| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/3 |
| 2006/3/7-10 [Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Motd, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll] UID:42132 Activity:high |
3/7 Isn't it squishable to use something like fold to modify motd?
\_ maybe. who is doing it?
\_ Yes, but no one cares anymore.
\_ No. It's theoretically squishable to have something automatically
modifying the MOTD every three minutes via fold or some other
method, but ever since paolo did it, it seems anything goes. -tom
\- What if you are an obsessive compulsary guy like me who checks
the motd every 5 minutes _manually_ and do repeated things to
motd _manually_? How do you distinguish between changes done
via a script that keeps calling fold or just someone like me?
Is it squishable because of one's ultimate intent to motd
regardless of actual changes, or is it squishable only when
the actual changes are made repeatedly, regardless of method?
\_ The only cases I know of where someone was squished for
modifying the MOTD were when it was being done automatically.
Being an idiot is not the same as being a hoser. -tom
Being an idiot is not the same as being a hoser. For example
I am an idiot and marco was a hoser. -tom
\_ The horse is dead tom. Please stop beating it. -dans
PS, I'm a little dubious of your standing to bitch about CSUA
policy since you've done so since before I got to Berkeley in
'97, and continued to do so until I finished in '04, and, to my
knowledge, you never once showed up at a politburo meeting. I'm
under the impression that you work on the Berkeley campus so
it's not like you have distance as an excuse.
\_ I've been to general meetings during that time frame.
I think the current undergraduates really should be in
charge of setting policy and direction for the CSUA, but
I also think that it's inappropriate and inexcusable for a
CSUA officer to intentionally and deceptively screw up a
public CSUA resource. -tom
\_ Fair enough. Even so, I can say your knowledge of the
so-called paolo motd squishing incident is incomplete.
There are facts you don't have that were discussed by the
then current undergraduate members of the politburo in
closed session, and a policy decision was made based on
those facts. Thus, in this case, your hard line stance on
the issue is in conflict with your statement that
undergrads should set policy and direction. Seriously
though, it's been for years. Don't you think it's time to
move on? -dans
\_ Don't you think the politburo should have responded
to the person who brought the complaint? I never
heard a single word. And I can't imagine what facts
there could be which would mitigate the situation
enough that the CSUA President would not have to at
least admit wrongdoing and apologize--unless you
believed paolo's total BS about how his process really
was pine and it was checking mail every three minutes.
Closed politburo session for disciplining a politburo
member is also total BS. -tom
\_ It would mitigate the situation if the President's
apparently anti-social act that stomped on your
playground actually benefited the greater good of
the CSUA. If the University was pressuring the CS
department to shut off the CSUA's net taps
*permanently* in response to complaints that the
motd was in gross violations of campus hate
speech/fighting words statutes, then nuking the
motd would benefit this greater good. I phrase
this as a hypothetical because I can't disclose
specifics on the record without betraying the
confidence of the politburo members at that time.
Refer to question #18 in link:csua.org/u/f69 for
more info re: campus hate speech regs (sorry, it's a
PDF). And, also hypothetically, perhaps the
politburo didn't respond to the person who raised
the complaint because they felt that the individual's
language and attitude was abusive and demanding, and
they felt disinclined to interact with such an
individual? If said individual raised his/her
complaint in person at a politburo meeting with the
same language and attitude, I suspect the politburo
would have told him to `Fuck off' in so many words.
