| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2006/10/5-7 [Science/Physics] UID:44683 Activity:nil |
10/5 Beam me up Hamlet:
http://tinyurl.com/krwwg (cnn.com) |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Transportation/Bicycle] UID:44684 Activity:nil |
10/5 What's a good chain lubricant if you take your bicycle to the beach
frequently? My chain's been making a lot of grinding sound even
though I used the mechanical cleaner over and over again.
\_ There's nothing you can do to keep sand out of your chain if
you're riding on the beach regularly. Whatever you use for
lube, it should be as light as possible, so it doesn't catch
sand. (Wipe off the chain after you lube it).
Or ride a unicycle instead. -tom |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Computer/Networking] UID:44685 Activity:nil |
10/5 How much does it cost to get a broadband at home with guaranteed
uplink of 768K or better, with port 80 unblocked?
\_ I'm paying ~ $60/mo from Cyberonic.
\_ keywords: internet service provider connection downlink |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:44686 Activity:nil |
10/5 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/05/wmuslims05.xml "Muslims are waging civil war against us, claims police union" |
| 2006/10/5 [Politics/Domestic/HateGroups, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:44687 Activity:nil 80%like:44689 |
10/5 Once again Liberals fight against speech they don't like:
http://www.nysun.com/article/41020 |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Computer/HW] UID:44688 Activity:nil |
10/5 Next Saturn Vue may have builtin bike rack:
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2006/10/gms_builtin_bik.html |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/HateGroups, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:44689 Activity:high 80%like:44687 |
10/5 Once again Liberals try to stop speech they don't like:
http://www.nysun.com/article/41020
\_ Do you understand the difference between a stupid crowd trying to
shut up someone they don't like and people trying to pass laws to
limit the freedom of speech?
\_ The op didn't say it was a government action. Op said it was
"Liberals". Do you understand that Liberals are not the
government?
government? Ok, this part is just too funny, "An hour before
Messrs. Stewart and Mr. Gilchrist took the stage, rowdy protests
began outside the auditorium on Broadway, where activists
chanted, "Hey, hey, ho, ho, the Minutemen have got to go!"
\_ The argument is classically phrased as "liberals _claim_ that
they support freedom of speech, but..." and I'm pointing out
that there's a difference between stupid crowds and people
actually voting away our rights, which is what the
conservatives (who are the government, atm) have been doing.
\_ [sorry, restored, i was too fast on the Save button and
smushed your post]. The first point remains. Liberals
do claim and it isn't true. We call that "hypocritical".
My favorite rant was the folks chanting "no free speech
for fascists!" on Sproul's steps. Talk about "not
getting it". Sheesh.
\_ Those were almost certainly communists, who are not
liberals.
\_ Uh... you're just joking, right?
\_ I'd ask if you're really this dumb, but I know
the answer, so I'll just tell you to go fuck
yourself.
\_ Thanks. You have answer all my questions.
Not with the answers you think you have but
thanks for making it so clear. Or maybe you
just didn't read the article.
\_ They actually were Communists on Sproul.
Are you really this dense that you think
liberal==Communist? -!op
\_ I was there on Sproul that day. They
were not Communists although they may
have been communists and they were
definitely liberal and Liberal. Anytime
you'd like to toss out a fact instead of
a personal attack, I'll be here. Have a
nice day.
\_ You mean the David Irving protest?
I was there that day and the protest
was organized by the Revolutionary
Communist Party, who are Communists.
The Spartacus League, which is also
Communist, uses the slogan as well.
Those are the facts, which do not
fit your neat worldview, so you just
resort to attacking me personally. Sad.
fit your neat worldview.
\_ No I dont mean the David Irving
protest. I mean the day a bunch
of nutty people wanted everyone
to clap for peace. Your facts
are unrelated to what I was
talking about.
\_ Hah! That's awesome. Now if they were trying to make
a point about facism and its relation to free speech,
I might be able to respect their intentional irony, but
I don't actually expect they were that witty. Sigh.
People suck. They can be as hypocritical as they want
in personal discourse, but when they start legislating
stupidity, then I'm really pissed off.
\_ They weren't that witty or ironic. The rest of it
was something about how we gathered there should
clap our hands for peace to create good vibes
because: Sproul leads the campus, the campus leads
the Bay Area which leads the State which leads the
Nation which leads the World. Thus by creating good
peace vibes there on Sproul that day we could spread
World Peace around the planet.
