| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2007/9/27-10/2 [Computer/HW/Languages] UID:48196 Activity:nil |
9/26 Has anyone had a head unit installed/replaced at Circuit City
or Fry's? If so, would you recommend them for installation?
Also, if there are better places than CC or Fry's in the South
Bay, please let me know. tia. |
| 2007/9/27-10/2 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:48197 Activity:high |
9/26 Another win for the Constitution and another blow to the Bush Admin:
http://www.csua.org/u/jll (Yahoo News)
\_ The Bush admin is dead. Who cares? Look to the future, don't
dwell on the past. Do you have any idea what the front runners in
both parties are saying about this?
\_ unfortuantely, Bush is not dead. He is threating veto on the
spending bill if it exceed its limit. Rubber stamp Democrats
for some reason doesn't want to put Iraq war spending as part of
of the spending bill. They should just cut the war funding
completely if things are not going their way.
\_ Bush is dead. He vetos. So what? The Democrats are not
rubber stamps for the war. The reason they keep funding it
is because they want us to stay there. They should do a lot
of things but I don't put weight on what they should do, I
look at what they've actually done, which is fund the war to
every penny Bush has asked. Anyway, none of this means
anything either way since the Democrats are doing nothing
different from what Bush has been doing.
\_ what is your proposal, then? we have 70-100 Iraqi
civilians dies every day, ~4 million (out of total
of 20+ million) displaced internally and externally.
So, obviously we are not making this peaceful right
now. My ears are all yours.
\_ What was unclear? We leave Iraq. Unfortunately
our leadership in the Congress is too pathetic
and cowardly to do what we put them there to
do. Or more likely, I believe that *want* us
to stay there. They aren't putting up *any*
sort of fight against Bush, an unpopular lame
duck President. I can only conclude they want
us in Iraq. They = Democrats, if that was
unclear.
\_ If you think the Dems are pathetic and cowardly
for not "putting up *any* sort of fight
against Bush," and are thus unworthy of office,
that must mean that you think the GOP are
murderous traitors who ought to be hanged, yes?
\_ Hanged? No. We don't hang politicians for
failed policy. Out of office? Sure, of
course. That is the nature of our system.
But I don't see the Dems saying they'll do
anything substantially different if they
have the executive office and they own both
the house and senate and have done nothing.
They aren't even very good at doing nothing.
\_ Hyperbole aside, you've seen that the
GOP are criminally negligent and corrupt.
Surely even Do Nothing would be a better
polict than the current polciy of
screwing the American people over.
\_ The reason they keep funding it is because they're scared
of the punditry saying "they abandoned the troops in the
field." This is of course bullshit, and they'll need to
find their voices and spines and change that meme. But IMO
they are obliged now to cut off the funding. There is no
other way for them to end it. And until they get up the
courage to do so, more soldiers and civilians continue to
die.
\_ Whereas when the troops leave Iraq, it will instantly
become peaceful? Pass me some of what you're smoking!
\_ what is your proposal, then? we have 70-100 Iraqi
\_ some sort of "final solution?"
civilians dies every day, ~4 million (out of total
of 20+ million) displaced internally and externally.
So, obviously we are not making this peaceful right
now. My ears are all yours.
\_ Stop cut n pasting. Say something new or don't
bother posting.
\_ Oh, no, Iraqis will continue to see violence, and
that's on our heads. But our troops leaving now
or 10 years from now won't change that. I'm speaking
specifically of the US's cost in blood and treasure.
We need to attack the issue with other approaches.
It will be a long road as Bush has ignored all other
approaches, failing to lay any groundwork
diplomatcally/politically, but them's the breaks.
\_ There is no need if we TRY to spread diseases
like Cholera. The military should consider that
as a cheap and effective option.
\_ Or we could send in the CIA to spread crack.
\_ I love how casually you predict the next 10 years.
Here's another possibility. In 10 years, Al
Qaeda has taken over Iraq, used the oil revenue to
get biological and nuclear weapons, and erased a
US city. See, we can all play that game.
\_ That may be true but in 30 years they'll
be commercialized and embrace everything
Western just like Vietnam it is now.
