Slashdot Mirror

Who pulled it? The Bush campaign? It was never a TV ad, and I just checked, and it is still available for download on their website (at the bottom).

The only insanity here was in the unbridled vitriol of MoveOn.org, Al Gore, Michael Moore, and the like. It was not insane of the Bush campaign to point this out.

They are.

The Bush site had a WHOLE SECTION dedicated to Kerry.

If, however, the author used a good, random sample across the board, then I can't see why this wouldn't present a decent representation of any differences between Mac users and PC users. 2-3% of the computing world, while far smaller than the whole, is easily large enough to draw a representative sample.

Consider: Ohio represents roughly 4% of the total population of the United States. The ratio of Ohioans:Americans is statistically comparable to the ratio of Mac Users:all computer users. Can you think of a single person who might care about the differences between residents of Ohio and the rest of the nation?

Granted, the stakes in the Mac/PC poll are considerably lower, but they're every bit as statistically valid. The most interesting part of polling is examining the differences that arise between demographic groups. Assuming it was conducted properly, this poll should provide perfectly valid data pertaining to the differeces between Mac users and PC users. Whether or not the results are objectionable is beside the point.

Eventually the internet will be a weapon for tyranny.

Too late...

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

It is for reasons like this that I have so much respect for a great president like Ronald Reagan, who, when he survived a bullet that came within an inch of his heart, decided that God wanted him to live for a reason, and he took charge and got rid of the Soviet Union. It's only too bad that Communism continues to exist in China and a few other places in the world.

Look at where they are, with their system based on violence, lies, and fear, and look at where we are, with our system based on freedom and personal responsibility.

Communism is the suxx0rz, and I think that as Americans, we should continue fighting it by refusing to send products, services, or business over there until they fall apart and become a system based on the premise that the individual is more important than some state, an entity of people in power who take advantage of it to enslave the individual, the way that China enslaves and polices its people.

Yes, America can!

No company can match Microsoft for blatant and unabashed hypocracy.

Guess what? "Blatant and unabashed hypocrites" rule the world.

Say WHAT?!!!

Jeebus, that's even easier than taking cheap shots at M$!

Upgrade your mission critical systems. Morons. ;)

All of the self-made rich people I know are pretty sharp. If you can provide a pointer to any research showing a reverse correlation, I'd be fascinated to see it.

Your
wish
is
my
command.

Looking at this list, it's a bit blonde-heavy. It seems further research into this strange pattern formation is required.

Spartanburg has had the opportunity to hire these two guys. This is a success story. And I want to thank you very much for being a part of it. I appreciate you. (Applause).

via George Bushs Campaign webpage. You can actually send your comment/article to nearly all newspapers at once. Yes, all 300 Newspapers in and around the DC area and the three states. Clicking "Print letter" even costs them money and paper... - Tell them how much you like your national debt, your three minimum wage jobs and the fact that the USA have lost much of their freedom.

for criticism by snail mail sent via his own webpage. You can actually send your comment/article to nearly all newspapers at once. Yes, all 300 Newspapers in and around the DC area and the three states. Clicking "Print letter" even costs them money and paper...

I reference "The Washington Post", you come back with "NewsMax.com"?

How is one any less credible than the other? Is NewsMax less credible simply because it doesn't fit your worldview? I'm pretty sure there's a book or two about that.

And you're suggesting that losing millions of jobs with health care benefits and high wages but gaining lots of massage therapists and manicurists (with no health care benefits and fairly low wages) is somehow a good thing?

A job is a job...do you think anybody works the same job forever? There are too many people in this country (including you, apparently) who believe that certain kinds of employment are somehow beneath them. When times get tough (or when you're just starting out), you take what work you can get, keeping an eye out for something better all the while. You might not get everything you want right away, but at least you can still take some measure of self-respect from not going on the dole.

