| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2007/4/19 [Consumer/CellPhone, Health] UID:46367 Activity:nil |
4/19 April 16, 2007 - Honey bees are dying off, and cell phones may be to blame. Bees have been disappearing in 24 states, and beekeepers estimate more than a qu\ arter of the country's 2.4 billion colonies have been affected. Previously, scientists thought dry weather or pesticides may have been the cause\ , but a new German study shows that radiation from cell phone signals disorients bees. "When bees are exposed to signals from cell phones, they can't find their way,"\ said Dr. George L. Carlo, chairman of the Safewireless Initiative. "It gets no n\ utrition and it consequently dies." |
| 2007/4/19-21 [Reference/Tax] UID:46368 Activity:nil |
4/19 Rights are being eroded left'n'right, cameras are everywhere, net
traffic is being scooped and analysed in bulk, pensions are long
gone and social security isn't far behind while taxes are scheduled
to go up further, the borders barely exist, there's only one
political party but it has two names, and the insane rantings of a
psychopathic killer are being broadcast which will only enourage
others of similar nature to attempt to 'get their message out, too'.
But at least they finally kicked Sanjaya! Whew!
\_ Small victories, my son, small victories. |
| 2007/4/19-20 [Uncategorized] UID:46369 Activity:nil |
4/19 Any serious advice on how to cut down on the misfirre from recruiters
when posting your resume ? I mean jobs that you have at most one
of the qualifications for. For example; I get alot of ads for
Windows automation even though there is none in my resume. I used
to chalk it up to a stupid recruiter. But its becoming far more
common. ARE there just alot of stupid recruiters out there?
\_ I would guess tighter labor market. |
| 2007/4/19-21 [Politics/Foreign/Asia/China] UID:46370 Activity:low |
4/19 The late Asia's richest woman left her fortune to her fortune-teller.
http://www.csua.org/u/ii8 (Yahoo! News)
\- that wang woman is pretty odd. didnt she wear pigtails into
her sixities .. on formal occasions.
\_ Yeah, that's her. Her Chinese nakename is something like "Little
Sweetie". Her husband was kidnapped twice. The first time he
survived. The second time he or his body never re-appeared.
\_ I really hope that they follow the original will. It sounds like
it has a lot of good intentions backed by adequate control of
distribution. |
| 2007/4/19-21 [Science/Space, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:46371 Activity:nil |
4/19 IAEA confirms Iran is enriching uranium, and has disallowed inspectors
from visiting their heavy-water facility.
http://csua.org/u/iia |
| 2007/4/19-21 [Reference/Tax] UID:46372 Activity:nil |
4/19 W-4 withholding question. For those who are married with combined
salaries of 2 x $100K, about how many allowances do you put on your
W-4? It seems like the computation method on the back of the form
omits the deduction of state taxes, and I end up putting down 0
allowances and withhold an extra $9K. Let's say there is no mortgage
interest deduction or significant investment income. Thanks.
\_ Call an accountant or just run the numbers through turbo tax.
\_ ran it through turbotax, it says 4 allowances for me, 2 for her.
but i figure there are married couples here who did this before
they bought a house and wanted to verify ...
i'm also surprised the w-4 instructions could be so wrong.
\_ Remember it's a gov't agency. |
| 2007/4/19-21 [Reference/Military] UID:46373 Activity:high |
4/19 Just last month, two private citizens stopped a potential shooting
spree because they had guns: http://csua.org/u/ii6
\_ And?
\_ I know this is going to spur another thread on whether sources
matter, but I'm not finding this in the mainstream news. Help?
\_ Scripps isn't mainstream?
\_ Scripps is a news-service; the story is being quoted from
The Commercial Appeal out of Memphis. This appears to be the
_only_ source of this story out there in the Internet.
\_ Here's the local news story:
http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=43109
\_ Believe me, I want to believe this story is true, but now
I've got a Commercial Appeal story and an AP story that
doesn't actually appear in a search of the AP archives.
