Slashdot Mirror


Verified Voting

Joe from the EFF writes "Verified Voting has just gone live with a number of tools for all you data-hungry election nerds out there. Amongst the goods: an election guide for geeks, a voter's guide to electronic voting, the Verifier database of county-by-county election information and the Election Incident Reporting System (EIRS) which will be used on E-day by attorneys and observers in the field to collect data about election incidents called into the Election Protection Coalition's hotline, 1-866-OUR-VOTE. The geek community is playing a particularly active role in this year's eleciton via VV's TechWatch program. However, we could still use the help of the slashdot community, and all you have to do is click: We need to test the resiliency of the Verifier database and the EIRS before the election.

363 comments

  1. ouch... by bje2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    ouch, the page is already loading very, very, slow, and i'm getting constant run time errors when i scroll over their map...not a good start...

    --

    "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
    1. Re:ouch... by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Already barfing with a cannot connect to mysql server. What a joke...

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    2. Re:ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which of the 11 links are you talking about?

      c'mon submitters, lets keep it 3 links maximum.

    3. Re:ouch... by bje2 · · Score: 1

      oops, that was in reference to the verifier database page...

      --

      "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
    4. Re:ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdotted I presume

    5. Re:ouch... by bje2 · · Score: 1

      ...the verifier database page...

      --

      "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson
    6. Re:ouch... by Tassach · · Score: 1

      When will people learn that MySQL, while a useful toy, just can't compare to a real Enterprise-grade database running on real Enterprise-grade hardware?

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    7. Re:ouch... by Lordrashmi · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When will people learn to code correctly instead of just pointing to another program as a silver bullet?

    8. Re:ouch... by remigo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All in favor of waiting until electronic voting is mature and trustworthy before deployment raise your hand...

    9. Re:ouch... by Tassach · · Score: 1
      There's more to systems engineering than simply being able to code a bug-free application. Mastery of your tools is an important skill, but that's only one small portion of what you need to know.

      You have to know how to evaluate different technologies and pick the tool which is most appropriate for the task at hand. Only an amateur just goes with what he knows or what satisfies his political agenda.

      You have to know how to design and configure your infrastructure so that it is secure and reliable. You have to know how to calculate anticipated load and how to do capacity planning. You have to know how to test your application -- both functional testing and stress testing. You have to know how to DESIGN an entire system before you jump in and start hacking code.

      In other words, you need to act like a professional software engineer, not an amateur code monkey.

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    10. Re:ouch... by JAgostoni · · Score: 1

      Amen Brother. MySql is blazingly fast when used correctly as are most RDBMS'. I am sure these people disagree though: MySql Customers

    11. Re:ouch... by Lordrashmi · · Score: 1

      By "code correctly" I didn't mean simply bug free. I meant well engineered. I have used many different technologies and have seen many 'great' or 'more powerful' technologies work like crap because people thought it was a silver bullet.

      To me your first comment appeared to be treating sybase as a silver bullet and by replacing MySQL with Sybase all problems would be solved. However, from your last comments I believe you were advocating a better design not just replacing the database. Without looking at all the requirements for the system, I can't say if I would replace the database, but I do know I would change how it is being used.

      And yes, I am a professional software engineer who can design, implement and test an application.

    12. Re:ouch... by arivanov · · Score: 1
      It will be about the time when the idiots waving Sybase, Oracle, MSFT SQL and DB2 will learn that none of them by itself can handle a slashdot effect (or a midsize election). Jokes aside, but for the rates of connections experienced in such applications you must:

      Cache and prepare in advance stuff for any dynamic pages that must not be updated in real time.

      Do all non-personalized dynamic pages from an embedded NON-SQL source which multiplexes data onto an SQL connection in the backend to avoid descriptor wastage.

      Require login for any real time info and limit the number of simultaneous users.

      It is plain and simple. In cases like this you get a rate of connections that exceeds the capacity of any database even if it is a wizzbang ultrashaft superduper ACID wet dream Oracle/Sybase/DB2/MSFT/Informix cluster.

      It is not a problem that they are using MySQL. In fact it may be the right tool for the job. The problem is that they are using it incorrectly. They are trying to do a simple LAMP where you have to do proper web programming.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    13. Re:ouch... by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      All in favor of waiting until electronic voting is mature and trustworthy before deployment raise your hand...

      *raises hand* I voted using an absentee ballot this year and will continue to do so until the e-voting machines have a verifiable paper record of each vote.

    14. Re:ouch... by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      Ditto. Even with the problems that could arise from voting absentee, I still prefer voting that way.

    15. Re:ouch... by Tassach · · Score: 1
      you were advocating a better design not just replacing the database.
      Exactly. Replacing the database is an essential first step, because MySQL lacks essential features (EG: Stored Procedures) necessary to implement a better design.
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    16. Re:ouch... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your polling place is using electronic voting machines, demand a paper ballot. If enough people do this, perhaps election officials and the media will take notice that the population does not trust the new systems and demand a paper trail.

      Posting anonymously to protect Moderator Status.

      Spelling and grammar nazis will feel my wrath.

  2. Hmm by Spad · · Score: 1

    "Nothing to see here" and they're already slow - or maybe it's just me.

  3. Um... by keytoe · · Score: 1

    Looks like there's a lot more work to do. Only a few minutes in and ... The Usual.

    1. Re:Um... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Well, hopefully they'll be able to collect enough data to determine what their bottlenecks are. If they were smart, they set up logging scripts to watch such things as database connections, bandwidth used, CPU usage, etc.

  4. hold on a second. by deathazre · · Score: 5, Funny

    did we just get someone who ASKED for their site to be slashdotted?

    --
    Karma: Negative (Mostly affected by dorm trolling)
    1. Re:hold on a second. by TykeClone · · Score: 4, Funny

      Looks like they've received what they asked for.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    2. Re:hold on a second. by cakefool · · Score: 1

      New sport: Slashdot Chicken!

    3. Re:hold on a second. by AviLazar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think /. has become the new basis for benchmarking a website. They submitted the story here to see if it can withstand pressure -it can't.
      Maybe they will up their servers for e-day which should net as much traffic as /. causes.
      Well thats just wishful hoping.

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    4. Re:hold on a second. by cananian · · Score: 2, Funny

      (I'm the lead programmer on the system.)
      I actually explicitly asked that that last sentence be taken out. =(

      Oh, well.

      --
      [ /. is too noisy already -- who needs a .sig? ]
    5. Re:hold on a second. by emc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you want to see traffic, get your site on Drudge... or god forbid... the AOL start page.

      I was working for a company that had a customer get a co-branding deal with AOL. 2 weeks of being on the AOL start page... sustained over 400MB/Sec up from around 25MB/Sec sustained.

      You could almost tell the second the link went up on AOLs page, and when it went down... the MRTG 24 Hour View of the switch port counter was a massive square wave.

      Beautiful, but insane.

    6. Re:hold on a second. by emc · · Score: 1

      I actually explicitly asked that that last sentence be taken out.

      I bet you that those were the exact words that came out of some GW Bush advisor when he said, "Bring 'em on".

    7. Re:hold on a second. by cananian · · Score: 2, Informative

      I should probably clarify that I coded EIRS. Database errors on other domains Aren't My Fault. =)

      --
      [ /. is too noisy already -- who needs a .sig? ]
  5. Well... by aelbric · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Cannot connect to database"

    Guess that's what you get for asking to stress test a server from /.

    --
    nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
    1. Re:Well... by aelbric · · Score: 5, Funny

      So can we start adding little kill Icons to the /. menu bar for everytime we kill a server? Make it specific to the OS of the box that was flamed. Like fighter pilots used to do on the sides of their fighters.

      You know, clippy, tux, a fedora, Darl.

      --
      nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
    2. Re:Well... by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      7 out of 10 links are to one site on the front page of slashdot.

      Obviously, this is a dare.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    3. Re:Well... by halligas · · Score: 3, Funny

      It may save time and screen real estate to put icons for servers that survived a /.ing

    4. Re:Well... by Bluejay42 · · Score: 1

      Have any of these webmasters heard of stress testing tools? Finding database connection errors could be a lot easier than directing a large community to click a link.

      Apache Bench (ab)

      Apache Flood

      Jakarta JMeter

      Microsoft WAST

    5. Re:Well... by TykeClone · · Score: 1

      Are you sure about that? What could be easier than posting an article to slashdot and saying "I'll bet you can't beat me"

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    6. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is as designed. All Kerry voters will be directed to that page.

    7. Re:Well... by Fishstick · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fedora

      fedora
      n.

      A soft felt hat with a fairly low crown creased lengthwise and a brim that can be turned up or down.[After Fédora, a play by Victorien Sardou.]

      A RedHat Linux distribution http://fedora.redhat.com/

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    8. Re:Well... by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Ooo, I like it. And add a life total and stuff too, and different weapons like a super shotgun so we can take down multiple servers at once, and then make a much cooler sequel with better graphics, and then release a remake of the first one 15 years later that has a horrible bug that doesn't kill the target server but instead melts your computer from its high hardware requirements! ...I should really finish Doom 3 some time.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    9. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also OT but....

      Has anyone recieved their free cds of the new Fedora-based distro which was due at the end of Oct?

  6. Election Guide for Geeks by artemis67 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Uhhh... we vote for faster servers and more memory in 2004!

    1. Re:Election Guide for Geeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey hey!

      Ho ho!

      Slow-ass servers have got to go!

      Hey hey!

      Ho ho...

    2. Re:Election Guide for Geeks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No problem. Please increase your property taxes/rent by 15% and do not pass Go nor collect USD 200.

  7. Who hasn't voted yet? by Jagasian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I voted early last week. Why would you risk waiting until the last second to vote? Who knows what could go wrong. You could get sick, your car could break down, you could accidentally go to the wrong polling location, etc...

    Funny thing is that on the second day of early voting, the polling location that I went to had a 30 minute wait!!! In 2000, on election day, there was no wait whatsoever! I think this year there is going to be a HUGE voter turnout. I am not sure who it is going to favor, but it is an interesting phenomenon.

    1. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Increased turnout generally favors Democrats, or so pundits have said. However, this one I think will still be tight.

    2. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by donnyspi · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you go to the wrong polling place, you probably shouldn't be voting anyway...

    3. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Why would you risk waiting until the last second to vote?

      Umm, all of us people in states that don't have early voting don't really have a choice. I think that is still most of them. Thirty two states offer some form of early voting, but only twenty-three, like Florida, offer early voting to all registered voters. Even in those states, it is not offered in all counties.

    4. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1
      I voted early last week. Why would you risk waiting until the last second to vote?

      The complete lack of any sense that it matters for half a Smurf fart?

      VOTE KERRY 2004! We deserve him.

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    5. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by NardofDoom · · Score: 1
      PA doesn't allow early voting, and absentee only if you're incapacitated or working al 12 hours the polling places are open, or are out of the state.

      Luckily my polling place is across the street from my house.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    6. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by pgpckt · · Score: 1

      Ohio doesn't have early voting.

      --
      Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
    7. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by NardofDoom · · Score: 1
      I like Cobb.

      /me dons flameproof suit.

      --
      You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
    8. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately not every state has early voting

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
    9. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by timster · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah that's really good. Listen, I live in Texas, and the Texas state election site can't tell me where I'm supposed to vote or what precinct I'm in. Luckily I live in a county that's large enough to have a Web site (many in TX don't), but it's almost impossible to use that site to determine my precinct -- the first stage of map that you have to figure out only has bodies of water as landmarks. Also it absolutely is NOT printed on my voter registration card.

      Enough with the elitism -- all citizens should be voting as long as they have knowledge about the candidates. That includes people who can't read or write, people who can't drive, people who can't add, people who can't talk, and people who can't do any of those things.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
    10. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by octothorpe · · Score: 1

      Can't vote early in PA. Letting people vote early would be a new, inovative idea and we don't allow those in the keystone state. If it was good enough for your grandfather, it's good enough for you. Heck, people are worring about electronic voting machines, we don't even have electric voting machines! I'll be voting with a lever machine that people probably voted for Truman on. Or maybe Wilson, who knows.

    11. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by ryanvm · · Score: 1

      Voting early is like walking out of a baseball game in the 7th inning.

    12. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The complete lack of any sense that it matters for half a Smurf fart?

      Is that jumble of words supposed to represent some coherent thought?

    13. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      I voted by absentee ballot over a week ago. I think this is going to be election by lawyers, even more so than last time. This is so sad. And I do hope for an enormous voter turnout because that bodes well for my candidate.

    14. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Dewey, when he beat Truman.

    15. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by skadus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I find it a little sad that it has to be that way (hey, just look at South Park last night).

      Personally, I hate the thought of voting against someone, or going for the lesser of two evils. And 'not voting' wasn't an option (even if I wanted to; my mom would've killed me).

      So I voted Lib. They align with my ideals more, they don't bicker over who did what 30 years ago, they don't try to rig elections.

      Even if I am 'throwing my vote away' as so many people have chided me, I'm using my voice to say 'I don't like what's going on'. Maybe nobody will hear it, but I feel that if enough people vote how they feel, maybe something will change by the time 2008 rolls around. And maybe then Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich will both lose. ;)

    16. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      I like Mike.

      FWIW, I HATE Bush AND I hate Kerry (note capitalization, though).

    17. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They shoulda had a paper trail

    18. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by tombeard · · Score: 1

      So just who is there to like, out of the likely winners? No one that I see. Just vote Kerry 'cause he's not as bad as Bush. But then, no one is as bad as Bush.

      --
      The reason we subjugate ourselves to law is to better procure justice. If law does not accomplish this purpose then it m
    19. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by http101 · · Score: 1

      I haven't voted, don't have any intention of doing so anyway. With all the discrepancies of mistabulated votes, missing votes, voting hardware failures, I'd rather stay at home and laugh at all the people who are STILL standing in line since 2pm, lost their hourly wages for the afternoon, have had to tolerate most of the afore-mentioned, and only return home after sitting in parking lot traffic just to eat a cold meal. All the while, I relax in my La-Z-Boy eating a pizza with my chilled Corona. The reason for all the "I HATE KERRY" and "I HATE BUSH" comments is because we (with the exception of me) no longer vote for the best candidate. Instead, we just vote for whoever we feel won't f*ck us over and screw up this nation as much as the last guy. Either way, we're still screwed by the Electoral College, so voting is a waste of time.

      --
      -- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
    20. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by macdaddy · · Score: 1
      I agree. When was the last time we had a candidate that the majority of the people actually liked? It sure as hell wasn't Bush or Gore. I voted for Kerry, although I'm not a fan of his (I hate Junior). I didn't like everything that Clinton did (can you say AWB?) but I think he did a fair job. Going into it I didn't really love him though. I strongly disliked Big Papa Bush. That's about the limit of my presidential memory. Did the people like Reagan when he ran?

      We need a good candidate to vote for. We should have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils. No, I don't consider the 3rd-party candidates a viable option either because they won't get a majority vote, at least not right now. Right now we need someone who can beat out Junior. The only viable option is Kerry but again he's the lesser of two evils. Not that Kerry is evil, especially when compared to Junior, but he's still not someone I would pick for president if I was given the choice. Simply put, we need a good candidate to run for office.

    21. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by macdaddy · · Score: 1
      Well put. Every person should educate themselves on the candidates and their stances on the issues that are important to that person and then they should vote. IMHO if you don't know jack about any of the candidates or their stances then you shouldn't have the right to vote. You also shouldn't have the right to bitch about the elected person unless you voted (for or against, doesn't matter). Democracy is not a spectator's sport. Democacry is not a free ride. You have to do your part to be part of a democracy. Frankly I think we have too many free-loaders.

      Get out and vote, people. Edcuate yourself on the candidates and their stances. Then push you chair away from the computer, get off your ass and VOTE!! Do something for a change instead of bitching about it after the fact.

      (Not referring to you timster, just any lazy Slashdot reader that hasn't voted yet)

    22. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Peyna · · Score: 1

      Ohio has early voting; you would just have to lie on your absentee ballot form and tell them that you're going to be out of the precinct on election day.

      --
      What?
    23. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      Having only two viable parties guarantees mudslinging. I think it's a corallary of Duverger's Law (see below). That is why a vote for a third party candidate is not a wasted vote. Although Duverger's Rule is essentially that plurality voting always degenerates into having only two viable parties, if enough of us vote for a third, it will encourage the big guys to keep it cleaner, even if we must endure a plurality system a little while longer.

