Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:May:29 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2008/5/29-6/1 [Computer/SW/Security] UID:50082 Activity:nil
5/29    Major jump in unemployment benefits for continuing claims
        4Q corporate earnings forecast to be solid
        \_ No Outside Links / Please Sign In
           Access to large images, or links from outside sites, are not permitte\
d unless you are signed into the board.  Thank you, Management
           Access to large images, or links from outside sites, are not
           permitted unless you are signed into the board.  Thank you,
           \_ sorry
2008/5/29-30 [Uncategorized] UID:50083 Activity:nil
5/28    [bunch of crap about Michelle Malkin thinking Rachael Ray wore
        a pro Palestinian scarf in a Dunkin Donuts commercial.  Yes it
        really is that inane.  Go google for it or something.  I worry
        about humanity.]
        \_ Michelle Malkin takes conservative stupidity to "11"
2008/5/29-6/1 [Reference/Military, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:50084 Activity:nil
        \_ Nice to see the Swiftboat Brigade knocked back into the festering
           swamp they belong in.
2008/5/29-6/1 [Politics/Domestic/Gay] UID:50085 Activity:low
5/29    Required reading for the gay marriage debate:

        Marriage is neither a religious nor a governmental construct; it is
        a *social* construct.  -tom
        \_ Okay. I don't see the difference between religious and social,
           but I can see that argument. If it's a social construct there's
           still no need for the government to be involved any more than
           there is to be involved with BFF.
        \_ There is a religious (for some) and governmental construct as well.
           The religious one doesn't matter in the debate (churches can do
           whatever they want, it doesn't effect people who aren't in the
           church, and, unlike governments, it is easy to leave a church
           you don't agree with,)  The government is no longer worried about
           enforcing the social construct. (At least not in this state.)  But
           there are plenty of legal rights that are governmental.  And yes
           the government is "by the people for the people" so is in concept
           a social contruct itself, but only so abstractly it's silly.
           \_ [thanks to whatever asshole stomped my changes]
              It's rather mystifying that you can't see the difference between
              a religious and a social construct.  Among other things,
              social constructs are observed by people of different religions,
              and non-religious people.  The terms "husband," "wife," and
              "married" confer different social status on the people holding
              them.  Married people can sleep together in their parents' house.
                     \_ Non married people can too these days.
              Married people can host Thanksgiving dinner for the family.
              Married people can both drive the rental car.  None of these
              has anything to do with religion.  For that matter, the major
              religions, including Christianity, have not traditionally
              endorsed marriage as we practice it today; traditionally, women
              were property.   -tom
              \_ Yeah, but if that was the entire debate there would be no
                 debate.  The concern right now is that marriage has benefits
                 that only the government can provide.  Gay couples should be
                 allowed those benifits as well.
                 \_ I agree.  But the government is just sanctioning a
                    construct which exists separate from the government.  -tom
                    \_ Fair.  And I do think it's strange how some people
                       seem to think the christian faiths have a monopoly
                       on marriage.
                 \_ There are "civil unions" and "domestic partners" where
                    participants can claim benefits similar to those for
                    marriages participants.
                    \_ Oh really?  Have you tried it?   -tom
                       \_ No I'm not gay.
                          \_ you don't have to be gay to try it.  You also
                             don't have to be gay to realize that only a
                             miniscule fraction of marriage rights are
                             conferred on domestic partners.  -tom
                             conferred on domestic partners.
                             And you might want to try taking your girlfriend
                             out to a fancy restaurant, getting down on one
                             knee, looking into her eyes, and saying, "Will
                             you be my domestic partner?"  Let us know
                             how that goes.  -tom
                             \_ You disagree with the majority of the CA SC.
                                They said that the domestic partnership laws
                                grant nearly all the rights of marriage.  That
                                was part of the reasoning for the ruling.
                                \_ Nearly is not all.  And those are only
                                   rights that CA can grant.  There are lots
                                   of rights that are federal.  Like say
                                   immigration, or tax law, or your status
                                   in other states.
                                   \_ tom specifically said "miniscule". -pp
                                    \_ Compared to what you get federally
                                       it is.
2008/5/29-31 [Computer/HW/Drives] UID:50086 Activity:nil
5/29    Considering abandoning tape backups in favor of something like this:
        Please convince me that I'm crazy.
        \_ why?
           \_ Why do I want you to convince me I'm crazy?
              \_ what are you trying to accomplish?  What is your context?
                 \_ Sorry: currently backing up 500GB per night on tape as
                    well as replicating to off-site (read: on other coast)
                    servers. Considering alternatives to continually upping
                    the number of tapes; thought nightly rsync might be a
                    better idea. A half-dozen SATA HDs and this might do
                    the trick.
                    \_ 500 GB PER NIGHT?!?  Are you actually generating that
                       much new data per day?
                       \_ Absolutely not, but we're assuming that we'll
                          have to use the backups in a vacuum so I'm
                          hesitant to rely on incrementals. This is why
                          the above solution is so tempting.
        \_ Depends on your needs. You gonna keep this thing spinning all
           the time? No offsite backups? Gonna run ZFS on it? How will
           you checksum your data? I think disk is becoming popular, but
           it's not a cure-all.
           \_ It sounds to me like he's planning on using it specifically
              for offsite backup.  You don't even have to bother taking the
              drive out of a typical server hotswap rails with this thing.