\_ And at the cost of only one major US port
city! A good deal at twice the price!
Maybe it'll be a smaller port city like
San Francisco or Oakland....
\_ I can live with that.
\_ Lemme guess, you don't live anywhere
near SF?
\_ Since Al Qaeda is very unpopular amongst the
Iraqi people, it is hard to imagine how they
could possibly "take over" Iraq. Try to
imagine something with a greater chance of
likelyhood, like Iran taking over Iraq.
\_ That is already happening.
\_ How popular was Saddam with the Iraqi
people?
\_ Are you saying that we are funding AQ?
\_ SH was extremely popular with one tribe,
one that represented about 20% of the
Iraqi people. AQ has no such inherent
power base. The Shi'ites hate them
and the Sunni in Iraq have turned
against them.
\_ The Sunni aren't a tribe. They're
a religious branch of Islam. Saddam's
tribe was in Tikrit and the areas
immediately around Tikrit. I agree
with the rest of what you said. |
| 2007/9/27-10/2 [Computer/HW/Laptop] UID:48198 Activity:nil |
9/27 What's a better laptop to get, Gateway, Dell, or Toshiba?
\_ thinkpad
\_ Are there still Thinkpads with butterfly keyboards? I had one
11yrs ago, and it was cool because the laptop body can be made
smaller than the keyboard.
\_ i would love to see those butterfly keyboards again. too
bad that there won't be any butterfly keyboards anytime soon. |
| 2007/9/27-10/2 [Computer/SW/Security] UID:48199 Activity:nil |
9/27 Does anyone have experiences with OpenId and/or TypeKey as to
minimize the effort spent on your web app authentication? How easy is
it to integrate these 3rd party components into your web apps? |
| 2007/9/27-10/2 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:48200 Activity:high |
9/27 After last night's debates, it looks like the leading candidates
are all in favor of keeping the war going until the end of their
first term. I don't know who to vote for anymore.
\_ Romney!
\_ the reality is that Republicans are going to loose the election
in 2008. They are doing everything they can to drag the war until
end of Bush's 2nd term. When Democrat pull the troops, Republicans
can righteously accusing Democrats "cut and run."
\_ Oh please, do you have any idea what the Democrats are all
saying? They will *not* pull the troops. That is the whole
point. There is no one to vote for!
\_ I'm still throwing support to Biden, even though he has
no chance of being nominated.
\_ As long as a majority of people support the crummy media
created candidates because the better ones "don't stand
a chance" we'll get what we deserve. I always vote for
who I want, not who I'm told I should be. If more people
were like us we'd have better government.
\_ If elected, "I would have combat troops out of Iraq in
about nine months," Edwards said. That seems pretty
unambiguous to me.
\_ Nope. Go check his response in the most recent debate.
Here it is and I'll grant it is close but no cigar, esp.
the way he starts off in answer to "2013" as a target
date. He gets an "A" for effort though as the one
closest to saying he'll actually end the war for real.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, will you commit that at
the end of your first term, in 2013, all U.S. troops
will be out of Iraq?
MR. EDWARDS: I cannot make that commitment. I -- well,
I can tell you what I would do as president. If I --
when I'm sworn into office come January of 2009, if
there are in fact, as General Petraeus suggests,
100,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, I will
immediately draw down 40 (thousand) to 50,000 troops
and, over the course of the next several months,
continue to bring our combat troops out of Iraq until
all of our combat troops are in fact out of Iraq.
I think the problem is, and it's what you've just
heard discussed, is, we will maintain an embassy in
Baghdad. That embassy has to be protected. We will
probably have humanitarian workers in Iraq. Those
humanitarian workers have to be protected. I think
somewhere in the neighborhood of a brigade of troops
will be necessary to accomplish that -- 3,500 to 5,000
troops.
But I do say -- I want to add to things I just heard.
I think that it's true that everyone up here wants to
take a responsible course to end the war in Iraq.