      What we really need to do is equate "third party" with "none of the above" in the minds of the disenfranchised voters.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    24. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Haxwell · · Score: 1

      I just moved from Colorado, so I have a bit of an interest in their politics.. I know in Colorado, which until recently was being called a swing state, that in the 1980, 1984 elections that 24% and 28.32% voted for Ronald Reagan..

      (see http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/2004 _ELECTIONGUIDE_GRAPHIC/)

      I'd say that pretty much indicates a lot of people really liked him..

      Hax.

      --
      http://www.haxwell.org
    25. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hopefully you are also young enough to be drafted.

    26. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Peyna · · Score: 1


      What we really need to do is equate "third party" with "none of the above" in the minds of the disenfranchised voters.


      Except, at least in this election, the third parties wouldn't be any better in office than George Bush or John Kerry.

      Nothing would get done at all, every bill would be vetoed.

      They're nice idealistic votes, I suppose, but if you want me voting for someone I reallly want to see in office, I don't see a single candidate that is viable. I'm picking from the least of 5 evils.

      --
      What?
    27. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      That's impressive. I don't have much of a grasp on government from that era unfortunately. I was in pre-school, I think. I wonder what his exit polls were like. I do remember that he and Nancy were awfully fond of the Whitehouse staff and visa versa.

    28. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      Yea right. With the republicans secretly redistricting...

      Just kidding about blaming the republicans. I'm not sure why that would hurt only the republicans, or why the liberal radio station I flip to from Rush is blaming it as a Republican conspiracy.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    29. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by artifex2004 · · Score: 1
      Why would you risk waiting until the last second to vote?


      I'm in Texas, and I know my vote for president won't count anyway, but perhaps my votes for lesser offices can still make a difference. I'm worried, though, that the official at the church running the polling place will have some way of seeing the totals increment on the electronic system, and will void my votes as soon as I walk out. At least with a paper ballot system and sealed boxes there would be greater effort involved to lose my vote.
    30. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      Except that Nader has been accused by many judges for unlawful acts of trying to get on the ballot.

      Oops, sorry, he's Independent.

      Vote for Badnarik!

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    31. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only because our system makes it practically impossible to get on the fucking ballot nowadays.

    32. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      LOL. Yeah, I knew the acting bit. I've seen many of his movies. I know a bit about the background behind those presidents but my political history is fuzzy before Big Papa Bush. I've been working on it but it's been slow going. I need to find a class or two that can help me along I guess.

    33. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck Reagan and his fucking war on drugs. I voted for Mondale.

    34. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that you would be voting on more than just president, right? Local elections matter too.

    35. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      Everyone I talk to seems to be "I HATE Kerry", or "I HATE Bush", but no one actually *likes* anyone anymore it seems...

      Vote Cthulu 2004: When you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.

      More seriously, the US presidential election is pretty much the ideal case for a single-transferable-vote electoral system. Just one winner, large incentive for people to study the candidates long enough to make an informed choice.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    36. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enough with the elitism -- all citizens should be voting as long as they have knowledge about the candidates. That includes people who can't read or write, people who can't drive, people who can't add, people who can't talk, and people who can't do any of those things.

      Hmmm, my boss was espousing the greatness of the electoral college today, saying how it was originally setup to give more power to people with land and wealth. He sincerely feels that you should have more representation if you have more money. I can see how most republicans must feel this way, and that's why they are such elitist assholes. I mean, I'm fiscally conservative, but wholly shit!

    37. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by pgpckt · · Score: 1

      I don't feel like committing purjury, and I seem to recall that my signature is considered under oath on a absentee request form.

      --
      Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
    38. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      I was going to say that the massive attack on civil liberties probably wouldn't be mentioned but the more I think about it the less I think that will be true. That will be one of the most written about topics someday in the future when our government folds in on itself. We'll eventually be the laughing stock of the world and some other country with be the super power. We'll be the example of what not to do, what not to stand for, what not to let our government get away with. They'll ask, "Why didn't the Americans stand up for their rights when they were so obviously being stolen?" That, my friend will be a very interesting question. At some point everything will be written about. Everything is an injustice to somebody.

    39. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except we're a republic, not a democracy.

    40. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh, I dunno. I really hate Bush, but I also like Kerry. I really like Edwards.

      But yeah, I'd vote for anything, even pond scum, before I would vote for Bush. Sadly, I fear he is going to win. Another four years of turning off the radio for 15 seconds during the periodic soundbites.

    41. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I don't understand is the vast amount of people who say 3rd party doesn't count cause not enough people will vote for them. So I'm not going to vote for them. I'm wondering how many of these "lesser of two evils" people who think enough people wont vote for the "good" candidate are there? You guys are all shooting the whole system in the foot with your ironic group retardedness.

    42. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Peyna · · Score: 1

      I didn't say it was necessarily legal or moral to do so, but as far as I know, no one has ever been prosecuted for election fraud for voting absentee when they knew they could have voted on election day.

      --
      What?
    43. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Richard+M.+Nixon · · Score: 1

      Maybe instead of voting for the person we like, we should vote for the person we hate?

      Then the person with the least number of votes wins.

      Nah, the most hated person usually wins anyway.

      It's better than a sharp stick in the eye!

      How about this, you can vote for Nixon, or you can get a sharp stick in the eye?

      I am destined to become president again.

      --
      Nobody died when Nixon lied.
      I'm meeting you half way you stupid hippies!
    44. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, sir, makes you a loser. Be happy in your drug-induced ignorance.

    45. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      Did the people like Reagan when he ran?

      Most of the people liked Reagan's optimism, and that he really seemed to believe in what he said and in his goals. Compare that to his opponent, Carter, who had botched an attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran, had abdicated any responsibility for the economy or inflation, and sported (and supported) heavy sweaters as the answer to the oil/energy problems.

      Personally, I think Reagan was a great president, and Carter was a good President. At the time, the people were unhappy and really ready for a change. In the same election, Anderson (an independent) won nearly 7% of the vote - really good for a third-party candidate.

    46. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      That is why a vote for a third party candidate is not a wasted vote.

      I can't follow that logic. I'm a Republican, and it's no secret that Republicans are bankrolling Nader's campaign. From the looks of the latest polls, it seems that for the second election in a row, Nader will again play the spoiler for the left-leaning crowd. I really doubt the people voting for Nader would pick Bush as a second choice, which is what they are effectively doing by splitting the liberal vote when there is no corresponding split of the conservative vote. I have a hard time understanding why Nader hasn't withdrawn from the race. He's made the only point he's going to make, except perhaps to be called spoiler and egotist again.

    47. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      Y'know, I'm the only person in the country still willing to admit that I voted for you. Your real fault was trying to cover for subordinates who turned out to be morons (well, and for hiring them in the first place). People have forgotten (or have never been taught) about your foreign policy work which eventually allowed Reagan to end the cold war.

    48. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      So you vote two weeks before the election, and one week later the press reveals your choice has been

      o diagnosed with Alzheimer's.
      o Caught in bed with a live boy AND a dead girl.
      o quoted saying they are in favor of repealing the
      14th amendment, so the country can sell random
      citizens to pay off the national debt.

      There's trade offs either way.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    49. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Third party' does not necessarily mean Nader. Nader's independent this time around, while Cobb is the Green Party candidate, Badnarik is the Libertarian candidate, and so on, and so on.

      Most people on slashdot, when referring to a third party, typically mean Cobb or Badnarik, since Nader's just... out there since 2000. The media only covers him because he was made into a minor celebrity for 'stealing' Gore's votes in 2000 (though a few conspiracy theorists will tell you that the media is verboten from mentioning Badnarik or Cobb).

    50. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      'Third party' does not necessarily mean Nader. Nader's independent this time around, while Cobb is the Green Party candidate, Badnarik is the Libertarian candidate, and so on, and so on.

      Anderson as an independent in 1980 did better than Nader as a Green in 2000. Anyone running outside the two-party system is third-party by definition.

    51. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That... wasn't really my point.

      My point was that it looked as if you were saying "third party = Nader", which a lot of people have been doing this election. Most likely the person you were replying to wasn't talking specifically about Nader.

      Thing is, IIRC, slashdot has reported several times that Cobb and Badnarik at one point (if they aren't still) were at least three or four percentage points higher than Nader's one in the polls.

      I've had to explain several times to my friends when I mentioned that I was voting third party that Nader isn't the only third party candidate out there, despite the fact that he's the only one publicised by the media.

    52. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by RaZ0r · · Score: 1

      Thats because we have to choose between a Giant Douche Bag and a Turd Sandwich.

      --


      - Think for yourself, question authority.-
    53. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1


      B.S. Your Precinct Number is clearly printed on your Texas voter registration card. Just above the line where your signature goes is your Name and address, and above that are six pieces of information in boxes. These are clearly labeled Cert. No., Gender, Date of Birth, Prec. No, and valid from and thru. Across the top of your voter registration card is the 1-800 number for the Texas Secretary of State office and the website for that office. Your county voter registrar is also listed at the top of your voter registration card with their address, telephone number, and website (if any). Also, a quick Google for texas voting gives the Secretary of State website as the first hit. From the site:

      Answers to questions on election law and procedures may be obtained by telephoning the Elections Division toll-free at 1.800.252.VOTE (8683) or direct at 512.463.5650.


      Also,

      In person - Call your County Clerk or Elections Administrator for early voting dates, hours and places.
      By mail - If you will be: (1) out of the county during early voting and on Election Day; (2) age 65 or older; (3) sick or disabled; or (4) confined to jail, call the Elections Administrator in charge of the particular election and ask him to send you an application for a ballot by mail. Or, you may request one from the Secretary of State's Office at 1.800.252.VOTE (8683), or on-line

      This pamphlet is available in Spanish, large print, audiotape, or computer disc upon request.

      (Este folleto está disponible en Español, tipo de imprenta más grande, cinta magnética para audio, o disco para computadora. Para conseguir una de estas versiones por favor llame sin cargo a la oficina del Secretario de Estado al 1.800.252.VOTE (8683)).

      SECRETARY OF STATE
      Elections Division
      P.O. Box 12060
      Austin, Texas 78711-2060
      512.463.5650 or
      1.800.252.VOTE (8683)
      Fax 512.475.2811
      TTY 7.1.1
      www.sos.state.tx.us

      FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
      999 E Street, N.W.
      Washington, D.C. 20463
      1.800.424.9530
      www.fec.gov

      TEXAS REPUBLICAN PARTY
      900 Congress Avenue, Suite 300
      Austin, Texas 78701
      512.477.9821
      www.texasgop.org

      TEXAS DEMOCRATIC PARTY
      701 Rio Grande
      Austin, Texas 78701
      512.478.9800
      www.txdemocrats.org

      LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF TEXAS
      P.O. Box 56426
      Houston, Texas 77256-6426
      1.800.422.1776
      www.tx.lp.org

      GREEN PARTY OF TEXAS
      818 W. 31st Street
      Houston, Texas 77018
      713.866.6285
      www.hcgp.org


      If you can't figure out where and when to vote with all of these information sources, I have serious reservations about your ability to make an informed choice when casting your vote.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    54. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1
      Is that jumble of words supposed to represent some coherent thought?

      Ah. You wound me, sir. :-\ I shall in the future rein in my sentence structure to that of "See Spot run" so as not to unduly confuse you.

      Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, toots. Keep fellating the giant ideological cocks leading us down the path of misery and eventual collapse.

      Shouldn't you be at some rah-rah political rally ready to give your body and soul to some asshole in a suit looking for votes?

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    55. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      In this election, there is a clear winner and a clear loser. Hell, I switched parties just for this election!

    56. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      Your solution isn't very helpful for an election that is already in progress. I was suggesting how to vote, not how to change the system.

      I do have ideas on how to change the system. The trick isn't coming up with a better system, it is selling it to the masses.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    57. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      Nader has been a celebrity lawyer ever since the Corvair thing back in the 60's. His book, Unsafe at Any Speed, was a bestseller. He followed it up with so many consumer advocate style lawsuits that he was already established as newsworthy when he decided to run for office. I don't think he was ever been out of the public eye.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    58. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      The idea is to get people to consider voting for them and read up about them before they get to the voting booth.

      The idea is also to get enough people to vote for them that they will begin to matter, that no mainstream news organization would consider leaving them out of their election coverage.

      Too many people don't seem to realize what their options are until they get to the voting booth, and then it is too late.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
    59. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, God...let Bush be defeated.

      God Bless America
      Peace

    60. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done, and I am Caesar."

      -Julius Caesar

    61. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    62. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by n54 · · Score: 1

      Good to see someone voting for their opinion "D

      I agree completely. You're never wasting your vote even if the chances (of your choice candidate) to win are slim - your choice will still help send a signal as every party looks at what they can do to entice people to vote for them instead (and so they change/tweak their policies accordingly). That's how the religious right managed to get some of their beliefs into the republican party, they began running their own candidates and creating their own party. So if lets say the liberalists get 5% of the vote because people actually vote according to what they think is best (rather than what they think is most tactical) the result would probably be that the liberalist-friendly "Schwarzeneggerites" (I'm one but not a US citizen, if I was I'd be voting for Giant Douche hehe*) would try to tweak the republican party towards the liberalists. And if not then the liberalists will continue to try getting more supporters until either they are a major party themselves or somebody has moved close enough to them to get the votes.

      Win-win! Vote your heart everybody!

      * I'm guessing Turd Sandwich would be Kerry as turd sandwiches are 'free for all at "no" cost' hehe "S

      --
      this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
    63. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by n54 · · Score: 1

      "Did the people like Reagan when he ran?"

      I can't speak for all (and I know plenty disagree) but I loved him then and I still love him even though he's dead.

      Reagan and Gorbatchev, and their close friendship, is what ended the cold war* in a peaceful way, which in turn enabled the circumstances leading to the (relatively peaceful) implosion of communism. They didn't do it by themselves but they were the most crucial parts for it to start (the fairly good relations between Margaret Thatcher, Helmut Kohl, and Francois Mitterand were pretty important as well).

      A lot of people (especially in europe) hated Reagan bitterly (just like they hate Bush, don't be surprised that most of them are the same or represent the same political mindsets). A lot of this hate probably came from the economic policies (which were to some extent copied and embellished by Thatcher in the UK) and maybe more so now as those economic policies have become very influential (traces of them can be found in most economical platforms).

      * I'm a 30 year old norwegian, Norway was the northern scenario** for a 3rd WW start so the cold war was a fairly big part of my childhood.

      ** USSR through Finland by "treaty" and down through Norways coastline (very high strategic value for all of europe and enabeling USSR high quality icefree ports all year around) while attacking south Norway by air crossing over (or through) neutral Sweden. Norway is a long and narrow country and the plan for defense was for norwegian troops to try to halt the USSR from the north down to the middle of Norway for at least 24 hours so enough American firepower could arrive to their prepared bases and equipment depos, all while Swedens airforce (though nominally neutral) would alleviate the pressure on the south. For Norway this scenario would be pretty much acting as a "suicidal no cost too high" human buffer to halt a northern offensive - probably all (unless the USSR only attempted a limited expansion which wasn't likely) while the middle scenario in Germany and central europe involves heavy tank battles and tactical nukes from both sides. MAD and ICBMs are partially a seperate issue from this and a possible scenario endgame unless they're they were the reason for it all to start, or used by the USSR as opening moves (probably not too likely, endgame use was far more likely and MAD holding through the war wasn't too unlikely either). As it turned out none of this happened and MAD and the USSR costs involved in MAD worked flawlessly, helping to implode the communist economy. No thanks to the "peaceniks" and radical socialists/communists, they would have destroyed the future if they got the chance and they're still trying (there is a number of high-ranking leftist politicians (democratic socialists, radical socialists, communists (duh) and some greens) in europe who still don't denounce former support for communist dictatorships).

      Sorry this got slightly rant-like but most people already seem to have forgotten, both in the US and in europe.

      --
      this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
    64. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by n54 · · Score: 1

      Sarcasm or irony, take your pick:
      Yeah the Democrats seem overly keen on reinstalling the draft (not really but close enough for them to make noise about it and trying to pin it on Republicans) seeing as they created the bills in congress and senate... luckily the Republicans wont touch it with a ten foot pole.

      Maybe this will help you:
      http://www.factcheck.org/article200.html

      There wont be support for a draft unless US soil is the arena for war (maybe not even then). Nobody wants it, least of all the military.

