Slashdot Mirror

Actually, you've put your finger on an important point -- in the case you cited, the spammer wasn't getting a response, and wasn't likely to for very long (if at all). A trojan may get you SMTP access (or an account password), but once complaints start arriving in the POP box a few hours later, the user will call customer support, change their password, and/or run that virus scan they have been ignoring for months.

This is a general problem. Salon did an article reporting their miserable experiences in trying to respond to spam. Basically, they couldn't get through to anyone!

So aside from the common sense of the recipient, there is a real question how would-be suckers can actually learn where send their hard-earned money when spammers are so elusive. Web pages are one answer, but In the weeks after that Salon article, I tried a few times, and found that the spammer Web sites were usually either dead or empty.

Much (but by no means all) apparent spam is actually meant to harrass the unwitting "sender", either as a vendetta or a blind script-kiddie prank. In managing several domains, I have seen a lot of spam that would never be commercially viable because the sender could never, even in theory, get a reply.

Of course, if there are only a million idiots out there, and each of them periodically decided to 'give it one more try' with that software they wasted $35 on... that adds up to many billions of spam a year, and that's still just a drop in the bucket.

What are the reasons 'big-name bands' don't abandon the RIAA and share their music via alternative methods of production/promotion/delivery? Why do successful artists not break away from the RIAA 'deals'* that /. and other forums vehemently condemn as a corruption of culture, artist integrity and pollution to the meaning of 'art'?

Have the /. crowd become deluded to believe that even the 'artists' they respect and trust (the "real" artists that we liken our favorites to be - as opposed to the Brittany Spears/Backstread Fahrenheit 411 Boyz/Celine Dion et al) actually 'care about integrity'? Is the 'truth' in fact that even 'our favorite artists' are also a product of the RIAA music-machine? Have these products simply been crafted to appeal to a specific demographic: us?

If the latter is not the case, why wouldn't those in the position to, not strike out independently now that the possibility exists?

Noting that some artists have contractual obligations, and some others are corrupted by greed (they would then by definition fall into the 'our favorite artists are also products' category).

BTW: I still listen to Flood, thanks for the 'gift'...
*Yes this could be a Catch22.

What will Linux NOT run on these days?

...Al Gore, George W. Bush, OR Ralph Nader...

Wrong-O! Linux was ported to the Gorebot by IBM; their version can run hundreds and even thousands of instances of Linux simultaneously.

Or to quote it itself:

FOOLISH HUMANS! DO YOU NOT RECOGNIZE THE SUPERIOR PROCESSING CAPABILITIES OF MY ADVANCED NEURAL NETWORK?

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

(Taken from the Salon story...)
"I am talking, for instance, about the unsurprising message in PC World's July issue -- based on responses from 16,000 subscribers -- that computer owners are having more trouble than ever with their machines, and that very few of them are happy with these products or the quality of service from their makers."

Wouldn't it stand more to reason that there are more and more consumers purchasing computers than at any time in history, and that ANYONE can buy one? If you purchase a car, you can not take it on the road unless you have at least rudimentary grasp on how to use it (unless you live and drive in Boston... then you just need the car). Not so with computers. Anyone can buy one, but nobody can make sure that person knows how to use it. I had the misfortune to work for a computer retailer, so I speak from first hand experience when I say that the vast majority of complaints about "broken" computers are machines which have absolutely no problems whatsoever. I'd bet any amount that of those 16,000 subscribers, more than HALF got the machines home and immediately installed all sorts of useless crap and promptly trashed the system. Now, I've yet to have any issues with a computer that I have not been able to resolve either through re-installing the OS or taking it back to the retailer and getting a part replaced due to not to negligence, but simply hardware failure. Yes, I have heard horror stories but I am sure it is nothing like author makes it sound.

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to take a hint from software manufacturers when it comes to hardware? Like, on a the side of a box of software it will tell you "Requires: 486 or higher. 16mb RAM" etc.
How about
"If you:
a) Can not tie your own shoes
b) Think 'Tater Tots are one of the 4 major food groups
c) Regularly watch/are featured in 'COPS'
d) Intend to use AOL
e) Do not have even the most remote idea how to use a computer and have no intention to actually learn
...you should not be purchasing this computer"

That's a major problem- mp3.com is not dealing with it, instead mp3.com is adding 'name' artists to the same pool, tightening the screws even farther and provoking even worse behavior. I recently saw the first email download scam chain letter pyramid scheme- originated by 'artists' on mp3.com desperate for a slice of the pie. I don't think anyone anticipated things would get quite this ugly and embarrassing when PFP started.