Please help!
\_ Ah, so the local stories are also in on the conspiracy.
Got it.
\_ What conspiracy? If you see a news story from only
one source, it's hard to tell if it's news or
anecdote. Are you not familiar with urban legends?
\_ Found the Commercial Appeal story, and it's worthy
of Paul Harvey: http://csua.org/u/iib (Commercial
Appeal). Roberson's side of the story:
'Roberson, 56, said Wednesday evening that he'd been
rear-ended by a black car carrying six men.
Roberson said he called police, then when the men
got out of their car, he reached down, got his gun
and tucked it into his back pocket.
At some point, Roberson said most of the men
dispersed, leaving just the driver and a "heavyset"
man. Roberson said the large man then pulled a gun.
"I didn't know what his intentions were, so I came
out with mine. I started shooting," said Roberson,
who is licensed to carry a gun.
Roberson, who was charged with reckless
endangerment, admits to some regrets about the
affair.
"I probably could've handled it a little better,"
added Roberson, who said he'd put his gun away
before the brothers arrived. "Just leave it ...
alone."
So now we know the rest of the story, and it's not
that a well-armed citizenry leads to less shootings.
\_ Great example of how the easy availability of guns leads to
shootings. -tom
\_ So what is your plan to eliminate guns? Passing anti-gun laws
won't eliminate them from criminal hands (that's why we call
them criminals, they don't follow laws). Are you advocating
shutting down the gun makers so guns simply cease to become
available and rounding up all the fire arms currently out there?
\_ The shooter at VA Tech and the shooter in this story both
had legal permits; they weren't criminals until they
started shooting. It doesn't take a whole lot of
imagination to figure out ways to reduce gun ownership. -tom
\_ The VAT guy had been sent to the loony ward for help and
was a known problem. He should not have been given a gun
permit. We don't know much about this other guy so I can't
comment. Anyway, I'm not very imaginative, so what is
your plan to reduce/eliminate gun violence?
\_ Medical records are private, and I'm sure the NRA
wouldn't be a big fan of legislation that barred
anyone who's been treated for depression from owning
a gun. Ya think?
My plan is to enact legislation like England's,
develop gun turn-in programs, and confiscate them
from criminals. -tom
\_ Medical records aren't private when someone is
determined to be a threat. And *anyone* can be
hauled in for a 3 day evalution with little more
than a social worker's say so. And what the NRA
thinks of anything is meaningless. That's red
herring material.
So your plan is to do what a number of cities already
do with turnin programs and to confiscate guns from
criminals which already happens. Ok. Your plan is
in place and has failed. Now what?
\_ Uh, I'm saying that a gun shop can't look at
someone's medical records to determine if
they can sell him a gun.
And you left out a rather important part of the
plan, which is to enact gun control laws which,
you know, keep people from buying more guns.
And yes, my plan is in place, and has succeeded.
-tom
\_ No one said a gun shop can look at medical
records. What do you think the waiting period
is for? They're sending your name off to get
checked for things like having a criminal
record or being a lunatic. And your idea of
gun control laws will do exactly nothing to
keep guns from the hands of real criminals
while disarming their potential victims, the
rest of us. Your plan has failed to get guns
from the hands of real criminals while making
it very hard for responsible citizens to
protect themselves. Good work!
\_ Your medical record is not checked during
the waiting period, so not only is your
conjecture ridiculous, your facts are
wrong. -tom
\_ The NICS system does include records of
whether people have been committed. So
if a court concludes that you're a threat
to yourself and others, has you committed
to a mental hospital, and you later try
to buy a gun, the NICS system will flag
that and reject you when the firearms
dealer runs you through NICS at the time
of purchase. Incidentally, a NICS check
only takes a few minutes in most cases.