2008/5/29-6/1 [Uncategorized] UID:50087 Activity:nil
5/29 - danh
        \_ NSFW?
           \_ is safe - danh
        \_ Is that some cowboy gesture?
        \_ The commander in chief can command any cadet to chestbump him.
2008/5/29-6/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:50088 Activity:nil
5/29    Look at that.  McClellan's hit piece is published by Soros
        \_ Go to Barnes and Noble.  Notice the shelves of really not very interesting
           conservative tomes from agit prop national right wing figures. I'll
           list a few later if you want.  Notice they're almost all published
           by the Newsmax guys.  I just can't imagine anyone buying that stuff,
           at least the McClellan books sounds a little exciting.  emarkp
           have you finished your copy of the Stossel book yet?
        \_ You make my brane hurt. The man spit up lies for BushCo for years
           then decided to make some money while clearing his conscience.
           What part of what he has to say about BushCo surprises you?
           \_ Oh, you're a string theorist?
              \_ Un, fish?
                 \_ "brane"
                    \_ Oh, right! Thanks!
        \_ That dirty dirty hippie!
2008/5/29-6/1 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:50089 Activity:nil
5/19    Maliki's Midas Touch
2008/5/29-6/1 [Recreation/Food] UID:50090 Activity:nil
5/29    Thanks for the ethanol folks!  Try getting beef now.
        \_ Thanks for the people living in SUBURBS who are consuming
           more ethanol than everyone else!
        \_ Wow, ethanol has a plus!  Corn fed beef on feedlots are pretty
           much the same as those chickens down below.  Beef aren't supposed
           to live on corn, they aren't made for it.  And factory meat
           farming is why we have vast toxic rivers of antibiotic ridden
           cowshit poluting our groundwater.
2008/5/29-6/1 [Uncategorized] UID:50091 Activity:nil
5/29    Awesome!  A trip to the north pole, including....penguins?
        \_ Way to go, stock footage intern.
2008/5/29-6/1 [Politics/Domestic/President/Clinton] UID:50092 Activity:nil
5/29    The press wasn't nearly as nice when the book that came out was
        criticizing Clinton.,9171,21447,00.html?iid=chix-sphere
        \_ One story is exactly the same as the other!  Everthing is a vast
           conspiracy!  8 years ago was yesterday!  The press wants Bush
           to fail!
        \_ Where is the Time story covering McClellan's book? What?
           You mean there isn't one? Why is that???
2008/5/29-6/2 [Recreation/Dating] UID:50093 Activity:kinda low
5/29    "Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to
        regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men."
        Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711
        \_ I'd hate to raise my kids in an environment where he's
           brainwashed to believe that a marriage between a human and
           a monkey is OK.
           \_ is a monkey a free man?
        \_ It is indeed. Now tell me where the government needs to be involved
           other than protecting the right to marry.
           \_ that's a big "other than."  -tom
        \_ Marriage is a social construct arising from biological imperative.
           There is a reason *every* culture on the planet has the man/woman
           marriage concept enshrined in various rites and rituals.  We our
           are genes.
           \_ How to deconstruct this nonsense? Sentence by sentence:
              1) Marriage as a social construct arose as a means of
                 solidifying alliances between families. It had nothing to do
                 with procreation or biology; non-propertied people throughout
                 the world have not, historically, had formal marriages,
                 despite having numerous children. Cf. "romantic love" and
                 the troubadours of Medieval France.
                 \_ Non-propertied people didn't marry, historically, through-
                    out the world?  How about backing that up with something
                    more than a single minor reference from a single time in a
                    single place?
                    \_ Add pre-Meiji Japan to this list.
                 \_ I've gotta agree with that for the majority of human
                    history, marriage was a convenient mechanism to consolidate
                    political and economic power.  This whole American/
                    Euro mode of marrying only someone you fall in love with
                    is rather new.  I know an American born Indian male
                    with several graduate degrees from Georgetown who
                    had his mom find him a wife through a marriage broker
                    in the homeland.  He seems happy.
              2) Not "every" culture on the planet has the marriage concept,
                 let alone enshrines man/woman as better than any other
                 coupling (or grouping).
                 \_ I knew some pedantic twit would comment on that.  Name
                    the cultures that don't have the concept of marriage.
                    \_ The Na of Yunnan Province in China. Countdown to you
                       now retorting with "one culture? are you kidding me?"
                       or something similar now begins.
              3) We are our genes _plus_ our environments _plus_ whatever
                 tools we build to overcome our genes. Any human being who is
                 merely an expression of genes is missing out on the best part
                 of being human: using that huge brain to adapt.
                 \_ Nothing to do with anything on this topic.  I was hoping
                    someone intelligent might reply but that's asking too
                    much on a Friday.  You've deconstructed nothing.  Go have
                    another bong hit.
                    \_ Your brain has been characterized as small, and you
                       have been deemed unfit for reproduction. Please report
                       to recycling plant. Goodbye.
            \_ Are you including polyagamy in that grouping? Because
               polygamy was exceedingly common in ancient times...
               \_ This is why RADICAL ISLAM MAN will win.  RADICAL ISLAM MAN
                  has several wifes, and each of those wives has 4+ children.
                  Good Christian male just can't compete with those kinds
                  of numbers.
                  \_ Luckily, we have the FLDS on our side.
2019/04/22 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:May:29 Thursday <Wednesday, Friday>