| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2007/10/12-15 [Uncategorized] UID:48295 Activity:nil |
10/12 Bought a bunch of G at around 470, should I sell now?
\_ No. Never sell Google. It can only go up. Forever.
\_ You paid 470 for ghb? Dude, you got ripped off. |
| 2007/10/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:48296 Activity:nil |
10/12 I am very curious... do people in USA actually think they have the
moral high ground of accusing others for genocide?
http://csua.org/u/jpq
\_ Yes. Oh, and today is the 12th of Oct.
\_ Absolutely, and that doesn't negate our obligation to recognize
injustices to Native Americans by our predecessors at the same
time.
\_ i am still waiting.
\_ Dude, we let them gamble and they don't have to observe
state law. It's a pretty sweet deal! ;)
\_ They can even declare themselves sovereign nations.
Exactly what it means by having sovereign nations within
the US, I don't know.
\_ Exactly. As far as I can tell it means they have to
follow federal law, and that's about it.
\_ Your logic: because the US was responsible at one time in the
past for atrocities against the natives here we have no business
telling people committing genocide today to stop. Thank you for
joining us today. Maybe you'll have better bait tomorrow.
\_ my logic is that the only reason why we stopped is not because
we didn't feel it was the wrong thing to do. We stopped because
we've gotten what we wanted and these natives are no longer
have any means to fight back. ANd even today, USA never
officially label these acts "genocide," nor have American
produce any sort of remedy for such act (return some of their
land? monetary compensation?). and now we are passing a bill
labelling Turkey for doing the same thing?
\_ Same logic: you did bad stuff so you can't point out when
other people do bad stuff.
\_ The bill has no 'weight'. Symbolic only. At least in the US
most people would agree that we were pretty shitty to the
Indians. The Turkish government completely denies anything
happened at all.
\_ Sounds similar to Germans vs. Japanese regarding WWII.
\_ You're over generalizing. If anything, the Germans of
today accept MORE than their fair share of the blame
for WW2. They won't shut up about how awful they were.
Boo hoo. nationalist Japanese parties like to pretend
the barbaric excesses of the imperial army did not
happen, I'll give you that.
\_ The "weight" is that Turkey will become an enemy.
Currently, 70% of our supplies for Afghanistan and Iraq go
through Turkey's airspace. This bill has been attempted
for over a decade. Only now, when it will cut off the
supply lines to our troops are the Dems working on it.
\_ The Dems are building alliances around the world!
\_ While calling Bush terrible at diplomacy.
\_ Enjoying some crow with your Freedom Fries?
\_ Huh?
\_ Native American tribes can run casinos in CA. White trash,
n***er and Chinamen can't.
\_ http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20071011 |
| 2007/10/12-15 [Uncategorized] UID:48297 Activity:nil |
10/11 See, the Patriot Act *is* working:
http://caedefensefund.org |
| 2007/10/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:48298 Activity:high 52%like:48303 |
10/11 Clearly, the Nobel Peace Prize has a well known liberal bias.
\_ Truth has a well known liberal bias as well.
\_ Despite all the evidence!
\_ http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm
\_ Arafat won a peace prize too.
\_ Arafat was a liberal?
\_ No, Arafat was the kind of brutal killer a certain brand
of liberals love to fawn over for some weird reason.
\_ You know that Arafat did not actually win the peace
prize himself, right? You do understand that it was
shared with Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin. Why, do
you imagine, the Nobel Comittee would award a peace
prize to a group of three people like that?
\_ Oh of course. I have to wonder what Gore has actually done for
peace. He made a movie with significant factual errors? Wow.
\- i'm not a big fan of ALGOR but he's a better choice than that
dumb tree planting woman or rigoberta menchu, massive liar.
the should have co-awarded it to BLOMBORG for "spearheading
a debate on environmental change".
\_ What does GW have to do with peace?
\_ Let's time travel back to 1973 and have this discussion about
Kissinger's award, mmmmmkay?
\_ Name one war Gore stopped.
\_ It is your opinion that the movie contains significant
factual errors. A majority of climate scientists would
disagree with you. It is pretty much impossible to make
a documentary without any piddling errors. Do you believe
in Creation Science, too?
\_ Or in Al's case very serious errors.
\_ I notice you are avoiding the question.
\_ If you look at the list of NPP winners over the last 30-40 years
you'll find so many idiotic decisions that it is difficult for a
rational person to take them seriously anymore. It just doesn't
matter.