\_ Actually, Good Vibrations is down on San Pablo.
\_ Imagine how peaceful the planet would be if
they opened a store in the student union bldg
right there on sproul plaza! I have discovered
the formula for World Peace! You saw it here
first!
\_ Not until we get rid of religious
moralization.
\_ Greetings Humorless Person! |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Computer/SW/OS/OsX] UID:44690 Activity:nil |
10/6 I love Macintosh, I've had a G4 and other Apple related products
but I've returned my MacBook Pro v.1 for the following reasons:
- 7 pounds!!!
- When idling on single proc, it is very hot
- When idling on single proc, it only runs 1.5 hour. Slightly more
when the LCD is turned off for the entire 1.6 hour
- When running, it can boil water or scald your lap
- Rather than dealing with the heat, Apple decided to replace all
occurences of "laptop" with "portable computer" with big
heat disclaimers on every single piece of MacBook related
articles they've written (who says lawyers can't solve problems?)
- By default it goes to dual core, and even if you set it to single
proc, it defaults back to dual after you reboot. The setting is
not sticky.
- Suspend works as well as PC (slow and unresponsive and sometimes
gets stuck, just like the PC).
I'm sure many of these well known problems will be resolved in the
next version of MacBook Pro (v.2). In the mean time, I have an advice
for everyone: don't be the first one to try out v.1 on any product!
Wait for v.2 when well known problems are resolved. I'm sure
MacBook Pro v.2 will be good just like all the other Apple
products, but frankly, v.1 is a pretty looking piece of shit.
\_ You know a lot of these problems sound just like the issue
that earlier adopters had w/ the first TiBook. Anyway, I'm
also an Apple fan boi, but I generally avoid all rev 1 Apple
products b/c they never have all the bugs worked out.
\_ Third fan boi here. I personally would rather buy all of my
Mac products refurbished: they're cheaper that way, and they're
put through very rigorous testing. |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:44691 Activity:low |
10/6 http://FOXNews.com - Internal Poll Suggests Hastert Could Devastate GOP http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,218043,00.html "'The data suggests Americans have bailed on the speaker,' a Republican source briefed on the polling data told FOX News. 'And the difference could be between a 20-seat loss and 50-seat loss.'" ... Hastert refuses to resign: http://csua.org/u/h4a (Yahoo! News) \_ Hastert looks like he eats 2 or 3 sticks of butter per day. \_ So do the assholes who are probably going to re-elect a republican majority in November. \_ Are you sure the elections are honest? There are a lot of unanswered questions about the polls. Maybe you mean the minority who are going to rig the elections to put the republican majority in. \_ Oh, c'mon. Just because 90% of Diebolds campaign contributions dollars have gone to Republicans and their machines seem to have been designed with hacking as a feature not a bug doesn't imply an bias. as a feature not a bug doesn't imply a bias. |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Computer/SW/Unix] UID:44692 Activity:nil |
10/6 locale question
is en_US equivalent to POSIX and/or en_US.UTF-8?
What does Redhat default to? UTF-8? en_US? POSIX? - danh
\_ no, POSIX is essentially C. en_US.UTF-8 is, UTF-8. |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Reference/Religion] UID:44693 Activity:moderate |
10/6 Iran's supreme leader Khameini: No masturbation during Ramadan.
If you "accidentaly" make it hard, but don't cum it's bad but not
too bad? WTF?
No wonder suicide bombings go up during Ramadan, the young Muslim men
are going nuts!
http://tinyurl.com/fb5xw
\_ Not even after sunset!?!
\_ Does it matter? The humor is in the fact that these
religions are so obsessed about everyone's private lives.
Don't stick your dick in the wrong hole or play with
yourself at the wrong time!
yourself at the wrong time! Scientology proves you can make
a religion as wacky as possibly and you'll still get legions
a religion as wacky as possible and you'll still get legions
of followers.
\_ Scientology is a religion? I thought they were a mafia.
\_ ...but it's ok not during Ramadan?
\_ Explain to me how it is that this causes Muslim suicide bombers but
the Catholic Church's ban on masturbation doesn't create Catholic
suicide bombers? Ditto the Mormons?
\_ It only causes the number to go UP. Actually I wasn't
being serious (duh). -op
\_ And at first I didn't think you were. And then I had a
depressing insight into how you might have been. And then I
was sad and needed to share.
