Slashdot Mirror

The Dutch have a more restrained version of this that works quite well, called the "woonerf." (It means "street for living.")

In heavily-trafficked areas where cars will always move slowly and multiple modes of transportation come together (bicyclists, pedestrians, mass transit, scooters, cars, etc.), it seems that it works better if they self-regulate. Woonerven came into being in The Netherlands in the '60s and '70s, and the idea is to have a common space shared by all of these types of transit. Obstacles are placed in the street (planters, trees, parking spaces, etc.) to prevent traffic from moving quickly. This also turns pedestrians into the primary users of the space, making vehicles the intruders. Cars seldom exceed 10mph in woonerven.

Holland and Denmark have converted 6,500 brief stretches of road into woonerven. Traffic fatality rates have dropped to nothing. Intersections were a few annual fatalities were routine haven't seen a single death. That's a) because automobile drivers cannot drive through quickly because they're so varying and b) because 20mph is the cap of speed at which pedestrians can avoid serious injury when being struck by a car.

Happily, 18.5mph is the speed at which urban traffic flows best, many studies have shown. Coincidentally, this is also a speed at which there's no need for traffic control systems.

We have woonerf-like traffic patterns (and self-regulating patterns, as in the article) throughout the world now. Look at rush hour on Paris' Avenue de la Grande Armee: it's got four lanes of traffic at noon on a Sunday, but come rush hour people up and decide that maybe six is better. Look at Beijing during rush hour -- hordes of bicyclists mingling with packed autos, scooters weaving through the chaos.

England's got them, too. They call them "home zones." They're in a few dozen places now. They can't be more than a third of a mile long, and can't be used by more than 100 vehicles per hour. More traffic means that it's just not a viable home zone.

For more on this see Linda Baker's 2004 article for Salon, Anthony Flint's 2004 Boston Globe article, and walkinginfo.org's page about woonerven.

MS is already shaking down the school kids.

It turns something vague and mystical that can be learned (remember at one point Ben Kenobi even offers to teach Han Solo the ropes) into something definite and "scientific" that you have to be born with.

"Star Wars" despots vs. "Star Trek" populists

You were marked down as flamebait, but I kinda suspect that this whole grand 9-movie epic notion was in fact totally untrue. In fact, I seem to recall reading that-- at the time-- Lucas was just hoping this first space-themed serial of his wouldn't lose money. All the "this is really a 9-part epic" stuff came after the movie was a hit.

Why am I so cynical? Maybe because a lot of other things he said about the Campbellian "mythology" and "grand vision" for star wars was a load of crap.

Incidentally, I was so heartbroken by the betrayal of Episode I, I have *still* not been able to bring myself to see II or III.

"story does matter" indeed.

Your google-foo is weak, young grasshopper.

Try here for starters.

Granted it's not a topic which gets much attention....but that's rather the point. Tell your average liberal arts college student that there's still slavery going on today, and they'll probably think you're talking about Bush.

Happy to help:

• A study by the NAACP shows a consistent pattern of voter intimidation efforts by GOP campaigns. Dozens of instances of misinformation and intimidation in several states, and every one of them by Republican organizations.
• Republican Congressional candidate Tan Nguyen sent fraudulent letters to registered voters with latino last names claiming that naturalized citizens who attempted to vote would be jailed or deported.
• Kathleen Harris, the Republican Secretary of State of Florida instituted a "voter-cleansing" program which falsely listed at least eight thousand voters as felons, and thus ineligible. The disenfranchised resided almost exlusively in Democrat-leaning districts.

This is just a few minutes of asking google, and specifically looking for items reported by reputable national news sources, not just random political blogs. I'm quite certain that far more documentation of similar incidents is readily available.

Tipping/music as service

I know my place. I'm a waiter. I'm in the service industry.

I live on tips. Occasionally, I'm going to get stiffed, but that's OK. If I work hard and I'm doing good work, I believe that the people who enjoy it are going to want to come directly to me and get my music because it sounds better, since it's mastered and packaged by me personally. I'm providing an honest, real experience. Period.

