| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2007/3/8-12 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll/Ilyas, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:45904 Activity:very high |
3/7 motd is so dead. ilyas left. German John left. Without fresh new
blood, unix interest and competency is at it's lowest level in
\_ Not to mention spelling
\_ I bet it's a
grammar error, not
a spelling mistake.
\_ That's not the
lowest spelling
level I've seen on
the motd.
the entire history of csua. All we got now is pathetic dans
trolling by himself, and occasionally reiffin ranting his
slightly conservative views. Sad. So sad.
\_ I'm centrist which looks "slightly conservative" to anyone left and
leftist to anyone on the right. Usually "rants" are restrictied to
extremists. How can a moderate be a ranter? Just curious.
\_ All I want is for wall logs to be rotated and I'll be back.
\_ Trolls come in all denominations.
\_ So posting 'slightly conservatively' is trolling now? And it
is 'ranting' if you don't agree with the entire Berkeley left
agenda. Sigh... okey dokey, whatever. Welcome to the motd
where being a moderate centrist makes you a ranting troll.
\_ No, being a moderate centrist doesn't make you a troll.
Being a troll makes you a troll. Being a troll is about
being intentionally inflammatory, not about being of
any particular political stripe. -tom
\_ So your definition is boils down to, "The things you
say inflame me so you're a troll". Followed by, "You
must know that your views don't match the typical
ultra-left motd reader's so it must be intentional".
Therefore: troll. So since I don't self censor my
very moderate views and some people have insanely thin
skin for any opinion different from their own, the
fault lies with me. Got it. Thanks for clearing that
up. The motd is full of real trolls but I'm not one
of them. I'm one of the few people here who has ever
admitted being wrong in a debate and thanking the other
person for the correction. Again, just curious, have
you ever done that? Or maybe you've *never* been wrong?
\_ Here's a good example: putting words in someone
else's mouth (as you have above) is trolling.
It is perfectly possible to disagree without
being intentionally inflammatory. -tom
\_ Telling you what you sound like to me is not
putting words in your mouth. I note you
completely ignored my two questions and related
comment at the end. We could start going back
and forth tossing around more phrases like
"intellectually dishonest", a few choice latin
debate related phrases, and such but what would
be the point? Some people here only see what
they want to see. If they see something else it
is automatically tagged and dismissed as 'troll'
without seriously responding to the core issues.
I'd say that picking apart a line or two to
attack while ignoring the whole of someone's
argument is a cheap rhetorical tactic that goes
on a lot around here but I don't want to be
called a troll so I won't say that. ;-) Mostly,
this level of discourse reminds me of silly dorm
pseudo-debates about the existence of God or
whatever. I do miss a few of the folks who used
to post here even though we often were world's
apart in opinion and view point. They could put
aside their ego long enough to actually discuss
issues, rather than point fingers and hop around
mad when someone disagrees or presents an
alternative point of view. So, have you ever
admitted to being wrong about anything and
thanked the other motd poster for the correction
or are you just never wrong about anything? I
have several times. I don't read or post here to
"win" motd debates. There is no such thing as
"winning" here. It is meaningless. I'm here
because just often enough I learn something or
engage in an interesting debate to make the rest
of the noise worth it.
\_ I'm only showing you how you come across to me.
If you meant something else, feel free to correct
me. Again I ask: have you ever been wrong about
anything on the motd? Admitted to it? Thanked
the person who corrected you? I have. I don't
recall you ever getting to step 3 much less step 1
so either you're always right or just spoiling to
fight for it's own sake which sounds very kettle
pot black to me or maybe just so incredibly
thin skinned and intolerant of ideas different
from your own that you automatically assume that
the intent is to troll you. I won't pretend to
know your internal motivations and psychological
states.
\_ Can someone pls rotate the wall logs?
\_ Actually there's more unix clue in the CSUA than there was two
years ago. It's pretty funny that you use the motd, which most
undergrads don't even follow, as a bellweather for unix clue.