      --
      this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
    65. Re:Who hasn't voted yet? by http101 · · Score: 1

      Touché... I know there is more to an election than just submitting your request for a candidate/lesser-of-two-evils. The local votes are wonderful too because we all voted against the building of a $30-million dollar sports arena here in our city, yet wound up with one anyway...my vote doesn't matter, bureaucratic bullshit wins every time.

      --
      -- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
  8. Already broken by DeDmeTe · · Score: 0, Redundant

    MySQL errors...

    --
    -Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat-
  9. Verifier /.ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could not connect : Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (11)

    Note, this has been verified by me personally!

    1. Re:Verifier /.ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      me too! no matter how many times i hit refresh I cant get the page to load!

  10. Of course they are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...and the Election Incident Reporting System (EIRS) which will be used on E-day by attorneys and observers in the field to collect data about election incidents"

    Translation:

    Lawyers keeping an eye on election incidents to capitalize on frivelous election litigation and class action suits to further their own pockets/agenda/polictical schemes.

    Of course this will catapult them into office because of their noble legal watchdog attitude only to face the exact same irony during their own elections.

    THE HORROR!!!!

  11. MySQL db already not accepting connections by Qzukk · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I guess its not so resilient after all...

    People, if you're not using persistent cursors, do NOT use persistent connections! (typically *_pconnect() in PHP)

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  12. Probably needs a little beefing up. by mnoe · · Score: 1

    Could not connect : Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (11) on the Verifier DB, and timeout on the other

  13. Yeah. by Staos · · Score: 5, Interesting
    As a Maryland resident, I've tried to do my part. I contacted my elected officials and warned them about Diebold. I sent another round of faxes and emails after we learned that Diebold planned to gouge us "out the yin-yang" if we wanted verified voting. Final results: a couple form letter replies amounting to diddly squat.

    The most frustrating part is that my county already had perfectly good voting machines: paper-based scantron-type forms where you mark the appropriate rectangle and a simple scanner tabulates the results. Effective, verifiable, well-understood, and relatively inexpensive. In other words, the complete opposite of what the state just bought for us.

    --
    In Soviet russia, only old Koreans profit from pictures of Natalie Portman stored on Beowulf Clusters.
    1. Re:Yeah. by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >I sent another round of faxes and emails

      Politicians respond better to snail mail.
      Why do you assume that faxes and emails will
      actually reach them?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:Yeah. by donnyspi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I took plenty of Scantron tests in high school and college and there were frequently errors. Either the scanner didn't detect that a box was shaded or it thought two were shaded and marked the question wrong anyway.... arrrgh.

    3. Re:Yeah. by deathazre · · Score: 1

      thankfully the maryland absentee ballots are still in scantron form, so diebold can't mess up my vote.

      --
      Karma: Negative (Mostly affected by dorm trolling)
    4. Re:Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you just don't get counted if the mail gets damp, or bent, or ripped or lost....

    5. Re:Yeah. by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Thankfully, my precinct was still using the scan forms during the primaries. The nice thing is that if your vote is invalid, such as checking off contradictory votes, filling in a circle that doesn't mean anything and such, it spits it back out for you to get a new form.

      I wonder what it would take to get a better electronic system. My guess is that as long as both parties think they can manipulate the system, there is no point to

    6. Re:Yeah. by d99hene · · Score: 1

      Have you ever considered simple paper slips? If you want to vote Republican: put a red piece of paper in the box; green for Democrats?

      Shouldn't be too difficult to build a machine that can keep track of two counts and distinguish between two colors.

    7. Re:Yeah. by Attitude+Adjuster · · Score: 2, Informative
      I sympathize.

      If you'd like to do more, sign up with TrueVoteMD to be a poll watcher and report technical or other voting problems - there are still many precincts needing poll watchers. They're desparate for people with computer skills to be poll watchers.

      You can choose the precinct and hours... There is still 1 training session left (on Sunday), so its not too late to sign up.

    8. Re:Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In other words, the complete opposite of what the state just bought for us.

      Don't you mean "the complete opposite of what you bought the state? Where do you think the state gets its money?

    9. Re:Yeah. by sp0rk173 · · Score: 1

      How about red for republican, blue for democrat, green for green, black/white checkers for libertarians (since they see things in black and white, even when they're not black and white) pink for communist, etc etc

    10. Re:Yeah. by Gkeeper80 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sign up to be a pollwatcher with truevotemd.org. I think they're still looking for people to help observer polling stations and record any annomolies. It's non-partisan and you aren't there to yell at anyone, simply to observe and record any information that can be used to discredit the machines or maybe even sued Diebold "out the yin-yang" and get some of our tax money back.

    11. Re:Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      We also had perfectly good systems in Montgomery County, Maryland. Punch cards. No, not the crappy scored junk like they used in FL but cards that were clearly printed with the ballot question or candidate which, when placed and aligned in the special ballot card holder, used an aligned mechanical punch to make the hole. It was pretty clear when you took the ballot out what you did or didn't vote.

      Mess up the ballot? Yep, I did that once. Took the mangled ballot in the special holder (so nobody knew how I voted) to the election officials who discarded that one in a special sealed "bad vote" box and gave me a replacement, which I voted.

      Recount? Just run the cards through the card reader again? Don't trust the reader? Have opposing parties recount the things by hand. Remember that these cards are NOT prescored so there is no problem of chads "just falling out". There's a hole only if the mechanical punch was pressed.

      FL was a fiasco in more ways than one. The obvious one was the screwed up elections there. The not so obvious consequence is the screwed up elections that the rest of us are going to have to live with because of misguided legislation at the federal, state, and municipal levels.

      Blindly throwing money at a problem is NO substitute for proper problem analysis and careful design and engineering for its mitigation.

    12. Re:Yeah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Colorblindness?

    13. Re:Yeah. by cananian · · Score: 1

      Colored ballots compromise its secrecy.

      --
      [ /. is too noisy already -- who needs a .sig? ]
    14. Re:Yeah. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      There's too much emphasis on making voting EASY, presumabably because people who can't figure out a voting form are much easier to manipulate than people who can oh.. say.. read.

      We need to make voting more deliberate and accountable -- the votes need to be accountable not the voters, would it be so hard to create a system where the people can check their votes anonymously?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  14. holy by scaaven · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Cannot connect to database

    ot: i really like Bush's current defense against Kerry / people accusing him of losing those weapons - "don't make accusations if you can't back it up with proof or facts."

    I don't know how he can't say that with a smile on his face--oh wait, he can't wipe that stupid "i know 2+2=4 so there!" grin off his face.

    --
    I know I'm going to be modded up on this
    1. Re:holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      that stupid "i know 2+2=4 so there!" grin off his face.

      I believe the correct term is "shit-eating"

    2. Re:holy by OverlordQ · · Score: 0, Troll

      Not to feed the troll or anything,
      From what I read in the article Kerry said "Bush is stupid, he didnt secure these weapons." The White House responded with "Weapons were already gone when we got there, NBC was there, they can corroborate". And here comes Mr. Lockhart with "OMG U STILL LIES!" even after being soundly proved wrong. Furthermore, why blame Bush? Why not blame the IAEA for securing or destroying the material? Oh wait, that's because Kerry is a U.N. lapdog, and dont want to piss off the U.N.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    3. Re:holy by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      There is plenty of blame to go around for the explosives fiasco already, although it would be nice to have some more detailed facts. It certainly demonstrates incompetence on either the administration or the military's part. I mean if you are told that there are thousands of pounds of explosives in a location, after you invade shouldn't you at least check to see if they are still there?

    4. Re:holy by ihaddsl · · Score: 1

      There are reports that they were there when the Airborne stopped off before there before heading to baghdad. So it does appear they were lost due to the lack of US forces securing them, but when and how is a bit of a mystery still.

      more to the point though, if there had been WMD, it seems that the careless approach to securing these types of sites would likely have put these into the insurgents hands.

    5. Re:holy by bigjnsa500 · · Score: 1
      Wrong, wrong and completely wrong. The site was empty when the 3rd ID and 101st Airborne was in the area. Whatever was there was long gone BEFORE we got there.

      sKerry's "October Suprise" just blew up in his face.

      --
      This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
    6. Re:holy by ihaddsl · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree it's not exactly clear, but to say it's wrong, wrong wrong is not fair at this point. So their status at this stage is not known, but it raises serious questions.

      from http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.exp losives/

      "News reports during the conflict indicated that troops from the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division entered the Al Qaqaa site on April 4, 2003, finding thousands of boxes of white powder that preliminary tests determined was an explosive. The 101st Airborne Division troops arrived six days later.

      No material under IAEA seal was found, but Pentagon officials said the troops were not under orders to conduct a thorough inspection."

    7. Re:holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you see, these explosives were under IAEA seal. Thats how we know about them. In fact, prior to the invasion, the IAEA had restated the amounts to be much lower than what is stated now (by orders of magnitude). The hundreds of tons is according to Iraqi records prior to the invasion.

      Apparently now, there is evidence that russians were at the facility with transport vehicles prior to invasion.

    8. Re:holy by bigjnsa500 · · Score: 1
      But you can refute satellite images:

      Photos showing a pre-war truck convoy at Al-Qaqaa would comport, Baier said, with a January 2003 report by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency revealing that 158 tons of the high explosive RDX had already gone missing from the site.

      http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/28/1045 14.shtml

      --
      This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
    9. Re:holy by ihaddsl · · Score: 1

      Agreed, they were under IAEA seal. Biggest question in my mind is

      Given we knew about them, why werent the troops under orders to check for them, and failing that, why wasnt' a follow up visit made after the invasion to determine the status of the munitions?

      The russian angle seems highly improbable, but I'll await further developments here.

    10. Re:holy by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Apparently now, there is evidence that russians were at the facility with transport vehicles prior to invasion.

      If by evidence you mean Drudge and the Washington Times, I laugh at you.

      Seriously. How does it help the Russians to move the stuff for Saddam?

    11. Re:holy by 241comp · · Score: 1

      A. perhaps they were paid to by Iraq

      B. perhaps it was in their "best interest" (eg. they sold it to Iraq illegally)

      C. perhaps they were paid to by the country they brought it to

    12. Re:holy by zogger · · Score: 1



      That's three tractor trailer loads, tops, two if they really loaded it up. Not really a problem or a huge convoy needed. Coupla forklifts, an hour, loaded, vamoose. It's not like they would have needed this huge number of trucks or that it would have been anything of note from sat pics. If they did use smaller trucks, it was for a larger reason, best guess is overland travel off the roads, and also a more widely dispersed cache, ie, different destinations. Plus, it would have been safer.

      With that said, I think saddam would have been nuts to not hedge his bets and move some stuff out way before the war, and syria would have been his safest bet. He had plenty of notice. Every other nation of note does it, store war materiel outside their borders, it's called pre positioned supplies, it's quite common really. The US has done it almost forever, and we still do.

      And with THAT said I still don't see him as being a threat to the US before the invasion. A threat to Israel, yes, to the US, no. And I don't think he was a good guy, but I can think of several regimes more deserving of change than his was.

      I think war should be last resort, then if decided upon, actually declared and fought to win. What we have now is just organized mass looting, caged inside of a lot of jingoistic rhetoric and half-truths. It was planned in advance, the PNAC docs show this. 9-11 was the excuse they needed, the "pearl harbor like event" they planned to use for an invasion into the middle east.

    13. Re:holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're really pathetic. I've seen the same reports on CNN and MSNBC. So there. I laugh at you, turdface. Hahahahahahaha!!

  15. Zort, Ptttzt.... by nweaver · · Score: 4, Funny

    Slashdot 1, MySQL Server 0

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
    1. Re:Zort, Ptttzt.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Postgres could have handled it! It's a REAL database! *snortle*

    2. Re:Zort, Ptttzt.... by Psychotext · · Score: 1

      You know. I've always wondered just how much server hardware is needed to survive a Slashdotting. I'd love to put one of my larger eCommerce sites to the test one day, but quite frankly I'm not that stupid. :)

      --
      People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
  16. Mr Wizard is broken by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They had a nice wizard at www.verifiedvoting.org (one of the sites mentioned in the article) that would help tell you what voting technologies exist in your precinct, and what alternatives exist if you want a paper receipt of your vote. (In some places, absentee ballot by snail-mail is the only alternative to trusting Diebold, in other places there are more alternatives.) But, possibly because of the slashdot link, all the wizard tells me now is that it can't connect to the mySQL database.

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  17. Religion Sex and Politics by loose+electron · · Score: 1, Troll

    The three classical taboo subjects of the workplace.

    It is my sincere hope that (relative) sanity will be restored to the US federal government in the near future.

    On a personal note, I now know three guys (USMC from this area) dead in Iraq.

    Anyhow, Then we can all go back the discussions on religion and sex. Those two don't have a paper trail to properly verify them either.

    Seriously, a tight election in 2000 and 2004 have shown what a POS our voting system presently is.

    Need to get an upgrade... Shall we outsource the job to India or China?

    --
    www.effectiveelectrons.com "chips that work" Analog, RF, Mixed Signal
    1. Re:Religion Sex and Politics by nizo · · Score: 1
      Need to get an upgrade... Shall we outsource the job to India or China?

      I would vote for India, but my vote would probably end up getting counted for China anyway.

    2. Re:Religion Sex and Politics by Richard+M.+Nixon · · Score: 1

      It is my sincere hope that (relative) sanity will be restored to the US federal government in the near future.

      Don't hold your breath.... ....and what do you mean by restored?

      --
      Nobody died when Nixon lied.
      I'm meeting you half way you stupid hippies!
  18. mySQL errors early on by ReverendLoki · · Score: 1

    "Could not connect : Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (11)" While only 7 comments in the thread. For what good this info is worth. This is the right link we're supposed ot be testing, right? The EIRS link seems to not have fallen yet at least.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    1. Re:mySQL errors early on by cananian · · Score: 1

      As the developer of the EIRS system, this makes me very happy.

      --
      [ /. is too noisy already -- who needs a .sig? ]
  19. Illegal? by OECD · · Score: 1

    The database worked fine for me, but the EIRS url is "illegal" according to lynx--probably uses a re-direct.

    --
    One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
    1. Re:Illegal? by cananian · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure EIRS doesn't use any meta tag redirects except on login (legacy artifact).

      If you could figure out exactly what lynx doesn't like about it, I'd be love to fix it.

      [I'm the lead programmer for EIRS. And I explicitly asked that the last sentence be taken out of the article.]

      --
      [ /. is too noisy already -- who needs a .sig? ]
    2. Re:Illegal? by lordkuri · · Score: 1

      hey.... you wouldn't happen to be the lead programmer for EIRS would ya?

    3. Re:Illegal? by cananian · · Score: 1

      Why yes, I am!

      So kind of you to ask!

      --
      [ /. is too noisy already -- who needs a .sig? ]
    4. Re:Illegal? by OECD · · Score: 1

      If you could figure out exactly what lynx doesn't like about it, I'd be love to fix it.

      Lynx complains, "Alert!: Illegal redirection URL received from server!" and then tells me "Illegal URL: https://voteprotect.org/"

      --
      One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
    5. Re:Illegal? by cananian · · Score: 1

      I think your lynx does not support SSL. Am I wrong?

      --
      [ /. is too noisy already -- who needs a .sig? ]
    6. Re:Illegal? by OECD · · Score: 1

      I think your lynx does not support SSL. Am I wrong?

      Apparently it does:

      %lynx -version
      Lynx Version 2.8.4rel.1 (17 Jul 2001)
      libwww-FM 2.14, SSL-MM 1.4.1, OpenSSL 0.9.6a
      Built on freebsd4.6 Aug 12 2002 11:15:15
      --
      One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
  20. Election "incidents" by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm no expert in polls, but isn't the best (only?) way to detect voting fraud is by statistical analysis? That is, compare paper ballots with electronic ones, and then those to exit polls. If those Diabolical... err Diebold voting machines differ from normal ballots by more than a few fractions of a percent, wouldn't that indicate some sort of foul play? Fire-alarm pulling, voter-registration-tear-upping aside, the worst threat to American democracy (heh, did I just say that) is a few lines of code in Diebold's server software, something like:
    $record_vote_function() {
    ...
    $i = rand(1,0, 0.000001);
    if($i=1 && $vote="Kerry-Edwards") {
    $vote="Bush-Cheney";
    }
    ...
    }
    --
    Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
    Africus aut Europaeus?
    1. Re:Election "incidents" by greyhoundpoe · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't this just assign *every* vote to "Bush-Cheney"? $record_vote_function() { ... $i = rand(1,0, 0.000001); if($i=1 && $vote="Kerry-Edwards") { $vote="Bush-Cheney"; } ... }

    2. Re:Election "incidents" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey your use of no line breaks and hard to read code looks familiar. Have I fixed your code before?

