Slashdot Mirror

And in fact:

It looks like Busboys and Poets are having tech difficulties. We are looking for an alternative feed that we can pick up.

Sorry for the connectivity problems, we are currently working on the broadband issues. The full sound and video will be available on YouTube tomorrow. Stay tuned.

http://nader.org/2012/11/03/to-view-third-party-debate-at-busboys-and-poets-nov-4/

The only reason there is a 2 party system is because only the hardcore partisans are the ones who reliably vote.

you're very wrong here. the impediments to a third party candidate are insurmountable.
Nader knows a thing or two about this: http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/273-Break-Down-Barriers-to-Minority-Parties.html=

not to mention that even if a third party presidential candidate were to clear the gauntlet and actually win the popular vote, he/she would die in a small plane 'accident'. There is serious money at stake here and no populist is coming along to fuck that up, period. and furthermore, the USA is a de facto one-party system, it doesnt really matter which one occupies the white house, the difference boils down to rhetoric and fringe issues, policy about things that matter is identical.

Don't be too quick to disregard this as a joke, since breeder reactors have been outlawed for some time here, it not an unreasonable suggestion. Of course, as far as breeders are concerned, past political boondoggles are certainly a major issue.

From http://www.nader.org/interest/041104.html :

"In 1981 Joan Claybrook, . . . the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) . . . advanced a NHTSA notice that called for fuel efficiency standards to reach 48 mpg by 1995. Interestingly the notice pointed out that the auto industry itself said it could reach in excess of 30 mpg fuel economy by 1985 with GM saying it could do 33 mpg."

So... by 2020, we will finally get cars that are about as efficient as what GM said they could provide by 1985.

Of course, you don't *have* to wait 12 years in the hope of getting a fuel efficient vehicle. You don't have to spend tons for a hybrid, or deal with a diesel. You could just buy a Toyota... made by a company that actually seems to realize that efficient vehicles are a good thing.

(They'd be even better if they started bringing over the wonderful, 6-year-old diesel version of the Yaris, that gets 63MPG.)

See some history: 1958, the NCI sends the USDA to test 30,000 plant species for potential anti-cancer activity. 1963, Monroe Wall discovers that the bark of the Pacific yew tree is effective against cancer. 1967, the active ingredient is isolated. 1971, the chemical structure is discovered and published. 1993, Bristol-Myers Squibb starts selling Taxol, at twenty times the cost of manufacturing. The patent still belongs to them today. See more about how this works.

So, in short: citizens pay for research which is then handed over to corporations who then sell the results back to the aforementioned citizens at a hideous markup. Fabulous work if you can get it.

and I've taken economics in college, but the kinda freakonomics people should hear more about (and do something about) is how the top 1% of the American population controls 95% of the wealth. Between 1979 and 1997, income for the middle class rose 9%m while income for the top 1% rose 140%! Now that's freaky!

They just want ot keep Ralph Nader and other troublemakers out of elections for present and congress. And you. They thing Dems and Reps do not agree on is how. Someone call the UN to protect our freedom on the Internet.

This isn't the first time a 3rd party candidate has been kicked out of the debates. In October 2000, Ralph Nader had a ticket to attend the one of the debates. Instead of his ticket being honored, he was not allowed in. See CNN and Nader's own account of what happened.

In February 2004, Nader and a slew of other 2000 third party candidates and parties sued the FEC over the debates. One of the exhibits contained in the lawsuit is a "face book" that was used by debate planners to know which third party candidates to keep out of the debates. See this Boston Post story and a press release about the lawsuit.

Here are the "face book" images:
Page 1 (Has photos of Winona LaDuke, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, and Ezola Foster)
Page 2 (Has photos of Howard Philips, John Hagelin, and Nat Goldhaber)
Page 3 (Has a photo of Russ Verney)

"And the list goes on."

Yes, it does.

