Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:October:05 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
 
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.
2017/09/21 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
9/21    
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:October:05 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>