As is, they let sleeping dogs lie. You can state
that ``Closed politburo session for disciplining a
politburo member is also total BS,'' but that's your
opinion. The undergraduates on the politburo made a
policy decision regarding how they wanted to handle
the matter. If you truly believe that current
undergraduates should set policy and direction, you
don't get to pick and choose which policy decisions
they do and don't make. -dans
\_ chmod 644 /etc/motd.public is how I would solve
that problem. No need to run a script to wipe
motd. -mrauser
\_ oh that's a load of crap and you know it. paolo
was deleting the MOTD because people were taking
out his postings of kinneydrivel. If he were
doing it for the greater good of the CSUA, why
did he name his process "pine" and lie about
what it did? We're not talking about the
MOTD nazi'ing after 9/11, we're talking about
while (1) sleep 180 ; cp /dev/null /etc/motd.public
And I do think the undergraduates should be
allowed to set policy; do you think that if I
put the above in a script, called it "pine",
and ran it myself, that that would be OK and
within CSUA policy? What a crock. -tom
\_ I agree that Paolo's implementation left much
to be desired, but that's neither here nor
there. And yes, if nuking the motd kept us
from getting our net tap shut off, while it
wouldn't be OK, I'd sincerely hope that it
would be forgiven. At this point the dispute
is who's facts are correct. Yours run counter
to my recollection, but I doubt I'm going to
convince you my memory is better than yours
or vice versa. But that still begs the
question, why are you beating a horse that's
been dead for four years? -dans
\_ The facts that paolo *claimed at
the time* were that he was "running
tests using screen to have it run
pine in the background and
auto-reattach itself to my
soda-shell whenever i got new mail" (his
words). Apparently, when it became obvious
that this was 100% bullshit, he told the
politburo that he was on a SOOPER SEKRIT
MISSION to SAVE THE CSUA from the EVIL
LORD MULLALLY. And apparently he
succeeded in his mission, despite only
deleting the MOTD for about three
hours on one occasion and never running his
script again (at least not automatically).
What an effective leader he was! I
bring it up because I am still dumbfounded,
not only that he did it in the first place,
but that his credulous cronies let him
get away with it. Maybe you believed his
bullshit--that would just make you a
stooge and a tool. Paolo, on the other
hand, was a scumbag. -tom
\_ Excuse me? Have you ever sat down
and had a beer with me? Or Paolo?
Paolo is a good guy and a good friend
who's there when he's needed. I can
attest to this as will many others.
Back when he was on politburo, he worked
his ass for the CSUA. So did I. You,
on the other hand are a faceless bitter
dour naysayer alumni who sees fit
to bitch and moan about `those kids
these days,' but, in my seven years
kicking around Berkeley, I never once
saw you lift a finger for this
organization. You seem to believe that
\_ Excuse me? Have you ever sat down and
had a beer with Paolo? Or me? I know
he busted his ass for the CSUA when he
was on politburo. So did I. You on the
other hand seem to be a bitter dour
naysayer alumnus who loves to bitch
about ``those damned kids these days,''
but, in the seven years I was active in
the CSUA, I never once saw you lift a
finger for this organization. Basically,
you're a parasite. You seem to think
the motd is your personal playground,
You think Paolo pissed on it once four
years ago, and, like a child or a
fanatic, you latch onto this tiny
perceived slight, blow it way out of
proportion, and refuse to move on or let
go. Somehow, in the haze of your ongoing
childish tantrum, you concluded that
people you barely or never interacted
with are, in your words, scumbags,
stooges, and tools. My first impulse is
to revert to your level and call you a
wanker, but, on further reflection, I'm
simply speechless. -dans
and you believe Paolo pissed on it.
Like a child or a fanatic, your response
to this tiny perceived slight is to blow
it completely out of proportion: You
hold a grudge over the matter that's
lasted four years (and counting). On
the basis of incomplete information
about a single event, you just labeled
a bunch of people you've barely or never
interacted with as stooges, tools, and
scumbags. I'm tempted to drop to your
level and call you a wanker, but,
frankly, I'm just speechless. -dans
\_ Way to change the subject! First of
all, I am quite confident that I
have both done more work for the CSUA
and donated more money to the CSUA
than either of you. Second, how
much work any of us have done for
the CSUA is completely irrelevant
to whether paolo's actions were
inappropriate. And it's not just
that he munged the MOTD; it's that
he threatened me with lawsuits and
police action when I reported it.
That's appropriate behavior for
an officer of an organization? -tom
\_ I'm not changing the subject. You
called me a tool and a stooge. I
can live with that. But you also
slapped that label (and scumbag)
on several of my friends,
something I am considerably less
inclined to tolerate. This is the
first time you've brought up
threats of lawsuits and police
action. I know in your world you
want us all to bow down and lick
your asshole when you champion
your righteous views, but a) you
refuse to allow for the fact that
you may be wrong and b) we live in
a civil society where the police
and the courts exist to adjudicate
disputes between parties. You
have a right to raise complaints.