There are, however, differences between us, and those
differences need to be made aware. Good people have
differences about this issue. For example, I heard
Senator Clinton say on Sunday that she wants to
continue combat missions in Iraq. To me, that's a
continuation of the war. I do not think we should
continue combat missions in Iraq, and when I'm on a
stage with the Republican nominee come the fall of
2008, I'm going to make it clear that I'm for ending
the war. And the debate will be between a Democrat who
wants to bring the war to an end, get all American
combat troops out of Iraq, and a Republican who wants
to continue the war.
\_ Just like he said then, the choice will be between
a Republican who intends to continue the war and
a Democrat who intends to end it. I guess at that
point you can make your choice who to vote for.
That is assuming that he wins the nomination (a
big big unlikely assumption, I admit, but one
big unlikely assumption, I admit, but one
that should make you want to support his campaign
if you want to actually end the war).
\_ No, the choice will be between one party that
says they will stay there to continue the war
and the other party that kinda sorta say they'll
be there but like if maybe uhm eventually ya
know it is sorta hard and I don't like your tone
asking me all these hard theoretical questions
so please don't ask me anything until I'm
President party that will also continue the war.
\_ That will be true if Hillary wins the
nomination, as is likely. I disagree with
your interpretation of what Edwards said.
\_ He was asked directly if he'd pledge to
have them all out by 2013. He said no.
What is there to interpret? I could have
been a motd jerk and just gave you the
first line but I gave the full quote.
He won't promise to have them all out
by *2013* which is *4* full years after
he would take office.
\_ He said he would pull 98% of them,
which is good enough to me. I don't
see why you want to leave the embassy
unguarded. Do you think he should promise
to pull the Marines from the Embassy
walls as well?
\_ Oh goodie then we can have another
reenactment of the Iranian embassy
take over because we left too small
a contingent for the role they have
been assigned protecting the embassy
and the humanitarian workers all over
the country in the middle of a huge
civil war. Brilliant. More half-
assed measures for the cameras.
\_ The Iranian Embassy takeover was
supported by the Islamic Rev. AQ
in Iraq is not supported by
Iraqis or the govt. Your example
does not work.
\_ Are you on the right thread?
WTH are you talking about?
This thread at this point was
about how many troops Edwards
would leave in Iraq and what
mission they would have, such
as protecting the US Emb from
*any* hostiles.
\_ Do you hold your breath
until you pass out and then
type randomly on the key-
board? You invoked the Iran
Embassy as though something
of that nature could take
place in a country that did
not explicity support such
actions. No matter how bad
Iraq gets, it will not be
that country. Stop fear-
mongering. |
| 2007/9/27-10/2 [Recreation/Dating, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd] UID:48201 Activity:nil |
9/27 Man, I love Hardboiled (free Berkeley APA newspaper), it's hilarious.
The article in this old copy is great: "unmasking the emasculated asian
male". I love how she assumes that asian men had to learn racism, sexism,
and domestic abuse from white guys. Ha!
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~hboiled/7-4.pdf
\_ Lol many of the asian guyss I know are 2x as racist as the average
white guy.
\_ Hoyt Sze! Where are you when we need you?
\_ Uh, why the heck would anyone go back to 2004 to read something
like this? I mean, like, are you bored or something?
\_ I'm posting to the motd, what do you think? |
| 2007/9/27-10/2 [Computer/SW/Languages/C_Cplusplus, Computer/SW/Languages/Python] UID:48202 Activity:moderate |
9/27 Ok so to do the equivalent of the following:
bool ? a : b
In Python, it is:
(bool and [a] or [b])[0]
Uh, kick ass?
\_ 99 times out of 100 if you use the trinary operator you are
doing the wrong thing.
\_ 99 times out of 100 if you use the ternary operator you are
doing the wrong thing. Oh and python should have
"a if bool else b".