    3. Re:Election "incidents" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds like a great idea in theory, but exit polls don't have resolution down to *fractions* of a percent - it's usually something on the order of *a few* percent. That makes the code you suggest even more dangerous - the vote is swung one way, but you can't tell since it's still within the error margin of exit polls. (google for Avi Ruben - I saw him talk and he brought up this very concern. Large deviations from expected poll results would be obvious, but small deviations in a tight election.....)

    4. Re:Election "incidents" by OWJones · · Score: 1

      Unless you know how to game the system. For example, one could write a CGI script that lets you decide how many counties to rig, how much to win by (to avoid recounts), and the polling margin of error so you can make your results look "real".

      But that's impossible, surely. :)

      -jdm

    5. Re:Election "incidents" by say · · Score: 1

      I really hope the voting machines aren't written in PHP.

      --
      Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
    6. Re:Election "incidents" by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      Actually, it would be imposible because the voting machine makers do not load in the names of the candidates. The election offices do. And this software will be on the machines permanently. So, in order to rig the elections not only would you have to re-program the software every time, you would have to get it past all the testing the counties would do everytime you re-program it. And something tells me that the counties would get suspicious if you had to reprogram the machines every time. Besides the fact that you would also have to know the poll results at election time when you program the machines. Predicting this ahead of time is not possible. Between all that, you can't rig a machine and not get caught.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    7. Re:Election "incidents" by Bimo_Dude · · Score: 1

      sub verify_vote {
      for ($i = 1; $i <= 10000; $i ++) {
      record_vote('Bush-Cheney');
      }
      }
      hmmmm.. These guys got 22 billion votes in one county. Impressive.

      --
      "Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
    8. Re:Election "incidents" by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      That is, compare paper ballots with electronic ones, and then those to exit polls. If those Diabolical... err Diebold voting machines differ from normal ballots by more than a few fractions of a percent, wouldn't that indicate some sort of foul play?

      Not really. It's entirely possible that the people who are most likely to vote electronically tend to be Xians, and those who vote absentee tend to be Yians, so the percentages would differ without any foul play.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    9. Re:Election "incidents" by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      Programming the machines at the last minute without oversight?

      You mean, like Diabold is being accused of doing?

      It's trivial to do. You just rig the machine so it will break election night, and then you come in and fix it.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    10. Re:Election "incidents" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Almost every assumption you make is invalid:

      Actually, it would be imposible because the voting machine makers do not load in the names of the candidates.

      Is this a fact? Even if so, I'm fairly confident that, if I had to, I could take a guess at the names & affiliations of the top two or three candidates.

      And this software will be on the machines permanently.

      Why and why would that matter? Code can easily be added, removed or modified before, during or after the election. Alternatively, one shot code (in the data upload for example) could easily "correct" the results and immediately and permanently disable itself. Of course this all assumes that the adjustment routines are on the ballotting machine at all (they certainly wouldn't have to be).

      So, in order to rig the elections not only would you have to re-program the software every time, you would have to get it past all the testing the counties would do everytime you re-program it.

      It is a documented fact that this is done routinely.

      And something tells me that the counties would get suspicious if you had to reprogram the machines every time.

      It is a documented fact that this in not the case.

      Besides the fact that you would also have to know the poll results at election time when you program the machines.

      You would only need to know the DESIRED outcome. Using the actual ballots cast to make that outcome more realistic is just a luxury.

      Between all that, you can't rig a machine and not get caught.

      Speak for yourself. I certainly have the knowledge to rig a machine and not get caught. What I do not have is the desire to do so or the resources to make it trivial. Other people have all three.

      Given the knowledge that I have, I personally would never use any voting machine without a auditable AND audited paper trail--even if I wrote it.

    11. Re:Election "incidents" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One way to prove it would be for a sufficiently large group to vote for a fringe candidate and to monitor the outcome. For example, if 100 people voted for Bob Higgins of the Alfalfa Party and the final tallies showed Bob getting 20 votes, you could be absolutely certain that the results were cooked.

      Suppose this were the case, however, and you even had sworn statments from the voters, what would the outcome be? I think the state office would try to sweep it under the rug: condemn the whistleblowers for being unDemocratic and unAmerican while writing off the situation as an unverified incident. If the situation presisted, the whistleblowers would be charged with vote rigging as an effort to distract from the actual incident becoming an accident by some peon. Plan C would be to commission an investigation which would run a few years and would quietly conclude that it was a software error which has since been addressed.

      As it is, I have seen postings here on /. that suggest that some people have already noticed incorrect tallies for fringe candidates.

    12. Re:Election "incidents" by jrtom · · Score: 1

      No, it's not the only way. Redundancy works, too.

    13. Re:Election "incidents" by demachina · · Score: 1

      You probably need to add a date/time check so that you only do this on election day when no one is testing the machines to see if they report correctly. Of course you would hope anyone testing these machines would set the date/time to the election day so they would catch this.

      The Carter Foundation attempted to verify an all evoting election in the recent referendum to recall Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Here is an article by Jennifer McCoy who led the effort. Whether you like or dislike the Carter Foundation or Chavez it is kind of interesting piece on trying to verify evoting, and some of the problems they had. Of course Venezuela's machines all had printers and a paper trail, versus U.S. where any attempt to recount or audit the election is futile on all electronic machines with no paper trail. Kind of makes you wonder when Chavez, who the Bush administration brands a dictator and a thug who steals elections, has a paper trail on their electronic voting machines and the U.S. for the most part doesn't. Sure does make it easier to steal the U.S. election though Chavez wasn't entirely open his election to be fair.

      --
      @de_machina
    14. Re:Election "incidents" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, they're not written in PHP, or in perl. They're written in Office Basic.

    15. Re:Election "incidents" by learn+fast · · Score: 1

      Elections, even Presidential ones (see 2000) are often won by a statistically insignificant number of votes. So, if you can change a significantly insignificant number of votes, there's no way to tell, and could easily throw the election one way or the other if its close enough.

  21. For Ohio and California Voters by ecliptik · · Score: 5, Informative

    While looking around for information on who/what I am voting for I came across SmartVoter which is run by the non-profit organization League of Women voters.

    The site is put together nicely, and by entering your street and zip it prints out a full sample ballot of what you'll be voting on and where to vote. It's completely non-partisian and has a lot of information on each issue, with arguements for and against them.

    If you're voting in either California or Ohio I'd definetly check it out before you go to the polls next week.

    I'd comment on the links themselves but they're dead.

    1. Re:For Ohio and California Voters by mlippert · · Score: 1

      It doesn't work for Massachusetts either, which is too bad. The last couple of times I voted, I wished I could have seen a copy of the ballot before I got to the polling place because there were several races and people that I didn't know.

      If I had seen the ballot beforehand, I would have done some research so I could have made an informed choice. As it is I tend to not vote in races where I don't know the views of the people running.

  22. Uhhh... by disbaldman · · Score: 1

    It looks like Verified Voting just went dead!

  23. I tried it by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
    Since the Verified Voting site is gone for the day, I took a look at mypollingplace.com. They give me the correct place to vote, but have the wrong information on what sort of voting machines and how to use them. We don't use touch-screen voting here: the voting is done on paper ballots which are machine-read (think bubble-sheets).

    Too bad we knocked them out; I wanted to see their voting guide.

  24. Too late for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, great.... too bad I already voted!

    --Absentee Voter

  25. hmm, very stange - electronic guide for geeks by mackermacker · · Score: 1

    I only seem to get this

  26. Congrats everybody for a job well done... by GillBates0 · · Score: 1, Redundant
    *clap* *clap*

    Could not connect : Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (11)

    I know this'll be redundant by the time I get through clicking a few more times, typing, copying and pasting...but what the heck.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:Congrats everybody for a job well done... by Kehvarl · · Score: 1

      I know this will be modded +5 insightful, but you should really refrain from giving the mods ideas.

  27. I really, REALLY hate you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go to hell!

    Love Always,
    News For Turds

  28. How Ironic by linuxwrangler · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    That a site dedicated to watching over e-voting is itself not up to the task.

    Of course any operation that uses a toy database like MySQL or Access deserves what it gets

    Signed,
    A ducking and running PostgreSQL addict

    --

    ~~~~~~~
    "You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
    1. Re:How Ironic by cananian · · Score: 1

      Of course slashdot is only looking at the public system.

      We do take our responsibilities seriously, and the systems serving the 1-866-OUR-VOTE hotline are still operating perfectly fine.

      Actually, http://voteprotect.org seemed quite fine last I checked, too. It was only the verifiedvoting.org web site which was done.

      I've looked at PostgreSQL and read Stonebraker's papers -- it does look like a nice system. Unfortunately, time constraints meant that I had to implement EIRS on top of existing systems, which had chosen to use MySQL. (Similarly for the use of PHP; I'm more of a bondage-and-discipline languages fan myself.)

      That said, MySQL seems to be quite robust & reliable if you treat it right.

      --
      [ /. is too noisy already -- who needs a .sig? ]
    2. Re:How Ironic by linuxwrangler · · Score: 1

      Hey, we've all been there. I can't count the times I've thought, "this should be done using technologies A&B" but unfortunately I didn't have time to learn A&B at the time so I used the immediately available solution. Even the most basic duct-tape solution with a few kinks that is up and running before the election beats the hell out of a perfect system that goes live after the inaguration. :)

      BTW, I've had no fun posting in the politics section today. In another post I couldn't format links regardless of using Plain Old Text, HTML formatting, etc. I haven't had that happen before. My original post, submitted as Plain Old Text included fake "flamebait" and "/flamebait" tags which were not correctly refomatted when posted. Should have previewed first.

      --

      ~~~~~~~
      "You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
  29. Re:Please don't vote by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

    OK, the guy has a few good points, like that people shouldn't be voting if they aren't familiar with who is running other than who has the coolest campaign commercials. Other than that, it's not 1850 anymore. We shouldn't return to the days of only older men who own land being able to vote. Society belongs to everyone. That being said, everyone needs to take responsibility to become informed about their government and not just fall for the story line of whichever politician says what they want to hear.

  30. My conclusion... by someonehasmyname · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Could not connect : Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (11)

    Fix the MySQL server.

    --
    Common sense is not so common.
  31. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  32. Secret Message.. by donnyspi · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Heh heh...

    Go to Verified Voting site and at the top right click "Edit Preferences" Click OK without typing anything in...

    Read the SeCrEt MeSsAgE!

    1. Re:Secret Message.. by iyliki · · Score: 1

      Yay! Mod points to that one!

    2. Re:Secret Message.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha! Now thats some funny shit!

    3. Re:Secret Message.. by The+Queen · · Score: 1

      Voting verified: your server is fubar.

      That was lovely, really. What other tricks do you know?

      --

      The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
    4. Re:Secret Message.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod down,

      Nothing to see there, There isn't even an "OK".

  33. Yup, it works by killermookie · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Could not connect : Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (11)

    Yup, looks like a typical site being slashdotted. All systems go!

  34. But Does The System Work?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can't even begin to pull off an error free election. But supposing that we could, is the voting system itself inherently flawed in its ability to produce accurate results?

    Let's find out

    1. Re:But Does The System Work?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

  35. Well, since I can't get to the article... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Bush fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of http://www.georgewbush.com/ (blocked outside of the U.S) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to explain to me that Bush is doing a great job, the economy is stronger than ever, that he has never made a mistake in judgement, and that America is safer under his fascist rule. 20 minutes. At home, I can see one hundred reasons why Bush is unfit for duty, which by all standards should be reason for his impeachment. If not worse.

    In addition, during this fear driven propaganda-fest, free speech is confused with anti-Americanism. And everything else that has made the US a great place to live has ground to a halt. Even the ill-conceived 'freedom zones' are getting further and further away from this war-happy candidate as I type this.

    I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while listening to mouth-breathers spouting Republican talking points, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Republican machine that has run faster from the truth, all the while tossing 'loyalty pledges' and cease and desist orders at anyone who may disagree, despite the millions of people who share the need to be rid of this administration. My Tandy 102 with 32k of RAM demonstrates more resolve and better judgment than Bush most times. From a leadership standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that Bush is a superior candidate for president.

    Bush addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to vote for Bush over other more truthful, reasoned, smarter and stable candidates.

    1. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by bigjnsa500 · · Score: 0, Troll
      *sigh*.. You're misjudged my friend. But I'll take a few of those, what you call facts. 1. Bush sent soliders without body armor. You'll have to look at the Clinton administration because it was his administration that cut funding for the military and did away with *projects* like that. So Pffft... Let's do another one.... #4 Being greeted as Liberators. As far as I can see, we are. #6, the banner. The sign was done by the crew of the ship, NOT the administration. And notice what he said, MAJOR combat action, not that EVERYTHING was over, but the BIG stuff had been taken care of already.

      Just let it go Mr. Liberal. You're losing!

      --
      This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
    2. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by bigjnsa500 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      *sigh*. Oh well I have Karma to burn. It just goes to show you that /. is ONE SIDED. You don't want to hear the truth, you'd rather believe lies. So be it. Once you grow up and start working for a living you'll understand. Oh and one more thing...

      FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

      --
      This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
    3. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to vote for Bush over other more truthful, reasoned, smarter and stable candidates.

      No you wouldn't. Your mind is already made up and any attempt to reason using intelligence would just be met with similar ideologically (as opposed to factually) driven rants as you originally posted.

      By the way, a president is only impeached if he's commited a crime. Sheesh. So much for intelligence.

    4. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you're different then who you're responding to, how? And look at the responses. So far, the only one not bordering on knee-jerk-my-penus-is-bigger-than-yours-ism talks about 3rd party voting. woopdy-fucking-do.

    5. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Leftist+Troll · · Score: 2, Informative

      #4 Being greeted as Liberators. As far as I can see, we are.

      According to a poll taken this May by the CPA (that's the US Coalition Provisional Authority, which has since been disbanded) 92% of Iraqis considered the US to be an occupying force. Only 2% saw us a liberators. I sincerly doubt it has changed much since.
      It's one thing to argue that we were "liberators", but it's just plain wrong to assert that Iraqis see us that way.

      The poll does not render properly with when viewed with some browsers. Use IE to view it.

    6. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Timmysaw.5 · · Score: 0, Troll
      I only need one reason to support our President: Because he opposes the killing of innocent human beings.

      Watch it and then tell me how this could be acceptable under any circumstance.

    7. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
      Actually, I haven't even read the link. Why? It's pointless. Much like my reworking of an old mac troll. Pointless.

      I have karma to burn as well. And I want to hear the truth. So tell me: What's the truth?

      This?
      this?
      this?
      or this?

      I could go on for hours, but these will do for now. What is it about Bush that has you pitching a tent?

    8. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Peyna · · Score: 1

      George Bush supports the death penalty. To support the death penalty as it is currently implemented you have to accept that innocent human beings will be killed.

      I won't bother going any futher, but it doesn't too much imagination to realize that the administration of justice is not perfect, and that since the standard for conviction of first degree murder is only "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "with 100% certainty," you have to accept that innocent people will get through, and will be killed.

      George Bush himself also said he thinks abortion is okay in instances of rape or incest. Are those fetuses less innocent than those who are aborted out of financial distress?

      --
      What?
    9. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Because I think Bush will do a better job of keeping us safe from terrorists. Period.

      There are other reasons, but that's the most important one for me.

    10. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that abortion is completely intentional.

    11. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      Wow. I guess the fact that Bush, as Texas governor, killed lots of innocent human beings means you'll be changing your tune, then?

      Perhaps you'll find that one reason yet.

    12. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by the+arbiter · · Score: 1

      Really? Please then explain "collateral" civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, good sir. Our good President doesn't seem too disturbed by it. Or do they not count, being Muslims?

      Oh wait, you were trolling. So silly of me not to realize!

      --
      Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
    13. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I imagine most people getting abortions aren't think "I'm going kill to a baby today, that sounds like fun."

      It might "intentional" in that they did intend it to happen; but it might not necessarily be able to state that the mother or whoever is entirely blameworthy for the situation that caused the necessity for the abortion.

    14. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      are you saying that the victims of the death penalty were killed by accident?

      I guess that could be true, although we'll never know, since George won't admit to ever making a mistake.