But if you harrass people to make
your complaints heard, or your
complaints are slanderous or
libelous, then the wronged parties
have a right to seek legal
recourse. If Paolo legitimately
felt you wronged him, then it is
reasonable and appropriate for him
to seek remedy from the police or
the courts. -dans
\_ except he was 100% full of
shit, which is why he
apparently came up with a
totally new story in the
SOOPER SEKRIT POLITBURO
MEETING where, surprise,
his friends decided not to
do anything to him. -tom
\_ I am ready to fight you Tom.
Are you a coward? -dans
\_ GUN DUEL!!
\_ I did not write this.
-dans
\_ So you are scared to
fight tom too? It is
too bad for the
CSUA you both lack
physical courage.
\_ Look tom, if it was such an
important issue, and you
believe so strongly in your
conviction that Paolo is a
liar and a `scumbag,' you
could have escalated your
complaint to the ASUC, the
CS department, or the
University level. You chose
not to do that. Instead,
you vent on the motd with
cheap shots and low blows at
the parties involved four
years after the fact. This
is just sour grapes over the
fact that the politburo
decided that you were wrong,
and your complaint lacked
merit. Apparently you don't
like to be reminded that
you're not omnipotent, and
sometimes this leads to
incorrect conclusions. -dans
\_ I didn't vent on the MOTD.
I reported it to the
politburo, courteously
and with details. The
\_ And then proceeded to
vent about it on the
motd for the next four
years (and counting!)
when the politburo
decided, based on
findings of fact that
your complaint was
without merit. -dans
politburo ignored me
except for paolo's
reply where he lied about
what he was doing,
claimed he was placing
a restraining order
against me, and blamed
me for making soda
"not a place for
undergraduates."
(Ignoring, of course,
the fact that he was the
one trashing the
resource). The act
itself was not that
big a deal, and it
would have been a
disservice to the CSUA
to try to bring it to
a higher authority.
However, paolo is still
a scumbag and you're
still a tool. -tom
\_ I am thankful I don't
see the world through
your eyes. -dans
\_ The bottom line here is paolo was
your friend and anything he did
was fine.
\_ No. I choose my friends
because they behave like
honorable human beings I can
respect. I can't be friends
with someone I don't respect.
If he did something genuinely
reprehensible, he wouldn't be
my friend anymore. -dans
\_ It wasn't "reprehensible";
I mean, he didn't murder
anyone or steal etc. What
he did do was break a CSUA
policy that others have
been disciplined for, and
lied about it. I mean, you
\_ To my knowledge, he did
not lie about it. Tom
accuses him of lying
about it, but, as this
thread shows, Tom lives
in a reality distortion
field so I am
disinclined to believe
Tom's accusation. Honor
and honesty are very
important to me, and
while I don't view them
purely in black and
white, I would end a
friendship over them
-dans
\_ So, do you believe
the following?
1. I have been and was running tests using screen to have it run pine
in the background and auto-reattach itself to my soda-shell whenever i got
new mail (think of it as biff++). I have been running these test for
several days now.
I have been checking my screen sessions on soda and the programs I've
been running are not only nice'd, but go to sleep awaiting a timer
call. I'm using soda because some of my mail goes to soda.
...
For this i am contacting the OSC and the Berkeley PD about restraining
orders placed against Mr. Holub.
The first two
paragraphs don't
jibe at all with
what you claim
happened at the
SOOPER SEKRIT
politburo meeting.
And I seriously
doubt he ever
contact OSC or
contacted OSC or
the Berkeley PD.
-tom
--------------------------------------------------/
\_ Did Paolo cc anyone, e.g. the politburo on that mail? That is, if
Paolo sent the out of context email excerpt you posted, and the
statements therein are untrue, did he lie to you, or did he lie to
both you *and* the politburo? I'm willing to believe he sent the
email you are excerpting, I don't think your reality distortion
field is so warped that you would fabricate old emails. Did it
ever occur to you that his purpose was to get you off his back?