And that's without hearing his views on homosexuality:

http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/ card/

Here's some background on Marijuana criminalization.

Great Salon article explains this and why the current FCC system is antiquated.

http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2003/03/12 /spectrum/index.html

The article doesn't make it seem as if librarians are being fired, but I think it would be good to make sure, and if they're just being transferred into jobs that don't utilize their expertise, perhaps some of the money could pay their salaries so they can continue their work. Also, does wikipedia have anyone analogous to a research librarian? I haven't had to ask for help many times, but having someone who knows what they're doing can speed up the search for information dramatically. IANALibrarian, but even having some sort of internship program for people doing their Masters' of Library Science might be interesting.

here in Alaska, ... have no state income tax, no liberal politicians trying to take my money and give it to someone else,

You mean like that bridge to nowhere for 50 people? Thanks a lot for trying to steal our money and spend it on some stupid bridge that no one needs, Alaskan.

You, an Alaskan, complaining about politicians trying to take your money and give it to someone else is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. I can't think of a single state currently that more exemplifies this thanks to this example. Even CA and NY don't have such ridiculous public works projects.

• public education - the species got along fine without government schooling just fine for thousands of years
• social security and medicare programs - how to punish people for getting old. My poor grandfather would've expired, were it not for Medicare paying for his defibrillator... I have three grandparents left, aged 86 to 91, and they're all sitting around watching T.V. and waiting to die.
• war on drugs - if not for the war on drugs, we'd still have access to safe whole-plant drugs (coca leaf, marijuana, mushrooms, etc). Thanks to the war on drugs, we have new choices like cocaine and meth amphetamine. I don't use any of them, but I recognize that the 'war' has created more problems than it's solved.
• government ... debt - no government, no debt. That one's quite simple. :)
• medical and college education costs - government has sent all the jobs that don't require education away to Mexico (via NAFTA) or China/Asia (via WTO). People who previously wouldn't have considered college are now flooding the system, driving up prices across the board. See my other post for more on how the government has driven up medical costs...
• war - simply a case of fueding governments. There'd still be disagreements amongst individuals, of course, but there'd be no need to lob million dollar cruise missles at pharmacies in third-world countries...

Ah, I think the reference was to "Why Johnny Can't Code", from Salon. Link. He's a bit, er, condescending at times towards his audience, but all in all, I like David Brin. Kiln People and Earth are two of my favorite books.

Funny how, as others have mentioned, one can never get a copy of any of the supposed studies which 'prove' whatever it is the product claims. Like Kevn Trudeau and his scam or the now discredited DHEA claim, this too will be shown to be a false promise of getting something for nothing.

There WAS NO COMPLETE RECOUNT!

Gore never asked for a statewide recount because he was afraid a statewide recount wouldn't have given him the net votes he needed. He only asked for counts of the undervotes in Democratic-leaning counties because he thought he could get just enough votes to be elected. His rhetoric about "count every vote" was total hooey.

So if the U.S. Supreme Court hadn't put a stop to the recount, Gore would have still lost, only he would have been hoisted by his own petard instead of having the convenient "judicial coup" excuse.

There's an interesting article on the whole despicable affair HERE.

Perhaps I'm just in a bad mood because my pet just died, but isn't it depressing that all of the medical technology in the world can't give one of the greatest minds in the world a semblence of a healthy body?

Xix.

Wide spread institutionalized racism in the South is long dead. Why must you continue to judge us by something that hasn't existed for over 20 years?

The key word in your statement being true is "institutionalized," though people here are arguing that laws stripping felons of voting rights continue on as an institutional legacy of racism. Heck, it's not even that unofficial, if you look back to the 2000 election in Florida. Note one eye-popping stat there -- 31% of black males cannot vote because of this law, and black voters voted 93% for Al Gore. Imagine what 31% more black male voters would've done in a state decided by a few hundred votes.