What bother's me here is it seems like the Government is trying to pick technological winners using corporate welfare instead of fostering real competition among US companies. As far as national security goes, I think there is a lot bigger fish to fry than the loss of the supercomputer business. The entire US technological sector is a mess-and much sensitive data is now completely outside the regulation and protection of the US government(either outsourced or under control of guest workers).

There are well-established techniques for assessing indeterminate risks in areas like this. The end of Moores law is a risk. Still, what are the major options-and their chance of success. What I'm seeing out of Intel is the level of innovation I might expect from the Post Office. It is worth many billions of dollars to the Intel shareholders to see Moore's law continue longer. Intel has an obligation to its shareholders to organize its resources to make this happen. If Intel can't do this stuff in-house-they could set up prize awards for those that can--and structure those in such a way there is minimal risk to Intel's shareholders. Instead, these folks come off like a general speculating to his troops about the possibility of defeat before entering a major battle.

A company like Intel is virtually a de-facto monopoly. Such organizations can afford basic research-as companies like AT&T and IBM have shown. More importantly, I would suggest that monopolistic companies that _don't_ do quite a bit of basic research find that in time they become objects of considerable hotility and regulation. If companies like Intel aren't going to seriously innovate, then in time, it may eventually make more sense to the public to just turn these functions over to non-innovative bureacracies(which in this case will probably mean a Chinese government-owned manufacturing firm).

It sounds like Intel has gotten seduced by the lure of indentured servitude and corporate welfare.

There are well-established techniques for assessing indeterminate risks in areas like this. The end of Moores law is a risk. Still, what are the major options-and their chance of success. What I'm seeing out of Intel is the level of innovation I might expect from the Post Office. It is worth many billions of dollars to the Intel shareholders to see Moore's law continue longer. Intel has an obligation to its shareholders to organize its resources to make this happen. If Intel can't do this stuff in-house-they could set up prize awards for those that can--and structure those in such a way there is minimal risk to Intel's shareholders. Instead, these folks come off like a general speculating to his troops about the possibility of defeat before entering a major battle.

A company like Intel is virtually a de-facto monopoly. Such organizations can afford basic research-as companies like AT&T and IBM have shown. More importantly, I would suggest that monopolistic companies that _don't_ do quite a bit of basic research find that in time they become objects of considerable hotility and regulation. If companies like Intel aren't going to seriously innovate, then in time, it may eventually make more sense to the public to just turn these functions over to non-innovative bureacracies(which in this case will probably mean a Chinese government-owned manufacturing firm).

It sounds like Intel has gotten seduced by the lure of indentured servitude and corporate welfare.

The copyright laws in the United States today go substantially beyond the mechanisms first mandated by the constitution--the concept of "limited time" for Copyrights is getting streched. I personally don't think the Founding Fathers really meant for Copyright to be such a big part of people's lives. Had they understood how information technology would evolve, I think they'd have wanted a substantial mechanism for funding freely available educational and cultural material--just as much as they wanted infrastructure like roads and bridges.

Instead, what we have now are major media monopolies that actively work to get greater concessions from government and media companies that are major recipients of corporate welfare.

Ralph Nader made some interesting observations about the proposed changes.

From what I know, these guys were a minor issue-party, but have evolved into a serious, well-rounded party fighting corporate control of the government and the political process. They even had a good candidate for president in 2000, who bothered to answer (some) questions from Slashdot.

I know of no way to resolve this dilemma

I know how you can resolve it. Vote for Nader.

Like yourself, I also hated politics. I also poo-pooed "Go Vote" campaigns since people who aren't motivated by the issues shouldn't dilute the power of people who are. Even the more literate people must cope with tabloid media and conveniently homogenized analysis, boring debates, the electoral college system, useless television ads, and lack of good choices on the ballot.

Nader was the first politician that ever inspired me to vote. He is the most promising choice to reform the campaign process. If president, expect him to lower the cost of campigns (partly by closing the soft money loophole), thereby eliminating many of those "persausive" TV ads that you see. He also has a few proposals for putting more government-related information online (so you can check out your congressman's record instead of relying on his own commercials).