You're also not taking into consideration the unsustainability of the dot-com boom. FedExing bags of dog food to people at a lower cost than you'd pay for the same bag if you drove down to Wal-Mart is not a sustainable model. Implementing said business model on the Internet didn't make it any more sustainable. These entirely predictable business failures have forced a reconsideration of how the few survivors of the boom do business. Can you still get a $100k+ job writing crappy webpages and VB apps for 5 hours a week, leaving the other 35 hours open for gathering around the office foosball table? Hell no...but if you have real, valuable skills and are willing to accept reasonable pay for it, there is work out there for you.

Of course, it's always much easier to blame someone else for your own shortcomings than to do something productive. It may be cathartic, but mindless anger doesn't put food on the table.

I say, if politicians (which are by the way trusted with OUR FATE!) behave like they do today they are gambling with the chance of survival for the entire human race. This should be considered a crime and prosecuted accordingly.

What we need is just one politician with the courage to propose spending less money on low-orbit stuff like the shuttle, and more on platforms capable of taking us higher, such as to the Moon and Mars. This would increase both our ability to detect NEO asteroids and our ability to get to them to do something about it.

But where could we find a man like that, in this day and age?

Bush-Cheney '04, Inc.
P.O. Box 10648
Arlington, VA 22210

You can also make a donation at his website:
http://www.georgewbush.com

I've got one word for you:

www.georgewbush.com

http://www.whitehouse.gov, or even worse, http://www.georgewbush.com.

despot

In almost all cases, if the link text in a page was not link text (i.e.: if all the href attributes were removed) it would have the same meaning.

I've seen your "almost all" shrink. Some blog authors write in a style reminiscent of Wikipedia, Everything 2, and the like, whose pages gain some of their meaning from what their words link to. For example, "dumb MF" means one thing, but "dumb MF" means another thing, namely "dumb MF, one example of which is President Bush".

Google and half a brain

Isn't it ironic, that if these terrorists really do hate our 'Freedom,' that is precisely what we are giving up to fight them?

They benefit from the fact that Bush and Ashcroft hate our Freedom too.

Sounds like they win, in that case.

Yep. Maybe they can start losing in 2005. Then again, maybe not.

How cute, they still have a monarch. How very 18th century of them. :-)

I notice the smiley, but still it's just not true. Some of the most modern states of the world - Japan, Britain or almost entire Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden, Norway) - are monarchies. At the same time, some of the most backwarded states that are not even in the 18th century by our standards, like the African or Middle-Eastern failed states are republics. So are the banana republics in Central America. When you see what kind of a person can get elected as a president, monarchy no longer sounds as such a bad idea.

Hear, hear!

damn litigious bastards

'Certianly out of the league of being a certified bastard

What if there is no Iraq, and it's all a put-up job? Come on, two incredibly lopsided victories, minimal US casualties... what if there is no Iraq, and those troops are just being sent to Fort Irwin or something... "World Class Training for the World's Best Army" indeed! What about those millions of dollars that are going to Haliburton to "rebuild Iraq"? Right into Cheney's pockets! I mean, have you ever been to Iraq? Neither have I. All I have to go on is CNN, a thirty year old copy of the World Book Encyclopedias, and the internet... now, that "Dear Raed" guy might lie to me, but Ted Turner? Never!

I think that Iraq - the whole country - is a fake: just "like the 1960s moon mission"!

(Come on, the guy's got a Howard Dean sig, he'll believe anything!)


George Bush in 2004!

Linux Journal: Apache on Linux
Uptime: Down faster than a drunken cheerleader on prom night

George W Bush: IIS on Windows 2000
Uptime: Still going!

HTH HAND!

As we swing into the thick of the 2004 electoral playoffs, it's interesting to see what kinds of platforms are running under the candidates' official campaign Web sites. Netcraft has a handy feature called "What's that site running?" that lets us see combinations of Web servers and OS platforms. So here's a quick rundown, in alphabetical order:

• George W. Bush: Microsoft IIS on Windows 2000

• Wesley Clark: Apache on Linux

• Howard Dean: Apache on FreeBSD

• John Edwards: Microsoft IIS "behind a computer running NetWare"

• Richard Gephardt: Microsoft IIS on Windows 2000

• John Kerry: Apache on Linux

• Dennis Kucinich Apache on Linux

• Carol Mosely-Braun: Apache on FreeBSD

• Al Sharpton: Apache on Solaris 8

• Joe Lieberman: Apache on FreeBSD

For what it's worth, the Republican National Committee is running Microsoft IIS on Windows 2000, while the Democratic National Committee is running Apache on Linux.