Also, living in Georgia and hearing the stirrings of continued discontent of white Southerners over the flag issue, the anger over immigration, and the current rhetoric over voter ID, I can tell you that racism is still widespread if not as up-front and brazen as it used to be. I've seen mass racism first hand in high school, and it's left its marks on me ever since then.

You responded selectively, ignoring how he uses download. Let's focus on the essence:

just to try out an artist.

There ya go. There is no current try-before-you-buy except Top40 rotations on pop stations, and they play only singles from a fixed rotation. DJs are a thing of the past, so how does one get exposed to new material?

I do it via eMusic - for a reasonable price, I get n downloads per month, plus free stuff every day. All of it in MP3 format with no DRM. And there's no shortage of indie music freely available on the web - Salon's Audiofile is good for a daily fix, and Insound and Pitchfork have huge amounts of stuff up for grabs. Just the tip of the iceberg.

If there's something from a major label that I want, I either buy it or copy it from an actual, real-world friend who bought it, which IMO is fair use.

Why didn't he just read Slashdot? Faster, cheaper, and probably holds the core user/developer base that would have the most to say on the subject of Microsoft software. Face it: even the most virulent criticism of MS here would contain enough useful information that if Gates & Co. actually paid attention, they'd find innumerable ideas for improving their wares. And all for free.

Slashdot is useless to them because people here realize that there is no way M$ can fix itself. Their strategy of buying "mature" software, marketing it loudly and destroying all "competition" ran out of steam ten years ago. Before it, the NDA, non free way ran out of steam back in the 80s, as explained here. If M$ did not represent a significant public harm, it would all be comical. Instead, a court proved monopoly that sues public schools has the advocacy of your federal government.

We can be sure they are following their 1998 Halloween document plan to disrupt the free software community by astroturfing Slashdot. Their goals would be to bury useful information in garbage and make reading and posting an consistently unpleasant experience.

Nonsense. They can just monetize the sticky eyeballs with dynamic, microtargeted ad units.

It worked for TheGlobe.com, didn't it?

That is very, very true. I've witnessed many an intellectual roll their eyes in digust when they find out a person (or group of people) have any kind of Christian beliefs.

Suuure you have.

Especially on college campuses, where even though free speech should reign supreme, liberal groups will bend themselves into a pretzel to prevent/cancel meetings and conferences featuring conservative ideology.

When. You might also be interested in a little comparison between conservative colleges and not conservative collages on who's more tolerant of crazy speech.

Salon's "Ask The Pilot" actually brings up this point in his current artilcle.

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/09/22/ask thepilot202/

This is a good read, from an Apple development house.

If you could find a sitation where Democrats have attempted to systematically disenranchise voters, sure. Good luck with that.

Thanks. So you're admitting that you wouldn't. Your hypocrisy doesn't surprise me in the least.

There are decades-old jokes that have been going around Democratic stronghold cities like Chicago and St. Louis, probably before you were born:

Why did the Democrat walk into the graveyard? To thank his voters.

Oh, but wait, let me guess: overvoting is "not as bad as" disenfranchisement, right? I'm sorry, but that's just another hypocritical rationalization you use to reinforce your view that Republicans and only Republicans engage in widespread, systematic denial of Americans' right to vote, and that even if you'll concede that sometimes Democrats do bad things in the context of elections, too, they're still not "as bad" as Republicans.

Think a little more critically when you read a story on truthout.org that claims that there are things like one-day "roadblocks" in black areas of Florida, etc., and other similar one-sided reporting by people with agendas.

There has been voter disenfranchisement in this country since it was founded. There is, quite simply, no mass conspiratorial systematic disenfranchisement of only-Democratic voters. To balance things like Kennedy's Rolling Stone article I'm sure you hold dear, try reading something like this in balance.

Believing people who you don't agree with are literally out to get you and will do anything at all costs, no matter how immoral or illegal or unethical, is not healthy for our political system as a whole. Debate people on points rather than predicating everything on the assumption that Republicans are always more evil, more dishonest, etc., than the politicians that you might chose to vote for.

