Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:October:17 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2006/10/17 [Science/Electric, Computer/SW/Unix] UID:44842 Activity:nil
10/17   sed/unix script help.
        I am trying to modify ldif file so i can actually import it to
        my directory server (SunOne).  My current ldif files, each entry
        start with the following:
        dn: cn=firstN LastN,

        What I need, is change it to
        dc: cn=firstN LastN, dc=foo,dc=bar,dc=com

        where dc=foo,dc=bar,dc=com is a constant is different every entry
        dc: cn=... is always the first line of an entry
        each entry is seperated by a blank line.

        How do I use sed to replace that with

        thanks in advance
2006/10/17-18 [Reference/Religion, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:44843 Activity:high
10/16   [silenced!]  --purged by brownshirt neocon  </self-amusement>
        And this is just what goes on in San Francisco! All over the rest
        of the country there are hundreds of similar incidents just like this
        one happening every day.
        \_ Debra J Saunders has successfully trolled you all, I salute
           \_ DJS isn't smart enough to troll her own dog.
             \_ I guess being a political columnist is all about being
                a successful troll.  I disilke her columns but she
                does appear to refrain from leaving out convenient
                facts that piss off tom so much when writing about
                draconian sentencing for 1st time drug convictions.
              \_ Why do liberals knee-jerk with the "I disagree with him so he
                 must be stupid" act?
        \_ yeah, you're right, it is bad that an intolerant asshole can
           say what he wants on the radio in SF and still keep his job.
           spew idiocy on the radio in SF with no repercussions.
           \_ Michael Savage is not in this article.
        \_ Yeah, you are right, critisizing someone is exactly the same as
           bashing them in the face and breaking their nose.
           \_ Yeah, your are right. Bashing someone in the nose is exactly the
              same as systematically rounding up Jews for extermination.
              \_ Your knowledge of history is lacking. The Brown Shirts had
                 nothing to do with exterminating Jews because they were
                 dissolved after the "Night Of The Long Knives." Kristallnacht
                 is a more appropriate analogy.
                 \_ Did you miss the thread from a couple of days ago?
           "The FBI reported that the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes rose
           from twenty-eight in 2000 to 481 in 2001, a seventeen-fold increase"
           \_ Truly shocking.  Here's some more numbers from the FBI showing
              who the real victims of hate crimes are:
              I'll quote the section on Muslims for you, "Of the 1,480
              reported offenses within single-bias incidents that were
              motivated by the offenders religious bias, 67.8 percent were
              anti-Jewish, 13.0 percent were anti-Islamic, 3.9 percent were
              anti-Catholic, 2.9 percent were anti-Protestant, and 0.5 percent
              were anti-Atheism or Agnosticism. Bias against other
              (unspecified) religions accounted for 9.5 percent of the hate
              crime offenses motivated by religious bias, and bias against
              groups of individuals of varying religions (anti-multiple
              religions, group) accounted for 2.5 percent."
              \_ I suspect jews are much more likely to report hate
                 crimes for a variety of reasons.  -A Jew
              \_ Very good, now show me the statistics for 2001 and 2002.
                 \_ If you care go find and post them and quote the same
                    section and explain why 2001 or 2002 is any different than
                    2004 while you're at it.
                    \_ They have been mysteriously deleted from the FBI web
                       site. If you don't understand why bias crimes against
                       Muslims might have peaked right after 9/11, then I
                       probably can't explain it to you.
                       \_ Duh, of course they spiked.  And then they dropped
                          again.  But you fail to notice (or care) that the
                          vast and overwhelming number of hate crimes are
                          against Jews and that number hasn't changed much.
                          If you failed to miss that point even after I
                          quoted it to you then there is no reason to try to
                          explain it to you.  It isn't worth the effort.  And
                          yeah, the FBI #s mysteriously disappeared.  It is
                          clearly an anti-Muslim conspiracy of the bushco run
                          FBI.  Whatever.
                          \_ Hate crimes are bad. You are the only one trying
                             to minimize them or somehow rationalize the
                             behavior of people committing them. And yes,
                             *everything* that Bush does is for political
                             gain. He is much like Clinton in that fashion.
                             The vast majority of hate crimes are against
                             Blacks, not Jews, btw. But yes, you are right
                             that in overall total number, there are more hate
                             crimes against Jews than Muslims. I suspect this
                             is not true on a per capita basis though I have
                             to admit to not seeing anyone do that calculation.
