Slashdot Mirror

That is an urban legend, as usual, see snopes.com http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp

There was a company however that manufactured a "space pen" and sold quite a few of them.

It's an urban legend.

And here's a little something for you, Mr. Troll.

Al Gore never claimed to invent the internet. He simply claimed that he helped create an economic envireonment to help foster the growth of the internet.

Rule of thumb. Allways check Snopes first.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm.

It's not true. Based on a satire piece that "fooled many a news publication and is still occasionally cited as a genuine by gullible reporters".

Snopes talks about it here

Ah, another "gullible". Check this:

Satire gone bad

alabama pi

The problem with almost all of these tests is that they generally only catch sociopaths, not psychopaths owing to that most of them can be gamed fairly readily and the nature of psychopathology is such that they're well suited to fooling evaluators. But nevertheless, we always want to feel that there's some foolproof way to detect menaces to our life and health, so we'll always want to believe in such tests. Just witness the recent email forward that contained a quick psycho test.

My congratulations to President Bush. I may not like the man or his policies, but he did win not only the Electoral but the Popular Vote. In a sense we can put behind us the issues from the 2000 Election.

This election was more of an indicator of the sad state of liberal programs currently in schools and inability of the poor to access such an education than anything else. The poor in the South learn their lessons in churches, just as the poor in the Middle-East do. The language they hear it in is different, but the message is startlingly similar. God rules the country, not any Constitution or government.

I won't defend stupid decisions, but I will note that when people are hurting they turn towards religion. Shrub has sold himself as a religious man, and Kerry didn't. A defining and admirable aspect of born again Christianity is that the "sinner" can repent and absolve himself of all past sins by accepting Christ (however defined by the various sects and denominations). The Red states bought that Shrub is reborn. We know better.

I say that the Democratic party's best defense against religious fundamentalism is education. They need to start rebuilding the walls between church and state by winning current court cases and more of them. They need to start attacking at every possible opportunity rather than roll over and take it up the rectum like they have been from groups like Bush's "Swift Boat" Republicans. More importantly, they need to stop alienating the liberals who actually are fighting. The Democrats need to bring themselves back into the Liberal fold where Nader, Moore, and the Green party are waiting for them. They need to start backing up these fighters, instead of distancing themselves from them. The Democrats have forgotten how to fight, and need to start by liberating the minds of the young while the right-wing is busy liberating oil wells from their owners. They've got 2 years before the next elections, and they better have a "moral" center like the Red states do, but in defense of liberty, and not one particular religion.

"A liberal education ... frees a person from the prison-house of his class, race, time, place, background, family, and even his nation." -- Robert Maynard Hutchins, The Political Animal

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." - Thomas Jefferson

"I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be... " - Thomas Jefferson, from a letter to Colonel Charles Yancey, Jan 6th, 1816

= 9J =

You sort of suspect that Californians and New Yorkers might be a tad more educated and informed than Montanans and Kansans? Even a little?

No. That's bigotry. Period. If you can cite conclusive proofs, then do so. Otherwise it's a boorish lack of thought, and the broad brush you claim to dislike.

Not all of them are doing it just to be rude.

Didn't say they were rude. I said they were bigoted and some appear to have become mentally unhinged.

And what about the the Redskin's last pre-election home game? If the Green Bay Packers had been gentlemen, they would have pointed out that that ominous illegal motion penalty in fourth quarter was a bad call, and should have conceded their victory to the Red Skins!

According to snopes.com, it's a sure thing! ;-)

According to snopes.com, it's already a sure thing! ;-)

AAC has a lossless mode, but the default is NOT lossless. I'm good friends with a Dolby engineer that worked for the company while they developed AAC. One internal thing that they didn't want to let out is that AAC is better in every way than Dolby Digital AC3.

Besides, for good lossless, we have Ogg FLAC.

As far as the frame jitter issue goes, any decent CD player that has a 16-frame buffer (a whole whopping 256 bytes -- could be cache on the D/A chip) could effectively eliminate jitter. Period. In modern CD-players, it's not an issue, regardless of what your friendly neighborhood audio store will say. Same with "greening" cd's. It's psuedoscience that sounds feasible, but in reality is a load of crap.