A waiting period is only required at a
federal level when it doesn't go that
quickly (for whatever reason -- confusion
in their records, or just from NICS
being down). A waiting period is usually
imposed at the state level (such as the
ten day wait in California). NICS did
involve a waiting period in the early
days, but that went away by design as
the system matured. From what I've seen
in the news, it sounds like the judge
stopped short of something that would
have shown up in NICS.
--alawrenc
\_ VT nutjob was not committed. (It's
very difficult to commit anyone
these days.) -tom
\_ Being adjudicated as a mental
defective will also disqualify you
and show up in NICS. The point I
was trying to make is that things
can show up in a NICS check to
disqualify you based on your mental
health without the gun shop having
access to medical records. If you
get rejected by NICS, the FFL who
made the NICS request doesn't know
why.
--alawrenc
\_ So lets say that we ban all gun factories except those
that sell to law enforcement and the military, what is
to stop criminals from either (1) importing their guns
from elsewhere (a la the drug trade) or (2) making guns
illegally? I mean do you really want the gun trade to
go underground and turn that into another debacle like
the whole drug thing?
\_ The VA Tech shooting was not done by "a criminal".
Neither was the shooting in this article. It will
still be possible to obtain guns, just like any other
contraband; should we legalize heroin, since it's
still possible to get it on the street? (Actually
if you're a libertarian nutjob, don't answer that.)
-tom
\_ Of course he's a criminal, he decided to murder
a whole bunch of people. He's probably not that
stupid and could very possibly have acquired
an illegal gun had there been a handgun ban.
Or modified a legal gun to make it concealable.
\_ He wasn't a criminal when he bought the gun,
over the counter. Surely you aren't suggesting
that it's just as easy to obtain heroin as
alcohol now. -tom
\_ You make a HUGE assumption - if guns were
not available OTC then the nutjob wouldn't
have been able to get any guns. If one is
determined to use a gun in connection w/ a
crime, then one will find a way to obtain
a gun. Furthermore, let's say we ban all
the guns, and criminals switch to using
knives, swords, crossbows, &c. What then
ban anything that could be used as a weapon?
Ban all classes that might teach you how to
make a weapon? Well at least the next gen
of ugs wouldn't have to suffer the 7 series.
\_ How about this: Let's just ban guns,
because unlike knives, swords, and
crossbows, they are known to be commonly
used in fatal attacks in the U.S., and
there is plenty of precedent for
ways to control their distribution. -tom
\_ Swords, knives, &c. have been killing
people for MUCH longer than guns have.
What effective precedents are there
for controlling gun distribution that
would ACTUALLLY keep guns out of the
hands of criminals?
The whole failure of your argument
is the assumption that w/o OTC access
to guns, those who commit crimes would
be deprived of access to them. That
is not a realistic assumption. Do you
really think this nutjob wouldn't have
found some other way to get his guns?
\_ Yes, I think there's a big difference
between being able to walk into a
store and buy a gun, and having to
find some black-market way to
obtain one. It's the same difference
that keeps more people drinking
alcohol than smoking pot. And
there exist other countries which
manage to keep guns out of the
hands of nutjobs. It's obviously not
impossible--it's being done. -tom
\_ Yeah, banning guns has completely
stopped violent crime in Australia
and the UK. Oops, not really.
\_ Strawman. Both the U.K. and
Australia have murder rates
less than half of ours. -tom
\_ More to the point, the number
of mass fatalities due to
violent crime is lower in places
where guns are banned.
\_ I guess we just disagree. I think
that you might stop the occasional
spur of the moment crime by making
it harder to purchase guns, but I
don't think that a ban will affect
people like the nutcase in VT.
Such people will manage to find
guns just like ugs at Cal manage
to find pot on a regular basis.
I just think the marginal upside
of safety from gun violence is
not enough to outweigh the loss
of overall freedom that we as a
people will have from our gov.
I think my freedom is worth the
risk that I will be a victim of
gun violence. You don't. I can
accept that.
\_ Could you explain, then, why
our murder rate is double
that of comparable countries?