Now the problem isn't that the cell power can be optimized, it's just that there's NO TOOLS TO DO SO AT THIS TIME. That's right, it's up to DEVELOPERS to optimize their own code, and I'm going to be honest, the learning curve and time that's going to be spent doing so is just not going to help this system.

This is entirely inaccurate. They were demonstrating tools at GDC for this, and various vendors have engines already available. Also recall that the PS2 really was bare metal on release; it remains the most difficult of the last generation, and yet it was the top seller with the most games. And the PS3 is said to be very familiar to those who worked on the PS2, so...

There's LOADS of other problems, too. Lack of units. High unit cost.

Yeah yeah, it's the PS2 all over again.

Expensive cables that (opps!) aren't included.

Are you talking about HDMI? They're under $10. Which cables did you mean?

The fragility of the Blue Ray CRC (it's so dense that one tiny scratch can destroy an entire disc because it stops the error correction from even being able to do its job).

Well, since the Blu-Ray DURABIS2 can withstand steel wool, you'd really have to be mistreating that disc.

And the lack of any real online system to be demonstrated.

And XBOX Live! was going to kill the PS2.

The Xbox is in a realm of its own. It focuses on games that are not innovative, but instead improves ever so slightly on older paradigms. In this, those "hardcore" gamers who enjoy playing the best shooters on a *controller* will enjoy the XBox (yes, I know they're coming out with new controls).

The 360 is in the realm of FPS's and sports games, just like the original XBOX. Contrary to popular opinion, frat boys who play Halo are not hardcore gamers. They're casual gamers. Hardcore gamers are the ones that play all the games, especially the obscure and oldschool ones. They import the original before it comes out locally. They might have an XBOX, but only because they're completionists, not because having an XBOX makes them hardcore.

This is not because I was raised on Nintendo. It's not because I owned the Mario/Zelda Cerial, subscribed to Nintendo power throughout the 90's, got up early as a kid to watch Captain N and the Super Mario World TV shows, owned mario comic books, and even paid to see that crappy Mario Bros. Movie. I had all but abandoned that company after my two fav gaming companies, Squaresoft and Capcom, left Nintendo. I'm supporting Nintendo because after ALLLLLL these years of CRAP... I'm amazed to find a company that puts out a QUALITY PRODUCT, who gets THIRD PARTY SUPPORT for this product, who INNOVATES the market using this product, who will successfully INTEGRATE other products into this product, and who has made this ANGRY YOUNG MALE feel like a DOE EYED BOY again.

That is, you're a closet fanboy who has been waiting all these years to come out. Yeah, I grew up with Nintendo too, and read the magazines, saw the shows and movies, and didn't think much of anything else (Sega what? Sony who?). That said, "QUALITY PRODUCT" is premature, "THIRD PARTY SUPPORT" is hopeful, and "INNOVATIVE" is hype. Do you love your Wii? Is it bad?

Where to start? Old games. All of them.

Actually, the virtual console launch list is only 26 games. 26 games I've played, too. This is ni

What a shortsighted (and incorrect) view of the situation.

The arab Shia are the largest ethnic/religious group in Lebanon, at 30% (if you break it down by religion only, the Christians are larger, although there are many different, and sometimes conflicting, Christian sects). Hezbollah is their largest *political party*, which has a private militia that is more powerful than the Lebanese army (largely thanks to Iran and Syria's generosity, but also thanks to extensive training in fighting the Israeli army since the early 80's). The next largest political party, Amal, doesn't have near their level of support. Of course, don't think too mildly of Amal, either -- they fought Israel just as hard, even during this war, although they don't have Hezbollah's resources. Hezbollah is not only a major political party, but is the country's second largest employer, mostly for its network of government services that it provided to areas that the Lebanese government was either unable to or unwilling to provide to -- schools, hospitals, etc. Public service activism is one of the main ways that the party wins support, even down to the local level. I saw a documentary recently where one Hezbollah woman talked about an initiative she started in which Hezbollah families would stock medical supplies in their homes. Whenever anyone was injured, they could come and get treated for free, so that even if the hospitals were destroyed or taken over, people could get care. By doing things like this, addition to helping their own people, they rally support for Hezbollah at the same time.