\_ Many rational people take them seriously. Perhaps you think
that the Nobel Prizes don't matter, but if you do, you
would be wrong.
\_ Uhm yeah. Well said. Next up: I know you are but what am I?
\_ 'Regular' Nobel prizes are very prestigious. The Nobel Peace
Prize became a joke when Arafat won. -- ilyas
\_ The conventional Nobel prizes are very prestigious. The
Nobel Peace prize was a joke ever since Arafat won. -- ilyas
\_ In your opinion, which of course everyone in the whole
wide world shares. Do you honestly believe that your
opinions are mainstream, ilyas? -ausman
\_ "That's like, your opinion, man." Why did you even
write that post? -- ilyas
write that post? No content. -- ilyas
\_ There is a very small group of pro-war people,
mostly people who despise any non-violent effort
at conflict resolution and whose livelihood depends
on warfare, who think that the Nobel Peace Prize
is "a joke." To the overwhelming majority of
humanity, it is a very presitigious award, perhaps
humanity, it is a very prestigious award, perhaps
the most prestigious award a human being can win.
There, is that better? -ausman
\_ Surprisingly, it is actually possible to
not take the Nobel Peace prize seriously, and
also NOT hate kittens. The Nobel committee gave
the award in question to a known butcher, without
bothering to check if the 'agreement' would hold,
in the face of decades of similar agreements
failing to work. Naturally, the 'peace' didn't
take, but you know. Who cares about peace.
Would you support giving Kim Jong Il the Peace
prize? The fellow runs a nightmare gulag state,
but I am sure he can sit down for a peace accord
too. Especially if there is no requirement that
he keep his word. Incidentally, did you know
that at least one Nobel committee member resigned
over Arafat?
P.S. Are you familiar with Larry Ellison's phrase
'Bozo explosion?' It's a way in which startups
\_ Yes case in point Google. Start shorting
man, you'll thank me for it.
eventually succumb to inertia as they grow and
mature. 'Bozo explosion' is a general phenomenon,
it affects not just corporations but traditions
(consider the Olympic games corruption scandals),
non-profit orgs (consider what happened to LA's
Griffith Observatory), and apparently even
prestigious prizes. -- ilyas
\_ You know, I am a pretty careful student of
Middle Eastern history and I have never before
heard of a Palestinian-Isreali peace treaty
heard of a Palestinian-Israeli peace treaty
that was signed by leaders from both sides
before. Can you give me some more information
about this treaty? As for your confused notion
about constitutes a prestigious or important
prize, I will say that historical figures almost
always seem more important after they are dead.
I am sure the award to MLK was pretty
about what constitutes a prestigious or
significant prize, I will say that historical
figures always seem more important after they
are dead. I am sure the award to MLK was pretty
controversial in 1964, as well. -ausman
\_ Are you comparing Arafat to MLK now? Wow.
Prizes are a social signal, nothing more.
The process by which prizes are awarded is
a noisy one. If this process gets so noisy
that 'obviously bad people' get the prize,
the prize is no longer a meaningful signal,
e.g., "This prize recipient is a good
person/productive contributor, etc. ...
unless we happened to fuck up and the person
is actually a murderer/thug/moocher/
political stooge." Bad award decisions
reflect on the award, I am afraid. -- ilyas
\_ I notice you are unable to provide me with
any similar peace treaty, in spite of your
earlier claims to the contrary. You are
aware that the Nobel Peace Prize is an
international prize, right? And you are
aware that Arafat is one of the most
highly regarded people ever in the Arab
world, right? I personally do not regard
Arafat as on the level of MLK, but would
not be surprised if he is by most people
in twenty or thirty years: it all depends
on how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
works itself out. I think that Rabin and
Arafat took great personal and political
risks to come to an agreement, which they
should be commended for. Rabin was
assassinated for it, as was Sadat a decade
earlier, for daring to come to a similar
accord. Remember, there are still a bunch
of fanatical peace hating extremists on
both (many?) sides in the ME, who are
willing to kill leaders on their own
side who try to come to a peaceful accord.
Did you approve of the assassination of
Rabin and Sadat? Want Arafat and Peres
assassinated?
\_ Let's see: Linus Pauling, Martin Luther King, UNICEF,
Andrei Sakharov, Amnesty International, Anwar Sadat &
Menachim Begin, Mother Teresa, Lech Walesa, The UN
Peacekeepers, Nelson Mandela & Fredrik De Klerk,
Medecins Sans Frontieres. What a worthless bunch!