Others, like myself, bailed when mp3.com changed their contract- it now gives mp3.com rights _perpetually_ that survive termination, and it is changeable without confirmation by the artist on only 5 days notice, and it's on the artist to keep checking that nothing changed, and then get a competent opinion if terms are changed. Only recourse is to quit. Many people are.

Me? *g* I am finding that I'm happier _without_ the financial interest (naturally, being known is great). Some mp3.commers moved to ampcast.com but I ended up on BeSonic, so my page (with a couple songs still being sorted out) is at...

http://www.besonic.com/chrisj (hooray!)

...and there is one big change- on BeSonic I do not get paid off downloads. I prefer it that way! Read the Salon article linked above to get some idea of why. I did OK at mp3.com, made some money, but it goddamn ate my soul- I could not communicate with other musicians about fun music-geeky compositional stuff because the money got in the way- there was always someone to get _angry_ because I was too hungry for attention and obviously only out to get PFP money by boasting. *spit*

Well, a little of that goes a long way. Since I left it's kept getting worse until now mp3.com is a cesspool. If you care AT ALL about being an artist and doing good work, be somewhere else. I learned from mp3.com how linking downloads (listens) with money corrupts the motivations- the fact that I was OK with not getting rich was NOT ENOUGH, I got treated as if I was just out for greed. Well, now I'm on BeSonic- anyone who wanted to listen to any of my stuff but felt it was mercenary should go filch away as I do not get paid off BeSonic downloads. Anyone who liked what I had on mp3.com should go redownload it from besonic as all the mp3.com stuff was BladeEnc and the besonic stuff is all new mixes and encoded with Frau and LAME, so it sounds way better now :)

Anyway- forget the mp3.com unsigned artist community. It's the walking dead, and you can't make it on the merits of your music on mp3.com at this point. It's a very useful lesson about capitalism mixing with art: there's always a better way to make money than by making the best product you can. mp3.com means spam, marketing, gaming and total vacuity now- ironically, every bit as bad as the _mainstream_ industry that's taking it over- but the indie community killed itself. Over money.

Of course, he did the whole public "I accept defeat" deal, but he by no means backed down gracefully. He even went so far as to claim that Ike had encouraged him to "look into Illinois" but that he declined "for the good of the country". That's how Nixon describes it, at least. In reality, Ike withdrew support for a recount after 1 day.

See The fallacy of Nixon's graceful exit at salon for more info.

The Salon technology coverage is still terrific; they are among the few journalists who can both write well and understand the free software movement.

If you don't like their Clinton/Gore lapdoggery, just skip direct to the technology page and bookmark that.

Check out the Salon.com story about the decoding. I'm a big Poe fan and was excited to see that the cypher had been broken, but disappointed with the results.

-B

It's a shame, because while a use FreeBSD exclusivly on my laptop (KDE2 made freebsd a servicable workstation without LINUX emulation, thanks to KOffice), I'm certainly not adverse to the idea of having a commercial BSD with real apps. It just doesn't appear that OSX really fills that niche.

The obligatory link to Jordan Hubbard's Salon article and review of OSX is here. It's largly a rant about open source, but the second page covers the technical issues in a clear and unbiased way.

See the Salon letters section, the last letter for an excellent explanation of how dimpled chad occur.

As for why they might occur only in the presidential part of the ballot, I think it eminently reasonable that people might cast ballots only in the presidential part of the race, so that part of the catch tray might be more full.

> Democrats are known cheaters when it comes to elections.

That's right -- why would anyone vote for a Democrat? I've also heard that they kick puppies whenever they get the chance, too!

Don't you think a blatant generalization like that is what sustains this horrible partianship in our country? The idea of breaking the country into "us" and "them" and damn everyone on the other side?

> It is well known that there was considerable fraud in the Kennedy-Nixon
> race. The biggest incidence was in Chicago, where ballot boxes were
> stuffed with Kennedy votes. Nixon just didn't pout about it.