As I said, I can't cite any references, and I can only base what I say on what my friends who deal with special ed and ESL (English as a 2nd language).

When I say the dual-language kids learn their languages slower, I'm talking about when they are very young. If I recall correctly, kids in the dual-language environment tend to take a longer time to start talking compared to single-language kids. When testing for vocabulary and comprehension, even in early preschool, these kids are a bit behind. But they quickly catch up to their single-language peers and then are left with a better ability to acquire languages.

It would actually make sense that as adults they might have a tendency to excel in the use of language - evidenced by your two examples.

But I'm not sure about a single-language kid having his brain on idle. My guess is that the brain is busy doing tons of things and that if one kid is slowed down by learning two languages, the other kid probably has part of the brain busy doing other things.

It's my belief that the idea that we only use 10% of our brain is not quite true. From a biological point of view, a brain is very expensive. It requires a lot of materials and minerals to build and maintain, and requires lots of oxygen to keep functional. While evolution may leave us with vestigal features like appendixes*, it's not likely to evolve such a large and expensive feature only to never use it. So that leads me to believe that it's more of a zero-sum situation. If more of the brain is dedicated to one task, then less of it is left for other things.

So, I wonder what things that kids growing up with dual-languages might tend to have less developed. For example, might they tend to have less capability at mathematics? Or spatial relationships? Coordination? Or any tendency at all?

Of course, it's also possible that in early development, dual-language learning might actually cause the brain to increase in "power", taking advantage of potential that would not have been developed otherwise.

But I still doubt that we build a lot of cabability that is never used. There might be potential that as the brain is being built, but it seems most logical to me that our brains would only build enough capacity to get things done.

Snopes, the amazing source that it is (tongue-in-cheek), does discuss this idea of only 10% usage of the brain: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

* I recently heard a discussion on NPR where a researcher was saying that we end up with extra stuff in our DNA because it's an expensive process to cull the unnecessary stuff. The DNA we have apparently contains a lot of unused material (maybe this refutes my ideas on the brain), and while it's expensive to make more DNA than the organism needs, there's little evolutionary advantage to cutting it out - it's safer to just turn off parts of it.

And also a snopes link in case you needed another...

HERE

And there it is, argument CB310, a standard argument from incredulity on this beetle and how it could have come into being.

Kerry appears to have made a very strong comeback in just the last few days according to the data from electoral-vote.com. It certainly does look like the Redskins Indicator, which has been accurate since 1936, just might prevail for yet another four years!

Mostly I don't understand the refusal to question the leadership in the name of patriotism. When you nation is founded on principles, what can be more patriotic than asking hard questions about whether or not those principles are being followed?

Exactly!!!! I can't understand it either. I wish I could express clearly in written words how very much I don't understand it. But it does fit well with that old Göring quote about war. (or the original German if you can read that)

-chris

Foreign leaders and politicians call Bush a "moron" and an "idiot"

According to a Brazillian journalist (who was friends with the president of Brazil), when Bush met with his Brazillian counterpart, he asked "Do you have blacks, too?"
Considering that Brazil has a huge black population...

Of coarse the White House denies it. But it's funny as hell.

Snopes says "undetermined"

so are you saying that it's GWB's fault that we did nothing before 9/11 (like a response to the first WTC bombing, the African embassies bombings or the Cole bombing)?

Nah, but what I'm saying is that you're full of shit.

http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/election.asp

...and what's this about the "Boston Yanks"?

*head explodes*

This string of predictions refers to the last home game for the Redskins before the general election. While the Redskins did lose to the Bills days before the election, that game took place in Buffalo.

A week earlier, Washington played and defeated the Indianapolis Colts, 31 - 16. See snopes.com for more information.

http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/election.asp

Last time the Red Sox won, the incumbent lost. How's that for a pattern?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/humor/redsox.asp

It died in 1996 - the Redskins lost to the Bills 38-13 and Bill Clinton was reelected two days later.

Not according to snopes:

On 27 October 1996 the Washington Redskins defeated the Indianapolis Colts at home, 31-16, predicting a win for the incumbent Democrats. Sure enough, in the 5 November 1996 general election, Democratic President Bill Clinton won re-election over his Republican challenger, Senator Bob Dole of Kansas.