\_ Python 2.5 adds the ternary operator with the syntax above. See:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0308
The and-or trick was the most recognizable way to do this prior to
2.5. See:
http://www.diveintopython.org/power_of_introspection/and_or.html
This also explains why you need to do the wonkiness with wrapping a
and b into arrays and then extracting element 0. Curious, why does
the pp feel that using the ternary operator is a bad idea? -dans
\_ http://tinyurl.com/36zdbe (fogcreek.com) -!pp
\_ Most of this discussion convinces me that the ternary
operator is a good thing. Many of the posters seem to miss
the forest for the trees wrt code readability. At this
point, I don't 'parse' the ternary operator, I just think of
it as a (slightly) higher-level construct and find it easier
to read and understand. YMMV -dans
\_ bad coders : ternary operator :: Dubya : U.S. presidency
\_ bad coders : code :: Dubya : U.S. presidency
"However, there is already controversy surrounding the
grant. Explains Dean Clancy, "Ok, so we got all this
deodorant and shaving equipment now. So-fricking-what?
What I want to know is how we are going to get this
stuff on the engineers. Whenever I ask an engineer in
Soda, "Why do you smell like Rick Starr's underwear,
only worse?", they always give me some story about
being allergic to deodorant or not having enough time
to shower. Like I always say, you can lead a mouse to a
window but you can't always make the mouse click on the
window."
Telling bad coders to avoid the ternary operator is
like giving deodorant to EECS students. It doesn't
address the core problem. -dans
\_ What about L&S CS? Are they allowed to bathe?
\_ I'm not aware of there being any department
strictures forbidding EECS students to bathe. I
don't know if I'm typical of L&S CS students, but
I managed to bathe more or less regularly (or
date hot women who have a thing for, possibly
stinky, geeks). I suppose there was that one
semester Paolo took CS 150 and didn't leave the
lab for a week, but I definitely think that's an
outlier data point. -dans
\_ dans is channeling tjb.
\_ i miss tjb. can we get him back?
\_ Seconded. The man's a national
treasure.
\_ I think we can all agree that paolo is an outlier
data point.
\_ Nah, I'm not going to try to freestyle.
Though I am pretty white. -dans
\_ I think we can all agree that paolo is an
outlier data point. |
| 2007/9/27-10/2 [Uncategorized] UID:48203 Activity:nil |
9/27 So the new website is up. Naturally it's not done, so we are prepared
to face your derision, metal pots on our heads and wooden swords in
hand. Please email vaheder with any suggestions, comments, and
improvements. Danke.
\_ larper! |
| 2007/9/27-10/2 [Uncategorized] UID:48204 Activity:nil |
9/27 So whatever happened with Sameer's effort to become one of the FEW
and the PROUD?
\_ they apparently don't take gnomes
\_ GO GNOME OR GO HOME! GNOMES ARE THE BEST WARRIOR RACE!
\_ Pft. Dwarves get +2 Con, -2 Cha, with no size penalty. |
| 2007/9/27-10/2 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:48205 Activity:high |
9/27 In response to the previous threads about rubber stamp Democrats.
My point is not rather we should fund the war or not. But rahter,
if we going to fund it, fund it as part of regular budget process
instead of going through all these supplement spending bills which
doesn't have the same oversight as regular spending bill. Further,
I failed to understand why Democrat would take Bush's veto threat
about domestic spending while this guy's military spending is going
completely out of control. Democrats should just say "fund the war
via the regular spending bill, or not fund the war at all."
\_ Ask Pelosi and Reid why they continue to fund it. The American
people put them in office for a reason. They promised to end the
war and clean up government. Under their watch, the war has
actually expanded by 30k troops and corruption is rampant across
the board. Oh yay, I so can't wait to vote for that bunch again.
They've been so effective.
\_ In what way is "corruption rampant"? Is there more or less
corruption than with the Republican Congress?
\_ Hello? Earmarking the hell out of the budget? Just like
Republicans, except the Democrats promised to cleanup. So
we get corruption+hypocritics instead of 'mere' corruption.
There's a reason Congress's popularity rating as a whole is
at all time lows. No one likes a liar (Iraq funding) or
a hypocrite (earmarking corruption).
\_ give some examples of corrupt earmarking. earmarking is
not inherently corrupt.
\_ you're kidding, right? DiFi's committee granting
nobids to her husband's company? Pelosi granting
handouts to her family's companies? Murtha, well damn,
just about anything Murtha has come near. Look, be
serious. You can't point a finger at the other party
and scream 'corruption!' when your own party is doing
the same crap. Glass houses and all that. If you
spent less time prowling for Republican corruption
and turned less of a blind eye towards Democratic
party corruptions, you'd see the hypocrisy and I for
one have had enough. I will not support corrupt people
of either party even if they sometimes agree with me or
even vote the way I like most of the time.