It's this sort of apocryphal storytelling that hurts politics today -- this idea that if you say something enough times, it becomes true.

According to an article in Salon ;, Nixon did contest the votes, although he did publically concede. The votes in Chicago were close, but by more than 5,000, not a few hundred like in today's case. And after the recount, it was found that Nixon still lost. The Republicans took the matter to court and, according to the article, "A slew of lawsuits were filed by Republicans, and unsuccessful appeals to state election commissions routinely followed. However, all their efforts failed to uncover any significant wrongdoing."

That last part is crucial, but I'm sure we'll continue to hear the story of the "stolen election" despite of any court findings.

I am a Republican, and voted for Bush, so obviously I'm biased.

Tell me about it!

However, I clearly think that if Gore continues to go ahead with his lawyers in front of Democrat judges (who already have rewritten the law, in effect changing the rules of the game after the ball has been put in play), he's going to destroy his party.

I'm not sure of how clearly you think but this sure isn't an example of clarity in though. While the majority of the judges in the Florida supreme court were appointed by the democrats (6 out of 7) the court ruled unanymously in favor of extending the recounts. This means that the republican appointed judge voted for it too.
Bush has also been to court. In fact he was the first one to go to court. He even went to the federal district court in Gergia which is very much a republican leaning district court.
The reson gore has won the majority of the court decissions is that he has much firmer legal ground than Bush and what he is asking for as a general rule is more level headed than what Bush asks for.

I believe that at this point he doesn't stand much of a chance of succeding... Surprisingly, weeks of recounts being done in Democrat counties that voted OVERWEALMINGLY for him, using hand recount rules made and remade on the fly by DEMOCRATS didn't change the results.

This is clearly not true. From one county alone Gore gained over 500 votes placing him within 400 votes of Bush. If the Miami-Dade and Palm Beach recounts were allowed and counted Gore would probably win the election by 600-1000 votes.

Gore going any further proves that Gore thinks more of himself than the country to continue to be the cause of damaging faith in the Constitution, law, and fairness. And he is the SOLE cause of all this. Some day, when less biased historians write of this era will paint this election and Gore's actions as the final chapter of the corrupt Clinton machine.

Are you serious? Please do some reading so you know what is actually happening in Florida. I think these articles are pretty interesting maybe you should check them out and broaden your mind:
Winning by intimidation
Patriot missile
Raising the Stakes

BTW, Gore's lawyer, Boyd, is the lead government lawyer in the Microsoft case, don't know if anyone's mentioned that yet. This shakes my faith in the Reno case against them, IMO, he has damaged his credibility severely by arguing specious cases on Gore's behalf.

BTW, David Boies, Gore's Lawyer, was the lead government lawyer in the M$ case. He left the DOJ months ago. He is Napster's lawyer now. Why would any of this "shake your faith" on what you call "Reno's" case? First of all the M$ case isn't Reno's case. She just happens to be the Attorney General but it isn't as if this is some sort of vendetta that she has embarked upon. There was a findings of fact an M$ didn't come out so well. The judge was not compromised in any way and he still sided with the DOJ. Just because a legal decission isn't what you would like it to be it doesn't mean that the ruling is a bad one.

Nixon didn't do what Gore is doing now because he didn't want to damage the country.

That is a fallacy.

First of all, if Nixon had gained Illinois, he would still have lost the election.

Secondly, he DID contest the results. He just did it a lot quieter than Gore is doing now.

After the election, Republicans launched a multi-state attack on the election results. They created grand juries. They appealed to state elections commissions. They demanded, and received, recounts in several election districts in several states. They showed no widespread discrepancy. In fact, Nixon lost 3 electoral votes afterwards, as Kennedy was shown to have won Hawaii rather than Nixon.

You can find related stories on Slate or Salon ;.
--

I don't suppose that Apple needs to give away the source to OS X to
get the support of the open source community: instead providing
support and commitment for the equivalent of WINE for OS X on a free
software platform (Linux and/or BSD) would be enough. This would do a
lot to get support for the platform from the OS cumminty. Check out
this article by Jordan Hubbard on why Apple might want to do this
(though Jordan advocates Apple actually opening up the source).

This article, Open-sourcing the Apple, has a different point of view on the subject.