\_ This seems like something you'd find in the onion. |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44694 Activity:moderate |
10/6 Oops, looks like the lurid IM messages ABC revealed with Foley were
with an 18-yr old, not a minor:
http://passionateamerica.blogspot.com
\_ First of all, this is yesterday's news. It is also yesterday's
news that the messages occurred both before and after the
kid's 18th birthday. -tom
\_ I've not seen anything with proof that any lurid messages
happened before his 18th birthday. Can you point me there?
Also, the salacious details that are being used as ammo happened
after the 18th birthday AFAICT.
\_ Gee, no one has to prove anything to you. The fact that
Foley resigned is sufficient proof. -tom
\_ Maybe he resigned because he was trying to bang an 18
year old guy? He isn't a Dem from the north east. Where
he's from that sort of thing isn't ok even if legal. You
have no idea why he resigned, just conjecture. There's
also an issue of power here similar to Clinton with his
intern and every exec who has ever banged his secretary.
It really does matter how old the page was and when Foley
said what to him but I'm not surprised that someone looking
for the truth would get brushed off. The truth is just
never as fun as making shit up. --someone else
\_ well I'm sure the attorney general and the congressional
ethics committees will be sure to consult with all
the anonymous MOTD cowards, to be sure we get to the
truth.
Yes, my conjecture is that this is a big deal, or
else a self-righteous twerp like Foley would never
have resigned. Anonymous coward's conjecture is
apparently that no messages to minors exist,
everyone who is saying there are messages to minors
is lying, and Foley resigned because he's a man of
such high moral standing that even the appearance of
impropriety was unacceptable.
Occam's Razor. -tom
\_ Asserting things doesn't make them true. -tom 9/28/06
\_ That's not an assertion, it's a line of reasoning.
\_ If you think this is going to defuse the scandal, I've got an
excellent bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
\_ I don't care about the scandal. I care about figuring out
what really happened. ABC seems to be playing up the lurid
emails for ratings (putting politics aside), and
dishonestly connecting the minor-status of the page to the
IMs.
\_ uh, like yesterday's post, age of consent is 16 in DC. In DC, it's
legal for a 50-year-old to have consensual sex with a 16-year-old,
and it wasn't even real sex, and the cybersex was R-rated at worst.
It should also be noted that the minimum age to become a page is 16.
</troll>
\_ I know people on the motd like to keep age-of-consent lists
for all 50 states, but answer this: why is the FBI investigating?
\_ see newest post at top
\_ That's what I was getting at.
\_ What post? I still don't get it. The biggest deal here
seems to be that this guy is gay. I thought democrats
like gays. |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Computer/SW/Virus] UID:44695 Activity:nil |
10/5 FYI, my gf on Tuesday went browsing for cracks using IE6, and got
infected by adware just by viewing a web page (didn't need to click
Yes to anything). She was fully patched up. SpyBot or Ad-aware
caught it and cleaned it up after several reboots.
\_ Browsing for cracks?
\_ Well _duh_. Most crack sites are really perfect vectors for
infection (they mainly go after kiddies who're too cheap to buy
software and too hyperactive to patch their boxes.) If do not
trust a site, use a cgi proxy that strips scripts, or browse from
either a real browser (won't protect you from all) or from
a linux box (vmware if nothing else.) -John |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Recreation/Food] UID:44696 Activity:nil |
10/5 Fastfood chickens contain carcinogens:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060928/hl_afp/usfoodjusticehealth_060928160312
\_ That's fairly misleading, both your headline and the actual
lawsuit. In summary: grilling meat forms carcinogens. Grilled
meat therefore contains carconigens. Fast food grilled chicken
contains carconigens. Physicians Commitee for Responsible
Medicine files a lawsuit to force fast food corps to disclose this.
PCRM, despite their benigh-sounding name is actually fairly extreme
in their views and is a major PETA donor.
\_ Fish have mercury, grilled meat has carcinogens, veggies have
e.coli and hormones and not enough protein. Sigh.
\_There's always the Breatharian diet.
\_ Grow your own food. I hardly grow enough to subsist on, but
I try to grow what I can. It tastes better, too. I'd keep
chickens (for eggs/meat) if I was zoned for it.
\_ All you can grow is a few veggies. Yeah the tomatoes etc.
taste better but it doesn't really help the situation.