Hezbollah has a very tight military discipline. They've been using what's termed "fourth generation warfare" by US military analysts. It combines classic guerella tactics with modern weaponry and a unique "peer to peer" communications structure. Weaponry is buried until used, then restored immediately, always in numerous, small caches, making it incredibly difficult to destroy. Local cells operate in their hometowns or other supportive territory, and are able to pick and choose targets as will. Groups communicate with their neighbors to exchange intelligence information; critical information is sent through hardened channels, sometimes even through physical runners. Overall strategy and reserves are controlled by Hezbollah itself. In the 2006 conflict with Israel, the army was bogged down in dealing with the local cells, in their supportive terrain.

Contrary to popular myth, Hezbollah (unlike Hamas and the other Palestinian groups) prefers not to operate around civilians. Not for a concern for the civilians' safety -- they'll confiscate buildings to use as shooting positions if needed, whether their owners like it or not -- but for their own safety. Hamas operates openly as a sign of pride and defiance. However, by doing that, it only takes a tiny handful of defectors to point out to Israel where they are and what they're doing. Hezbollah, on the other hand, prefers to operate in areas where nobody is around to reduce the risk of being exposed by defectors.

As we saw in the last conflict, they're a very effective military, and it's a big question mark on how to deal with them. It's almost funny how the major Arab powers were defeated one after another, yet this tiny band was blowing up warships and taking out hundreds of Merkavas, in addition to maintaining a steady rain of over 100 Katyushas per day throughout the entire conflict. And now their popularity is soaring -- not just in other countries, but even in Lebanon, where they started the conflict. Check out these polls. Check out this as well.

What a shortsighted (and incorrect) view of the situation.

The arab Shia are the largest ethnic/religious group in Lebanon, at 30% (if you break it down by religion only, the Christians are larger, although there are many different, and sometimes conflicting, Christian sects). Hezbollah is their largest *political party*, which has a private militia that is more powerful than the Lebanese army (largely thanks to Iran and Syria's generosity, but also thanks to extensive training in fighting the Israeli army since the early 80's). The next largest political party, Amal, doesn't have near their level of support. Of course, don't think too mildly of Amal, either -- they fought Israel just as hard, even during this war, although they don't have Hezbollah's resources. Hezbollah is not only a major political party, but is the country's second largest employer, mostly for its network of government services that it provided to areas that the Lebanese government was either unable to or unwilling to provide to -- schools, hospitals, etc. Public service activism is one of the main ways that the party wins support, even down to the local level. I saw a documentary recently where one Hezbollah woman talked about an initiative she started in which Hezbollah families would stock medical supplies in their homes. Whenever anyone was injured, they could come and get treated for free, so that even if the hospitals were destroyed or taken over, people could get care. By doing things like this, addition to helping their own people, they rally support for Hezbollah at the same time.

Hezbollah has a very tight military discipline. They've been using what's termed "fourth generation warfare" by US military analysts. It combines classic guerella tactics with modern weaponry and a unique "peer to peer" communications structure. Weaponry is buried until used, then restored immediately, always in numerous, small caches, making it incredibly difficult to destroy. Local cells operate in their hometowns or other supportive territory, and are able to pick and choose targets as will. Groups communicate with their neighbors to exchange intelligence information; critical information is sent through hardened channels, sometimes even through physical runners. Overall strategy and reserves are controlled by Hezbollah itself. In the 2006 conflict with Israel, the army was bogged down in dealing with the local cells, in their supportive terrain.

Contrary to popular myth, Hezbollah (unlike Hamas and the other Palestinian groups) prefers not to operate around civilians. Not for a concern for the civilians' safety -- they'll confiscate buildings to use as shooting positions if needed, whether their owners like it or not -- but for their own safety. Hamas operates openly as a sign of pride and defiance. However, by doing that, it only takes a tiny handful of defectors to point out to Israel where they are and what they're doing. Hezbollah, on the other hand, prefers to operate in areas where nobody is around to reduce the risk of being exposed by defectors.