    15. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
      Isn't that like getting stung by a wasp, then destroying a honeybee's nest to keep you safer from stings? The honeybees didn't sting you, but you have to attack them, because they *could* sting you!

      Not to mention there is delicious honey inside! Mmmm, Honey.

      What the hell, they all sting, don't they. Question Mark.

    16. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    17. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by cecil_turtle · · Score: 1

      I guess you weren't aware that Bush was involved in an illegal abortion back in the '70's after he knocked up some girl. Seems a bit hypocritical to run as a pro-life candidate, don't you think? If that link doesn't convince you, just google it and you will find plenty more...

    18. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be pretty wired about intelligence, so consider that Bush is the smarter one.

    19. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So much for intelligence.

      Isn't that the motto of the current administration?

    20. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Peyna · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay, I decided I would go a little further than my last post and give you a little more reasoning here. There's a few issues I am going to address. First, it utterly disgusts me that anyone can be so narrow-minded as to vote with only one issue in mind. Second, George Bush's presidency has only exacerbated the problem of abortion. Next, that banning abortion will not solve the problem. Finally, what we should do instead.

      I don't know how anyone can get it in there head that one issue, especially abortion, an issue which the president has a marginal influence over, is so much more important than anything else, that they will allow it to control their vote. I think abortion is morally wrong; but I don't let that control my vote. I also think that wars of aggression are morally wrong; and I don't let that control my vote either. If you can't be bothered to look at the big picture when voting, you should forfeit your right to vote.

      The number of abortions performed in the United States has actually gone up since Bush has been in office. Abstinence only education, making abortion illegal, denying access to birth control, among other things, do not fix the problem. They make it worse. There are other factors that lead to more abortions being performed, which have ties to the current administrations policies. The poor have gotten poorer, and when economic distress is the most common reason cited for having an abortion, is it any surprise that when the rich get and richer and the poor get poorer than the poor go to drastic measures to save money? We won't give them adequate healthcare and hence access to contraceptives, so how can we honestly expect that accidents won't happen?

      Banning abortion will not make it go away. I think that George Bush and many other people have this belief that the second a law is signed making all abortions illegal, the problem will be gone. You might not see as many doctors willing to perform an abortion, due to risk of loss of license; but they're still going to take place. Even if there were to be no more abortions, you've only shifted the problem. Instead of having abortions, we now have an entire class of unwanted children. Child neglect and abuse will rise, the strain on orphanages, adoption systems and child welfare would be enormous. The burden is only being shifted.

      If you want to stop abortion, you have to stop what causes abortion. This is not the actual physical act of the abortion, but rather the underlying causes that lead up to the desire to abort a pregnancy. Poverty, lack of education (especially contraceptive education), lack of access to health-care (and contraceptives), lack of responsbility and others are all causes that lead to abortion. Poverty is not an easy problem to solve, but I know that George Bush certainly isn't going to be the one fix it. If we don't teach people that contraceptive options are available, we can't assume they're going to use them. We need universal availability of birth control to all citizens. Other healthcare issues are equally important, but the fact that birth control is next to impossible to obtain for someone who can barely afford to put food on the table is disgusting. Teaching social responsibility is also a difficult issue, but it is something that can be taught through other actions, such as no longer ignoring that these problems exist.

      In summary, regardless of whether or not you think abortion is morally wrong is irrelevant to the solution. To stop abortion, you can't just outlaw it; you need to address its causes; namely, inaccessibility of contraceptives, and lack of education (among other things).

      George Bush is not the answer to stopping abortion. John Kerry isn't the answer either, but his desire to have universal healthcare is a step in the right direction (so long as that includes access to birth control.)

      --
      What?
    21. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't even bother pointing out any spelling or grammatical errors I made, I didn't bother to review what I wrote, and can pick out just as many as you can. Don't take it as a lack of intelligence, rather, that I was typing quickly and made errors. (My brain thought "their" but my fingers typed "there".)

    22. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I can give you that Bush's IQ *was* higher, before the stroke that was presented as a 'Pretzel Attack'.

      I seem to recall Bush being far more verbally capable in the first year or so; now, not so much.

    23. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .Watch it and then tell me how this could be acceptable under any circumstance.

      Ask Bush.

      (Actually it's the first thing Novak says that really cracks me up...)

    24. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by darth_zeth · · Score: 1

      My vote for Bush can be summed up nicely by a quote from Jefferson: "Resistance to Tyrants is obedience to God"

      As far as the "War on Terror" goes, I'm not REALLY concerned. I was close enough to NYC to see the dust cloud in the sky from when the WTC collapsed, but I'm not really worried about terrorists killing me. More Americans will kill Americans by the end of the year then Terrorists have managed to kill in the past decade. Bush had done well enough against the terrorists, and while I doubt Kerry will do "better"... It doesn't really matter.

      They both are going to spend gads of money on pork barrel programs.

      Both support PATRIOT. Or at least voted and signed it.

      But Bush has the guts to take out tyrants. The Taliban and Saddam's Ba'athists have no right to rule as they did. As the Strong, I think the US has a certain amount of obligation to the Weak to help them out of oppression. Pick them up and stand them on their own two feet.

      In the long run, will nation building succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Well, it didn't work in Somalia. It did work in Japan and Germany. It might be a fool's errand, but I think taking those two regimes out was to remain faithful to our founding principles of getting the boots of tyrants off the backs of men.

      --
      "Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
    25. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by demachina · · Score: 1

      Just curious why do you think that?

      The only ones I can think of:

      - The Bush administration has locked up hundreds or more likely thousands of people, mostly Muslims, without access to lawyers, family or due process for long periods. I suppose there is a chance there are a handful of terrorists among them though they've destroyed the lives of the vast majority who are probably innocent or least haven't been proven guilty which is how our constitution is supposed to work.
      - The Bush administration did take down Afghanistan but its pretty much a given any President would have done that. The Bush administration unfortunately did a really half assed job in Afghanistan, mostly using proxy armies and scattering the Taliban and Al Qaida not capturing or killing them. They in fact have largely abandoned most of Afghanistan back to warlords, opium traffickers, the Taliban and Al Qaida. In case you didn't know the U.S. mostly controls Kabul and a couple big military bases. They do send out patrols but the insurgents either melt away or attack them. Pretty much nobody has done anything to deny Pakistan's tribal areas to Al Qaida and that is where they've been based since the CIA and Ronald Reagan helped fund, arm, and train them in the 1980's.
      - The Bush administration is apparently making liberal use of torture both directly and using third party countries, and is routinely hiding prisoners from the International Red Cross. It may well be they have wrung important information that has helped them fight terrorism. Of course conventional wisdom is most of the information you get from torture is garbage and people just tell you want you want to hear (maybe thats why we've had so many bogus alerts about terrorists wanting to bomb just about everything). And of course by endorsing torture the U.S. has become a pariah to the eyes of the world and has abandoned any moral high ground it might have had.
      - By invading Iraq the Bush administration has obviously created a honey pot for terrorists and insurgents. There are certainly a lot of them kept busy trying to kill soldiers and truck drivers in Iraq so maybe they don't have time to attack you. Maybe the U.S. military is killing a lot of them too, but its hard to tell, since the U.S. military counts everyone they kill as a terrorist when they are often innocent civilians, women and children. The problem is by invading and occupying an Arab country and killing a lot of women and children (you don't see that much on American news but they are on Arab networks everyday) the Bush administration is almost certainly breeding terrorists much faster than its getting rid of them. They are certainly insuring more moderate Arabs support the extremists when they see what the U.S. is doing to Arabs(like in Abu Graib). Everytime you kill a women or a child in Iraq you insure the survivors among their friends and family develop a desire to kill Americans.

      One thing that obviously speaks against Bush making you "safe from terrorists".

      - 9/11 happened on the Bush administrations watch. That means they already failed you once in a huge way. They have a track record, as they like to say about Kerry, and its not good.

      You could argue it wasn't their fault but:

      - George was handed a security briefing in August 2001 with a title that warned of exactly what happened a month later. What did he do about, apparently nothing, he didn't even delegate it to his staff to follow up on. He was on vacation in Texas and basically failed miserable to do his job
      - Its been established people on John Ashcroft staff were repeatedly warning of a possible terrorism threat. He told them to shut the hell up, didn't want to hear it, and was in fact slashing DOJ funding for antiterrorism. Lord knows there were all kinds of danger signals coming in from the field about terrorists in American flight schools that were ignored.

      And then there is the track record of what George W. did while America was being attacked.

      - While reading my pet g

      --
      @de_machina
    26. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Richard+M.+Nixon · · Score: 1

      #4 Being greeted as Liberators. As far as I can see, we are.

      Aren't photo ops great?

      FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

      Yep, that will sure convince a lot of people to change their vote.
      Why don't you go back to the Democratic party where you belong you stupid neo-con.

      --
      Nobody died when Nixon lied.
      I'm meeting you half way you stupid hippies!
    27. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by magarity · · Score: 1

      Let's address this list from thenation.com:

      #1. Simply states a dollar amount.

      #2. This is a common Democrat sniping point. Hummvees are jeeps. They are not armored vehicles. Armor for the undersides was added later when Iraqi insurgents started putting mines in the roads. Why did it take time to get this added? Perhaps you recall the much hyped (and much spun) stories of military contract overspending from the 1980s. The budget controls subsequently put in place by Congress with many, many levels of oversight make it take 9 months or more for even the simplest appropriation. The president, of any party, is unable to wave a magic wand and make equipment appear. It ALL has to go through the appropriations process, even if there is a war looming and/or underway.

      #3. Other generals have other opinions. It's nice that you can find someone to disagree. Furthermore, more troops would mean even more money. If point #1 is complaining about money, don't complain that more was not spent already.

      #4, #5: http://www.blackfive.net/main/2004/08/this_war_is_ abo.html

      #6: Every ship that comes back from a war theatre runs such a banner; it was not there for GWB. Since the Iraqi army/navy/air force was no longer fighting back, that means "major combat operations are over". The enemy army defeated does not mean there is not significant policing left to do, but yes, it DOES mean that major operations are over.

      7: The 9/11 commission found that Hussein's government had a lot of casual relations with a lot of terrorist networks. Are you unaware that official checks drawn on Iraq's central bank, payable in $25,000 US dollars were paid to the families of Hamas suicide bombers? Which part of central bank checks is not direct involvement in terror activities? Notice there's been hardly any suicide bombers in the last year in Isreal?

      #8: Pardon my skepticism of a reporter's take on a story. See here for an in-depth analysis of the aluminum tubes issue: http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/alumi numtubes.html

      #9: I don't understand this one. Number 1 might complain about the cost, yet here there is a complaint that not all the money has been spent immediately. ???

      #10. Where did the trucks (observed by satellite the week before the invasion) take all the explosives that Kerry has been blaring the army "lost"? And that's another one. The inspectors say the explosives were there the month before invasion, the reports embedded with the troops say they weren't there on the first day of occupation, and Kerry is running his mouth that GWB personally lost these explosives and making it sound like last week.

      Anyway, it goes on and on, all of the 100 points are spin at best and partial or misrepresented information at best.

      So about the Democrats on the terror issue... 1: Why did they bomb the Trade Center when Clinton was president when the #1 most frequent overnight guest in the Clinton White House was Arafat? 2: Why did the terrorists blow up the USS Cole while the American military was defending Albanian muslims from genocide at the hands of Christian Serbs? 3: Why did they blow up the embassies in Africa during this same time period?

      Terrorism is NOT a result of GWB's policies. They do NOT want to be left alone in their corner of the world! They want to come here and kill you because you are not a member of their branch of Islam. You can pick a presidential candidate who thinks this is an annoyance and they will still come to kill you or you can pick a presidential candidate who will send the army to try to kill them first.

    28. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by demachina · · Score: 1

      "Resistance to Tyrants is obedience to God"

      Woooohooooo. I like that. This means if I resist Bush/Cheney I am sitting on the right hand of God. Who knew. I imagine Jefferson was talking about King George instead of Little George but I assure you if Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers saw the monster that is today's Federal government, and especially the new Republican party, Paul Revere would on the ride, they would be penning a new set of documents declaring their independence from the tyrants in Washington, and the minutemen would be warming up their muskets.

      "But Bush has the guts to take out tyrants. The Taliban and Saddam's Ba'athists have no right to rule as they did. As the Strong, I think the US has a certain amount of obligation to the Weak to help them out of oppression. Pick them up and stand them on their own two feet."

      So using this rationale how exactly do you draw the line and stop at Afghanistan and Iraq. If freeing the weak and oppressed had anything to do with it why aren't we rushing in and taking down:

      - Sudan, engaging in genocide in Darfur
      - Saudi Arabia, they are nearly identical to the Taliban in oppression, torture, treatment of women, public beheadings, etc. and of course thats were most of the 9/11 hijackers came from and it is still the dominant funding source for global Islamic terrorists.
      - Myanmar, a really ruthless military junta
      - Egypt, another ruthless Arab dictatorship
      - China, they are still the worlds biggest dictatorship ya know, even if we don't mention it now that we are trying to make a buck and exploiting the cheap labor. They've changed economically and are more open but in reality their fundamental political structure hasn't actually changed since the days when America was reviling them.
      - Pakistan, another ruthless Muslim dictatorship, they are harboring terrorists, in fact their tribal region is Al Qaida's home base and has been since the CIA and Reagan trained, armed and funded them in the 1980's and they actually have done very little to even inconvenience Al Qaida there and of course they were actually running a supermarket for nuclear weapons technology and helped kick start those programs in North Korea, Iran and who knows where else. The ring was busted up maybe, but the ringleader in Pakistan was given a full and instant pardon and is free as a bird.

      You see I think you fell for some Bush propaganda here if you think all this is about freeing the oppressed little ragheads and guiding our little brown brothers to democracy. Its possible even George W. fell for this bullshit. It is the only reason left for Iraq he can still use that hasn't been disproved since reasons 1. WMD and 2. ties to 9/11 all proved to be complete bullshit.

      I can assure you Dick Cheney and the Neocons certainly aren't doing it to free the weak and oppresssed and they are the ones really pulling the strings. Its impossible to guess why they took down Iraq but the leading guesses are:

      - To get rid of one of Israel's biggest threats in the region and the U.S. is now at the point its politicians are completely under the control of the Friends of Israel lobby. (Iran and Syria are next on the list to be taken down since they are the next most threatening countries to Israel)
      - The U.S. needed new military bases in the region from which they could project power and control over the worlds biggest oil fields, especially in the near future when oil gets short which is an era just now beginning. America's bases in Saudi Arabia weren't suitable since the House of Saud put to many strings on using them to threaten the region (the puppet government in Iraq should let the U.S. do what it wants with its 14 new, big permanent military bases in Iraq). In particular they can be used to threaten or invade Iran and Syria. In 2005 Iran has a nuclear power plant going on line and the U.S. and Israel will I assure you take it out before it goes online and that will provoke a new middle east crisis.
      - It was a fringe bene

      --
      @de_machina
    29. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
      You might be interested some other quotes by good ol' Thomas Jefferson: "Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom."

      "It is more honorable to repair a wrong than to persist in it"

      "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to = remain silent."

      ....a certain amount of obligation to the Weak to help them out of oppression. Pick them up and stand them on their own two feet.

      Fine. Be honest about it. Don't manufacture reasons. Admit when you're wrong, and stop trying to create here what you propose to destroy elsewhere. That said, Bush had four years to prove he could make the country better and failed. Badly. And Kerry has said that it is time to scale the Patriot act back, unlike the current admin, who thinks it should be stronger. (Not that I'm advocating Kerry.)

      You might want to re-evaluate your vote. Or not. Don't make your decision based on a /. post.

    30. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by darth_zeth · · Score: 1

      gee, you make it sound like I support Bush. I just told you why I voted for him. That single point is really the only distinction I see between the two.

      I don't care WHY you think we went into Iraq, or WHY Bush and these "neocons" went into Iraq. You can make all the "guesses" you like about the Jews or Big Oil or whatever shadowy power scheme you believe in. Saddam is gone, and we are replacing the Ba'athists with a representative democracy. The RESULT is a good one (so far), even if you believe the worst intentions were behind it.

      Kerry doesn't promise this result AT ALL.

      And yeah, lets try to affect a change towards human rights and liberal democracy in the list of other places too. Maybe not with bombs and tanks (at least not at this point), but ignoring those areas is bad too. I'd hope that other countries would step up to the task of stopping genocide in places like Sudan while we are busy. But if they don't, and we have a chance to make a difference, lets make it.