It died in 1996 - the Redskins lost to the Bills 38-13 and Bill Clinton was reelected two days later.

No, it didn't. The tradition states that the last Washington home game before the election is predictive. The game you refer to was played in Buffalo. The last home game before that election was against Indianapolis, which the Redskins won. Thus, they predicted the win for the incumbent Democrat. This is also noted on snopes.com.

Wrong.

"In 1932 the Washington Redskins were neither the Redskins nor a Washington team: they were the Boston Braves, and they played in Braves Field, which they shared with the National League baseball team of the same name. On 6 November 1932 they won at home against the Staten Island Stapletons, 19-6, a result that should have foretold a presidential victory for the incumbent Republican party. Neither the Redskins' team name nor their predictive powers were yet evident, however, as President Herbert Hoover lost to his Democratic challenger, Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt of New York, on 8 November 1932"

http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/election.asp

Bloggers: 43 Folders, Kris Dresden, Diane Duane, Paul Ford, Neil Gaiman, Michael Hanscom, Jason Kottke, Anne Murphy, Jessamyn North, Alia Phibes, Quentin Tarantino, and Wil Wheaton.

Linklogs: Anil Dash, Best of Craigslist, Boing Boing, CoolGov, Daze Reader, Fazed, Kottke Remainders, LinkMachineGo, MetaJournal, Michael Hanscom's Linklog, Museum of Hoaxes, NewYorkish, Paul Ford's Linklog, Snopes: New, SubText, and UFies.org.

Chicago: Chicagoist, jamas.org, CHICAGO.Metroblogging, Chicago Snapshot, CTA Tattler, Gapers' Block, and L or El.

Miscellaneous: Ask Slashdot, Citying, Cult of the One-Eyed Cat, Good Plastic Surgery, I Work With Fools, Schmo Blog, TeeVee, This Is Broken, Today In Alternate History, and x-entertainment.

Apple Bloggers: Buzz Andersen, Bill Bumgarner, Todd Dominey, Folklore, Steven Frank, John Gruber, Dave Hyatt, Brent Simmons,

Yet another reason to come to the Great White North!"

I only began to understand this after reading about the Molson's I am a Candian! beer commercial a few years back. One line in it was "DIVERSITY, NOT assimilation". This completely puzzled me. Why would anyone be anti-assimilation? What's wrong with taking immigrants from every country in the world and turning them into productive, peaceful, proud American citizens? And then I realized it's only wrong if it points out your own deficiencies as a nation, one that threatens to dissolve itself everytime the French label on a box of twinkies is printed smaller than the English one.

And in the final irony Canadians pride themselves on not being jingoistic (again, proudly appropriating to themselves the opposite of some American trait) and yet, as the posts to this story show, rarely miss an opportunity to obnoxiously do their own chest-beating, especially when it can be done at the expense of the U.S.

Canadians, here is some friendly advise: GET A (national) LIFE! Stop trying to create an identity for yourselves that is merely the negation of someone else's. A good model for you, given your size and history, is Australia, a country whose residents:

• Have one of the highest standards of living in the world
• Are friendly, good-natured and relaxed
• Win more medals at the Summer Olympics than Germany, a country 4x its size
• And finally, who don't feel the need to pollute Slashdot's message boards with variations of "I'm Candian, and though that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand, I'd like to point out how this issue reflects well on my country...
  ...
  ...
  Yet another reason to come to the Great White North!

I found this Urban Legends page instructive: Crime: Candid ATM Camera The obvious question to ask is why a pro would go do such lengths if a software attack was easy. But a Google search is more likely to return results like this: McDonalds Restaurant manager accused of $200,000 ATM theft If you hold the keys to the machine and are responsible for keeping it stocked, you don't need the skills of a hacker.

is likely to give you many seemingly uncanny correlations between multiple events. The outcome of Washington Redskins home games prior to the election has predicted all the presidential elections since 1936. The sale of Halloween maks of the presidential candidates have predicted the elections since 1980. Does this bear any significance to this election? No. However, on the surface, this new prediction seems interesting. A person's word usage is a reflection of his character, education, and background. And there's been plenty of analysis of the word used by Bush and Kerry in this year's debates.