\_ Yeah, we need a Nobel War Prize, so some Republicans can win some.
\_ What I find sad about this is that there *had* to be someone out
there who has actually done something about making the world a
more peaceful place instead of turning the prize into a political
award for correct behavior. How many truly worthy people were
passed over to give Al a hat tip?
\_ Name one.
\- BTW, it's not only the Peace prizes with a mixed record.
The Lit prize is criticized for poor choices too. |
| 2007/10/12 [Computer/Companies/Ebay, Politics/Domestic] UID:48299 Activity:nil |
10/12 Awesome. http://csua.org/u/jq0 \_ What is awesome about Limbaugh trying to rewrite history? He tries to do that all the time. |
| 2007/10/12-17 [Recreation/Humor] UID:48300 Activity:nil |
10/12 I thought this xkcd was funny
http://xkcd.com/263
\_ I like this one: http://xkcd.com/327
\_ We've been through this. tom says xkcd is not funny so xkcd is not
funny. Unlike you and I, when tom speaks, he is not making
subjective observations about the world, he is stating the one and
only objective truth, and you'd be a moron and a fool to believe
otherwise. -dans
\_ xkcd is not funny. --tom #1 Fan
\_ Neither of those are remotely funny. - !(tom || dans)
\_ This probably isn't either: http://www.xkcd.org/322 |
| 2007/10/12-14 [Finance/Banking] UID:48301 Activity:nil |
10/12 Oh crap Etrade's savings account teaser interest rate went from
5.05% to 4.70% in less than 1.5 month. Who else has a higher
savings/mm interest rate? |
| 2007/10/12-19 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:48302 Activity:high |
10/12 Awesome. http://csua.org/u/jq0 (ebay auction of... oh, who cares, it's partisan crap disguised as a short url. Op, did you happen to see your dignity on auction while you were there?) \_ Actually it's about accuracy, and Reid's inability to find it with both hands. \_ Actually, it is about Rush Limbaugh's attempt to rewrite history, something he does all the time. Where are his transcripts of him calling Chelsea Clinton the "White House Dog?" http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010 See where he calls them "phony soldiers." \_ Yeah, http://mm.org has been arguing against the truth for quite a while. Limbaugh clearly was talking about actual phony soldiers. See "Operation Stolen Valor". Limbaugh went on to talk about McBride and others like him. talk about Macbeth and others like him. \_ I heard it live, in context. He was clearly not turning his back on 20+ years of pro-military rhetoric. Reid and http://mm.org got it wrong. The only way they could get it so wrong was by intentionally ignoring the facts. Rush is an amusing entertainer and not worthy of this sort of waste of time on the Senate floor nor a ridiculous witch hunt. Especially since he's said plenty of other things worth attacking that he's actually said. \_ Another "phony soldier" no doubt: http://www.csua.org/u/jq2 Rush only calls you a phony if you don't support Bush's war. \_ If you ever actually listened to Rush you'd know he's said many times that he has no problem with real soldiers being critical of the war. Just the fakes and frauds like the guy he was talking about that day who flunked out of basic but falsely claimed to be a US Army ranger who committed and witnessed numerous atrocities. You're tossing a red herring. Reid is a liar. Media Matters (a Hillary created front org) are liars. The other 40 Senators who signed his stupid letter are liars. If you want to bash Bush or the war, go ahead, but that has nothing to do with Reid, Hillary, and the rest flat out lying about what Rush said and wasting Senate time attacking a US citizen's first amendment rights. Have a nice day. \_ First off, what proof do you have that the first caller was a phony soldier, which is what Rush clearly called him? Secondly, Media Matters is hardly a Hillary created front org, it was founded by David Brock, someone I personally know from my time at Wired Magazine and it is funded by Soros. As usual, you are either confused or spreading misinformation. Soros. As usual, you are spreading misinformation. \_ The first caller was a phony soldier? What are you talking about? I don't think you know. Secondly, Brock is a Hillary minion. Your knowing him personally has nothing to do with anything. Of coruse Hillary didn't fund it herself. No one said she did. Sheesh. Either way, Reid and MM are still liars. All this other stuff is nonsense. \_ Brock is hardly a Hillary minion, unless you really believe that everyone to the left of Mitt Romney is part of a vast Hillary conspiracy. If anything, he is a Soros minion, since Soros writes his paycheck. And Soros is quite a long way from Hillary, believe me. \_ You failed to answer about the first part about "first caller was a phony soldier". You don't know anything about this story. You're just a troll. The rest of your post is nonsense. \_ In a simple reading of what Rush said, it is quite clear that he referred