If you travel in geek circles, by now you have no doubt heard about Apple's beta release of OS X, a wholly new operating system for the Macintosh. That's especially true if you are a member of that subset of geeks who closely follow open-source software issues.

OS X is a much anticipated amalgam of the Mach 3.0 microkernel from Carnegie-Mellon University, and FreeBSD 3.2, a more traditional open-source Unix-compatible operating system from the FreeBSD Project. But knowing that OS X is a microkernel wrapped up in a Unix OS, which is in turn wrapped up in a whole new layer of graphical user interface (GUI) technology, doesn't tell the whole story. Is OS X just another fancy GUI-based operating desktop system like Windows or is it a more industrially useful server-centric operating system like FreeBSD or Linux-based OS's? Crafting user interfaces is Apple's widely acknowledged forte; FreeBSD technology is known to power major Internet sites like Yahoo and Sony Japan. So which is it?

Or is it both? It is possible for one operating system to satisfy both the needs of someone like myself, a FreeBSD developer who expects a lot of power and flexibility from an operating system, and the average user who just wants to point and click?

( read more)

This article, Open-sourcing the Apple, has a different point of view on the subject.

If you travel in geek circles, by now you have no doubt heard about Apple's beta release of OS X, a wholly new operating system for the Macintosh. That's especially true if you are a member of that subset of geeks who closely follow open-source software issues.

OS X is a much anticipated amalgam of the Mach 3.0 microkernel from Carnegie-Mellon University, and FreeBSD 3.2, a more traditional open-source Unix-compatible operating system from the FreeBSD Project. But knowing that OS X is a microkernel wrapped up in a Unix OS, which is in turn wrapped up in a whole new layer of graphical user interface (GUI) technology, doesn't tell the whole story. Is OS X just another fancy GUI-based operating desktop system like Windows or is it a more industrially useful server-centric operating system like FreeBSD or Linux-based OS's? Crafting user interfaces is Apple's widely acknowledged forte; FreeBSD technology is known to power major Internet sites like Yahoo and Sony Japan. So which is it?

Or is it both? It is possible for one operating system to satisfy both the needs of someone like myself, a FreeBSD developer who expects a lot of power and flexibility from an operating system, and the average user who just wants to point and click?

( read more)

Pardon me while I fail to be impressed.

Salon.com published a review recently.

Lars
__

--

How about a head transplant? Apparently, this is being seriously considered as a drastic, but possibly justifiable, last-ditch measure to preserve the lives of otherwise hopeless quadriplegics, whose bodies steadily degrade as a result of their condition. They'd still be quadriplegic, of course: no one's talking about reattaching the spinal cord or anything else, it's strictly about keeping blood flowing to the brain. Everybody's favourite quad, Christopher Reeve, has already been mentioned as a possible candidate. If you were reduced to the state of basically a talking head, would you consider it?

Dear Cyborg, I am afraid you are confusing me with the other Anne Marie who is rumoured to be a man on this board. Please see my site educatedescort to see who I am or read a few Slashdot or Salon or Slate articles to see that I am 100% woman from the day I was born. Anne Marie

I understand that this post is a joke, and a funny one at that, but it's a real issue. I've attempted to do just that: get past my high school's proxy (BESS, to be precise) by using Google's cache for articles at Salon that were blocked by the censorware service to protect against "a constantly changing website which contains information that could be offensive to some of our viewers." Because the proxy blocks sites merely based on URLs typed into the address bar, Google's cache doesn't work. [The reason for this is that it includes the original site's URL in the CGI script which locates the site being cached]. But the IP masker that was mentioned in response to a previous jamie post about the subject [as well as an article in the recent 2600] works extremely well, due to the fact that N2H2 doesn't block 32-bit IPs. If this helps anyone block out the Farenheit 451esque blocking of informative sites that the establishment attempts to utilize, so be it. :)

Sorry thecap, but I was written up on Slashdot nearly one YEAR ago. Please see the article to read about the Slashdot piece to see what I am referring to. I do not argue the fact that someone has been writing for quite some time as Anne Marie. I get many emails daily trying to confirm if it is me or not. All I am saying is that if she was written up by /. or has a site that was featured on /. then fine, but I believe I am the real Anne Marie with a site of the same name. Please read the article for details. Anne Marie

I am afraid I am the real Anne Marie--just go read the article below. Let me try again . Read this article if you want sex, slashdot and linux all in one. Anne Marie

> Judge Sidney Harris reprimanded Rambus for "blatant judge shopping"

Maybe they should get together with Katherine "the [state] Supreme Court has no jurisdiction" Harris, and compare notes about what does and doesn't work when shopping around for a sympathetic judge.