\_ Sure it does. You can grow just about all the
vegetables and fruit that two people can eat - at
least for the amounts that I eat. If someone is used
to a heaping plate of six different fruits every
morning, then no. However, every little bit helps. |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/Gay, Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44697 Activity:nil |
10/5 http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/three_more_form.html "Three more former congressional pages have come forward ... Foley told [one page] that if he happened to be in Washington, D.C., he could stay at Foley's home if he 'would engage in oral sex'" \_ Now that Foley resigned, why are we still hearing about this? \_ Hastert still hasn't stepped down. \_ Because instead of acting like the conservatives they claim to be the (R) leadership acted like political party hacks instead and ran around covering their own hides instead of doing the right thing (which would've happened when they first found out about it, not a year later). The sooner they're gone the better. \_ Hastert's defense is something like, "All I knew about were about the inappropriate e-mails (asking for the student's pic). Foley was warned and we didn't hear anything more, so that was it. We had no idea he was talking about dick in the e-mails / Internet messages." \_ Hastert has no defense. His term was wasted. Time to go. |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:44698 Activity:nil |
10/5 It is all Bill Clinton's fault:
http://www.csua.org/u/h4e
(But you knew that already, right?) |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Reference/BayArea, Consumer/CellPhone, Consumer/PDA] UID:44699 Activity:nil |
10/5 The World Can't Wait protest is outside the Federal Building in SF
right now. Pictures taken on treo through binocs here:
/csua/tmp/worldcantwait/
http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~erikred/worldcantwait.html |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Recreation/Computer/Games] UID:44700 Activity:nil |
10/5 http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6647505-1.html?tag=nl.e501 Don't get overhyped on PS3 and Wii. CNET reporter says that in his informal poll, 3 out of 6 people he knew who got an early Xbox 360 had their hardware eventually fail. The warranty is only 90 days, although after enough bad press MS is paying for all repairs for machines built before 2006. \_ People trying v.1 are brave and stupid. Like the people who tried Win95 v1, Win98 v1, and MacBook Pro v1. \_ Or Microsoft bloodstream beta, once medical nanobots become reality. \_ So don't buy a ps3 or a wii cause microsoft fucked up big time? Isn't that a bit backwards? \_ it all depends on what 'overhyped' means |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq, Politics/Foreign/Europe] UID:44701 Activity:high |
10/5 I don't care about Michelle Malkin. Or Reps assfucking
pages. or George Soros. What I do care about is the administration
getting torture techniques legalized. What is really funny
is they are modeled on stuff used by the russians, the khmer
rouge, the real bad guys of the 20th century. what gwbush
forgets is those guys tortured people to get confessions,
not to get real live intel that they could act on. assholes.
\_ Colin Powell learned this the hard way. One of the "evidence"
he presented in United Nation was "extracted" from some "terrorist"
who later said he said that to stop the torture.
America should of draw a hard lesson learned from French
and its Algerian Revolution. Once you start to torture and loose
the moral high-ground, you loose legimacy on this struggle.
\_ Surely you have a link to back this up--or maybe you're just
blowing this out your ass. Oh, and for all the mantra-chanting
that torture doesn't work, we have proof that at least
waterboarding does:
9/21 In other torture news, ABC reporter Brian Ross reports that
torture works. Video clip: http://csua.org/u/gyd
\_ You know what? I don't care it works or not. This is not
an episode of 24. I live
in fucking UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The best
country in the WORLD. Or so I thought. Why the fuck
are we torturing people? I'm going to quit my
job and devote my life to ANSWER or something, this makes
me so mad.
\_ You're right, this isn't 24. If things go bad REAL PEOPLE
FUCKING DIE. And so I want our gov't to use the tools that
work against these animals.
\_ Yes, first step is dehumanizing your opponent. Then,
you can justify any degree of mistreatment for any
reason. They do it to us, we do it to them. You
filthy capitalist American infidel pig-dog! You
deserve to die, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. You fucking
idiot, we must not become our enemy.
\_ We are not becoming our enemy. We know that
waterboarding was used on top Al Qaeda people, not
necessarily on any random person. Meanwhile, our
enemy CUTS THE HEADS OFF OUR PEOPLE IF THEY'RE
\_ To them, "our people" are filthy infidel
Americans who deserve beheading. To you,
they are damn animals who deserve
waterboarding.
CAPTURED. You are apparently incapable of telling
the difference.