to the first caller as a phony soldier, yes. Your English language skills are deficient. You also don't know what the word "troll" means. Hint, it does not mean "anyone who disagrees with me." \_ sorry, I was listening to the show, not a cut up transcript. He was clearly not referring to the caller. The rest of your ad hominem is not worth replying to since it is based on your complete lack of knowledge of the situation. \_ Calling someone a troll is fine, but saying "you don't know what a troll is" is ad hominem? You don't know what ad hominem means either. \_ To both of you: Please show evidence that Soros or Hillary in any way financially supports MM. "Drudge says so" is not evidence. \_ Sorry, I mistakenly thought this was common knowledge. It is pretty funny to watch the Right foam at the mouth over MM. They have been doing the same stuff for years, but they get seriously paranoid and nutty when anyone gives them a dose of their own medicine. Where does MM get its funding? \_ "common knowledge" to who? Ditto- heads? Answer your own question then come back and show us your results. \_ I've donated to them. \_ I've wasted money on stuff before, too. \_ Well, they seem to get you all hot and bothered, so it wasn't a total waste, now was it? \_ *laugh* the first troll who is paying others to do it for them. You've taken the Art Of Troll to a whole new level. Keep sending money. Wow, you're dumb. \_ Do you really think that this is the *first* troll to ever do that? What do you think of Horowitz and FrontPage Mag? \_ I don't donate to Horowitz or FPM or MM or any other troll orgs. Why would you? \_ You are begging the question. Is MM the *first*? \_ Of course it isn't but that is a side show. Who cares which was first? I don't and have never donated to any of them. Why would anyone donate to orgs who by their very nature are designed to lie and created with that purpose in mind? Maybe that's your thing but I'll send my charity to places that try to do good in the world. \_ Surprisingly enough, not everyone agrees with what your definition of "do good in the world" means. \_ I'm sad anyone takes Rush seriously, ever, or pays any attention to him. \_ Talk to Reid about that, wasting time in the Senate on an entertainer. \_ ugh debating anything Rush spews is stupid. http://MM.org is a Soros creation, not hillary. \_ From Rush to Drudge... Can't you people factcheck anything? The zombie lies will never die... \_ Hillary herself said she helped create http://MM.org. Here is the article, with a download of the audio of her saying it. http://csua.org/u/jqa \_ First off, this is not really what she said there, if you pay attention carefully to the wording. She said she supports it, which can mean practically anything. Secondly, do you honesly believe every lie that a politician tells you? Did you believe Dubya when he told you that Saddam had WMD and a Nuclear program? Did you believe Gore when he told you that he invented the Internet? The actual founder of MM is famous for having written various anti-Clinton pieces, including the Troopergate story (which was later exposed as a lie, which was part of what led to Brock's "conversion"). \_ So we have to carefully parse her words to figure out wtf she's talking about? Does she know what the meaning of "is" is or was the previously resolved in court? Sheesh. \_ Politicians say bland, impenetrable things all the time, deliberately using the ambiguity inherent in language to tell the greatest number of listeners what they think they want to hear, without actually saying anything. Hillary is just better at it than most. \_ I suppose it depends on what the meaning of "it" is. I prefer leaders, of which we have a few, over your politicians. Saying she is a politician and there- fore it is ok for her to dissemble is not ok. You might as well vote for Bush. \_ I think it is obvious that I am no big fan of Hillary either, but I don't see any of these "leaders" running for President, from either party. You might be able to convince me otherwise with regards to McCain. Anyone else even remotely close? \_ Among the 'top candidates' as chosen by the media, no, not really. There are others running we barely hear from. Maybe there. \_ Who? \_ Ron Paul, Huckabee, Dodd, and Gravel come to mind. Hillary is an evil clown, Obama is a clown, Rudy is evil, Edwards is a fraudster, Romney will say anything. I miss anyone at the top? \_ Huckabee talks out both sides of his mouth with regards to taxes, Dodd is bought at paid for by Wall Street, but bought and paid for by Wall Street, but perhaps the other two are all right. I don't know much about them except what I saw on the debate. They are both obviously willing to take upopular stances openly, so you have to respect that. \_ ObBitchSlap: Gore never said he invented the Internet. \_ Created vs invented \_ "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator." -Vincent Cerf \_ Because it behooves him to embarass the VP by saying anything else? \_ Because it's true. \_ So you say. What exactly did Gore do without which we wouldn't have google today? \_ High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 which led to the National Information Infrastructure. Learn the history of your field, young Computer Scientist. \_ 'If it had been left to private industry, it wouldn't have happened,' Andreessen says of Gore's bill, 'at least, not until years later.'