Even if Nader isn't elected, voting for him can only help. It tells the major parties to get a candidate who will discuss solutions to tough problems rather than blabber conveniently ambiguous propoganda to the most impressionable audience that he can find on television.

I know of no way to resolve this dilemma

I know how you can resolve it. Vote for Nader.

Like yourself, I also hated politics. I also poo-pooed "Go Vote" campaigns since people who aren't motivated by the issues shouldn't dilute the power of people who are. Even the more literate people must cope with tabloid media and conveniently homogenized analysis, boring debates, the electoral college system, useless television ads, and lack of good choices on the ballot.

Nader was the first politician that ever inspired me to vote. He is the most promising choice to reform the campaign process. If president, expect him to lower the cost of campigns (partly by closing the soft money loophole), thereby eliminating many of those "persausive" TV ads that you see. He also has a few proposals for putting more government-related information online (so you can check out your congressman's record instead of relying on his own commercials).

Even if Nader isn't elected, voting for him can only help. It tells the major parties to get a candidate who will discuss solutions to tough problems rather than blabber conveniently ambiguous propoganda to the most impressionable audience that he can find on television.

I know of no way to resolve this dilemma

I know how you can resolve it. Vote for Nader.

Like yourself, I also hated politics. I also poo-pooed "Go Vote" campaigns since people who aren't motivated by the issues shouldn't dilute the power of people who are. Even the more literate people must cope with tabloid media and conveniently homogenized analysis, boring debates, the electoral college system, useless television ads, and lack of good choices on the ballot.

Nader was the first politician that ever inspired me to vote. He is the most promising choice to reform the campaign process. If president, expect him to lower the cost of campigns (partly by closing the soft money loophole), thereby eliminating many of those "persausive" TV ads that you see. He also has a few proposals for putting more government-related information online (so you can check out your congressman's record instead of relying on his own commercials).

Even if Nader isn't elected, voting for him can only help. It tells the major parties to get a candidate who will discuss solutions to tough problems rather than blabber conveniently ambiguous propoganda to the most impressionable audience that he can find on television.

In a letter widely distributed on the Internet, Moore asked the majority of Americans -- the non voters -- to rebel by casting their votes for Nader. "Friends, we are losing our democratic control over our country - Corporate America has merged and morphed itself to such an extent that just a handful of companies now call the shots. They own Congress. They own us," Moore wrote in the letter addressed to non voters.

• One vote DOES count: The Republocrats took over the House in '94 by winning 19 districts with under 1,000 votes each. Assuming the total number is 19,000, that translates to one vote per school district in the US.
• Non-voters are the largest political force in America: Consider that the predictions say that only 46-49% of those eligible to vote actually do. That, my friends, makes for a plurality. The non-voters actually construe more than half the electorate and are their voices heard? The shortwave broadcast I heard suggested that if every person who was to vote Nader called two of their friends and converted them from the Legions of Morons (the republocrats and Democritans), then Nader would be the Big Dog.
• To get involved costs something, but not getting involved costs more. Moore talked about how he wanted to get on a school board to throw out his principal, who he felt was unfair. He was a lazy bastard and called the board of elections, which told him: 1. Even though he was barely 18, he could run. 2. He only needed 25 signatures to get on the ballot. 3. They would mail him the petition. He succeeded in terminating the principal AND the assistant principal.
• Nader has done more quantitative good than both major-party candidates combined. Airbags and the NHTSA are thanks to Ralph Nader's work against GM. We are not as exposed to radioactive matter thanks to Nader.

Does the government need to subsudize TV?

LOL

from here

"In one of the single biggest giveaways in U.S. corporate welfare history, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on April 7, 1997 donated broadcast licenses for digital television to existing broadcasters. Under the terms of the giveaway, the broadcasters will pay nothing for the exclusive right to use the public airwaves, even though the FCC itself estimated the value of the digital licenses to be worth $11 billion to $70 billion."


--