      Because, frankly, we're a hegemony at this point. We have the OPPORTUNITY to make a difference now. We don't have a USSR injecting its influence to fuck with us. We don't have to support dictators because it is strategically expedient to do so. That might change soon.

      Granted, the American people (and power brokers, if you choose to believe) will want to see some sort of "gain" for American interests whenever we go to war. We got scared out of the do-gooder role for the most part in 1993 when the bodies of American Servicemen we dragged thru the streets of Mogadishu. Its hard to justify 'charitable' wars to the American People.

      Maybe its NOT our responsibility to be the "world police". But even if we ARE being "robber barons", we're making Iraq and Afghanistan a fuck load better then they were.

      So yeah, I think that Bush made the world a better place, for whatever reason.

      --
      "Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
    31. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by darth_zeth · · Score: 1

      You might be interested some other quotes by good ol' Thomas Jefferson: "Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom." "It is more honorable to repair a wrong than to persist in it" "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to = remain silent."

      Kerry's honest? he's a politician! Bush is no Honest Abe, but "honesty" isn't what I see in either of these two.

      And didn't I just say that I thought Iraq was the right thing to do? Persisting in Iraq is not "persisting in a wrong".

      Who's remaining silent about Tyranny now? Is PATRIOT tyranny? Kerry voted for it. IF he had real objections to it, he'd have voted against it. Like i said to point one, he's a politician. You believe Kerry but not Bush?

      Fine. Be honest about it. Don't manufacture reasons.

      I am honest about it. Not that you should believe me now, but I never supported Iraq as an essential part of the "war on Terror". WMDs is a side show. I'm an arrogant American bastard. I'm not afraid of Chemical weapons that Iraq (or anyone else) has. Its piddling small change next to the immediate ass whooping Saddam would get if he ever actually USED WMDs on us.

      Like I said in my reply to the other dude, i Voted for Bush because of the RESULTS of his actions. a freer Iraq. I respect your complaints about bullheadedness about defanging Iraq. Iraq never really had fangs. not to us, anyway.

      --
      "Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
    32. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      I'm not a big fan of GWB, and I really wish I didn't have to stick up for him on this, but...

      He hopped on Air Force One and ran like a scared rabbit for days. Rudy Guilianni deserves some credit for showing balls on 9/11. George W. didn't actually show any backbone during the actual emergency. He didn't start talking big until well after.

      Bush was first told that multiple planes were known to be attacking, and got his first warning about what was going on after the Pentagon itself was hit. At that point, it was suspected that the 4th plane was targeting the capitol as well.
      The US military in such cases assumes the goal is to to take out the command and control of the US as part of a Nuclear War based decapitation strategy. They have to make that assumption, as not doing so has a strong chance of getting 130 Million or so Americans killed. That's what the President was told - that an enemy was acting in a way that apparently fit the start of a nuclear war, by trying to kill enough links in the chain of people who could authorize a launch response to stop a retaliatory strike.
      From that time, the President went where the military moved him, until it was clear that this was not an actual decapitation strike. He sat in that school, probably until everything from sattelite redirect to battalion or larger level ground forces were moved into the appropriate positions to keep the nuclear launch authority links up for him as needed. He then went to locations where he could quickly direct a retaliatory launch while gaining near maximum time to check any indicators of an enemy launch. Doing anything else would have been playing politics with the lives of hundreds of millions of people world wide. Rudy may have acted ballsier, but then he didn't have to worry that the wrong choice could mean loseing WW3.
      If Al-Quida had successfully hit the Capital dome or White house with plane 4, or worse yet had a few more resources to put into targeting the President where he was at the time as well, we would have come closer to the brink than in the Cuban missle crisis. As it was, we came closer than most of the public appreciates.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    33. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      So you disagree. The original question was "why would anyone vote for Bush" and I answered the question.

      It's MY opinion, and I'm perfectly in the right for having whatever opinion I want to have, so kindly shut your noise hole. Hell, I didn't even read that reply.

      Why the fuck is it that liberals can't just be satisfied "because I feel that way" and have to try to convince you? What a pain in the ass. Almost as bad as those religious assholes who are constantly trying to convert you to whatever. Just shut up and let me have my opinion.

    34. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by mr_snarf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe because you shouldn't be voting based on your emotions, but instead based on facts?

      Or maybe because of the general ignorance of bush supporters?

      http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04 /html/new_10_21_04.html

      Since most people seem to think bush supporters don't know what they are voting for, maybe they would like to know of something that refutes that assumption?

      I do see your point however, but also theirs. I'm just trying to answer your question, not insult anyone.
      PS, I'm Australian, so I don't get to vote :)

      --
      printf("Goodbye cruel world!\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b\b");
    35. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
      1. 'War of Choice' + dollar amount = wasted money. You ignore the important part.

      2. I'll give you the Humvees, but there is certainly discretionary funds for body armor. See 1 and 9.
      3. The people that are IN Iraq are the ones most stridently saying they are 'understaffed'. Wouldn't they know by now?
      4,5.I read it. I think it is a well written account of one guy's experience, but kind of reinforces the whole 'why are we there' issue.
      6. I can't speak to the 'every ship' statement, as I have never before seen a such a banner on a ship, nor heard of the practice . Not that I've looked at hundreds of ship pictues or anything. Considering what a major photo-op that whole thing was, I'm going to say that it was planned just like every other thing that happened that day.
      7. I can't dispute the casual relations, nor find a compelling source to confirm this. I guess I'm still waiting for us to go after the Saudis, as the actual people who bit it in the WTC attack were Saudi. Osama is Saudi. Where's Encyclopedia Brown when you need him? Perhaps he can find out what happened to the investigation into the people who yanked out tons of $$$ out of the stock market in the days before 9/11?
      8. I read it, and two other articles and it seems that it is still up in the air.
      9. I don't get it either. They got the $$$, why not spend it? What are they waiting for? Iran?
      10. Well, there's this, which came out today...I obviously have no access to the Sat images, so am unable to check for myself.

      Yes, it goes on and on. And on

      1, 2, 3. They're terrorists. That's what they do, I guess.

      Frankly, I know that terrorists et al are not caused by the policies of GW. However, It would be pretty hard to argue that he hasn't exacerbated conditions that were preexisting, and perhaps caused in no small measure by his father.
      I hope you appreciate the fact I've actually responded to your post, even though you may argue that I didn't answer your concerns. You did manage to suck the life out of me, though, so this round goes to you, sir. Excellent work!

    36. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by demachina · · Score: 1

      "that an enemy was acting in a way that apparently fit the start of a nuclear war"

      Your post is very impressive but its so full of holes its silly.

      No nuclear power is going to start a nuclear war by attacking the World Trade Center with hijacked airlines. The Trade center has nothing to do with U.S. command and control, it is entirely a political/economic/terror target. For your story to be even remotely plausible they would have had to start with the White House and the Pentagon.

      If it was a precursor to a nuclear attack they would have moved the President instantaneously instead of let him read My Pet Goat for 5-10 minutes or whatever it was.

      If it was a decapitation strike I'm pretty sure your mystery attacker would have attacked Washington when the President was in the Washington. It wasn't secret he was reading My Pet Goat on the other side of the country. Why try a decapitation strike when the head wasn't in Washington(though maybe Cheney was in Washington and is really in charge).

      The President is Commander In Chief. He orders the military and the Secret Service not the other way around. If he had balls he would have headed straight to Washington or New York. As it was he just looked like he was running and hiding.

      And of course Al Quaida wouldn't have been using civilian airliners as weapons if they had nukes, no one would. They would have slipped a nuke into Washington and New York on a truck or ship, while the President was there and really decapitated. As soon as the second airliner hit the trade center it was pretty obvious it was a terrorist attack.

      Please try to make up something remotely plausible next time.

      --
      @de_machina
    37. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by demachina · · Score: 1

      Heh.

      No I just was asking if you could tell me some good reasons why you think Bush is making you safer. I tried to list some though I didn't do a very good job. I was hoping you could help me out.

      Your reply suggest you can't. You don't seem to know how he is actually make you safer. You are just working on this blind faith he is making you safer, because him and Dick tell you they are, though you don't seem to actually know how. They also tell us that if we elect Kerry we and our children will almost surely die though thats probably not true either.

      Is it because his speeches and rhetoric make you feel safe. Well I hate to break it to you but most of his speeches are written for him by talented speech writers and Cheney, Rove and Card craft the substance of those more than George W. does. If you want to see the real George W. thinking and speaking you saw it in the debates, when he was getting ticked off, saying ummm a lot and grasping for words. When he wasn't groping for words it was because he was repeating precrafted talking points written for him by his staff.

      If its not his speeches and rhetoric what actions has he taken that make you think you are safer? This is a pretty basic question. If you can't answer then I'm inclined to think you don't actually have a good reason for voting for him. I'm afraid that is the case for most people who are voting for Little George(thats his mom's nickname for him by the way).

      --
      @de_machina
    38. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
      Kerry's honest? he's a politician! Bush is no Honest Abe, but "honesty" isn't what I see in either of these two.

      By all means, never have I suggested that any politician was honest. I think maybe ever.

      And didn't I just say that I thought Iraq was the right thing to do? Persisting in Iraq is not "persisting in a wrong".I would say it is wrong, as it was a war waged under false pretense, then rationalized with 'we're better off'. So, I should be cool, then. Right?

      Who's remaining silent about Tyranny now? Is PATRIOT tyranny? Kerry voted for it. IF he had real objections to it, he'd have voted against it. Like i said to point one, he's a politician. You believe Kerry but not Bush?

      I never should have brought up Kerry, as I'm not real hot about defending him; I will say that the mis-named PATRIOT act is not tyranny, but it is a good start. It is a framework that could be readily built on, and what is there makes that process even easier. Kerry has said he'll 'revisit' the PATRIOT act. Bush has basically spilled his wad over it as is, and wants to add to it. I believe both of them.

      Furthermore, Bush has painted himself as someone who will never (publically) change his mind, even when wrong. I have heard Kerry say he's made a mistake, and that he was wrong about some things.

      Thanks, but the world's got enough Gods in the sky, without encouraging a self-styled one here on earth. Point to not-Bush.

      I am sure you aren't lying - why would you bother? My comment referred to those who put us in Iraq.

      I truly wonder if the end result of all this will be a freer Iraq. This is a war we can't win, because it won't ever end. The 'results' we've gotten are suspect and perhaps transitory - you mentioned nation building, and how Japan and Germany worked, Somalia didn't. How long were Japan and Germany occupied? Will Bush have the stamina and ethic to stay in Iraq, for *their* people and not his personal gain? Does the US?

      And what happened to Afgahnistan? Where's our freedom bringing presence there, and why hasn't the Bush administration pushed all the good works we're doing there?

      It's a very different world now, with very different people, and maybe that's why.

    39. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by demachina · · Score: 1


      "Kerry doesn't promise this result AT ALL."

      Uh, actually Kerry promises pretty much the exact same result. You'd be hard pressed to find any actual difference between Bush and Kerry on Iraq moving forward. Fact is the U.S. broke it and the U.S. is stuck there for the duration no matter who is President. Kerry will try to get the Europeans in, but they aren't stupid enough to get involved in a quagmire, so that is kind of a moot point. Kerry wants to add a couple divisions to the Army and will probably end up increasing troop strength in Iraq.

      " But even if we ARE being "robber barons", we're making Iraq and Afghanistan a fuck load better then they were."

      Whether Afghanistan is better or worse you can debate. The Taliban were pretty bad, it was Al Qaida's base so taking them down was the right response to 9/11. One thing speaks against Afghanistan being a better place. The Taliban have been replaced with war lords and drug trafficers for the most part. Its not really a Democracy outside Kabul, its still a bunch of fiefdoms. The really bad thing about Afghanistan is its opium production is exploding and all the heroin is going to do a world of hurt to the rest of the world. Bush Propaganda aside the Taliban actually did aggressively fight the Opium trade because drugs are completely forbidden in the Muslim faith, and its the new Afghanistan that is dealing drugs to the world. Its also not like Karzai won in a great exercise in Democracy. He won because he had a U.S. helicopter to fly him to each tribal chief and he had buckets of U.S. money to promise them in return for them telling their people to vote for him. They don't have TV or for the most part roads so you dont actually campaign like you would in a Democracy outside Kabul. It was impossible for the other candidates to campaign in most of the country without getting killed, and they didn't have buckets of U.S dollars to buy the tribal chiefs. So American's hand picked puppet won, yipppeeee let Democracy reign.

      As for Democracy in Iraq why don't you wait until their is some before you count your chickens. Allawi is another hand picked American puppet. He's worked for the CIA and British intelligence for a couple decades. He used to work for Saddam's secret service and in particular helped dispose of Saddam's enemies and critics in Europe before he and Saddam had a falling out and Saddam tried to have him ax murdered. He is deep down a thug just like Saddam. There are already numerous anecdotes of him abusing prisoners in the new Iraq. I'd also like to wait and see how these elections go. I'm wagering the U.S. and Allawi are going to do everything in their power stack the deck and insure Allawi wins. If you actually have a real democratic election the Shia fundamentalists are going to win and you will end up with a state looking more like Iran than America. I'll be real interested in seeing what America does if they implement real "Democracy" and then don't like who the answer they get.

      And yes Saddam was a thug and a dictator. Maybe its a plus he's gone, but the Baathists did keep order in Iraq, a challenge in a country that is as fragmented as it is, and people did have jobs. Now most people are unemployed, the whole country has been looted, the infrastructure is in near collapse and its an extraordinarily dangerous place to live thanks to bombings, kidnappings and assassination, and of course American occupation troops are constantly harrassing everyone with checkpoints, bombing urban areas, killing civilians alongside insurgents, torturing and humiliating prisoners, and breaking down doors at night arresting people. Not sure most Iraqi's would consider the occupation to be an improvement over life under Saddam. All in all you have to be pretty gullible or think I'm gullible to believe they are "a fuck load better then they were".

      They are different, not better. Maybe they could have been better but for the incompetence of the Bush administration. They promised they would be better but they didn't actually do any of things necessary to make them better.

      --
      @de_machina
    40. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by darth_zeth · · Score: 1

      Will Bush have the stamina and ethic to stay in Iraq,

      well, like you said, he's thick. so suspect he will stay in. He obviously isn't concerned about it hurting him this election, and he's got nothing to loose in the next one.

      And what happened to Afgahnistan?

      elections this month.

      actually, between Iraq and Afghanistan, I expect Afghanistan has a higher chance of failure. Tribal cultures aren't very compatible with democracies. Tribalism is why Somalia failed (well, lack of commitment was. Tribalism was just the force we weren't committed to taking care of. If it was even possible)

      --
      "Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
    41. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by magarity · · Score: 1

      1. "War of Choice" is loaded language from a predetermined point of view. Of course I ignore it; it's just grandstanding.
      2. re: armor. See explaination of apropriation process.
      3. It seems there are people complaining there are not enough and others (including the commander on the scene, Tommy Franks) who say it is enough. Franks was on one of the majors yesterday (ABC?) stating exactly this.
      4&5. Just goes to show that there are people complaining and people think things are going well. I like the way: there are local elections and the first representative government bodies in 35 years, more schools for children are open now than before the war, girls are allowed in those schools, and women are allowed to go to work if they choose. Those last two should be the final word for any women; how can you protest 1/2 of the population finally being allowed these basic freedoms?
      6. A local talk radio guy who is retired from the Marines called someone he knows in the Navy and asked about this. The Navy guy said that for family morale, most ships have a self-congradulatory message on a banner when pulling into port. The one during the Bush photo-op was put up early since they were still well out to sea, but it is typical of what ships do just before pulling in after a combat mission.
      7. Casual? Hardly: "OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda". Please see: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp
      10: Look at that link you've provided. There's a guy with a crew cut (not even a helmet) wearing a plain tan shirt (no flack jacket, no equipment) looking at a wooden box labeled "Explosives" in English. All the crates are neatly labelled in English. Umm, last I checked, they speak, read, and write in Arabic. Please see: http://www.settlement.org/cp/english/iraq/commun.h tml
      Color me suspicious for the time being.
      Furthermore, there are supposed to be hundreds of tons of explosives and it states ominously that were several guys in a pickup truck acted suspiciously. How many trips in a beater pickup do you have to make to haul off a hundred tons? Please, that article and its pictures stink of CBS memo.
      While we're on this topic, please see: http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins20041 0270816.asp
      So which is it??? There's no WMD nuclear bomb materiel and the whole thing is a bunch of lies OR were there hundreds of tons of ignition explosives whose only design purpose is starting nuclear explosions? You can't complain these explosives are missing and at the same time say there was no WMD reason for the war!!!