        \_ Just another example of how diversity of every kind is celebrated by
           the left.  Except of course diversity of thought.
           \_ Excuse me? Who's the one calling the other side a terrorist
              or "America hater" for questioning the president?
              \_ Um, neither side AFAICT.
                 \_ Why do you hate acronyms?
        \_ Thomas Sowell's comments about this:
           \_ do you really want to be on the same side of the argument as
              Thomas Sowell and Debra Saunders?  -tom
              \_ Actually, /I/ do. -emarkp
              \_ Some don't automatically dismiss a source based on who the
                 writer is.  If they make sense or have some facts then so
                 be it.  YMMV.
                 \_ What facts are there in either of those columns?  Both
                    *completely leave out* the comments which got people
                    angry, because they're not convenient to the points the
                    shill wants to make.  Those writers do that *all the time*.
                    \_ Both articles are explicitly opinion articles.  The
                       facts have been reported, these are stated opinions
                       about the facts. So? -emarkp
                       \_ So, don't you think the fact that Pete Wilson called
                          the kid a "travesty" is, you know, kind of important
                          to the discussion?  Don't you think it's kind of
                          disingenuous to portray the situation as liberals
                          trying to squash someone *just* for holding a
                          different opinion?  There's a difference between
                          holding a different opinion, and calling someone
                          else's kid a travesty; the supervisors are angry
                          about the latter, not the former, but these
                          moronic tools dishonestly frame the situation
                          as being about the former.  -tom
                          \_ No, I don't think anyone should lose their job or
                             have it threatened for calling someone else's
                             public relationship or the kid in their (to be
                             kind) odd relationship a travesty.  They're both
                             public figures and so is Pete Wilson.  His
                             expression of his opinion does not in any way
                             rise to the level of job loss.
                             \_ I might agree with you.  But if you write
                                an opinion column and leave out the fact
                                that he called the kid a travesty, I might
                                think you're full of shit.  -tom
                                \_ Wouldn't matter to me if he called the kid
                                   the Ultimate Evil Spawn Of Satan And Cause
                                   Of All Badness In The Universe(c) and they
                                   didn't mention that in their op/ed.  It
                                   still doesn't rise to the level of job loss.
                                   Public figures do not have the same level of
                                   privacy protection from what I'll call
                                   "unwanted speech" that private citizens do.
                                   Being called names is part of public life.
                                   \_ The kid is not a public figure.  -tom
                                      \_ Oh n0es!  I'm sure he's been defamed
                                         and is highly upset and Pete Wilson
                                         should lose his job due to the long
                                         emotional trauma Mr. Wilson caused
                                         as well as the future financial
                                         losses due to his defamation!  We need
                                         to try and execute Pete right away
                                         because this goes any further!  Think
                                         of the children!
                                      \_ What about the Bush twins?  They were
                                         just kids and there were all sorts of
                                         horrible things said about them.  They
                                         were not public figures, either.
                                         should all those reporters and various
                                         commentators be fired?
                                         \_ I am not advocating for
                                            Pete Wilson to be fired;
                                            I'm just identifying the
                                            real point which the
                                            right-wing shills are not.
                                            Should Pete Wilson be
                                            fired for thinking that
                                            two gays who aren't in a
                                            romantic relationship
                                            shouldn't have a kid?  I
                                            don't think so, and I
                                            don't think any liberals
                                            think so, either.  The
                                            whole idea is a straw man
                                            created by dittoheads.
                                            The real question is
                                            whether someone should be
                                            fired for hateful speech,
                                            and whether Wilson's
                                            comments constituted
                                            hateful speech.
                                            Personally, I'd say yes to
                                            the first and no to the
                                            By the way, could you point
                                            out an example of a respected
                                            news anchor saying something
                                            that borders on hate speech
                                            about the Bush twins?  Another
                                            straw man.  -tom
                                            \_ Why does it have to be a
                                               'respected anchor'?  There are
                                               numerous reports, cartoons, etc
                                               published in print, online, etc
                                               calling them all sorts of
                                               things.  You can't honestly say
                                               they weren't getting picked on.
                                               And unlike an infant, they were
                                               old enough to get hurt.  Let's
                                               just execute everyone we don't
                                               like or says anything mean.