What, exactly, constitutes unix clue to you? The ability to use
vi to edit posts in meaningless flamewars? The ability to run a
machine for a bunch of thankless assholes who think that nothing
has changed in computing since BSD was being actively developed at
Berkeley? -dans
\_ I agree that the current ugs seem to have sufficient unix
clue, much more so than I had 10+ years ago when I was a
ug. I'm also guessing that the problems w/ soda have more
to do w/ lack of time than clue. Personally I think the
current ugs deserve our thanks and appreciation. -yaAlum
\_ Yeah, I'm not trying to start the game of my clue dick is
bigger than yours, because, though it can be fun, when all is
said and done it just leaves everyone feeling dirty and
sticky, but doesn't accomplish very much. I don't even think
it's a lack of time thing, I think it's a priorities thing.
The current undergrads have deprioritized providing and
maintaining services to a bunch of, for the most part,
thankless, meddling alumni. In my opinion, this is a wise
decision. -dans (don't edit other people's posts. its lame)
\_ does that mean you'll shut up now?
How about services to the existing undergrads, like,
I dunno, publishing a meeting schedule on the CSUA
web page? -tom
\_ You seem to be working under the assumption that the
CSUA web site is the first place a current undergrad
would go to find the CSUA or information about it, and
that exposing current CSUA undergraduate members to
meetings would be doing them a service. Both
assumptions are dubious at best. You and I both may
have ideas about how the current undergrads running the
CSUA *should* do things, what you need to realize is
that, since we're not an undergrad, our ideas are
significantly less relevant than those of the
undergrads. Since most present day undergrads don't
read the motd, Pissing about on the motd in regard to
what those darn kids should do is, at best, amusing and,
at worst, a waste of time for all involved. I am
content to be amused. You amuse me, tom. -dans
\_ Are you seriously arguing that an organization's
web page is irrelevant to the people it serves? -tom
\_ Do NOT anger me, tom. -dans
\_ Do NOT pretend to be me. -dans
\_ No, I'm arguing that you and I are irrelevant to
the people the CSUA serves. I would further
argue that the web page may be irrelevant, or may
have so little relevance that it's not worth the
effort. That you you think the CSUA web site
is relevant to current members does not make it
so. For example, establishing a presence(s) on
Facebook might be a better way to promote the
\_ lol
CSUA to current undergrads than working on
www.csua. The question is how does a leader in
an organization *know*? The answer is to run the
numbers. If running stats on the last year worth
of CSUA web logs shows the CSUA web site gets a
lot of traffic, that's a good reason to put more
effort into the web site. Doing it because tom
said so is not. Are you seriously arguing that
superstitious, probably unproven, definitely
years old, assumptions are a good tool for
decision making in an organization? -dans
\_ I think it is the height of irresponsibility
to not have the answers to the questions:
What is the CSUA?
What does the CSUA do?
Where is the CSUA office/contact info?
How do I join the CSUA?
This doesn't require "working on www.csua".
It requires 15 FUCKING MINUTES OF TYPING. -tom
\_ That's nice, but, refer back to my first
sentence. To wit, what you think is
irrelevant to the future of the CSUA. If
you feel so strongly about this, why don't
you write up the html and send it to the
officers asking them if they wouldn't mind
posting it? Why not get off your fucking
self-righteous ass and do something for a
change? As it happens, the answers to
those questions (and more!) do exist.
They're posted right outside of the CSUA
office. If you could get over your broken
belief that there exists one true way to do
all things and tom is the arbiter of true
ways, you might see the forest for the
trees here. This isn't about what content
goes on the web site, it's about whether
putting *any* effort into the web site is
worthwhile. And the answer to that is I
don't know and neither do you. If you feel
strongly about this, why don't your run the
stats on the weblogs, and if they support
your assumption, send the results to the
politburo with a polite note suggesting
they put more effort into the web site.
Incidentally, there's funny thing about
your 15 FUCKING MINUTES OF TYPING...