-tom
\_ I do not think there are
any comparable countries.
Every where else on earth
is less free than the US.
Perhaps the price for my
freedom is that some nut
will kill me using a gun
he bought at Walmart, but
I'm willing to pay that
price.
\_ Uh, how is the U.S. any
more "free" than the
U.K. or Australia? Other
than gun ownership. -tom
\_ We do have a more open
legislative process than
at least the UK.
-scotsman
\_ Can you walk down the
street without being
watched by the gvt?
You can't and no.
They are on track to
1984. Only lack of
funds for cameras in
every home is holding
them back, they have
them every- where
else. The people are
certainly suffici-
ently brow beaten for
it. You can't even
legally defend
yourself or another in
the UK. If the UK is
your idea of a free
place, I'd rather risk
getting shot, thanks.
\_ You didn't mention
Australia. And
there are plenty
of government
cameras in the US.
-tom
\_ I don't know
\_ Drawing on this argument, are
there any studies/documentaries
showing how hard/easy it is to
obtain a gun on the so-called
black market? Are there studies
comparing black market sales of
of firearms in countries that
ban guns and those that, like
the US, regulate irregularly?
anything about Australia so I didn't comment. Unlike a number
of people here I restrict myself to things I know something
about. And no, the number of cameras in the US which are
mostly in gas stations and banks is trivial next to what the
UK has done and plans to expand to. There's no way you can
make any serious claim that the US == UK on watching their
citizens. It's even worse there because the intent of the
cameras is to exert social control, not improve security such
as here with banks. Do you really not know what is going on
in the UK with their 1984 style camera plans?
\_ Do you really not know what's going on in the U.S.?
There are cameras at almost every intersection in
San Francisco now. They're starting to show up on
speed limit signs, too. Also, you stated that
"there are no comparable countries," and
"everywhere else is less free than the U.S." That
implies knowledge of why Australia is not
comparable to the U.S. Certainly, not including
Australia in your response is a dodge. -tom
\_ We need a War on Guns.
\_ not everyone sprays and prays like the runner buttorper u r
\_ "I was addicted to Netrek. The fame, the success, the
glory." Good to see you back, Duck. -tom
\_ 2 INL rings baby! CMU and GB! hehe
\_ Tom. so what happens when your ship if fueless?
you get scummed (killed).. what happens if you have
fuel? Tom runs away.. Ergo.. possession of firearms
(fuel) leads to peaceful situations - duck
\_ Fuel is not a firearm; torps and phasers are. If you
try your to SC-ogg when I have fuel, I'll just kill
you and take the planet. Ergo, possession of
firearms leads to genocide. -tom
\_ NO!.. SOunds like Self-Defense to me!
So you do have it in you!! u just dont know it-duck
\_ The funny thing about this story is that it basically goes like
this:
1) Minor traffic accident
2) Minor argument
3) Unknown person allegedly pulls out a gun
4) Robinson pulls out a legal gun and starts shooting
5) Robinson puts gun away
6) Yahoo in pickup truck pulls out a legal gun, threatens Robinson
The funny part is that this is being posted as an example of why
we need *more* guns! Like this interaction went better because
people had guns. If anything, it points out the stupid things
people do when they have guns, and that one doesn't need to be
a "criminal" to do something stupid with a gun that could get
someone killed. -tom
\_ That's one version. How about this version: not knowing Robinson
had a gun, they figured they push him around and maybe beat him
up. But they were wrong. Then another armed citizen comes up
and is fortunately armed and defuses the whole thing. Without
guns involved, this could have easily turned into, "Man in minor
fender bender beaten to death, police seek possible witnesses".
\_ Unlike yours, my version is supported by the actual story
as reported. -tom
\_ Duh. My version is the hypothetical if guns weren't
involved. Try again with reading comprehension > 0.
\_ According to the article, there was only one guy
left *before* any guns were involved. Try again
with clue > 0. -tom
\_ Yeah, a big thug who was looking to beat him up,
like I said. He didn't pull the gun for nothing.