If he lied to you, then it was bad form and a poor way to
accomplish that end. But, apparently, it succeeded. You might
feel you deserve an apology. That said, however, you make a
pattern of being rude, belligerent, and nasty in your electronic
communications, as evinced by your behavior on the motd. Oddly
enough, this is something you and I share. The difference is that
when someone responds to my nastiness by ignoring me or telling me
to fuck off in so many words, I accept the consequences. You, on
the other hand, demand an apology, and declare a lifelong (four
years, and counting!) vendetta against the party in question. -dans
\_ That was his response to my mail to root. He cc:ed root,
twohey, ajani, galen, and chialea. He made similar claims on
\_ Let's apply Occam's razor here. Which of the following is
more plausible:
a) Paolo is privately a degenerate scumbag, but his public
face is that of a brilliant social engineer who counts the
following people in his thrall of tools and stooges:
- twohey, ajani, galen, and chialea
- all root staff members
- all politburo members
- everyone reading wall during the time period in question
b) You really weren't privy to all the details, and thus
your self-righteous black and white assessment is wrong.
-dans
<<<<<<< /home/sgi/dcs/tms
\_ This is great. If paolo sent it just to me, he was
just trying to get me to go away, but if he sent it
to lots of people, he must have been telling the
truth. How's this for a possibility: the politburo
was a bunch of paolo's friends, who didn't want to
do the right thing (turn off his account and remove him
as President), so they decided in "closed session"
(so no one else ever knew what happened) to let it slide.
Sounds pretty ontologically parsimonious to me. -tom
\_ tom, do you need a hug? Maybe a nice puppy or a kitty
cat for your apartment? -dans
\_ How can you count 'everyone reading wall...'?
\_ As tom has made abundantly clear, if you're not
with tom, your against tom. Since those reading wall
did not rush to tom's defense and aide, they must be
part of Paolo's vast scumbag conspiracy of tools and
stooges. -dans
Also, another possibility is that those 'tools and stooges'
in actuality chose to just let it slide, for whatever
reason, since that's the easiest thing to do, and they
probably had no idea what really happened and don't
care much either way about the incident.
=======
\_ You are a black bugger. -tom
>>>>>>> /etc/motd.public
\_ Sounds plausible to me. It also explains why, unlike
tom, they're not still bitching about it after the
fact. -dans
wall. The issue has *nothing to do* with my online personality;
\_ Do you have an
different online
personality
because you are
worried about
getting beaten up
in real life?
\_ He does run
away when
someone makes
physical
threats on the
motd.
\_ you know,
psb, a
twerp like
you really
should
stay away
from
talking
about
physical
conflict.
-tom
it has to to with paolo trying to come up with a plausible story
to dupe the credulous. He failed the first time, so apparently
he came up with a totally different story, completely
inconsistent with his first one, to tell at the politburo
meeting. (By the way, the MOTD that day was
http://www.csua.com/2001/07/11;
nothing remotely resembling hate speech). -tom
know, whatever, but there
it is. Your politburo chose
to ignore that. That thing
had nothing to do with hate
speech (that was the 9/11
motd shutdown). I don't
think that this incident
would be enough to break a
friendship over. But it
is quite plain that there
was dishonesty there; can't
you at least admit that it
was a wrong thing to do
especially for an officer?
Anyway I don't really care
and nobody else really does
either but it remains an
item of precedent that tom
was perfectly justified in
pointing out at the top of
this thread. All the rest
of this thread is your
indignant lashing back.
Anyway I don't have
anything against y'all I
just think it's funny.
\_ "hard line stance"? Seriously.. You (by which I mean
the last 5 years or so of politburo) only use terms like
this because of an inflated sense of importance. I think
it's time politburo stops whining about outdated
criticism.
\_ Um, dude, I'm making an argument. I use language
appropriate for the discussion. Sense of importance
has nothing to do with it. I think it's time that
bitter dour naysayer alumni stop whining about four
year old slights. -dans
\_ For posterity, what were those facts? -!tom
\_ The hypothetical I describe is pretty damn close. I
can't disclose specifics without violating others'
trust. Yes, it's lame, but it's also how it fell
out. -dans
\_ trust him, he's only wiretapping bad guys. -tom
\_ I agree it's fucked. But I also gave my word.