\_ So you're okay with indefinite detention on the
word of the executive? Redefinition of what
constitutes torture on the same word? As long
as we don't decapitate people, you're fine with
your government's actions?
\_ For a small number of people, indefinite
detention is okay. And no, my threshold is
lower than decapitaction. But it's higher than
waterboarding.
\_ Then you're unamerican, undemocratic, and
truly a danger to the future of our country.
\_ Do you understand what happens during
waterboarding? Would you be willing to have
it done to you in a reasonably safe
environment in order to demonstrate its
acceptability?
\_ Yes I understand. I've talked with
military guys who've gone through SERE
training and were waterboarded. I
suspect you don't know what it is. Hint:
it's not putting someone's head
underwater.
\_ No. It's placing the client on his
back with his head lower than his
torso, then putting a plastic bag or
other dam in place and then filling
the reservoir around the client's
with water. The water then fills the
nose and upper respiratory tract,
giving the immediate impression of
drowning. A doctor is generally kept
on hand to monitor the client's
life signs and to ressucitate,
through CPR and/or defib if the client
somehow aspirates the water. If this
is somehow something that you would
not mind being applied to one of your
loved ones without trial or reason
other than goverment suspicion, then
I propose that you try this first to
to show us how it's not that bad.
\_ Not how I heard it from someone who
went through it. No reservoir
necessary, just a very wet cloth
put over the face. Your version
sounds fine to me as well.
\_ If this is somehow something
that you would not mind being
applied to one of your loved
ones without trial or reason
other than goverment suspicion,
then I propose that you try
this first to show us how it's
fine.
\_ The thing you fail to grasp is that without trials,
without due process, we aren't necessarily
torturing those evil beheading enemies of ours,
we're torturing innocent people. This isn't a
hypothetical... it's already happened.
\_ The thing you fail to grasp is that without
trials, without due process, we aren't
necessarily torturing those evil beheading
enemies of ours, we're torturing innocent
people. This isn't a hypothetical... it's
already happened.
\_ Eggs, omelettes...
\_ What you fail to understand is that
concepts of criminality (such as the
presumption of innocence) may not be
applicable to warfare. Due process is
generally not applicable to prisoners
of war. Anyway, there is something to
lighten the mood:
link:tinyurl.com/ejakx (comics.com)
\_ I'm not watching an O'Reilley clip. Do you have another
source for this? Surely if it's ABC's Brian Ross you'll have
a non-video write-up somewhere? And no, I'm not stfw; it's
your point, you do the work.
\_ Is the O'Reilley clip inaccurate or wrong in some way or
is this just a rejection on personal grounds? -someone else
\_ BOR raises my blood pressure. That's a personal failing,
and I freely admit to it.
\_ Um, most of the clip is Brian Ross speaking. It's
directly from his mouth.
\_ Never mind, I couldn't resist stfw anyway. Most results on
"brian ross torture" return right-wing sites pointing to
the BOR clip. Nowhere on the ABC site was there any
confirmation. Care to try again?
\_ Are you brain damaged? You won't watch BOR even when
most of the clip is Brian Ross? And BOR is expressing
some skepticism about anonymous sources?
\_ Ah, that's right, only brain damaged people would
want to avoid watching an interview clip from the
Factor. If Brian Ross thinks torture works, let him
say so on his ABC blog. Or, barring that, let him
say so on any other media outlet than BOR. I've
never considered BOR to be news, so why would I want
to get news from BOR? If I want opinion, sure, but
news? I mean, you don't go to the Daily Show for
news, right? (Though recent research suggests you
should.)
\_ But you're getting your news from BRIAN FUCKING
ROSS. Just because he's talking to BOR, why do
you care?
\_ Because I'm getting my news from an
interview with Ross conducted by O'Reilly.
\_ So what? You're hearing it from Ross'
mouth.
\_ It's been fun playing with you, but
work (hunting through someone else's
Perl spaghetti code) sounds like more
fun. Bye.
\_ Wow, touchy, no wonder your blood
boils so easily. --!ppp
\_ "should've drawn?" "lose the moral high-ground?"
It's a miracle you got "its" right, but it may have been an
accident. Seriously, I can look past "loose," but "should of"
is just too far out there.
\_ Bad grammar aside, I did not know that Powell's points
in his UN speech was a bunch of shit extracted from
a tortured suspect. So any word on who the hell
in the Bush Administration or Heritage Foundation decided
one day that torturing people got us good intel?