> November 17 is the deadline for absentee ballots sent from overseas to arrive.

And the occasion for more inequality in the process.

According to Salon, the USPS is expediting delivery of absentee ballots from overseas military posts. It is not doing so (because it cannot) for absentee ballots from overseas civilian sources.

There is a general expectation that the overseas military ballot will strongly favor Bush. There is also an expectation that for some locales, such as Florida, the overseas civilian ballot will strongly favor Gore.

By expediting one batch and not the other, the USPS will induce a differential in what arrives in Florida by the Friday deadline. Wittingly or not, they may be influencing the outcome of the election.

That's not what he said at all. Read his ruling, here.

He reviewed the relevent statutes, noted the conflicting requirements of the certification deadline and the time needed for recounts, opined that the Legislature would not have provided for recounts but intended them impractical to conclude, both deferred to and cautioned the Secretary of State to apply appropriate discretion, and observed that the results may be challenged in Circuit Court within ten days of certification.

That last point is a veiled admonition to the Secretary of State to "do the right thing" or risk being handed her partisan head in Circuit Court (perhaps his) in short order.

• The Blacks who heckled Jesse Jackson in Florida Monday turn out to have been bussed in from elsewhere, and will not say who paid their fare. (See the story in Salon.)
  
  
• David Boies is now on Gore's legal team. (Briefly mentioned at Yahoo! .)
  
  
• A Floridian voter, claiming to be an independent (yeah, sure) but peeved at the Bush campaign's attempt to intervene in what he considers to be Florida's internal affairs, has filed suit in a Federal district court in Florida, seeking to have the 32 electoral votes from Texas declared invalid, since for Texan voters the Bush-Cheney ticket does not meet the constitutional requirement that either the presidential or vice-presidential candidate must be an "inhabitant" of another state. The plaintiff makes much of the legal distinction between "resident" and "inhabitant", the latter apparently being a more demanding definition. (Sorry, but I cannot find this link anymore. If you have seen it, please post it.)
  
  

> His ruling on the 5pm deadline is basically: "Yeah, she [the Secretary of State] can ignore late results...but not arbitrarily"

I found the ruling quite surprising, since the Florida Statutes clearly give voters right up until the moment of statewide certification to register their contest or protest of the election. The implication of the judge's ruling seems to be that yes, you could register your {pro,con}test of the election right up until 4:59 this afternoon, but that the SoS could completely ignore it at her discretion, since there would not be time left to read it, let alone do anything about it.

I vote the "work of great cowardice" explanation. Notice also that five (count 'em, five!) judges have already recused themselves from the Butterfly Ballot Suit, so that that extremely hot potato(e) is now in the hands of a sixth. I don't think anyone in the judicial system wants to have his/her resume saddled with having single-handedly selected a president.

And of course, the Florida SoS must be the squirmingest person in the USA right now. I wouldn't want to have her job under the current circumstances.

As always, the most technically useful link for all this is the Jurist site. You can also find interesting articles (and opinions) at Salon, including stories that the mainstream press is virtually ignoring.

Here is a pretty darn good example of why elected officials are bad. An excerpt from the article on Salon reads:

"Karl Auerbach, a board member-elect of ICANN, said he was worried that the routers controlling the flow of data through the Internet would crash when the new characters are introduced."

I don't know about you, but this is like saying that your radio would crash if it picked up a Korean broadcast. Where oh where do they find these people? Oh wait, he was elected by a vote of the people.

Why not just offer up a position on the board to the top three people graduating from a CS class at a reputable school every year? Then you are bound to get fresh ideas, and you should get people that have half a clue.

Just a thought.

> The ballot followed the procedures outlined by law for laying out a ballor

Not. See this note on jurist, and read the part about allegations of a confusing ballot. IANAL, but it certainly sounds like the ballot does not conform to the requirements of Floridian state law.

> Instead, the dems us ed a telemarketing firm to stir the pot and get people to complain when it became apparent they they weren't going to win Florida.

