Slashdot Mirror
If You Had To Vote Based On Candidates' Web Pages
Kookus writes "Which party has the best team of web deployers/developers?
Neither main page passes w3c's html validator, but Kerry's has much fewer "errors". These pages do not seem to do well on Bobby either...
Both seem to be using Akamai's HTTP Acceleration/Mirror service which appears to be running linux,
Granted that it is hard to please everyone; which team is doing the best job?"
Well, one of them tells me I'm not authorized to access it...
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
stupidest idea ever. Granted, it's news for nerds, but if you're so undecided still that you pick based on which website looks better, then please surrender your franchise immediately
Not because his website is particularly great, but because, if you View Source, you get...
Because, as we all know, Al used to hand write his HTML...You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I tried to validate slashdot from that url, and got an error. So I'm not sure.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
True, it's pretty silly. (And pretty clearly a joke, given the icons posted with the story.) But is it worse than picking a candidate based on who is more attractive or taller? Given that people seem to use things like looks or who they're most like to have a beer with, I'm not sure the web page validity is necessarily a significantly dumber criterion. They all leave me weeping for my country.
lets talk about how compliant slashdot is before we talk about other sites' compliance, please.
you know, the whole "police yourself before you police others" thing that we hear so much these days.
Politics (Pudge): Oh, yeah? Well, Kerry repeatedly got Red Sox scores wrong!
Politics (Timothy): But they both --- serve their campaign sites on Linux!
Audience: Hugs all around! And if we cared about HTML standards compliance, we wouldn't be reading Slashdot!
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
for political candidates it makes little sense, but I used this method for picking a dentist when I moved to a new area:
1. went to my dental insurance website and found dentists sorted by distance from my home address
2. googled each name until I found the first one with his own website (i.e. not just listed on some "dentists of NJ" website)
The method actually worked very well - the first place with a website turned out to be a dental office that was new, clean, and technologically advanced. USB based x-rays that show up immediately after they are taken, computer based patient management system in the room so the guy can bring up my previous exams and x-rays, etc.
of course, I had nothing else to compare, so website was basically one step above just randomly picking a guy. Vote for president should take a little more thought.
| This is the guy who went to war because a certain
| country had WMDs, and now we know they don't and
| didn't.
You need to realize that Bush didn't go to war because of WMDs. He had his own personal reasons for the war. The WMD issue was just their idea at the best way to justify the war to the US population.
I can't find the email message now because I'm supposed to be working, but Vint Cerf told me that, before Al Gore, the ARPANET was a private utility. Al Gore decided it should be a public service, and provided considerable support from the U.S. Congress to turn the ARPANET into the Internet.
Many people did the work. Many people should have some of the credit. But, according to Vint Cerf, Al Gore was the first public official to decide that there should be a public utility called the Internet.
It shocks me how little people know about the activities of their government. It shocks me that, after all this time, people are still believing the disinformation written by Republican marketing writers.
Don't believe the sound bites, read books. No one who read the more than 35 books about the Bush administration would vote for George W. Bush, that is clear.
Even those who read magazines would know more than most U.S. citizens. For example:
100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration.
Can you people come up with any dumber reasons who to vote for? Here is a selection of other things you might consider when voting:
1. What did each candidate have for breakfast?
2. Do they snore?
3. Who does your dog bark at more?
4. Do you get better tv reception when Bush is on or Kerry?
5. Who would Leiutenant Worf vote for?
Give me a break already!
Bush(www.georgewbush.com): 303 errors.
Kerry(www.johnkerry.com): 2 errors.
Nader(www.votenader.org): unable to validate.
Badnarik(badnarik.org): 13 errors.
Cobb(www.votecobb.org): 217 errors.