\_ They just wanted to set a precedent on torture.
Before long we'll be torturing confessions out of
our own people.
\_ Bad grammar or not, he's right on every point.
\_ Why do you care? Youtube is a free, money losing
service. They can do what they want. Michelle Malkin
is an evil annoying ugly real life troll who lives
to bait people so she can issue self righteous
commentary, the entire world would be better off
if she would move to North Korea.
\_ Because she hasn't done anything to violate their
terms of service. If they'd like to change their
terms to cover her, they're welcome to and then they
can apply and enforce that policy across the board.
\_ See below.
\_ And my reply to that below. |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:44702 Activity:high |
10/5 Ok, found the Michelle Malkin video youtube banned.
http://hotair.cachefly.net/media.michellemalkin.com/firsttheycame0545.wmv
Someone tell me why this got banned.
\_ You realize her video "first they came" is available on youtube,
right? Uploaded Feb. 2006. Not by her, granted, but still, it's
not like this isn't on youtube or is in any way non-trivial to find.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wEgoUJqnzxo
\_ Because she is ugly.
\_ No she's not.
\_ Ok, thanks. So there's no reason to have banned the Malkin video.
That's what I thought.
\_ Actually, that's not true. Here's YouTube's Terms of Use on
what submitters agree they will not do:
"(ii) publish falsehoods or misrepresentations that could
damage YouTube or any third party;
(iii) submit material that is unlawful, obscene, defamatory,
libelous, threatening, pornographic, harassing, hateful,
racially or ethnically offensive, or encourages conduct that
would be considered a criminal offense, give rise to civil
liability, violate any law, or is otherwise inappropriate;
(iv) post advertisements or solicitations of business"
Ignoring the first two, the video is clearly an advertisement
for Michelle Malkin's website. Now, if the submitter had left
off the last bit of the video, the other two sections might
have come into play, but submitter didn't, so they don't.
\_ So all the OTHER videos that show a website should be
removed as well?
\_ If it was just that then why didn't they tell her that
instead of sending her a generic note and ignoring her
attempts to find out which policy she violated? It seems
very simple to tell someone they violated the advertising
clause so they can fix it and continue being a user in good
standing. Banning someone without telling them which of
many policies they violated is, at best, unfair and
unprofessional. And as the above says are they removing
all videos that violate the advertising clause? I think
not. Sorry, not buying it.
\_ I salute your idealism but goddamn Michelle Malkin
is an evil troll with an amazing command of rhetoric
who needs to be destroyed.
\_ It's likely that not all videos that violate the ad
clause are being flagged as inappropriate by users.
MM is a high profile nutjob^H^H^H^Hperson, and as such
is more likely to get scrutinized (and ratted out).
As for professionalism and such, sure, I'll grant that
the organization should answer her requests for more
info. And (now watch carefully, this is where the magic
happens) as for professionalism, MM should stop being a
hatemongering harpy and should try to construct useful
and logical arguments that don't begin and end with
omigodThey'reAllEvil!
\_ Did you see the video that got banned? What is
wrong with it? Where is the evil? And if Malkin
or anyone else wants to use their free service she
should be able to. If not then they should add
something to the terms of service that would exclude
her kind of videos without targetting her personally
and then enforce that policy across the board. Policy
exists to enforce rules equally so people's personal
opinion doesn't factor in to enforcement. I'm sure
you can agree that would be a good thing.
\_ A good thing? Yes. But I think it's pretty clear
that terms of use like those on youtube are written
in part to cover the asses of the owners when they
choose to selectively censor. It's the private
sector equivalent of laws that everyone is
in violation of that give cops the legal cover
to harass whoever they want. I've personally
dealt with this with Cafe Press. Fucking assholes.
\_ Man, I couldn't agree more. Fucking Rupert
Murdock!
\_ According to the person who posted the Terms of
Use, she did. Either way, there are hundreds of
people who post their crap on ebay, myspace, or
youtube who gets their stuff banned and all they
youtube who get their stuff banned and all they
get is nothing more than a form
letter^H^H^H^H^H^Hemail. I'm sure some of them
are quite egregious while others are just
straddling the line. But it doesn't matter. These
companies cater to thousands of free -loaders and
they don't have time to put with the childish
whining of Malkin orto whipe her ass. She should
whining of Malkin or to wipe her ass. She should
be thankful that she was allowed to host her
other videos at no cost.