Actually, the problem was reported long before the outcome of the election was clear. By 11:24 AM Florida time, there had already been enough complaints to prompt a FAX from the DNC to contact county officials, asking them to post a clarification. A note was then distributed by the county to the actual voting sites, arriving mostly between 1:00 and 2:00 PM. (I have seen at least once source claiming that the clarification never did reach all the sites.)

See th is Salon article for a pretty good review of the situation, including a link to a scan of the memo.

Also, now that a bit of information about the disqualified ballots is finally leaking out, it turns out that there was indeed a high fraction of Gore+Buchanan punches (over 2x the number of Gore+Bush punches, IIRC).

It is at best misleading for you to portray the current dispute as a post hoc attempt by the Democrats to throw a fair election.

The rumors, allegations, and half truths continue even after the election.

amar

I'm (mostly) repeating a post that I've already made, since the same mistake was made in this post.

According to this salon.co m article, the number of discarded ballots this year was 29,000 compared to about 15,000 in 1996. The 19,000 number is for votes that were discarded due only to overvoting. The difference? This year there were much more double-punched ballots than 1996. Something like 4.1% of the presidential vote was overvotes, compared to about .82% for Senate. Also, the 3400 votes for Buchanan were way out of line from what they were in other counties (no, that's not proof that there's a problem, there may be a concentration of Buchanan voters in Palm Beach County, but which explanation do you believe?)

At any rate, it's clear that there was a significant problem with the ballots in Palm Beach County that may change the election. The fact that the Bush campaign is try to thwart a hand recount is ridiculous given that Bush signed a Texas law stating that a hand recount is the preferable method to recount!

In 1996, 16,000 Palm Beach County ballots were discarded. In 2000, of the 19,000 ballots, only a small percentage were discarded due to multiple presidential votes.

According to this salon.com article, the number of discarded ballots this year was 29,000 compared to about 15,000 in 1996. The 19,000 number is votes that were discarded due to overvoting. The difference? This year there were much more double-punched ballots than 1996. Something like 4.4% of the vote was invalidated, which is way higher than in other counties.

I think it is tough to argue that there weren't significant problems with the ballot in Palm Beach county this year. The tough question is what to do about it. (I vote for a hand recount and be done with it. If Bush thinks it's unfair that only 4 counties get hand recounts because it's not uniformly applied throughout the state, let him ask for hand recounts in the other counties.)

The comp.risks digest issue 21.12 has a well-written essay by Lauren Weinstein and Peter G. Neumann (both affiliated with PFIR and ACM). They refer to some position papers which address some of the risks associated with various computerized solutions to the voting mess.

Personally, I have plenty of reasons to be skeptical about digital voting systems. Paper ballots can be verified after the fact. As creaky as the security systems are in our current system, the citizens who are our poll workers are less likely (IMHO) to defraud their neighbors than impersonal vote-hackers living in other states. It's the integrity of the poll workers which helps to keep our system honest.

One specific concern about the glib comparison between anti-fraud provisions in e-commerce and those in the polling stations: e-commerce transactions have no requirement for anonymity. In fact, the anti-fraud provisions require that one examine his credit card statement to verify that it contains only legitimate charges. How would the anonymity of votes be protected? I'm not saying it's impossible, I just can't see an obvious way to do it which has parallels to e-commerce.

Now, to a proposal: after this election and the legal challenges are over, and we have sworn in the new Congress and a new President, the partisan divisions are likely to be more bitter than ever. One way to try to bring the two parties together would be for them to cooperate early in the session on an appropriation to the states, for a nationwide upgrade of the voting infrastructure. This could include a research phase, to identify or invent the best solution[s] and possibly to have NIST create some sort of standards (not technology standards, but "shall" requirements on security features, etc). After the research phase, the second appropriation would go to the states to deploy new infrastructure. Finally, some of the anecdotal evidence suggests that better training of poll workers is desirable.

By cooperating on such uncontroversial measures, the new Congress might be able to move on to other matters important to the nation. In the process, our Congress might elevate their public image above the current low, so that they might be seen as the moral equals of, say, Chimpanzees instead of Baboons. (apologies to primates).

Agreed -- but with the caveat that each county should have used the same method when voting, so that the errors introduced by the voting/counting methodology were evenly distributed across the population.