                                               \_ Please provide some examples
                                                  of people in positions like
                                                  Pete Wilson's making
                                                  comments about how the
                                                  Bush twins are "a travesty"
                                                  (or similar language).
                                                  This is not the MOTD or
                                                  dailykos we're talking about
                                                  here; this is someone whose
                                                  job it is to report news.
2006/10/17-18 [Recreation/Dating, Health/Men] UID:44844 Activity:high
10/17   Gals, don't date macho man if you want a potent man in bed.
        \_ You can be potent but not fertile.
        \_ This only discusses the issue of fertility, not orgasms/screw.
           Women probably care more about orgasms/screw.
           \_ Women mostly care about money.
           \_ Orgasms/screw???  Remind me not to have sex with you.
              \_ Don't you want to have lots of orgasms, assuming
                  you're a female?  Who do you get more pleasurable
                  sex with, a couch potato or an attractive, fit
                  \_ Exercising doesn't make your schlong any bigger or
                     more talented.
                     \_ But you can thrust longer and faster without getting
                        \_ If you thing stamina for _thrusting_ == greater
                           female pleasure you need to put down the bodice
                           rippers and start getting some real experience.
           \_ "The exercisers showed a drop in their ... ejaculate volume, ..."
              Okay.  Don't date macho man if you enjoy facial/shower.
2006/10/17-18 [Computer/Domains, Computer/Networking, Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:44845 Activity:moderate
10/17   Hello Internet addicts
        "the typical Internet addict was a single, college-educated, white male
        in his 30s, who spends approximately 30 hours a week on non-essential
        computer use"
        \_ Me to a T.  Now the thing is, I spend those 30 hours building useful
           software for fun.  Is that an addiction, or just a hobby?
           \_ I think they mean surfing pr0n sites, not writing software as
              a hobby.
              \_ Yep.  Otherwise, people who spend their free time on hobbies
                 like building furniture in their garage would be addicts.
              \_ The pr0n surfing is part of the essential computer use...
        \_ And then there are the TV addicts.
           But their habits are rarely referred to as "problematic".  -niloc
           \_ I know someone who watches at least 30 hours of TV a week and
              frankly it's ruining her life.
2006/10/17-18 [Health/Disease/General, Computer/SW/Virus] UID:44846 Activity:high
10/17   Some iPods shipped w/ a Windows Virus:
        \- why dont more viruses delete massive amounts of data?
           it seems like if the virus writers wanted to hurt msft
           that what they should do in addition to spreading.
           it seems like viruses are still in the realm of annoying
           rather than fatal. is there some techical reason they
           cant do more permanent damage? [i understand thaty cant
           instantly kill the host, as that will greatly reduce the
           spread rate].
           \_ one day they will take your data and you'll have
              to pay Russians to get it back.
           \_ Probably because most of these are all about tagging to get
              their name out there in the el8 hax0r community to announce
              their m@d sk1llz than really about anything truly malicious.
              We have spyware for that now.
         \_ sort of like the reason real viruses aren't more lethal .. they
            kill off the host and can't spread any more.
              \- yes i understand that is often the case but you would think
                 there would be at least a few that did massive damage. or
                 somebody would tweak the original to do a if p < .05 then
                 rm -rf /. especially when you consider how many people dont
                 like msft. making bill gates = borg tshirts doesnt hurt msft
                 but fear and trembling on the part of people running windows
                 \_ There have been viruses which delete files; they don't
                    propagate very well, because IT folks are more aggressive
                    about finding and cleaning them.  -tom
                    \_ IT folks don't find them until users complain, while
                       cleaning them at most places usually involves
                       Symantec's Ghost.  Nuke it from orbit.  It's the
                       only way to be sure.
           \_ The best answer I've heard to this question is that the
              purpose is not to destroy the host or to delete info, but
              to gain remote access to the host and use its bandwidth
              either for downloading software or for use in ddos attacks.
              Deleteing data would give away the covert nature of the
              infection and would make is more likely that the virus
              would be removed before the author could make use of the
              infected host.