Look tom, I've been way more active in this
organization in the last seven years than you
have. Is there a reason your word should
carry more weight than mine? -dans
\_ That makes absolutely no sense. Do you actually
believe that?
\_ If someone asks for my opinion on a matter in
confidence, I give it, in confidence. I don't
put a statue of limitations on that. I value
my word. -dans
\_ I was referring to the hate speech theory of
why noble paolo was auto-wiping the motd.
\_ Berkeley has pretty strong fighting
words/hate speech policies, and they
were *really* on the warpath in the
weeks following 9/11. -dans
\_ yes, nice theory, only problem
is, this was two months before
9/11. Oh, and when confronted
with the evidence, paolo didn't
say anything about hate speech,
and there wasn't any hate speech
in the MOTD that day. Unless
you count kinneydrivel. -tom
\_ Tom was scared after some geeks threated to physically
assault him.
\_ That's moderately amusing, but my point is a serious one.
-dans
\_ Us old farts do this for a while, then we transcend Politburo
meetings for a higher plane of consciousness. You too will
realize this when you graduate to old fartness, young
padawan. -John
\_ John, you live in Europe. I can understand if you don't
make it to a single politburo meeting in seven years. Me,
I don't want to transcend to a plane where I bitch about
things, but make no genuine effort to alter objective
reality. -dans
\_ Earth to dans. Earth to dans. You already do that.
\_ As if you have any standing to judge. Please keep
believing that. Social, political, and economic
systems share at least one thing with computers:
they're easier to hack without someone looking over
your shoulder. -dans
\_ We're alumni. We don't have to go to meetings anymore.
We've earned the right to bitch from the sidelines no
matter where you are. Hey, it's the undergrads'
organization, we have no business showing up :-) -John |
| 4/3 |
|
| www.csua.com/2001/07/11 -> www.csua.com/2001/07/11/ Personally, i've never met an english major who didn't know who Joyce was. I have, on the other hand, met engineers who didn't know who Euler was. As an engineer, the important thing is to be able to *do* stuff, which requires, for most engineers, that you know some math that was discovered by Euler. While I think it would be nice for technical people to take an interest in the history of the ideas they need, you don't need to know who Euler was to be comfortable with differential equations, but if you know lots of history and can't integrate, you are a totally incompetent engineer. i said a lot of english majors probably would not be able to tell you who Stephen Daedulus was without context, not James Joyce. i dont think a lot of people come to berkeley with the idea of going to law school and just casually decide to major in physics. you can know what cos + i sin \theta is without knowing euler, but it is sort of hard to know much about moby dick without knowing it was written by melville --psb \_ you could read it and think about the ideas without knowing anything about Melville, though. I think a person who has worked at sea will understand alot more about that book than someone who listens to a bunch of whiney cal freshman overanalyze it. my point being that you dont learn about literature by going to college,which is not really in opposition to what you're saying, i think. to take an example i am more familar with, say the Iliad, there are some interps of homer that are definitely wrong which may seem reasonable if you are unaware various notions of greek society and the nature of improvisational oral composition. so as the person above sugests, a work of literature is much more a product of it's circumstances than a result in math or physics. ohm's law would be ohm's law regardless wheher it came from germany or china. however, a chinese old man and the sea would probably quite different from hemingway's. in spite of all the crap about knots in MD, i dont think knowing how to sail is the key to MD probably more important to know your bible, shakespeare etc. An example of an ASP model- Yahoo Finance- This entire site is one big ASP application. You can login- load you stock portfolio- track its performance- host discussions- view data related to stocks Same goes for the bill pay.. Yahoo has gone way beyond the portal to information- They give people the ability to Loadand Retrieve data using the ASP model. The whole ASP thing just got a bad name because a lot of broke dot coms lost their shirts persuing the ASP model- in particular related to the keyword ecommerce. But in actuality the ASP model is far superior to anything (except for maybe the security aspect). The rollout costs are nil- the training costs are minimized- the ability to implement quick enhancements is there- If lets say- Ellison got his way with the network computer- we really would have a better operating environment as MSFT could go in real time and update the interface and release enhancements without having to bundle the entire package together. The Ecommerce ASP is still a multibillion dollar solution. |