Unfortunately, that was not the case in this election. Some counties used the Optiscan system (not subject to "chad" error), and others used punch cards (which, as we're painfully aware, are).

So any inaccuracies introduced by the hand-count (or rather, by the original vote, and possibly corrected by the hand count) are not evenly distributed among counties.

Depending on how you vote, this either unfairly skewed the election to Bush on November 7th, or it will skew the election to Gore in the days ahead as the hand recounts progress.

The time to have decided this was before the vote, when one's political leanings wouldn't have entered into the equation. Sadly, it's too late for that, which is why we're in this mess.

Quoted from a Canadian commentary (albeit a highly partisan one in favor of Bush) on the subject:

But a hand count is all about the arcane art of chad divining. The chad is the little bit of paper that gets punched out. It's held on in four places, and who voted for whom depends on how many of those threads need to be severed to constitute a vote. Maybe none needs to be severed, as proponents of the "dimpled chad" (a slight indentation) argue. All we know is that the count began by using a three-point severance as the standard for an official vote. When it came to two-point severances, officials were allowed to use their discretion as to which of these were valid. But even that leeway wasn't enough. So, a quarter of the way through, Ms. LePore switched to the "sunlight" test. In other words, if you hold the ballot up and see light coming through at any point, you are entitled to interpret that as a vote for whomsoever you perceive the sun shineth. Alas, over in the Bush pile, it's a total eclipse. On Saturday night, after a sample count of 1%, the Incredible Chad Diviners had given the Vice-President a net gain of 19 votes. That's when Ms. LePore chose to demand a full hand count. We are not in Florida or Kansas anymore: We are in ... Chad.

If (if!) this report (I see no substantiation here, and the article is extremely partisan, so I'm still classifying it as "rumor" - I'm sure if there's evidence for it, a Bush partisan will substantiate it :-) about the changing of the standard between three-point severance to "sunlight" or the "dimpled chad" partway through the recount turns out to be true, it raises questions about the impartiality of the hand recount.

Back to my "standards" thread - this Salon article points out that heavily-Republican counties use the Optiscan system, which isn't subject to the "chad" issue. If true, it appears that votes in Republican counties already "count" about 0.001% more than those in Democrat counties, and there's a legitimate argument that Gore's calling for a hand-recount evens the score.

IMHO both the National Post and Salon articles (and the post to which I'm replying) constitute evidence that we need both a standard ballot and a standard counting system.

(And that, Constitutionally, these standards should be set on a per-state basis, not the Federal level.)

Motherjones suggests The United States needs International Election Observers like any other Banana Republic. Given that the Republican districts in Florida primarily used OptiScan systems which show significantly less error than the Punch Card Systems used in primarily Democrat area such as Palm Beach county, one wonders if this was just one of many approaches used to skew election results. There have been many accusations from Florida regarding voting irregularities, from a previous Republican mayoral candidate who had a an election overturned from absentee ballot fraud who was involved in an "Get out the vote" absentee ballot vote drive, to a large number of allegations regarding voter intimidation and outright fraud. Welcome to the United States, where we citizens don't have the right to vote unless we agree with the decision of our power brokers.

This just disgusts me.

MSNBC's version:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/466882_asp.htm

cnn.com's version:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/09/ election.president/large.ballot.ap.jpg

salon.com's version:
http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/07/r esults/index.html

Only a dynamic list of the current state of the electoral college would be news. And that is already provided by most major news sites .

Slashdot is superb in the space that it has: it's faster than daily newspapers, but it's more in-depth than TV or radio news. However, it still doesn't compete with the immediacy of TV or radio. Immediate news reporting is still far better served by TV and radio.

Just as I wouldn't expect Slashdot to give me traffic information, I feel that this article was a weak choice for Slashdot.

Hmmm. This map is actually pretty crappy, there's one at salon.com that's good for electoral votes only... OoOO look at the pretty colors!

salon has many AP and salon articles, and a map, too. politics section of salon.

salon has many AP and salon articles, and a map, too. politics section of salon.

salon has many AP and salon articles, and a map, too. politics section of salon.

Salon has an electoral vote map here . They've been sluggish about updating it though.