As of this writing, November 5, 2003, the RNC has an uptime of 4.26 days (maximum of 39.04) and a 90-day moving average of 16.91. The DNC has an uptime of 445.02 days (also the maximum) and a 90-day moving average of 395.38 days.

Draw your own conclusions.

Doc Searls is Senior Editor of Linux Journal.

It was "see" NOT "seek"
Even Bush's website says so...
SEE

It was edited after the speech was delievered. He said "see" not "seek"

see
see

Vice President Cheney and I are focused on the nation's top priorities - strengthening the economy, protecting the homeland, and winning the war on terror. We will continue to earn the confidence of the American people by working to keep this nation prosperous, strong and secure.
(...)

This administration is leading the world to make the world more secure. We have a solemn duty, not only to our homeland, but to help others who embrace freedom. History has called us into action, and we will not let history down. We must remember that one of the lessons of September the 11th is these killers will try to find safe harbor. And that's why I laid out a new doctrine for American foreign policy. It said, if you harbor a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, if you hide a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorists.

It's important, as you begin to make the case for this administration that not only do we lay out doctrine, but more importantly, we enforce doctrine.

Re: What the hell are you thinking? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday September 28, @02:25PM

I bet that Paul Bernardo drank milk at one point in his life, time to sue the milk producers, the milk companies, cow food producers, farm equipment makers, steel producers, miners, etc. More foolish bullsh!t in america. Don't be surprised.

Besides, who else is there to vote for?

Umm...Bush?

Ehrm... (not connected w/ the Dean campaign or any other in any way, shape, or form -- I'm just an interested observer :)...

Have you looked at deanforamerica.com? I'd say that site is a good indicator of Internet-awareness. The man has a *blog*, for crying out loud! Actually, all the Democratic candidates are trying to capitalize on the Internet, which is IMHO a Good Thing, though it's taking some of them longer than others.

Contrast Dean's site with Bush's (ooh, shiney) for a good illustration of why the former is considered "net-savvy." (yes i know incumbents don't need to mobilize as early as challengers, yes i know Bush's site is a "temporary site," but Dean's campaign is still a masterful example of how to mobilize the internet community. i long for the day when the *president* writes a daily weblog.)

Oh, and if you think Dean is another Democrat who is against everything Slashdotters hold dear, check out some of his posts on Lawrence Lessig's blog. (Kucinich has some interesting things to say here as well. He's even pro-GPL!)

It confuses us too!

... on how much he contributes to CREEP 2K4...

Jon,
You have to remember the sources. 98.5% of the media is liberal and they admit it. I htink you may be in for a surprise. Bush has twin daughters that are 19. I DOUBT he doesn't know anything about the internet. I think he may surprise you. None of the things you mention were high on his list of things to do.
If you look here you will see some of Bushes plans for Technology. You will note the following quote:

"Use Technology to Boost Student Achievement: Governor Bush will ensure that education technology is used to boost student achievement (Fact Sheet: Enhancing Education Through Technology), and strengthen math and science education (Fact Sheet: Improving Math And Science In America). Governor Bush has proposed creating a new, flexible $3 billion fund to integrate technology in schools and libraries, and $400 million in new money to help ensure that technology is boosting student achievement."

Please consider your sources before you rant on about speculation! I really think in the long run you will be surprised.

The current IOC board needs to go, and people with a billion times more integrity needs to be put in place.

Well, if you're looking for people with more integrity than the IOC, I know just the guy to spearhead the new committee. And if by some stretch he has a job come January, well, he knows someone who might need a job instead...

Jay (=

[The following is a revision of a letter I have been distributing via email. I ought to have posted this earlier, but I lacked the courage. You can find the original on my website.]