Yeah, well whatever. The thing that bugs me most about presidential candidates is that they always say "when I am president" and not "if I am elected president", even the ones who know they have no chance of winning (like Kucinich). I know their speech coaches or whoever tell them it makes them sound more assertive and confident and blah blah blah, but shut up already. NBC did this too, with their "MUST SEE THURSDAY" crap. It always sounded like a threat to me. Oh. Also, have they done an analysis of whether the person who repeats the same damn phrases over and over again the most is more likely to win? Because that seems to be the strategy of both camps.

For the ten billionth time, Al Gore did not say he invented the internet. Although his quote was certainly clumsy, it is clear from the context that he was talking about creating a legislative environment in which the internet could grow. He was one of the first senators to talk about an "information superhighway", so in that sense, he did take an interest in the possibilities of the internet long before many of his colleagues. If you really believe that Gore thought he could claim inventorship of the internet, you are too gullible.

I recall back in 2000 a news story about how the sales of Halloween masks for the presidential candidates predicted the election outcome (candidate whose mask sold more won the election).

Found this site keeping tabs on sales this year. W is in the lead right now (though I expect their numbers to be somewhat less than scientific).

In a similar vein, Washington Redskins home game wins have correlated with the outcomes of presidential elections. This has held true sine 1936! When they loose their last home game before the election, the challenging party wins the election. This year: Green Bay is favored to win in Washington this Sunday.

Unfortunately, the popular vote has proven to not be an accurate predictor of who wins the election...

I'm not sure which is worse: your teaching blatantly lying to you or you believing him/her.

Free Shoes from Nike

I'm not sure which is worse: your teaching blatantly lying to you or you believing him/her.

Free Shoes from Nike

"The Washington Redskins have proved to be a time-tested election predictor. In the previous 15 elections, if the Washington Redskins have lost their last home game prior to the election, the incumbent party has lost the White House. When they have won, the incumbent has stayed in power."

More information here.

One can only wonder who was responsible. A rival group of fraudsters perhaps, or someone trying to bring them into further disrepute?

Sure he said it, just like Al Gore said that he invented the internet.

Would that be more or less embarrassing than when Dan Quayle was heading for Latin America and mentioned that he needed to brush up on his Latin?

Amazing! Most infants of less than 24 hours in the world cannot even sit upright, much less attempt cogent sentences at a keyboard!

If any of this were happening (which, your wholesale swallowing of the conspiracy koolaid aside, I very much doubt) then viacom need only press for a TRO demonstrating the FCC's acitons present an immediate and vital threat to its health. They don't have to wait ten years for a judgement on this issue because the entire point is to remove the immediate threat while allowing litigation to continue.

Again, this isn't new or unusual, it's done quite often. But I'm sure you'll ignore any further attempts at introducing oddities like logic and realism into this discussion, so I'll leave you to enjoy the rest of your flight into Howard's fantasyland.

But the child may not walk into a radio station and review the book over the air by reading excerpts that include those 'indecent' words.

A twofer! Wrong not once, but twice - on your only two attempts at a point! That child (clearly we are talking about Howard here, huh?) can most certainly do exactly what you say. No one is going to put that child in prison for those actions (as is not at all uncommon in places like Russia, Ukraine, China, Cuba, etc) nor are the police even likely to "investigate."

Fining the licenseholder for their actions is not censorship. Fact is, until recently (when the fines were raised substantially) those fines were simply regarded by these corporate outlets as one more cost of doing business.

Censorship is when they are silenced. Censorship would be something like... refusing to renew station licenses over programming content in the absence of community complaints. In any market where Howard plays, however, this is altogether unlikely and the FCC probably could produce a whole stack of complaints submitted by outraged community members. If you really want someone to blame, blame embarrassments like the wild man of Tupelo. Thus, when "the people" get on a rallying cry and rebuke someone for their offense, it is the FCC's responsibility to act in the appropriate manner. If their action is wrong, that's what we have courts for.

Git. Dam you. Thanks to you, I went and check out the Check on a cow story, and it is false.

My world is falling apart thanks to /., C64 basic was Microsoft Basic, the check story is false, what next?!?