\_ It isn't costing them anything. She and all
the rest of the users are the youtube product.
She is providing content, not getting a free
ride. If she got banned she has the right to
question it. It isn't childing whining. If
youtube has an editorial policy I'm totally
ok with that *if* they are honest about it,
which they're not. And no, it isn't ok because
they do it to other people, too. And no I
don't think putting your URL for 3 seconds at
the end of a 3 minute video is advertising,
especially in the case of a public figure like
Malkin. Let's be honest and stop ignoring the
elephant: she got banned because she's a
conservative.
\_ It does cost youtube something. Youtube has
a telecom bill to pay. They also need to pay
\_ A core cost their core business
model. Pft.
\_ And if you have a bandwidth
quota, you want to make sure
that your link is being used
by things that conform to
your business model.
for lawyers and insurance in case some ass
fucker goes crazy on them for something
offensive that was posted on youtube. Being
\_ All corporations have lawyers on
retainer. Pft.
\_ And attracting hate mail from
crazy terrorists is probably
something their lawyers told
them not to do. The moment
you have another incident like
the Danish cartoon one, you're
going to be paying huge legal
fees.
a private entity, youtube also has the right
to decide which "products", as you call them,
to put out or reject for whatever reasons
they want. Yes, she has the right to question
\_ Her content and that of many others
is not the direct product. It is
what attracts people to the site so
they can sell ads or do whatever
with their customer database. Of
course they have the right to reject
whatever they want. No one has ever
said otherwise. Red herring.
\_ And the yanking of her video
seems to be generating even
more traffic than her video
did by herself. You're asking
why MM's video got yanked and
I'm saying they based it on
their terms of use. You think
otherwise and I'm saying it
doesn't matter because they
can decide however they want
what's appropriate or not and
they don't have to explain in
Moby Dick form to every reject
why X got yanked.
what youtube did but youtube also has the
right to send her a form letter and tell
her to screw off. Personally, if I was
\_ They do, yes. No dispute there.
Their reason for doing so in this
case is her politics, not any
bogus violation of policy. That is
the issue. Their unprofessionalism
and cowardice is a distinct issue.
\_ Unprofessionalism? Okay, think
about it this way. How many
videos do you think has to be
rejected every day? How many
people do you think youtube
has to approve or reject videos?
How much time do you think it
would take for one of these
guys to wipe someone's ass
everytime their video gets
rejected? You do the math. And
if you're going to be talking
about unprofessionalism, why
not take a look at Malkin
herself. What is her profession?
Last time I checked, nutjob
wasn't a profession.
running a site like youtube, I would find
MM's "products" devaluing to my site. I also
\_ You'd be wrong. She attracts
visitors which is your core product.
\_ Already made my point before.
Yanking an MM video == more
traffic.
wouldn't have my staff put up with MM's
whining because if they had to wipe every
reject's ass the way you and MM are
suggesting, they wouldn't have time for more
productive things like wiping their own ass.
\_ If your company can't afford a form
letter for each of the half dozen
possible policy violations and send
the correct one then your company
is dead anyway. There's this silly
thing called "customer service" that
actually matters in the real world.
\_ which is of course why every
company is outsourcing it to
people in Bangalore who don't
speak English. -tom
\_ And getting crushed in the CS
satisfaction ratings. Which
is why the smart places are
bringing CS back to the US. |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:44703 Activity:nil |
10/5 Do Amish people vote?
\_ nope. |
| 2006/10/5-7 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:44704 Activity:low |
10/5 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/washington/05doctrine.html Left-wing counter-insurgency tactics infect new Army field manual "The more force used, the less effective it is." "Tactical success guarantees nothing." "The more you protect your force, the less secure you are." \_ You should read "The Men Who Stare at Goats". \_ I'd say those are more like commie traitor tactics than left wing. Or perhaps, socialist. --!the invisible hand \_ Who cares. There are only two ways to fight a guerilla force. You need LOTS of dudes to get friendly with the natives, and convince them that their life is/would/will be a lot better if they cooperate with the occupying force, BEFORE the guerilla forces become well entrenched. After they get entrenched... the only way to win is to kill everyone. \_ These are all views espoused by the infamous commie insurgent Sun Tzu. You may remember him; his work, The Art of War, is required reading at West Point and Annapolis. \_ That was a rockin good game for the day. |
| 4/15 |