Dear US Citizen,

I am writing to remind you to vote conscientiously tomorrow. I will also indulge in a little political activism by introducing some issues (watered stock, free trade, and others) for your consideration. As you read this message, keep in mind that I am not recommending that you vote for this or that candidate, but only that you think about what is at stake, make a choice, and vote.

I wish to bring to your attention a pattern of behavior by national governments that suggests that, in the world-wide political arena, the interests of citizens rank far below those of large corporations, and that the latter seek actively to diminish the influence of citizens on their governments' legislative activity. In some countries, citizens are even compelled by law to foot the bill for this nonsense. ;) It is worth noting that the worst consequences of this are not in the future: most US citizens feel so disenfranchised today that they either don't vote or vote for the lesser evil, and US taxpayers (citizens or not) bear the burden of unprecedented personal and national debt. If you don't vote, you will be capitulating, and the future of US politics will be that much closer to a foregone conclusion. As a citizen of the European Union and a resident of Switzerland, a very small sovereign state, I have learned that the rest of the world cannot afford apathy or carelessness on the part of registered voters in the US. You can think of this message as a plea for help.

[As you read this, please excuse the careless use of "Americans" where "US citizens" would have been correct.]

The first issue I want to discuss is the connection between corporations and public money. You may or may not be aware of the emergence of watered stock and pooling as a powerful weapons in the corporations' arsenal; for example, Microsoft and Cisco have managed to attain tax-free status by writing off stock options (and then earning some of that back when new stock is issued for the purpose of redeeming those options) and Citigroup recapitalizes and decapitalizes itself arbitrarily to achieve spectacular mergers (thus posing a great risk to the banking sector) -- right under the nose of the SEC. In a perfect world, this sort of abuse would have been reigned in already but, in our world, the possibility of relief seems remote. Let me make this plain: the watered stock write-off scheme amounts to a theft of public money and pooling needlessly endangers the stability of the economy. At the very least, insofar as stock represents a redeemable claim against a company's assets, it is a perversion of the modern economic perspective in which the stock market is allegedly as adequate a store of value as gold ever was.

Actually, said modern economic perspective was already quite perverse (in ways too numerous to mention) long before watered stock was even imagined. Such perversity is a natural consequence of the absence of an adequate standard of value, which was in turn an intended consequence of changes in policy that took place earlier in the century. Long ago, Alan Greenspan explained that the institution he heads today is a powerful instrument with which the government can confiscate part of the value of your money and, not incidentally, engage in deficit spending regularly. You might argue that calculated inflation is a small price to pay for being able to float a chronic debt and sustain a deficit as needed. You might argue that your national debt is presently unassailable because American households, which on average have a negative savings rate and face unabatable credit card debt, are financially overcommitted as it is. You might be wrong. Habitual deficit spending and the resulting chronic national indebtedness, along with the corporate welfare mechanisms that aggravate them, are to blame for your misery: the federal government uses inflation and national debt to mortgage your personal assets and your public resources, respectively, as effortlessly as a corporation uses watered stock to dilute the value of your share holdings. Think what you will of Greenspan's former support of the gold standard, but you have to admit that he was correct in predicting the practical consequences of failing to provide an adequate store of value, and in identifying the welfare state as the primary beneficiary:

Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes.

What he may not have realized then is that corporate welfare is just as likely a welfare scheme as any other.

It now behooves us to ask not only how this wave of abuse can be stemmed, but also how this sort of situation can arise even under the watchful eye of our elected officials. The answer is that, in the US, the Executive and the Agencies operate with considerable autonomy; many important decisions are often made away from public scrutiny, largely or altogether, and there is a vested interest on the part of large corporations to increase the autonomy, if not the stature, of these public servants. Consider the case of MAI, the Multilateral agreement on investment -- a charter of rights and freedoms for corporations. Those of you who have not heard of it should at least know that it was the culmination of attempts to transfer some important powers from the popularly elected legislative bodies to the executive officials of sovereign states and to give corporations the legal standing of sovereign states. Let me take a moment to explore the brilliance of these tactics.