\_ Please back up your claims.
\_ I did. I'm not going to discuss this further
with someone so clearly wearing blinders. You
would google for it yourself if you actually
cared and weren't suffering from severe self
inflicted blindness.
\_ No, you didn't. You gave allegations.
\_ Whatever. You don't want to know and
wouldn't care if I put it under your
nose. Bored now. Bye.
\_ "And I'm taking my ball and going home!"
\_ No, just bored and not looking to get
trolled today. I gave you more than
enough info to google it if you
cared to know. You don't. Story
over.
\_ Wow, fools do mock! -!pp
\_ Your contribution: zero. oktnx
\_ You do know that the current Congress has 1/10th
as many earmarks in the budget than the GOP Congress
immediately preceeding it, right?
\_ When it is zero, lemme know. "Woot! The one
party is not quite as corrupt (yet) as the other
party! Yay for such heroism in government!"
\_ Good luck on holding out for your utopian
society. Are you going to hold your breath
until you get it? Not everyone even is able
to agree on what "corruption" in government
is, so you will never find one without any.
As a previoius poster noted, sometimes there
are legitimate uses for an earmark.
\_ Name a legitimate use for an earmark. I'm
not certain you even understand what an
earmark is. An earmark is a politician
sticking something into a bill to give
money to some local cronies in their
district which usually has nothing at all
to do with the bill. The bill in question
is typically one of many "must be passed"
pieces of legislation so no one will vote
against it even though it is loaded with
pork. If the allocation of money was
legitimate it would have it's own bill.
Earmarking = corruption. Unless you
already hold office or are the recipient
of said funds.
\_ Earmarks can be legitimately used to
fund specific projects. Don't be
obtuse. -tom
\_ Name a legitimate earmark. Just one.
A specific project can and should get
a specific bill, or be part of a
larger related budget. I expect the
military budget to include funding
for specific weapons and bases. I do
not expect it to include bridges to
no where, funding for DiFi and Pelosi
family and friends, or anything not
related to the military. Either you
don't know what an earmark is or
you're being a total idiot
intentionally. Either way, no one
has posted a single earmarked item
that is legit. Given how many
billions of dollars in earmarks go
out in each budget, you should be
able to name one legitimate earmark,
if there were any. There are not.
\_ Here is $1B worth of earmarks
to improve the CA freeway system.
Are you going to claim that all of
them are unneeded?
link:www.csua.org/u/jma
\_ privatized freeway systems
are cost effective and
better utilized.
\_ Better utilized? Wtf does
that even mean?
\_ So your claim that these
earmarks are corrupt is
based on the idea that
freeways should all be
tollways??! Hoo-kay, please
sign your posts with the
moniker "Libertarian Troll"
next time, so I will know
not to waste my time
researching a reply.
\_ You're kidding right? Of course
a transportation bill has money
for transportation projects.
Why do you even bother? I don't
get it. Do you think no one
will fact check your links? I
specifically said they're
filling the budget with money
for local projects unrelated
to the bill they're attached
to. Transport money in a
transport bill is not what I
was talking about and you knew
that.
\_ The transportation bill is
one of the appropriations
bills that make up the
"budget". It is you who do
not know of what you speak.
He pointed to a "budget" bill
with "earmarks" which you
admit are "valid". You are
clearly too short for this
ride. --scotsman
\_ I was quite specific about
this. If you choose not
to read it and instead
pick and choose single
words out of context to
'feel big', then do so
but don't think you've
actually proven anything.
\_ You have repeatedly
mistaken "earmarks" for
"pork". When called on
it, you got all
defensive and claimed
that everyone else is
an idiot. To earmark
is to set aside monies
for a specific project.
Tom's phraseology is
right. Yours is wrong.
Also, you mentioned
the "Bridge to Nowhere".
I assume you meant
Stevens' $200M joke.
What bill do you think
that was to be in?
Hint: it wasn't in
Defense.
--scotsman |