              \- i am not expressing surprise that most viruses arent
                 more destructive but that so few are. do you know of
                 anybody who lost everything that was not backed up
                 after a virus infection? i dont think most viruses
                 today give somedy a "covert channel" to control the
                 host or really do much purposeful things other than
                 propagage themselves [there are some that do ddoses,
                 but that is still the minority] ... again, look on
                 slashdot or in other parts of dweebworld and there are
                 so many people who hate msft. there are also so many
                 viruses. i'm ust surprised these two group have not
                 intersected to produce a really destructive virus ...
                 most of these viruses punish some comobination of
                 the owner of the computer, possible their IT slaves,
                 if in some institution with an IT staff ... but dont really
                 punish msft. of course it is possible this is common
                 among people running bootlegged OSes which are not managed
                 by "it staff" [say te random asian windoes pirate user]
                 but we dont hear about it much.
                 \_ Then I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but you may not know
                    much about viruses.  Botnets for hire (spam, DDoS for
                    blackmail, mainly) are a pretty big "industry", all
                    things considered.  Very few skilled virus authors are
                    your prototypical 13 year old "I H8 TEH M1CROSUX"
                    slashdot bandwagon dweeb nowadays.  Most viruses/trojans
                    have a fairly pragmatic purpose, and while in a lot of
                    cases it's just to propagate and make a point (whee look
                    at me!  I'm cool!) those, with a few notable exceptions,
                    tend to be among the large mass of badly written, easily
                    caught ones.  There's some really technically interesting
                    stuff floating around that does stuff like use Windows ADS
                    for payload storage, much of which spreads fairly
                    discreetly and doesn't do exactly the kind of destructive
                    shit that might cause grandma to install Symantec.  -John
                    \- this may be true now, but viruses have quite a long
                       history and these functional one are a relatively
                       recent phenomena ... certainly viruses changed in
                       the era of permanently and by default networked
                       windows boxes. also i also [and i could be wrong
                       here] modifying a virus is probably much simpler
                       than writing from scratch so the number of people willing
                       and able to "mutate" one into an rm-rf virus seems
                       fairly large. so do you know of a single
                       person who had his computer "deleted" by a virus?
                       [i mean deliberate erasure or corruption of disk ...
                       not accidentally hosing things trying to remove it].
                       again my whole point is my suprise about threasholds.
                       like there have been DDOSes against msft, but I'm
                       surprised there have not been more or more clever
                       anti-msft DDOSes.
                       \_ Because people with real technical skills have better
                          things to do than hate microsoft much less write
                          malicious code to damage windows machines.
                       \_ Yes, I know of quite a few who have had significant
                          amounts of data wiped by fairly primitive viruses
                          as a big fat bronx cheer for failing to take even
                          basic security measures.  And what the above poster
                          said.  There are extremely skilled and vicious DDoS
                          attacks (e.g. against gambling sites during large
                          sports events for blackmail purposes) using botnets
                          for hire.  There's no money to be made out of hitting
                          MSFT.  -John
2006/10/17-18 [Computer/SW/OS/Linux, Computer/HW/Display] UID:44847 Activity:nil
10/17   Nvidia Linux driver has a buffer overflow allowing for local
        and remote root exploit:
        \_ That's not a remote root exploit; it can only be triggered by
           someone running X on console.  -tom
           \_ A remote X client can take advantage of the exploit IF
              X is being run on console; and my understanding is that
              most linux users still run X on console.
              \_ But the remote X client would have to be allowed to connect
                 to the X server in the first place, the way I read it;
                 that should usually not be the case.  -tom
2006/10/17-18 [Reference/Religion] UID:44848 Activity:nil
10/17   Vatican issues cartoon version of John Paul's life
        \_ Crap.  Now we're going to have another violent muslim riot.
           \_ Why do you hate violent muslim riots?
2006/10/17-18 [Reference/Law/Court, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:44849 Activity:nil
10/17 (
        Ken Lay gets the last laugh:  By dying with pending appeals, his
        convictions are vacated and all litigants will need to sue the estate
        via civil action
2006/10/17 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:44850 Activity:nil
        Why is a Gay screwing a Lesbian to have a child?  This is
        about as fucked up as it gets. If it isn't for this fucking
        gay and lesbian shit, Bush wouldn't have been elected, and we
        won't be in the deep shit as we are now. America is a in a
        "better" place because of you fucking gay and lesbians. Go
        fuck each other, but just don't go on and produce
        gay-lesbian-babies. You really are a plague.
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2006:October:17 Tuesday <Monday, Wednesday>