As we saw in the last conflict, they're a very effective military, and it's a big question mark on how to deal with them. It's almost funny how the major Arab powers were defeated one after another, yet this tiny band was blowing up warships and taking out hundreds of Merkavas, in addition to maintaining a steady rain of over 100 Katyushas per day throughout the entire conflict. And now their popularity is soaring -- not just in other countries, but even in Lebanon, where they started the conflict. Check out these polls. Check out this as well.

Sep. 19, 2006 | In February, there were several press reports about the Bush administration exercising message control on the subject of climate change. The New Republic cited numerous instances in which top officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and scientists at the National Hurricane Center sought to downplay links between more-intense hurricanes and global warming. NOAA scientist Thomas Knutson told the Wall Street Journal he'd been barred from speaking to CNBC because his research suggested just such a link.

At the time, Bush administration officials denied that they did any micromanaging of media requests for interviews. But a large batch of e-mails obtained by Salon through a Freedom of Information Act request shows that the White House was, in fact, controlling access to scientists and vetting reporters. (The e-mails were provided to several members of Congress for comment; Rep. Henry Waxman's office has now published them here.)

In 2005, NOAA press officer Kent Laborde wrote an e-mail that approved Washington Post reporter Juliet Eilperin's request to interview scientists. "CEQ and OSTP have given the green light for the interview," he wrote. CEQ is the Council on Environmental Quality and OSTP is the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Both are White House agencies that work on science issues. During the Bush administration, numerous critics have charged that CEQ has been particularly aggressive in pushing a pro-business agenda and suppressing inconvenient science.

In another e-mail, Laborde's boss, Jordan St. John, said of NOAA scientist Dave Hoffman, whose work tracks greenhouse gases, "This doesn't say anything new about the data, it's just a new way of tracking it. This was the CEQ-approved release that went on the NOAA Web site earlier this week."

The e-mails also show that after Hurricane Katrina, NOAA press officers had to get clearance from the Department of Commerce for scientists to discuss global warming and hurricanes with the press. (NOAA is part of Commerce.) Regarding the request for a particular interview, Commerce press officer Catherine Trinh wrote, "Let's pass on this one." The response from a NOAA official reads, "Can I please have a reason?"

In another message, Trinh writes, "Let's pass on this ... interview, but rather refer him to BLANK of the BLANK at BLANK. CEQ suggested him as a good person to talk on this subject." The blanks denote passages that were whited out by lawyers releasing the documents.

But Commerce's deputy director of communications, Chuck Fuqua, was happy to have a more politically reliable NOAA hurricane researcher named Chris Landsea speak to the press. At the time, Landsea was stating publicly that global warming had little to no effect on hurricanes. "Please make sure Chris is on message and that it is a friendly discussion," Fuqua wrote regarding a request for Landsea to appear on "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." On the show, Landsea downplayed research that linked global warming with more-intense hurricanes like Katrina.

In an e-mail the week prior, Fuqua OK'd Landsea for another interview and asked, "Please be careful and make sure Chris is on his toes. Since BLANK went off the menu, I'm a little nervous on this, but trust he'll hold the course."

The individual who went "off the menu" could have been researcher Thomas Knutson, whose published research indicates that hurricanes will grow stronger because of global warming. But when NOAA press officers asked if Knutson could appear on CNBC, Fuqua asked if Knutson had the same opinion as Landsea. When he learned that Knutson had published research suggesting that hurricanes will be getting stronger, he responded, "Why can't we have one of the other guys on then?"

Fuqua is the former director of media relations for the Repub

Nice try but the debunking was also debunked http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/06/12/fr eeman/index_np.html/ as was pointed out on the very thread you linked to if you bothered to read just a few posts later.

... The majority of exit polls carried out in European countries over the past years have been failures. ...