      This brings us to a discussion of terrorism in general. First, what is terrorism? It is a political tool, but not the one most people initially think. IMO, its primary purpose is not actually to attack and do damage to the percieved enemy. Instead, it is a political tool used by dictatorships to direct hostility outward. Think about what the living conditions are like in these mideast countries. A small group controlls most of the wealth, and a great deal of wealth it is. To protect this wealth, they very greatly restrict rights. See me above: for the first time, "girls are allowed in those schools, and women are allowed to go to work if they choose". The guys fare only marginally better. Unemployment is rampant (30, 40, even over 50%) mostly due to severe restrictions on private enterprise. So what are all these unemployed young guys to do? Well, they obviously feel marginalized, impotent, and extremely frustrated. They can either turn that frustration into overthrowing the current government OR they can be taught from an early age that the big bad enemy (USA in particular and westerners in ge

    42. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      You don't fucking get it. I don't have to defend my decision to you. I don't give a shit whether you think Bush will keep us safer at all. DO YOU COMPREHEND WHAT I JUST SAID!?

      Holy shit. When you ask someone's opinion, you don't do it just so you can throw shit at them and try to change it. That's rude and that's a pain in the ass. Like I said, it's the same tactic fundamentalist religious freaks use.

      You believe what you want, and let ME believe what I want. And your moronic replies are only cementing my opinion on politics.

    43. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by demachina · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I don't have to defend my decision to you."

      Well you are right, no you don't. It may not register with you but your posts so far, especially the extent to which you are losing it, suggests that its not because you "don't have" to or don't want to its because you can't. If you read your posts you'll find your the one being rude and profane. I'm just making points about issues, most of which I can support. That is how civilized debate works in democratic societies. You make your point and I make mine. Unfortunately civilized debate and thoughtful consideration of issues seems completely lost on you, like most Americans and especially most Republicans. You just want empty rhetoric that reaffirms your established world view.

      Its actually OK you can't make your "safety" case because the fact is the rhetoric by both side on the subject is nothing but empty rhetoric, stuff they are telling you because its what you want to hear. You want to be safe, they tell you they are making you safe, you are happy, until and unless there is another attack. What do you do if there is another 9/11 or worse attack on Bush's watch proving he isn't actually making you safe? Go in to denial, write it off and assume he will make you safe next time.

      If you are facing determined suicidal terrorists who really hate you, chances are they will find a way to do their dirty deed eventually. Israel has been trying to make itself "safe" from terrorists for more than 50 years and failed miserably. Terrorists with wide support and a pool of willing volunteers are extraordinarily hard to defeat. Thats why they choose the tactics they do, versus putting on uniforms and standing in a field so the U.S. can pulverize them. Israel is a tiny place with oppressive security and they haven't been able to make themselves "safe" so how are you going to make a sprawling place like the U.S. "safe".

      --
      @de_machina
    44. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      1. I am a former commissioned officer who has held a couple of posts in military intelligence, and have read existing classified papers on this subject and had imput into some of the newer ones, circa 1992-7. I have said and am saying here as much on this subject as it is legally and morally permissable for me to say without improperly accessing or quoting classified information. I did not make anything whatsoever up in doing so. You are simply 100% wrong on this point.

      2. Doctrine is to assume a decapitation strike when it becomes apparent multiple links in the chain of command are being targeted, and stick to that assumption until it is strongly proven otherwise, because the alternative is to risk so much additional damage, almost any alternative procedure is foolish. The Joint Chiefs at the Pentagon and the Vice President and Secretary of Def. were all then in Washington. (Sec State Powell was in Peru, and communications difficulties made it impossible to determine his status for at least an hour after the first attacks). These constitute all the multiple links needed. Even when it became apparent there were some other facts that suggested this wasn't a decapitation strategy attack, it took some substantial time to build a strong case it wasn't, and particularly to confirm those facts. The system kept working as planned until strong enough disproof was obtainable.

      3. The decision to move the president includes not moving him in such a way that he gets farther from command and control. Doctrine is to move him closer to communications links, so he has more time to make decisions about his options if a launch warning comes, never to move him even temporarily farther away from them until a specific risk assessment is made. Secret service would likely not move him instantaniously, but only after that risk assessment. You seem to be thinking of a risk assesment to the President himself from your last post, but we are in fact talking about a risk assesment to the entire nation. Even the President's own life becomes secondary in such cases.

      4. The president orders the Secret service and Military on the strategic or operations levels. He is usually briefed almost immediately on entering the office on how foolish it would be for him to order them on a tactical level, and guarding and moving him are definitely tactics. This one listened, which was the right thing to do.
      He took charge quickly enough that he spoke to the public from the White House by 8:30 that evening, having determined some time in the first 10 hours after the attack that it was a terrorist action. We don't know for sure how much of that 10 hours was spent on other things than preparing for a speech, but it is worth noting that the Budget amendment to pay 20 Billion for New York City's recovery, and the first airport reopenings, were both done early on the 13th, and much of the 12th and 13th were taken up by the NSA, NSC and Congressional 'council of war' proceedings, so it is at least likely the President did some work on these points the 11th.

      5. Expecting the enemy to use nukes as a necessary part of the decapitation strategy isn't U.S. doctrine. In fact it is considered unlikely, as they make it obvious that a nuclear war is upon us, and Admirals in command of carrier groups gain individual release authority at that time (or they did circa 1994 - I was Army, so I don't keep up with the Navy much), guarenteeing we are likely to at least be able to respond with cruise missle based and sub based nukes. The initial use of non-nuclear methods is therefore considered likely, particularly by a foe that wishes to blunt the seaward leg of the 'nuclear response tripod'.
      The president is routinely briefed and presented with training exercises on such possible decapitation scenarios as a string of individual assassinations, or even a string of what appear at first to be car crashes, medical events, and similar personnel losses. President Bush, like several of his predecessors, often skipped these training scen

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    45. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      YOU DO NOT GET IT

      AT ALL

      JUST GIVE UP AND STOP TYPING

      Oh, and just to make you feel good: I didn't read that post either. Hah! Good job wasting your fucking time and missing the point utterly.

    46. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by n54 · · Score: 1

      I'm for Bush but not a US citizen. I don't agree with every detail of what Bush do, how he and his administration does it, or every part of the Republican party, actually there's plenty I disagree with. It's unnatural to agree a 100% with someone else on everything, do you agree in such a way with John Kerry and the Democrats? (Wow did that sound like a cheesy band name or what? lol "D ).

      I'm not writing this to influence you, vote whatever you think is right, it is your election no matter what a big part of the world would like you to think. I'm writing this as I'm getting fed up with all the rambling about "facist Republicans". Seriously, is the election going to be won on who is best at calling other people facist?

      My reasons, with a hint at underlying reflections and thoughts, and believe me or not I'm being brief:
      0. I support the way GWB handled the time after 9/11. I remember being at work (in Norway) which involved a lot of telephone conversations and when the terrorist attacks happened it all went dead quiet. The following hours, days, then weeks, everybody expected an imminent, brutal, and "reflexive" US retaliation. GWB took his time, he and his administration did not act instinctively but thought it through and even went as far as trying to avoid war by seeking negotiations with the Taliban. But now many people are trying to portray it as the opposite, they lie. I believe the current administration acted much better than one could expect from the Clinton one or anything Gore would be involved with. Kerry? By his own admission he was "paralyzed" longer than Bush, not that it matters really. However I don't think he would have acted like Bush. When it comes to actually using the military most Democrats tend to use it as a very static thing rather than a dynamic tool, a sort of on/off attitude.
      1. I support the war in Afghanistan. It got UN backing even though the UN was irrelevant (every state has the inherent right to defend itself), it got the support since nobody powerful had a vested interest in Afghanistan. The Afghanistan war has been fairly successful but it will take a lot of time before we know if the country will be stable as a democracy: it's much more up to the Afghani people than the US or any other nation. I strongly doubt Clinton, Gore, or Kerry, would have started the long term involvement that the present administration supports. Barring all the nice retoric from Europe most european nations don't contribute as much as they say they will so it was definetly wise not to invlove NATO heavily in the beginning. The same people (here in Norway) that calls GWB a cowboy and tries to portray his actions as such were screaming their heads off against clusterbombs in Afghanistan and wanted to deny the US its right for self defence.
      2. I support the war in Iraq. It didn't get UN backing mostly because many powerful countries had vested interest in Iraq that were contrary to the US aims. Those interests were economical and political. The UN isn't really too relevant here either as Iraq was under obligations by the US victory in the first gulf war, obligations that Iraq broke. Still GWB and his administration did their utmost in getting UN approval. I watched unedited broadcasts from the open parts of the UN security council sessions (on BBC World) as well as GWBs address in the UN. Those that say the US didn't do their utmost for a final UN resolution either have absolutely no clue or are liars. I haven't heard a single good reason not to despose of Saddam Hussein but I did disagree with the focus on WMDs that got exaggerated as an argument (mostly in europe) because WMDs in themselves isn't the issue. That part of the issue is WMD knowledge. Still, politicians need to dumb down the issues to get peoples support so it is understandable. Most people have no idea how hard it is to get resolutions passed in the security council. Contrary to what some like to portray it as Iraq had been on the agenda for over a decade without the security council managing to reach en

      --
      this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
    47. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [warning, kind of off topic; but reply to darth_zeth, somewhat]
      Note that the word "terrorist" is a manufactured word and doesnt stand for a certain kind of people. It just means "one who spreads continuos fear [usually by violence, because easiest]".

      Refrain from saying "Terror" because "Terror" is synonymous with "The Fear Itself"(tm). And one cannot fight that with weapons. Might aswell fight the air that we breathe.

      This is the real danger of terrorists, not the lives they take (this itself is 'bad', but fear is the real danger):

      Here we have a government that actually *adds* to the fear by stinging their own people from time to time (with forged intelligence etc) to make them horrified and psychotic. 'Terror Warning', anyone?
      So the US government are terrorists too now (remember definition). Great. They found each other, it seems. And they dare to call on Patriotism. They dont have a clue about what Patriotism is.

      [doesnt stop here but I dont have to repeat what everyone knows already, do I?]

      This was what I have to say regarding US and Afghanistan and US and Saudi Arabia.

      Now about 'US and Irak'. Your seperation of these topics is somewhat blurred, as if they are somewhat related (although they are not).

      You said 'The Taliban and Saddams Baathists have no right to rule as they did.', yet you assume that 'the government of the US', one of the many countries (having only a few inhabitants), *does* have the right to 'rule' over someone. (yes yes insert hypocricy about 'buut we will leave them alone and set them freee' here - after they are killed and broken, its like breaking a birds neck and then releasing it from its cage. Do you think it will be thankful?)
      Interesting. Someone can butch something as contradictionary as 'As the Strong, I think the US has a certain amount of obligation to the Weak to help them out of oppression.' up to an argument. How did that work?

      I hope we agree that the 'strong' has to *ask* the 'weak' if he actually wants his 'help'.
      1) The US (the government/military) didnt ask the Iraki citizens (I agree that this can be hard to do in a dictatorship)
      2) the Irak told the US anyways, saying "nooo please please dont 'help' us."
      3) the US forced their 'help', making themselves abusers

      This boils down to basically 'As the Strong, I think the US needs to invade every "Weak" country *for their own goood*' (except when it is of certain strategic importance for the US that they are 'allies' for the time being, then they can commit organized homocide and murder all they want)

      And please dont call a nation with people that go crawl under the bed (or worse, shoot around aimlessly) when anyone says "waah! terror alert! duck now! they might be attacking! well maybe not... hmm wait a second... ow yeah... terror alert!...", killing innocent people in their own country (that happen to be from the same race as alleged terrorists), removing justice from equal rule over everyone, violating the human rights charta *although with the support of the citicens themselves* - talk about wicked -, and gives up their own freedom in order for a little temporary safety, 'Strong'. Please. Is there anyone weaker than that?

      ("Rule" here means invading(!) a souveraign(!) country, without even declaring war first, and with the rest of the world thinking it is a bad idea(!), without a plan at all(!!); and for unfounded official reasons, and leaving them in the mess - after building a few pipelines and guarding their oil - from 'terrorists', of course!)
      [be aware that Iraki civilians want the US invaders to leave and do say so. Even though the US is supposed to 'save' Irak, they dont want to be 'saved'. Imagine how confused the US troops are when they come to 'save' a country and are continuously screamed at to turn around and leave by the very inhabitants they were supposed to save ]
      I cant be the only one to see something wrong with that, can I ?

      What would you have done if someone took that as an act of aggr

    48. Re:Well, since I can't get to the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "*sigh*. Oh well I have Karma to burn." So apparently does whoever modded you troll, at least I assume (S)he'll take a hit from m2 when meta'd unfair. I could almost see flaimbait with the 'grow up' part, but that's stretching it.

  36. I went to register: by GillBates0 · · Score: 1

    And all I got was this ugly error message. Reported promptly to developers, though it's likely due to the /. effect.

    Db error #1044 in EIRS

    Error message was:
    Access denied for user: 'vevo4-ro@localhost' to
    database 'advokit'

    SQL was:
    insert into akeir_person (createdon,createdby,lastactivity,username, password,status,firstname,middlenames,lastname,nic kname,address1,address2,city,state_id,postalcode,p h_office,ph_mobile,ph_fax,ph_home,ph_pager,homepag e,email,imid,imtype_id,notes) values (now(),1,now(),'slashdot', '3ba3637e426f7ef4ad70a3600a6f06b3','A', 'slashdot', 'slashdot', 'slashdot','slashdot', '', '', '', NULL, '09832', '213-230-2302', '', '', 'support@slashdot.org', '', NULL, '')

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:I went to register: by cananian · · Score: 1

      [I'm the lead programmer for EIRS.] Where did you find the link you followed? Volunteer sign-up has been turned off on the read-only site which slashdot is currently pointed at... please go to http://electionprotection2004.org to volunteer.

      --
      [ /. is too noisy already -- who needs a .sig? ]
  37. I guess the test was a good idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/

    Could not connect : Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (11)

    If only we were allowed to test the electronic voting machines.

  38. error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could not connect : Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (11)

  39. mysql_error() by AxsDeny · · Score: 1

    On the main page, in the body.

    Could not connect : Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (11)

    --

    zork% mv *.asp /bin/darkroom
    283 files eaten by a grue
  40. I think they have some work to do ... by Dayze!Confused · · Score: 0

    Error: Unable to connect to MySQL server: : '' :Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (11)

    I tried clicking on my home state of Washington. At least it gave me the error fast.

    --
    "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
  41. Online voting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think online voting should be based on the /. poll!

  42. Kevin Shelley by linuxwrangler · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I find it amusing that the quote on the front page is from Kevin Shelley (CA Secretary of State) who is up to his eyeballs in scandals including misappropriation of federal voting money on Democratic consultants, accepting checks in his Sacramento office (a crime in CA), receiving laundered campaign contributions, etc. For the curious, here's just a smattering of the articles about him:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ ch ronicle/archive/2004/09/30/MNG9U91ANA1.DTL
    http:/ /www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ronicle/archive/2004/09/30/BAGPE91B571.DTL
    http:/ /www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ronicle/archive/2004/10/07/EDGII94AG81.DTL
    http:/ /www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ronicle/archive/2004/10/08/BAG4M95J231.DTL
    http:/ /www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ronicle/archive/2004/10/11/MNGID9748P1.DTL
    http:/ /www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ronicle/archive/2004/10/24/BAGML9F94221.DTL
    http: //www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ronicle/archive/2004/10/27/BAGGE9FSN057.DTL

    Seems like they could have picked someone better to quote.

    (My preview is showing odd spaces in the URI - you may have to fix to view the articles)

    --

    ~~~~~~~
    "You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
    1. Re:Kevin Shelley by joebeone · · Score: 1

      You obviously have no idea what Kevin Shelley has done for electronic voting reform in California over the past, say, 18 months... check out some of the stuff here: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/touchscreen.htm

    2. Re:Kevin Shelley by linuxwrangler · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm aware he's "talking the talk" but then turning around and saying that it's fine for Orange County to do everything possible to hide the fact that paper ballots are available. Given all his other shenanigans I don't trust him to walk the walk.