. So, without Gore, we would be just like now but circa 2002? With google, yahoo, web mail, browsers, etc, but no web 2.0 ajax outside of MS web outlook? How is that different? You know the net existed then right? So he did something that eventually funded the browser a year later? It sounds like the browser was already on it's way. I'm not buying it, sorry. \_ this is one of the dumbest trolls I've ever seen. -tom \_ why do you still post here? \_ Heh, w/o CCA and NII, we'd be just like ten years ago, but with BBSs. OTOH, we'd probably have kickass analog modems. \_ Hint: there was an internet before 1991. \_ Yes, and Usenet, and other such, and you had to have access through a school or large company to get to it. W/o public investment in expanding access, you'd still have to have an OCF account to read your email. \_ And as Andreesen said, we'd be a few years behind. Call it five. That puts us at 2002 which isn't a whole lot different than today. Or maybe you're smarter than he is. We all know that without government nothing ever gets invented. Government is the source of all creativity and invention. *boggle!* \_ you're an idiot. \_ Andreesen said "years later": that could mean decades. Also, if not for gov. invest. there'd've been no .com bubble and no commesurate boost in private spending in infrastructure. Prog. w/o profit is slooow. \_ the dotcom bubble was a good thing? ok whatever. \_ It led to near- ubiquity of the Internet. I'd say that's more good than bad. \_ I'd say it didn't. I'd say more computers in more homes did that. \_ The proto-Internet was ARPAnet, run by the DOD, and the DOD decided it was no longer going to provide support for civilian applications. If the Internet did not receive funding at that point in time, maybe telecoms would have done something, but it would have been done based on the telecom model; fee for service, screw net neutrality. The government is the *only* entity which could have created the Internet as the public resource we know today. -tom \_ fee for service got you... here it comes.... SERVICE! What a shocker! imagine having a business model where you have to pay to get stuff! Dreadful! \_ What are you, a Free Market troll, a ditto- head troll, or a bridge-troll? \_ Anyone who disagrees with you must be a troll. You are the source of all truth. \_ Man, took you long enough. \_ Do you think the Internet would be better if it worked more like cell phone networks? -tom \_ For some definitions of 'better', yes. If I could pay $5/m to not get spam I would save money, for ex. The telcos would sell you "spam _/ blocking service" and then sell the spammers "spam delivery guarantee service" to get around the spam blocking. You'd have to buy a specific computer to connect to AT+T's network and it wouldn't work if you wanted to switch to Sprint, and you'd have a two year contract with a penalty clause. You'd also have a surcharge to send mail to an off-network customer, or it just wouldn't work at all. The "cheap" connectivity plan would involve huge fees for any time you actually used the service, and then they'd advertise "Tired of high fees? Buy our unlimited plan for twice as much money!" Net neutrality and ubiquitous deployment is a huge public benefit, and it could only have happend through government action, and Gore deserves a lot of credit for initiating that action. -tom \_ You mean like how I can use my cell phone right now to call anyone and it doesn't cost me anything during nights and weekends and during the day the rate is dirt cheap, I don't get spam calls, I have a choice of hundreds of phones, and all this was brought to me by pure raw capitalist competition for my hard earned dollar. Yeah, the phone system sure sucks. If it was run by the government I wouldn't have a cell phone, unless I was a Senator or someone else 'important' who gets a special health plan much different than what the proles get. No thanks. I'll pass on the socialist utopia phone system monopoly. I'm old enough to remember Ma Bell being the only game in town. A government monopoly on the phones would be no better. Competition rules. \_ Uhh, you do realize that without the government heavily regulating large chunks of the phone industry your wonderful cell phone network would be a disaster, don't you? \_ The actual quote was "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." which Declan (another Wired Alum) twisted into invented. \_ Hence "Created vs invented" as I said above. \_ Brock is hardly a Hillary minion, unless |