Of the ten battleground states that the exit poll showed Kerry winning, he ultimately lost four -- states that, you could say, cost him the election. These were Ohio, Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico. But in none of those states was Kerry's lead outside the poll's margin of error. In other words, the poll results showed a race that was too close to call, and it is impossible to use such a poll to prove that fraud occurred.

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/have_t he_exit_p.html

etc.

I really am concerned when people think that there are active and massive (yet always unprovable) campaigns to literally rig and steal elections, and that it's only the GOP at that, and that they'll be even more pronounced in 2008. If all this is true, what happens if a Democratic candidate wins? The Republicans just didn't "cheat enough"? Or people were *so* fed up that even all of Diebold's hidden secrets to sway the numbers just weren't enough to flip it? Why would a Democratic victory be any more sound given how unbelievably insecure and corrupt it is claimed that the voting machines are, and indeed, that the system itself is? The answer is undeniable: it wouldn't be. And that's exactly why we need a trusted process with a paper trail.

I do agree that a paper trail solves a lot of this, if only to go a long way to restoring faith in the system. But I really am legitimately surprised and concerned - and I'm not just saying that - when people actually think wholeheartedly that there are current, ongoing, massive conspiracies, that somehow miraculously can't be firmly uncovered or proven, to steal elections, only the part of ONLY Republicans no less. Especially in an environment where the most secretive government agencies in the country can't even keep their own classified information, that FAR fewer people would necessarily know about, secret. If you care to discuss this further, feel free to IM or email me at any of my listed contact mechanisms.

... The majority of exit polls carried out in European countries over the past years have been failures. ...

Of the ten battleground states that the exit poll showed Kerry winning, he ultimately lost four -- states that, you could say, cost him the election. These were Ohio, Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico. But in none of those states was Kerry's lead outside the poll's margin of error. In other words, the poll results showed a race that was too close to call, and it is impossible to use such a poll to prove that fraud occurred.

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/have_t he_exit_p.html

etc.

I really am concerned when people think that there are active and massive (yet always unprovable) campaigns to literally rig and steal elections, and that it's only the GOP at that, and that they'll be even more pronounced in 2008. If all this is true, what happens if a Democratic candidate wins? The Republicans just didn't "cheat enough"? Or people were *so* fed up that even all of Diebold's hidden secrets to sway the numbers just weren't enough to flip it? Why would a Democratic victory be any more sound given how unbelievably insecure and corrupt it is claimed that the voting machines are, and indeed, that the system itself is? The answer is undeniable: it wouldn't be. And that's exactly why we need a trusted process with a paper trail.

I do agree that a paper trail solves a lot of this, if only to go a long way to restoring faith in the system. But I really am legitimately surprised and concerned - and I'm not just saying that - when people actually think wholeheartedly that there are current, ongoing, massive conspiracies, that somehow miraculously can't be firmly uncovered or proven, to steal elections, only the part of ONLY Republicans no less. Especially in an environment where the most secretive government agencies in the country can't even keep their own classified information, that FAR fewer people would necessarily know about, secret. If you care to discuss this further, feel free to IM or email me at any of my listed contact mechanisms.

First, this is three months old.

Second, his claims were debunking shortly after he published them, in Slate:

Was the 2004 election stolen? No.

All this crap does is further alienate voters by convincing them that their votes don't matter.

Debunking the debunking? http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/06/12/fr eeman/index_np.html

vandalizing the White house.

Ok, so I read the rebuttal, and the RFK/Manjoo back and forth here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/06/06/rf k_responds/index.html

and this Salon article that talks about their position in the affair:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/06/06/sa lon_answers/index.html

and this article that slams Manjoo

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-crispin-miller/ some-might-call-it-treaso_b_23187.html

and I still don't really think that the claim that the Ohio election was out right stolen has a great deal of substance. There is certainly a smell about the 2004 exit poll results from Ohio, but I think Manjoo does a pretty good job of putting the ball back in Kennedy's court; Kennedy needs to do some work to actually establish some fraud, screaming that it might have happened isn't enough anymore. The Salon articles also seem quite a lot less partisan, but maybe that's just me.