Back to reading class.
\_ ??? R says he was tailed by 6 dudes in car. He
gets out of his truck. They get out of their car
five of them split. The remaining guy pulls gun.
R pulls gun and starts shooting. Bros. arrive and
draw gun on R. Large dude disappears. Bros. place
R under citizen arrest. By any reading of the
article, the five dudes split before R pulled his
gun. -!tom
\_ here is a related question. The whole second amendment thing is
wrt a "well-regulated militia". So how does that allow someone
to own a gun unless they are part of such a militia. And , last
I checked, state militias went out with the civil war and laws
against treason/overthrow of the government. So, shouldn't
the whole second amendment thing be moot as a justification for
personal handgun use /ownership? --not a troll
\_ Because the "militia" at that time was all adult males capable of
using a firearm, not something like the National Guard we see
today. Remember that at that time most people were farmers or
tradesmen and the government was trivially small. There was little
"well regulated" government anything at the time.
\_ I understand the past relevance; but not the current one.
Gov't is very different now than it was back then. As I
understand, it was supposed to also act as a stopgap to
an overreaching Federal gov't (or a king). I just don't
understand the contemporary relevance. Unless of course
you beleive in the right/need for the violent overthrow of
the government. No sane person would think that way.
(At least I hope not).
\_ one could say the contemporary purpose is the same as
the past one: as a deterrent. no sane person would
want to start a global thermonuclear war.
\_ Every NRA member should be issued a thermonuclear
device to be used in self-defense only. Because
who can you trust, if not NRA members? -tom
\_ This is actually a good question for which there is no
clear answer (depending on your politics).
I am not a 2d expert, but what I know from my Con Law
class, and related, is that there are two views re the
rights in the 2d. To inform our discussion, the amend.
is quoted below:
[i] A well regulated militia, [ii] being
necessary to the security of a free state,
[iii] the right of the people to keep and
bear arms, [iv] shall not be infringed.
(I have numbered the phrases for reference purposes.)
Phrase iii seems to recongize that that "the people"
have a right to "keep and bear arms." This is what
many people call the "personal right" to arms.
The difficulty comes when one tries to determine the
import of phrases i and ii.
One view is that these phrases qualify the personal
right. Thus the right recongized is a right of the
states to maintain an armed militia. The modern view
on this is that the term militia means something like
the national guard, which can be deployed by a state's
governor. Basically, Congress couldn't pass a law that
prevented the states from arming thier national guard
units.
A different view is that phrase i and ii recognize a
separate right (the right of the states) or merely
explain the personal right; the personal right exists
separate and apart from the other language. This view
comes from the fact that many of the other amendments
recognize multiple rights in condensed language. It is
also supported by fact that at the time the amendment
was adopted, the term militia was widely understood to
mean all adult males. (Some dispute whether this is
strictly true, b/c why would the framers use the term
"people" and "militia" if the terms were basically the
same).
If you are really interested, you should read the
following cases:
[1] PARKER v. D.C., No. 04-7041 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 9, 2007),
http://urltea.com/ec4 (cadc.uscourts.cov - pdf)
(holding that the 2d amend. recognizes a personal
right).
[2] US v. EMERSON, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001),
http://urltea.com/ec6 (findlaw.com)
(holding that the 2d amend. recongizes a personal
right).
[3] SILVEIRA v. LOCKYER, 312 F.2d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002)
http://urltea.com/ec8 (ca9.uscourts.gov - pdf)
(holding that the 2d amend. does not recognize a
personal right).
[4] US v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 175 (1939)
http://urltea.com/ec9 (findlaw.com)
(questioning whether the 2d amend. provided any
personal right, absent evidence tending to show
that possession of a particular weapon had some
reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a militia).