At some point in the past, some politburo
member, probably the VP, definitely someone
with sysadminly beliefs had a truly
boneheaded idea: put the web page under
rcs! Now right about now you've probably
got a vein bulging on your forehead the way
veins tend to do when you get into your
self-righteous tom knows all mode because,
everyone knows revision control is a good
thing. What could possibly be bad about
using rcs for the web page? What's bad is
this: since that day, just about every CSUA
president, including but not limited to me,
jones, paolo, has gotten it in his head to
update the web page. Sometimes the updates
are minor, but more often they involve a
fair amount of time and effort, and jones
actually did a major redesign. So the
president makes the changes, but he or she
doesn't know that the web site is under rcs.
Then the VP comes along checks index.html
out from rcs, makes some minor change, e.g.
announcing the new politburo members,
checks it back in, and copies it over the
president's major rewrite of index.html.
And like that, hours, sometimes weeks of
work get blown away. It's happened before
and it keeps happening. Usually it's not
malicious though I'm fairly sure when
jones' weeks of rewrite work got
obliterated it was (one might wonder:
what happened to his backups?). Usually the
guilty party doesn't even have the courtesy
to apologize. Frankly, it fucking sucks to
have hours of work blown away because some
sysadmin doesn't understand people, thinks
the hammer of technology can be used to
bludgeon all problems into submission, and
stubbornly refuses to admit he or she was
wrong despite scores of evidence to the
contrary. -dans
\_ Out of curiousity, has anyone received
any reply to any query sent to root or
politburo since, oh, October? Your
prolixious defense of incompetence
continues to amaze, dans.
\_ It's a telling question that you have
to ask. I try to drop by the office
and shoot the shit with the current
undergrads. Reports of the CSUA's
demise are greatly exaggerated. If
you feel soda isn't working the way
you want it to, and conclude that the
cause is incompetence, you're wrong.
-dans
\_ I think I got a timely reply to
email I sent to root in January.
-yaAlum
\_ No. I've sent in a couple of security
holes on the system. I have received
no acknowledgement, and they don't
appear to be fixed either.
\_ Well that was entertaining. Sounds like
a bunch of people learned some lessons:
back up something if it's important
to you, and something about
communication and management? What fun!
\_ In the amount of time it took you to
come up with that drivel, you could
have fixed it, and you wouldn't have
looked like a complete moron. -tom
looked like a complete moron. Does
your family have a history of mental
illness? I don't want you to snap and
cause problems for me. -tom
\_ Fixed what? The only thing broken
here is you. Let me take a page from
your book by making an assumption and
deciding it's the only possible valid
explanation for a given set of facts:
Since you've resorted to namecalling
it must mean you have no response to
any of the points I've raised. -dans
\_ Blithering != "raising points" -tom
\_ See ridiculous tom-like
assumption #1 in pp. I find it
hilarious that you ask if
mental illness runs in my
family when you might as well
be wearing a sandwich board
that says, "Hi, ask me about my
narcissistic personality
disorder." Granted, NPD is
disorder." Granted, NPD is not
Bi-Polar disorder; it's not
life threatening or anything,
but you really should seek
help. -dans
\_ dans, I am a psychiatrist.
\_ I didn't ask if mental
illness runs in your family.
That was probably psb
thinking he's clever. -tom
thinking he's clever.
I think you are a moron,
not insane. -tom
\_ That's nice, but you
should still seek help.
Oh, and you haven't
answered my question:
what did I say was broken
that you suggest I fix?
-dans
\_ The complete lack
of useful information
on the CSUA web page.
-tom
-----------------------------------------------/
\_Uh huh. So given that:
a) You think this is a problem. I don't think it is *necessarily* a
problem, and I won't until you or someone else run stats on the
weblogs showing that the website gets a reasonable amount of
traffic.
b) I don't think forcing my, much less your, views on how the CSUA
should do things is a good thing for the future of the
organization (teach a man to fish and all that...)
c) I don't have root.
Why would I possibly fix something that I don't feel is broken, and
force your views on the current undergrads? And I put the question
to you once again, if you care so much, why don't you get off your
self-righteous ass and do something about it? -dans
\_ Your assumption, that the current lack of information is due to
some sort of strategic decision by the current politburo, is
far too ridiculous to respond to. -tom
\_ Where did I claim it was strategic? Lazy certainly.