Yawn. Here's the rebuttal.

Bleh.

Sounds like a fairly standard Joe Job such as has happened with DarkProfits. Only difference being here, they're actually extorting on the threat rather than simply trying to damage someone's reputation. Thing is, this could be very damaging. When it comes to child pornography, people tend to get very irrational and seldom check for any form of proof or second opinion. It's kind of like being accused of being a child molester IRL. Even once you prove your innocence, no one will quite look at you the same again and some people will never truly believe your innocence. Heck, the more squeaky-clean of life you lead, the more guilty you may seem to them. After all, you must have something to hide.

Sounds like a fairly standard Joe Job such as has happened with DarkProfits. Only difference being here, they're actually extorting on the threat rather than simply trying to damage someone's reputation. Thing is, this could be very damaging. When it comes to child pornography, people tend to get very irrational and seldom check for any form of proof or second opinion. It's kind of like being accused of being a child molester IRL. Even once you prove your innocence, no one will quite look at you the same again and some people will never truly believe your innocence. Heck, the more squeaky-clean of life you lead, the more guilty you may seem to them. After all, you must have something to hide.

I in no way claim to be intelligent, but one reason I have for supporting Bush (ignoring guns & abortion, which are big issues for me) is that he recognizes that the War on Terror is not like the War on Drugs.

Bush has also answered questions many times, while Kerry has refused to answer questions from a reporter that many consider to be left-leaning!

Bush has also had the balls to say that Social Security is in danger, and will need to be revamped. Kerry's response was, "It'll work long enough." I was pleasantly suprised to find that I actually agreed with Bush's domestic policy.

Perhaps the main reason is that Bush's reelection is going to be 4 more years of the same, which (for me and my friends) has not been too bad. But Kerry's election would be (potentially) 8 years of who knows what. I have no real hope that either party will work to fix the DMCA, as both parties supported it whole-heartedly, but perhaps we can at least keep Congress involved with howling about Iraq and not passing any more extensions.

The PATRIOT act is troubling, but Kerry just says he wants to "review" it. If Kerry says that he passed it without reading it, then he is admitting that he didn't do his job as a Senator. That is frightening. At least Bush seems to know (and do) what his job entails.

And furthermore, we need a decisive electoral victory for Bush, to show Iraq and Afghanistan that we really are going to support them, not dump them like a hot potato the moment it becomes convenient. That was the biggest mistakes we've made as a country recently - pulling up short of Baghdad in 1991, which resulted in many Iraqis who thought we were going to help them overthrow Saddam dying, and ignoring Afghanistan after the Soviet Union fell, which resulted in the Taliban taking control.

Also, I do not believe that an administration that supports the Clinton view of the Second Amendment is good for the long-term freedom in America.

Those are some of my reasons.

Things I disagree with Bush on:

1. Outsourcing. It needs control, but I don't care if an Indian has my job if I'm been blown up by a terrorist, so priorities.
2. Education. I think that education should either be controlled by local politics (cities & counties) or not by the government at all.

In fact, I am more in agreement with the Constitutional Party than with the Republicans in many ways, but I feel that especially after the 2000 election, we need to have a decisive victory. Otherwise every election from now on will be decided in courts by lawyers. This is unacceptable.

Here is a link to a blog that explains some of the reasons behind my thinking.

Other, more personal reasons I don't like Kerry:

1. He attacks Bush about this "Draft," yet the draft bills were introduced by Democrats, defeated 402 to 2, and John Kerry himself supported "National Service" as very recently. This is not just politics, but downright shameful. Also, given that many military personell have said they won't reenlist if Kerry wins, the only way he can keep his 40,000 more troops promise would be to instate a draft. Note that the link is to the archive.org's copy of the John Kerry website; this draft stuff has been modified in his current platform. Even Rumsfeld doesn't want a draft.

2. Why the hell does he try to pret

Urban legend.

Please read what Snopes has to say about the old Gore claiming to have invented the internet crap.

That is interesting, and makes the point, if that were my source for my understanding of Gore's claim. It was not, as I have already explained.

I am no champion of Kerry, or the Democrats, but to claim they are hate mongering (any more so that the Republican party) is just plain ignorant.