Ok, so I read the rebuttal, and the RFK/Manjoo back and forth here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/06/06/rf k_responds/index.html

and this Salon article that talks about their position in the affair:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/06/06/sa lon_answers/index.html

and this article that slams Manjoo

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-crispin-miller/ some-might-call-it-treaso_b_23187.html

and I still don't really think that the claim that the Ohio election was out right stolen has a great deal of substance. There is certainly a smell about the 2004 exit poll results from Ohio, but I think Manjoo does a pretty good job of putting the ball back in Kennedy's court; Kennedy needs to do some work to actually establish some fraud, screaming that it might have happened isn't enough anymore. The Salon articles also seem quite a lot less partisan, but maybe that's just me.

Mod parent up! Informative.

Not really.

Sorry, but your "debunking" was counter-debunked, on Salon as well. Turns out Manjoo was just using the right-wing's classic tricks of distraction and red herrings.

Too bad Slashdot, in its ridiculous slanting, removed the final word of Salon's headline: "No." Even Mother Jones and NPR repudiated Kennedy's claims.

Too bad you missed the rebuttal supporting Kennedy and showing that the naysayers are the ones who are full of it.

which pretty much says it's a bunch of crap.

Nope, Manjoo (author of your linked article) has been proven to be the one full of crap here.

The linked article goes through a bunch of Kennedy's claims and casts them into doubt.

Sure does, until you read the rebuttal that puts the smackdown on Manjoo.

Have you read this article?

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/03/kenne dy/index.html

It does a good job of picking apart pretty much everything Kennedy said. Basically, Kennedy spouts a bunch of numbers, and makes conclusions about what those numbers mean. The Salon article establishes that many of his conclusions are not particularly sound. The process by which Kennedy reached his conclusions didn't really involve math.

By the way, here is some math(or something that looks substantially like math anyway): 2+2=5. If I claim that is true, I am an idiot, it simply isn't credible. To discredit my math, one simple has to count to four.

• They screwed up.
• The early numbers released were inaccurate due to bad gender participation weighting factors. (the end-of-day results were actually much closer to the actuals than most people realize)
• There was no difference in exit poll errors between touch screen and other methods."Some have suggested that the exit poll data could be used as evidence of voter fraud in the 2004 Election by showing error rates were higher in precincts with touch screen and optical scan voting equipment. Our evaluation does not support this hypothesis. In our exit poll sample overall, precincts with touch screen and optical scan voting have essentially the same error rates as those using punch card systems. In the larger urban areas these systems had lower WPEs than punch card precincts."
• Kerry supporters were more likely to participate and complete an exit poll
• strong correllation between the age of the poll volunteer and the pollee's willingness to participate

This earlier comment:

http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=19680 0&cid=16126316

points here:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/03/kenne dy/index.html

In my experience, Salon.com tends to lean towards being an excellent publication. The linked article goes through a bunch of Kennedy's claims and casts them into doubt.

Or, how about read the counter argument to that article here http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/03/kenne dy/index_np.html

which pretty much says it's a bunch of crap.

Slashdot is now blatantly ripping off Salon.com, which also had an article headline about Kennedy's Rolling Stone piece staring with Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" Too bad Slashdot, in its ridiculous slanting, removed the final word of Salon's headline: "No." Even Mother Jones and NPR repudiated Kennedy's claims. Mother Jones, fer Christ's sake! What's next, Slashdot? How about some articles about World Trade Center demolition conspiracies! And Was Paul Wellstone's Plane Shot Down?

You have the guy running Ohio's Bush campaign as the Secretary of State. This is the guy who make sure the election is "fair and balanced".

Btw-- Salon had a guy write a rebuttle, which was in turn rebutted a few times.

You have the guy running Ohio's Bush campaign as the Secretary of State. This is the guy who make sure the election is "fair and balanced".

Btw-- Salon had a guy write a rebuttle, which was in turn rebutted a few times.

Skip the ads and go right to the story.