Enlightened, possibly. Do you really think they're a bunch of
idiots? -dans
\_ I don't know if they're a bunch of idiots, but I think
it's inexcusable to have no information about the
organization available on the web for months.
The CSUA is the fourth link that comes up when you
type "computer science berkeley" into Google; I'm
pretty sure current undergraduates haven't evolved to
a higher plane of existence where they don't use Google.
-tom
\_ And therein lies my point. You're "pretty sure" of
something so it must be true. All I'm suggesting is
that the politburo may have priorities that are
different than yours so what is inexecusable to you may
be no big deal to them. I would further argue that it
would be reasonable to sit down and run some stats
before putting any effort into the web site. If 98% of
new membership comes from in-class announcements or
walkby traffic, it's not worth putting time into the
web site unless someone has a personal itch to scratch.
Let's not forget Facebook either. If you really don't
think the politburo are idiots or grossly irresponsible
hooligans, give them the benefit of the doubt when it
comes to running the organization. They probably know
more about the current needs and habits of undergrads
than you or I do. -dans
\_ Dans, I am a psychiatrist.
Would you like me to post my
diagnosis of you in the motd?
It will be incomplete
You are clearly egodystonic,
but my analysis is incomplete
because I cannot interview
you, but I'm confident about
some of the judgements. Or
if you would like to answer
I few questions, I can resolve
a few of the uncertainties.
a few questions, such as
whether you are currently on
any mood altering medication,
and if you are a homosexual,
I can resolve a few of the
uncertainties and formulate
a better assessment.
P.S. "bipolar" is not
hyphenated.
-----------------------------------------/
\_ If you are actually a practicing, licensed, and board-certified
psychiatrist, then I'm sure you know that making diagnoses based on
incomplete information, i.e. not having interviewed the client, is
a questionable practice that is unlikely to yield valid results.
Furthermore, you certainly know that, excepting cases where the
client represents an immediate danger to him/herself or others,
doctor-client communications, including dignoses, are confidential.
Were you to interview me, and then publish my diagnosis in a
semi-public forum, such as the motd, without my express written
consent, that would be a gross ethical violation and possibly
grounds to pull your license. Of course, since you haven't
interviewed me and you're publishing an incomplete diagnosis it's
not unethical, it's just sloppy. And yes, since I'm not a
practicing psychiatrist, there is a double-standard here. I make
no claim to be anything but an armchair psychiatrist (and a bad
one at that :), but that also means I'm not subject to the same
rules and ethics standards you are. So, what's that make you? A
sloppy psychiatrist or a liar?
P.S. Mea culpa on the hypenation of bipolar. Since I am not
a psychologist or psychiatrist myself, I don't have a copy of the
DSM-IV on my bookshelf.
-dans
\_ So are you takingany mood altering prescription drugs?
Can you also put up a jpg of you hand with your fingers
together?
\_ Did the MOTD Boob Guy leave too?
\_ I wish.
\_ Just got back to the Bay Area. srs.
Check out Jerri Monet!
Check out Jean Monnet!
http://apella.ac-limoges.fr/col-jmonnet-chateauneuf/jmonnet.jpg
http://i18.tinypic.com/3zs34ub.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLV04h76s-c - motd
\_ What does the first and last link have to do with boobs? |
| 2007/3/8-12 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:45905 Activity:low |
3/7 Bush will pardon Libby and am happy to take any bet to the
contrary, since I can just arb it on Tradesports. -ausman
\_ Loyalty is a one way street in that world. He won't do it.
\_ No money down, but I'll take that as a gentleman's bet.
Bush won't pardon Libby. -aspo
\_ Why wouldn't he though? I think he will. Those who don't
already hate him won't care if he does it.
\- any bets the VP will "discover" he can issue pardons too?
anyway, unless the issue is moot for some reason, i will
also bet he gets a "and turn the lights out" pardon, although
if a "i have a pardon in my pocket" scenario is legal,
that is a possibility. --psb
\_ Just not seeing it. Not today, not at light's out. Bush
doesn't care about some dumb jerk like 'Scooter'. Why
would he pardon him?
