'll
           call it SkyNet.
2006/4/6-7 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA] UID:42718 Activity:nil
4/6     If you want to shot down Taiwan's "Air Force One," here is a hint:
        Think "Aqua Fresh:"
        /csua/tmp/kngharv tw_airforce1_aquaFresh.jpg
        and here is the picture comparison of before/after
        /csua/tmp/kngharv tw_airForce1_before_after.jpg
2006/4/6-7 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China, Computer/Rants, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA] UID:42719 Activity:nil
4/6     Police in China (si-chuan) in action:
        /csua/tmp/kngharv police_chongqing.jpg
2017/09/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/20    
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:April:06 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>