Really? Have you heard the crap that Gore has been spouting in the last year? He's been more animated that I've ever seen him. He's been proclaiming that Bush is working against the lower and middle classes (which in itself is a divisive claim). Kerry has been trying to make himself out to be a hero of the Vietnam war. Kids these days accept that blindly, while people my age (and older) remember that when he came back, he immediately went into the limelight, proclaiming American soldiers to be guilty of war crimes. Kerry is no hero. He has no regard whatsoever for veterans that have sacrificed their lives at the request of their country. Michael Moore, the anti-Bush Love Child, does nothing but spout half-truths that are designed to encourage hate. If you doubt that, go ask anyone that has seen Fahrenheit 9/11 what they thought of Bush after seeing it. The minority of people will point out that there were discrepancies between what really happened and what Moore tells as fact. The majority, who accepted Moore's movie as gospel, will tell you that they hate Bush more than ever before. The Democratic Party's effort to bring Social Security (an issue that has existed for some 40 years, and neither side has any real interest in fixing) into the fray with scare tactics is just one sad example that rears its ugly head every four years.

Yeah, the Republican Party has its bouts of mud slinging. They have nothing as bad as what the pro-Kerry camp are pushing, though.

Do you remember the Bush quote where he tells a room full of the ultra-rich upper class that while others call them the elite, he calls them his base?

No, I don't. I'm not rich (hard to be so when one was out of work for two years, getting by while doing several part-time jobs to make ends meet), and there are some things (oddly enough) from the core of the Democratic Party's platform that I could accept, but I do not believe that Kerry represents those beliefs at all.

Nor do his blatant connections with the Saudi Arabian royalty,

Have you noticed how much of the oil America consumes actually comes from Saudi Arabia? Although Saudi Arabia has 25% of the world's proved resources, they provide only a fraction of this to the United States. In fact, snopes.com has an interesting piece on the origins of gasoline, and whether or not it funds terrorist groups.

or his families money having come from collusion with the Nazis.

What's this got to do with anything? It has as much to do with anything as the idea that the Kennedy family got its money from running moonshine during the Prohibition. It's a non-factor today. Blaming a person for the actions of his (or her) ancestors is, quite plainly, stupid and ignorant. People are responsible for their own actions.

it seems like there are a lot of people I would trust more to run this country than Bush

I agree on this point, but unfortunately, none of them are running for President of the United States.

We would probably already have had one, if the government had not locked up all of the poor adult males.You don't think the war on drugs is really about helping people do you? Ever wonder why a larger percentage of Americans are locked up than any other industrialized nation (except China)?

This is almost laughable.

A larger percentage of Americans are jailed each year because

I have no idea what you are quoting in your first comment, certainly nothing I have written. I don't recall the EU ever dictating policy to the U.S. If anything they have been very restrained, and moderate in regard to our human rights violations, and our repeated violations of trade agreements with them.

Please read what Snopes has to say about the old Gore claiming to have invented the internet crap.

I am no champion of Kerry, or the Democrats, but to claim they are hate mongering (any more so that the Republican party) is just plain ignorant.

The Democrats are certainly more moderate, and less likely to start a war over religion, since their constituency includes a more diverse religious cross-section than the Republicans. The republican often talk about classes, as do the Democrats. Do you remember the Bush quote where he tells a room full of the ultra-rich upper class that while others call them the elite, he calls them his base? Well, that just does not resonate to well with me. Nor do his blatant connections with the Saudi Arabian royalty, or his families money having come from collusion with the Nazis. Likewise I'm not happy about having a recovering alcoholic and cocaine addict with his finger on the button.

Maybe it is just me, but it seems like there are a lot of people I would trust more to run this country than Bush, even if they have to be chosen form the wealthiest 1%. Better yet, if we can pass the IRV bill, maybe we can get some real choices for office and elect someone, gasp, who has actually worked a real job once in their life.

we'll see a revolt in our lifetime

We would probably already have had one, if the government had not locked up all of the poor adult males. You don't think the war on drugs is really about helping people do you? Ever wonder why a larger percentage of Americans are locked up than any other industrialized nation (except China)?

The outcome of the Redskins vs Green Bay game will decide who wins the US presidential elections.