\_ the "well regulated" modifier I believe was meant to address
a real fear of mob rule and other acts of the unwashed
citizenry. thus, we see the correct interpretation of the
second amendment - a balance between gun ownership as a
fundamental right and guarantee against government tyranny,
and regulation to prevent going loco with your Glock.
the core issue is in where you strike this balance. |
| 2007/4/19 [Reference/Military] UID:46374 Activity:nil |
4/19 Tom does believe in Self defense and the right to bear arms
(see evidence)
Tom. so what happens when your ship if fueless?
you get scummed (killed).. what happens if you have
fuel? Tom runs away.. Ergo.. possession of firearms
(fuel) leads to peaceful situations - duck
\_ Fuel is not a firearm; torps and phasers are. If you
try your to SC-ogg when I have fuel, I'll just kill
you and take the planet. Ergo, possession of
firearms leads to genocide. -tom
\_ NO!.. SOunds like Self-Defense to me!
So you do have it in you!! u just dont know it.. - Duck
(see.. Tom needs fuel for self defense and will use it)
\_ SMACK! -tom
\_ DOOSH!! - duck
\_ Just let the clue CCW , don't allow the clueless twinks to CCW
and hope for the best.. - duck |
| 2007/4/19-21 [Computer/Networking] UID:46375 Activity:nil |
4/19 After installing Logitech wireless mouse, my friend cannot connect from
his PC to his wireless broadband router via a USB wireless network
device. It said that it cannot obtain IP address from the router. Even
uninstalling the Logitech wireless mouse doesn't help. Do you know how
to fix the wireless LAN problem, so that his PC can obtain IP address
again?
depends on the security level of the router. Does it have
the macid of the wireless card?
\_ depends on the security level of the router. Does it have the macid
of the wireless card? |
| 2007/4/19-20 [Politics/Domestic] UID:46376 Activity:nil |
4/19 A message all of us, liberals and conservatives, can get behind:
http://www.thepoorman.net/2007/04/14/a-little-bit-country
\_ already posted and boring |
| 2007/4/19-21 [Uncategorized] UID:46377 Activity:nil |
4/19 This motd post dedicated to ALBERTO ... i suspect everybody would
rather be branded a liar than a fool, but if you had to pick between
say a 12mo sentence for some perjury/contempt/obstruction charge or
be outed as a fool, what would you pick:
ex-con:
fool:
And once again GOPAT! |
| 2007/4/19-21 [Uncategorized] UID:46378 Activity:nil |
4/19 Anyone following Life on mars ( the BBC version)?
\_ I've watched a couple. Enjoyed it, but not enough to make the
TIVO. Now the Robin Hood BBCAmerica is running is lots o' fun.
\_ RH is a lot of fun. Lucy is also nice on the eyes too. |
| 2007/4/19-21 [Consumer/CellPhone] UID:46379 Activity:low |
4/19 I've been on verizon for a few years now, and haven't had many problems,
but I don't like their selection of phones. I'm considering Cingular.
Does anyone have any significant pros/cons for a Verizon to Cingular
switch? Thanks.
\_ You can't ask anything about phone companies and expect a consistent
answer. It's like a game of the musical chair. Company A gives you
a better deal and advertise heavily for the time being till they
oversubscribe to get a higher margin, while company B is waiting for
company A to oversubscribe, etc etc. It goes on and on.
\_ If it's not broke don't fix it. -Verizon shareholder
\_ All the mobile companies seem to suck equally in the United States.
Ever make a cellphone call in Europe?
\_ No, but part of the reason I want to switch is to be
able to have a phone that works internationally (and
cingular offers such phones).
\_ keep in mind that the phones offered by Cingular while
compatible with Euro/Asian networks won't actually work
on them because they'll be locked on the Cingular
network. You'll need to either get it unlocked on the
black market or pay a premium to get an unlocked phone.
\_ Verizon also offers such phones, but you also have to
pay someone to unlock it.
\_ I just switched from T-Mobile to Verizon last December, and the
Samsung SCH-a930 I have now seems good. |
| 5/26 |