• When decision making forums are sheltered from public scrutiny, executive officials can serve corporate interests with impunity.
• When corporations have the same legal standing as sovereign states, large multinational corporations have power over small sovereign states -- perhaps even those in which the company is incorporated.

Surely, you can give examples of an administration negotiating treaties that would be difficult to accept for a majority of citizens and impossible to ratify for most congresses; now, try to imagine a future in which the legislature is powerless to stop unfavorable or undesirable consequences of free trade arrangements that it did not have the opportunity to approve or reject. Surely, you can name instances of a corporation getting away with practices that a majority of citizens would condemn but which the courts are powerless to stop in the absence of adequate legislation or jurisdiction; now, try to imagine a future in which a corporation undertakes legal action against sovereign states for refusing to let it set up shop, or even for having laws and regulations that hinder it, such as strict environmental standards.

"That's not a problem," you say, "because Public Citizen told us about MAI in the nick of time." That's not the point; the point is that MAI is evidence of an alarming, long-standing pattern of behavior: as Noam Chomsky has said, our governments really are, and have been for a long time, trying to undermine democracy. Consider, as further evidence, the case of Australia's MIGA, an agency that predates MAI and obviates the "need" for it.

Now, the two leading candidates, Al Gore and George Bush, look at the issue very differently, saying that free trade creates jobs, without mentioning what kind and where. Actually, Bush has even said that it is the duty of the administration to "sell" free trade (on WTO's terms, of course) to US citizens! Ralph Nader, on the other hand, has said that he wants the US to withdraw from the WTO and that we should re-examine the premise of so-called "free trade" agreements. I was going to give you a reference to Nader's website with that last statement, as WTO/NAFTA was one of the three key issues on his home page until just a few days ago, but now it is not even in the issue summaries. What could this mean? I think it means that he has pushed one of his favorite issues into the background because he needs enough votes to get federal funding for his next campaign. And this, in turn, suggests that American politicians think that the US electorate is politically comatose. You can help prove them wrong: a strong showing by Americans on election day would tell US politicians and corporations and the world that Americans are still in control of their political system. It would be a great sequel to the Battle of Seattle, with a lot less violence and just as much press coverage. Realistically, you probably cannot afford to act as resolutely as José Bové, but you can vote.

When I think about US politics, I think of the fable in which a master presents some options to his student, threatening to beat him with a cane if he chooses poorly; the essence of the problem is that the student cannot choose any of the options presented to him without risking bodily harm. (You should now take a moment to discover how the student can avoid the beating and what the moral of the story is.) You can and should vote for the presidential candidate who will most closely represent your interests, as you have more valid options than the mainstream media seem to suggest: you can vote for George W. Bush; you can vote for Al Gore; you can vote for Ralph Nader; you can vote for Harry Browne; and you can vote for some other candidate (yes, there are more) though his name may not appear on your ballot. If you cast a so-called "useful" vote, you are supporting a system in which you have a lot less influence than you otherwise might, and you might get beat with a cane. Of course, if you don't vote, you have no voice, nor will you ever, and when you and I finally get beat with a very stiff cane, no one will hear us scream. Please, vote.

Yours,

Alejandro Gómez de Argüello

With a dynamic IP address, a computer's "location" on the Internet is periodically changed, thereby...

Wow. They move you to a different part of the "Information Superhighway" and the l337 ldd33z have to ask for directions. I have DSL through a baby bell i don't want retaliation from, and i have been scanned within minutes of getting my IP from the DHCP god.

So basically the marketing guy did his job and lied for the reporter. He should get a job working for bush

Do you hate other human beings?

Governor Bush recognizes that our new economy is driven by the hard work and creativity of men and women in the private sector -- and not by Government bureaucrats.

The high tech industry is in great need of highly skilled workers. Too many Americans are unable to fill these jobs because they lack the necessary skills.

I don't personally have access to a filter program - can someone take a look at the official campaign site (www.georgebush.com) and see if if blocks out the "Dick" in Dick Cheney and the "Bush" in George Bush?