\_ what?
\_ E,MFDYSI?
\_ sorry i'm not familiar with "and turn the lights out"
pardons or "i have a pardon in my pocket" scenarios
\- lights out pardon: last minute before leaving
office [presidents pardon many people all the
time, but you typically only hear about con-
troversial last minute ones]. this isnt a std
term, it is my term]. clinton's patty hearst
and marc rich pardons are "lights out" pardons.
[the marc rich pardon was one of the worst
things clinton did. other interesting pardons:
reagun:steinbrenner, raygan:deep throat,
nixon: jimmy hoffa]
pardon in my pocket scenario: i am not sure if
a pardon must be announced. it is clear that
a president can give a pardon before you have
been found guilty even [most famously ford's
nixon pardon]. so the question is can he quietly
slip somebody a pardon they can carry around
like an immunity idol or joseph conrad's
secret agent ... and only whip it out if
needed, or never at all. YMWTGF(trust johnson
pecker). |
| 2007/3/8-11 [Recreation/Travel/LasVegas, Reference/BayArea] UID:45906 Activity:nil 88%like:45903 |
3/7 The Myth of "Superstar Cities"
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3xclv5 (joelkotkin.com)
\_ Well, it certainly is true that families seem to be getting out of
Livermore. (Not that it's a "superstar city") -jrleek
\_ We gotta get out of this place
If it's the last thing we ever do
We gotta get out of this place
Girl, there's a better life for me and you
Somewhere baby, somehow I know it
\_ When it comes down to it, people who have the means don't
generally want to live in Riverside or Charlotte. He addresses
this in his article. It's not like Charlotte is suddenly going
to grow to 10 million people and NYC will fall to 5 million.
All else being equal, people prefer NYC. Sometimes there are
inflows and sometimes there are outflows, but I think that
the 'superstar' cities are such for good a reason - mainly that
people like living there. That doesn't mean Miami, Las Vegas,
or Phoenix can't grow, but it's like saying that Riverside
has more to offer than London, Paris, or Tokyo because the growth
rate there is higher. As those smaller cities mature the rate
will slow and they won't have siphoned much from LA, SF,
Boston, or NYC. Can you imagine if SF cost the same as Houston?
How many people would move there in that scenario and drive
up prices again? Supply and demand. |
| 2007/3/8 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:45907 Activity:nil |
3/8 Sorry to burst the bubble but the Christian belt and undecided
voters of 2008 will easily and happily ignore your favorite Dem
candidate. In the view of 53% of the Americans, H Clinton is a
very unChristian woman who should have been a housewife,
Edwards looks too young and inexperienced and more importantly
Edwards is a FAGGOT, and Obama has a very unChristian skin tone.
Romney may be a Mormon but at least he is white, religious, and
righteous. Romney wins 2008. |
| 2007/3/8-11 [Uncategorized] UID:45908 Activity:nil |
3/8 Anyone else have this issue, where new IMAP headers have previous
date timestamps, but once downloaded they show up at the current
time. |
| 2007/3/8-12 [Industry/Jobs] UID:45909 Activity:nil |
3/8 USDC is looking to hire a programmer:
/csua/pub/jobs/USDC_Programmer
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/sof/290094575.html
Email me with questions. --erikred |
| 2007/3/8-11 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:45910 Activity:nil |
3/8 What is your meat footprint? http://csua.org/u/i6y \_ My third leg leaves a huge footprint \_ headprint? |
| 2007/3/8-11 [Finance/Investment] UID:45911 Activity:nil |
3/8 Damn this Bush economy! http://csua.org/u/i78 \_ note the number is the SUM net worth for ALL households, not the median percentage gain/loss per household. this would imply that those households with million-dollar+ hedge fund accounts would absorb much of the gain, just like they have much of the $$$ anyway, deserved or not. E.g., between 2001 - 2004, net worth for the median American family increased only 1.5% after inflation (took three years!). What you may be falsely implying is that in 2006, in just one year, the median American family saw a 7.4% increase in net worth. |