NPR also has ongoing coverage, and it's quite good. You can just turn on your local NPR affiliate, or listen to it on the web NPR

----

If your goal is to prevent further use of the Death Penalty, you'll probably use every arguement available to you to make the case. Some people will respond to an ethical appeal. Some people will be convinced that it is being applied inequitably. Some will be shocked to learn that Governor Bush executes the borderline retarded. And some pragmatists will point out that the death penalty is significantly more expensive than life imprisonment.

Is this to say that the issue of internet censorship is as important as the death penalty? Of course not. But it is an important civil liberties issue, and it's worth pulling every last gambit out of our bag of tricks. Although it can make for a disjointed and at times inconsistent arguement, failing to appeal to any potential suporter is like tying one hand behind your back before the fight.

and voting for a third party candidate seems to mean so little when even if a third-party candidate was elected president, the republicrat house and senate would fight his legislation every step of the way.

the solution? write in Bill the Cat. at least his 'Ack' means something.

He loves some big corporations, but he doesn't love big tobacco (IMO, this ciggies for votes thing sounds like a setup) and he doesn't love Microsoft. In fact, on a campaign trip to Redmond last year, he got right in their faces and said that antitrust law should be applied to the software industry.

• story at Salon.com
• story at USA Today
• story at Seattle Times

Agreed. The Gore campaign is pulling out all the stops, but to no avail. (Although i support Bush, that's not intended as a partisan remark - the effect is exactly like the frenzy the Republicans whipped themselves into during the Clinton impeachment scandal - it's a classic primate response to losing a battle for dominance; scream louder and jump up and down higher)

For what it's worth - given that the Nader-bashing is probably gonna start in 24 hours - I agree with the author's contention that the Democrats had this election in the bag, and blew it.

From a Salon article: Don't Blame Ralph

If Gore is losing ground, it is not because Nader is draining natural support. It is because Gore himself has driven voters away in droves with his patronizing drone. It is because he has failed to motivate middle-class women or to portray his education plan as more than bricks and mortar. It is because his years of feints to the right have left key Democratic constituencies supporting him out of fear rather than enthusiasm: a sure recipe for disaster, whether or not Ralph Nader petitioned his way onto a single ballot line.

OK (1, Insightful) stuff done. Time for (-1, Partisan):

If I have to hear Al Goooore speeeeak sooo sloooowly to meeee about howwww heeee will fiiiight for meeee, as though I were two years old and needed to have my misguided politics corrected by my Daddy-figure, I'm gonna puke.

I mean really - close your eyes and listen to the man. Any speech he's made in the past 2-3 months. I'm not talking about his policies, I'm talking about his tone - whether you agree with his policies or not, the Number One Way to Lose An Election is to talk down to the voters as though they were somehow mentally-deficient for disagreeing with you.

The impression I get is that he's some how bewildered whenever he mentions any of his opponent's policies. I know it's an act - anything a politician does in a stump speech is written into the act - but what dumb fuck in the Democratic campaign office decided that he could win an election by insulting the voter? Lieberman's like Gore, only worse, because he really is preaching!

Bush? Yeah, you got me there, he does come off as glib and without substance. But Cheney - listen to Cheney speak sometimes. Fast, clipped, and he actually tries to put some content into his sentences.

My hunch is that a Gore presidency would be just that - Al and Joe telling us what we have to think and do, because anyone who disagrees with them is obviously too stupid to be taken seriously. I mean, how could anyone come to any conclusion other than that which Al and Gore have Decided Is True?

A Bush presidency? Bush would be a figurehead - someone with the leadership/personal skills (a'la Clinton - whether you love Bill or hate him, you gotta admit he knows how to work a crowd) to make the policies fly, while delegating the real policy work (i.e. actually writing policy!) to his Cabinet. I believe Bush is not only smart enough to appoint people with more clue than himself to Cabinet, but that unlike Gore, he's also smart enough to realize not only when he's outcluded, but to listen to his Cabinet when he realizes he's outclued.

And I'll take that style of government over Gore/Lieberman pronouncements from upon high any day.

Bush keeps claiming he claimed that. Here's the real story in Gore's own words. And here's a viewpoint you may not have heard.

It is true that a vote for Bush is a vote for Microsoft. He'll shut down the antitrust case faster than you can crash Windows 98.

Read it here: http://www.salo n.c om/politics/feature/2000/11/06/bush/index.html