Also:

Al Gore: Gore worked to reduce the influence of drugs. The Administration Proposed the Largest Anti-Drug Budgets Ever. The Administration requested $19.2 billion in the FY01 budget to fight the war on drugs.

George Dubya: On the supply side, Governor Bush will improve interdiction and stop drugs before they reach our children. He will use better intelligence and surveillance to track and catch drug smugglers before they reach our borders. He will ensure that the INS hires the full allotment of Border Patrol agents required under law. Right now, the GAO reports that the INS had "a net shortfall of 594 agents for the 3-year period ending September 30, 1999." Governor Bush will hire more agents, and will reform the INS to better focus on its job of defending our border.
--

Personally I think they're both Anti-Capitalist... Progressive Socialists, and so is Gore, he's just in costume at the moment.

He is pandering to the uninformed, but without any reliable data to back up his claim about the internet, he moves on to another argument

He's not moving on to another arguement is my point. He's answering the question that was asked. He brought up Columbine in an effort to neutralize Gore on it since it's one of the Administrations favorite issues to demagogue. He only references "the internet" to illustrate it as an excuse that OTHERS use to ignore the larger issue of the moral morass we've slipped into in this Country.

In the context of the question of gun violence, Bush was stating that the problems are a result of a cultural crisis, and that the potential for disaster is already with a child if "the internet" causes them to take a life.

Not that I'm going to convert you, but here's the link to Bush's Issue page on Technology and the New Economy

P.S. Vote Nadar - Please! Encourage all of your Democrat friends to do the same!

IANAA, (I Am Not An American) but hail from thier neigbour to the North. Since much of what goes on below the 49th eventually happens up here, I'll comment anyway.

Isn't it amazing. Here we are, 224 years after the American Revolution, and we're back to square one. If this follows through, the Citizens of the Good Ol' US of A will be paying sales tax to a coproration. Heh. Something like that hasn't happened since, ohhhhh... the British Crown decided to tax tea. Read the link, kids - that was to save a faltering coporation, namely the East India Company, too.

So, we have taxes on audio capable blanks to make sure the RIAA and it's kin get thier fair share, absurd patents and copyrights whose sole purpose is to guarantee profits for already successful companies, and now this. Makes you sick, especially when this and this stare you in the face each night on the news

Welcome to the Free World, fellow serfs, look what the American Free Market eventually brings you - The Copristocracy. It works just like an Aristocracy, but instead of being appointed by a King, the people in it founded a successful company, are paying off our "elected" officials to pass laws so they keep thier fabulous wealth, so they can pass it on to thier progeny - just like a Duke, Prince or Barron. So much for the Revolution, eh?

The feature I'd like to see most is a killfile.
I can block out story authors that annoy me, I wish I could do the same to posters that annoy me.

--K
MODERATORS: Flamebait or Troll. None of this Offtopic, Redundant, or Overrated crap.
---

Do you moderating idiots even bother to follow the links? Or do you just assume that because someone made a link that it's informative?

I don't believe that the Internet will do much to change the message itself; people are much the same as they always have been, and will continue to respond to the same hot buttons. The exception, of course, is when the Internet becomes the political issue.

The Internet can, however, change the means by which the message is delivered. Savvy politicians (or politicians with techie volunteers or campaign staff) can better target specific audiences with the part of their message that is most relevant to each group.

The Internet can also be a great tool for organizing the campaign and helping potential volunteers find out where they can plug in and make a difference with their special skills. For example, see here.

• http://www.georgebush.com/
  
• http://www.georgewbush.com/
  
• http://www.bushsucks.com/
  
• http://www.bush2000.com
  
• Click for more
  

_________________

Official political party sites

Democratic National Committee

Democratic Socialists of America

Green Parties of North America

Labor Party

Libertarian Party

Natural Law Party

Reform Party

Republican National Committee

Socialist Party USA

Workers Party

Official candidate sites

Gary Bauer

Bill Bradley

Pat Buchanan

George W. Bush

Steve Forbes

Al Gore

Orrin Hatch

Alan Keyes

John McCain

Donald Trump