      And it's very unfortunate to have one of the most visible e-voting detractors turn out to probably be a huge crook. Even in the best case that will mean an e-voting critic will be pushed out quite soon. In the worst case his opponents will try to link opposition to e-voting with crooked politicians.

      --

      ~~~~~~~
      "You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
    3. Re:Kevin Shelley by joebeone · · Score: 1

      Those are some good points... I've definitely been frustrated by the level of uncooperation between the SoS and Registrars of Voters. And the funding shenanigans are particularly bad considering it was HAVA money... he's going to have to be a very straight arrow from here on out... and that undoubtedly will affect e-voting reform in CA.

      (I apologize for my initial patronizing tone... looking back over it)

  43. survey says.... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    "Cannot connect to database". You're welcome.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  44. More Kevin Shelley by linuxwrangler · · Score: 3, Informative

    This guy Shelley they quote on their web site, in addition to the dirty dealings mentioned in the other post, is talking a good deal but not really enforcing the paper-ballot-option requirement. From the Mercury News:

    SANTA ANA, Calif. (AP) - The Orange County elections office got the OK from California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley to keep quiet about the availability of paper ballots at polling places.

    All counties using electronic voting are required by Shelley to also provide paper ballots as an alternative to voters who request them. Shelley's office said in a memorandum Tuesday to elections offices that they "must educate voters" about the availability of paper ballots.

    But Orange County was allowed to proceed with plans to offer no signs or vocal notification alerting voters about the availability of paper ballots, Shelley's office said Wednesday.

    By discussing the issue with the Board of Supervisors and the media, Orange County Registrar of Voters Steve Rodermund had met the education requirement, the state said.

    "It sounds like Steve Rodermund has done the minimum that is required," said Tony Miller, special counsel to Shelley. "He has let it be known publicly."

    Registrars in Orange and at least three other counties have directed poll workers not to provide information about the availability of a paper ballot unless asked about it, saying they want to encourage the use of electronic voting.

    --

    ~~~~~~~
    "You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
  45. Database resiliency test #1 by chowdmouse · · Score: 1

    Action: Click on "Take Action Today" today link.

    Result: Returns the error "Cannot connect to database".

    Hmmm....

  46. Re:Please don't vote by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 1

    But the overall message is clear (and laudable): if you don't exercise enough personal responsibility in your everyday life to make efforts to not be an idiot, don't think that you can make up for four years of lazy thinking/living by just going down to the courthouse and punching a button pretty-much at random.

    I prefer the quote "If you aren't going to vote RIGHT, then don't bother to vote at all." (Unfortunately, many people take that statement to be an endorsement of a particular party/candidate rather than an endorsement of a particular way of living. They're usually the ones who wouldn't have voted "right" anyway...)

    --


    This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
  47. EIRS by raolin · · Score: 1

    batting 500 here, EIRS was really slow, but it came up, no such luck for the first link

    --
    "It is sad to see a family torn apart by something as simple as a pack of wild dogs."
    1. Re:EIRS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're milking this for all it's worth to get some free karma then? :)

  48. Third Party Candidates by TrollBridge · · Score: 1

    It's a shame that third party candidates don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. At least you know exactly what they would like to do, because they don't have to hide their agendas behind "moderatism".

    That said, I'm still voting for Badnarik. It's better to vote for a candidate who won't win than to vote for one who would make a lousy president.

    --
    There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
    1. Re:Third Party Candidates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just thought I'd give you a virtual high five for the 3rd party vote. You're not in a swing state, are you? ;)

    2. Re:Third Party Candidates by TrollBridge · · Score: 1

      Actually I just so happen to live in Pennsylvania :)

      --
      There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
  49. Awfully nice of Slashdot by macdaddy · · Score: 0, Troll

    That's awfully nice of the Slashdot editors. Lets Slashdot the living hell out of these important servers at the very point and time they are supposed to be used. Can you be any more inconsiderate? It could only be worse if the Slashdot editor did it on Tuesday! What the hell are they thinking? Are they thinking? I swear I never will understand the thinking of the Slashdot editors, or utter lack thereof. The must get off on DoSing servers.

    1. Re:Awfully nice of Slashdot by itwerx · · Score: 1

      That's awfully nice of the Slashdot editors. Lets Slashdot the living hell out of these important servers at the very point and time they are supposed to be used. Can you be any more inconsiderate?

      Er, I hope that was mean to be funny... :)
      If it wasn't then you might stop and consider the fact that come election day those servers are going to suffer a hell of a lot more than a mere slashdotting!!!
      Personally I'd rather they crash and burn now with a couple days to fix the problems...

    2. Re:Awfully nice of Slashdot by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1

      They actually asked for it, man.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    3. Re:Awfully nice of Slashdot by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      It wasn't meant to be funny at all. I was as serious as I usually am. They posted 7 ( 7!! ) links to the same website, verifiedvoting.org. 7! 2 links to voteprotect.org. And 1 to electionprotection2004.org. That's a helluva lot of links. That's begging for a slashdotting. I wish they'd post that many links to SCO's various websites when they post a SCOX article. You would think that PETC would step in here. (People for the Ethical Treatment of Computers) ;-) Sometimes I kill me. :-) Click away, gents

    4. Re:Awfully nice of Slashdot by macdaddy · · Score: 1
      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

      That's a good question. I'm on the HardOCP team and am #45 of many thousand (I'm not sure what it's up to now). HardOCP appears to have gotten started sooner though (team number 33 as compared to 11326). I wish more people would contribute. This is a much more useful use of CPU cycles that distributed.net IMHO.

      BTW, I was yanking their crank. It never fails, someone else dis's the editor and they get +5000 Funny. I do it and get -USNationalDebt Troll. I guess I just need more practice.

    5. Re:Awfully nice of Slashdot by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      HardOCP has a ton of users, and I am guessing people like to join a winner, so they get even more. That's cool and all. And I could care less if people join other teams, just surprised slashdot had so few.

      Your troll was fine, just too well written. A real rant would have been shorter.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    6. Re:Awfully nice of Slashdot by n54 · · Score: 1

      "Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?"

      I guess because:
      - not everyone feels any need to identify that strongly with slashdot
      - not everyone makes contribution a social thing (i.e. they don't join any teams)
      - there are other grid projects than folding@home

      Nice sig though, the more who contribute to grid projects the better imo. It's all win-win :)

      --
      this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
    7. Re:Awfully nice of Slashdot by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      I agree with everything you're saying. But since slashdot is so big, and biased on these type of things, it was just a statistical anomoly.

      SETI@HOME team was in the thousands i think.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

  50. meltdown by the slashdot effect by Proudrooster · · Score: 1

    The site was extremely slow and when it finally appeared I got this message:

    Could not connect : Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (11)

    Nothing like waiting until a week before the election to test :) However, I guess it's better that waiting until the night before the election or not testing at all.

  51. No, check your facts bud... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NBC never said that the weapons were not there. They are making sure trolls like you know this now - go check it out. The 101st and 3ID never had a mission to search for the weapons - they just used that place as an assembly area before moving on.

    You wish Kerry's October surprise just blew up in his face, the only problem is that your assumptions against him are wrong!

    When they finally did get a chance to look for the explosives there, they were gone. Read this to see how W's FUD machine is trying to spin the blame from W to anyone else...

    1. Re:No, check your facts bud... by bigjnsa500 · · Score: 1

      So if the weapons weren't there, why are they missing? So basically NBC is saying we think something was here, BUSH'S FAULT! BUSH'S FAULT! Without doing deeper into the facts. This is just another CBS style story.

      --
      This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
    2. Re:No, check your facts bud... by bigjnsa500 · · Score: 1

      More facts to comprehend /.'ers:

      For their part Kerry's friends at the NewYorkTimes and CBSNews have tried to do their part. The problem is - the truth is getting out.

      First - yesterday one of the commanders of the 2nd Brigade of the 101st Airborne strongly refuted the claims made by Kerry out on the campaign trail using the flimsy NYTimes piece as cover.

      Second - soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Division AS WELL AS the 101st 2nd Brigade are now on the record stating that they did thorough searches of the Al QaQaa and there were no weapons there.

      Third - By continually making these criticisms Kerry is now trying to parce phrases saying he criticized only the President and not the troops. The troops are the ones who were responsible for guarding any weapons that may have been found and they are now taking Kerry's criticisms personally.

      Fourth - The total amount of the weapons that were even at the facility is now being reported by both ABC News and Fox News ranged from 3 tons to perhaps 158 tons. (Either figure is significantly smaller than the 380 that the NYTimes and John Kerry have been using.)

      Fifth - CBS News has now had to admit that it was in fact planning on releasing this as a hit piece on Sunday night originally. Thus not giving the President or any of his team time to respond.

      Sixth - Two of Kerry's top advisors have had to admit that they in fact DO NOT know what happened.

      Seventh - Bush has responded and is now on the trail letting voters know that John Kerry was willing to use false information, to denigrade the troops, and to manipulate the public - and thus prove Bush's premise that Kerry will say anything to win.

      Eighth - According to Bill Gertz it is now entirely likely that some Russian special ops troops were employed by Saddam to remove this stockpile and other stockpiles in the immediate run up to the invasion.

      Ninth - Our own defense satellite photos show trucks spiriting away large quantities of something in the days before any of our troops arrived.

      Tenth - As of the writing of this entry - Kerry is still repeating the charge of incompetence on the part of our troops and forces.

      --
      This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
    3. Re:No, check your facts bud... by ihaddsl · · Score: 1

      take off your blinders for a minute and reread your own posts.

      The 3rd ID has said there were explosives there, although the ones they found did not have seals on them.

      Kerry has not attacked the troops, but the plan which called for a very small force and a quick strike to baghdad. good for a quick war, but not sufficent to secure all the sites that needed securing. BTW this is not a new argument, in fact there are many, many sites where looters have obtained munitions as there has been no/little security at many sites.

      Yes, there might have been less than 380tons as the facts stand now, but there is still a very significant amount that is unaccounted for.

      I for one want to know the real story. If the facts ultimately vindicate the US commands actions, then that's all the better, however until we know what really happened, it's imperative that we question the appropriate people until the facts are known.

      I do not accept that we should not ask the hard questions when so much is at stake.

    4. Re:No, check your facts bud... by bigjnsa500 · · Score: 1
      What? You didn't read the post. The 3rd ID AND 101st Airborne have gone ON record saying there were no weapons there. Do you know how much that 380 tons comes to in comparision of what we've found and blown up already? 1/16th!! That's right. We've found and blown up over 600,000 TONS. 380 tons is a drop in the bucket.

      I'd like to know the real story behinds Kerry's 4 month tour in Vietnam. I'd like know the story behind his medical records. Stories I'll never know the answer too.

      The questions have already been answered. The stuff wasn't there and was long gone before we even were in the country.

      --
      This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
    5. Re:No, check your facts bud... by ihaddsl · · Score: 1

      The last I've read, and the source for which I've quoted is that the 3rd ID did find explosives, but not sealed explosives, but neither did they do a exhastive search. If you have a source saying otherwise please share it. I'm happy to be proven wrong.

      But again, this is slightly off the main cause of concern for me and others, and why it should be explored. That question is why hadn't any forces been there to do a search and secure anything remaining prior to the discovery that it's all gone?

      And yes, I am aware of the fact that we have secured and destroyed a large amount of munitions, and thats good, but OTOH, there is a lot we have not, and most of that has ended up in the hands of those that oppose us.

      Kerry (and for that matter Bush's) military records have nothing to do with this.

    6. Re:No, check your facts bud... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041028-1 22637-6257r.htm

      http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304&pa ge =1

    7. Re:No, check your facts bud... by ihaddsl · · Score: 1

      the wtimes link is broken, the abc link says essentially the same thing that I quoted earlier.

      that coupled with the new video showing explosives and other ordinance and the case becomes even more compelling

    8. Re:No, check your facts bud... by AdamHaun · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know you're desperate to justify Bush's continued existence, so you probably don't care about evidence, but here's some pictures anyway. Knock yourself out.

      http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

      http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3741.html?cat=1

      --
      Visit the
    9. Re:No, check your facts bud... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How in God's name could anybody have moved that much explosive material AFTER the U.S. invaded Iraq? We OWNED the skies. No way could an 18-wheeler have moved without us knowing about it. And this stuff was not the kind of stuff looters could have carried out on their backs.

      Even sKerry's own campaign officials are shaking their heads wondering how their boss so royally fucked up.

    10. Re:No, check your facts bud... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. Your efforts are appreciated, though I fear that the Kerry buttlickers here won't see the truth.

  52. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  53. Man, I'm beginning to feel so old. by jbarr · · Score: 3, Funny

    Not too long ago, I could just drive to my designated polling place, have them check off my name, vote, and a day or so later, I would read the results in the local paper or watch the results on some "breaking" TV special. Simple and easy.

    Now, I have to read countless Geek and non-geek election and voting guides so that I can come to the realization that the candidate I had chosen long ago is still the one I am actually going to vote for. Then, I'll have to file appropriate paperwork for a "conditional ballot" should I decide that my designated polling place is "not convenient" for me. Then, once at the polling place, I'll have to dodge international election monitors, and dodge partisan bullies just to get into the polling place. Then, I have to hope that my votor registration has been logged properly so that I can vote. Once on the voting booth, I then will have to thoroughly discriminate the voting process to ensure that the new e-voting machine actually works and make sure a paper copy prints so that the inevitable recounts can be handled properly. Then, when I get home, I have to monitor the countless state-by-state and county-by-county real-time returns, monitor countless voting fraud sites, all the while filtering out sincere, yet consistently contradictory election commentary on main-stream media outlets.

    Oh wait. I forgot. I live in South Carolina where President Bush is already locked in as the winner, so would I be better off just staying at home? Besides, some county in Florida will be deciding the election outcome anyway, right?

    Time to shut off the PC and go Outside(TM) for a nice walk.

    --
    My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
    1. Re:Man, I'm beginning to feel so old. by mlippert · · Score: 4, Informative
      Oh wait. I forgot. I live in South Carolina where President Bush is already locked in as the winner, so would I be better off just staying at home?

      Even if you are voting contrary to your state majority, you should still vote.

      Why?

      Because you know they are going to count the popular vote anyway, and if once again a candidate wins the electoral college and the presidency, but loses the popular vote, it is that much more impetus to finally change that system.

      Mike

    2. Re:Man, I'm beginning to feel so old. by jdaily · · Score: 1

      ...if once again a candidate wins the electoral college and the presidency, but loses the popular vote, it is that much more impetus to finally change that system.

      Dear lord, no. If we eliminate the electoral college, a statistical tie would probably mean a national recount. You think the court wranglings over the Florida recount were painful?

      Besides, a WV elector has already expressed his uneasiness about voting for Bush even if his state goes for him; that's exactly why we have the electoral college: to allow sober, thoughful citizens to provide some sanity to the election process if the popular vote goes awry.

    3. Re:Man, I'm beginning to feel so old. by fafalone · · Score: 1

      Or you can vote for a 3rd party, because the goal there is simply a relatively small percent of the popular vote to be eligible for certain benefits the major parties have next election cycle.

    4. Re:Man, I'm beginning to feel so old. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you live in S. Carolina and you think your vote for president is wasted, that's still no excuse for staying home. The S. Carolina senate race is dead even and it's critically important.

  54. Encryption Necessary by cybermage · · Score: 1

    After crawling through the public interface to EIRS, I noticed this bit:

    https://voteprotect.org/

    Is it really necessary to encrypt the public side of this tool? Or any of it for that matter? You could be beating your CPU senseless for no good reason. Try just encrypting the sensitive stuff.

    1. Re:Encryption Necessary by cananian · · Score: 1

      SSL does not appear to be the performance-limiting factor. And until IPSec is available, it seems like a prudent precaution.

      --
      [ /. is too noisy already -- who needs a .sig? ]
    2. Re:Encryption Necessary by dougnaka · · Score: 1
      In these days of fast cpu's I'd rather every site use all SSL with self signed certs than non ssl..

      don't tell the man

      --
      My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
  55. "engineered" by amateur boneheads by Tassach · · Score: 1
    Who are the clowns who designed this thing? Several incredibly obvious security problems here:
    1. You NEVER spit a raw error message back to an untrusted user, you write it to a (protected) log file. You're leaking information that an attacker can use to compromise the system. The user doesn't need that information, the developer does.
    2. You NEVER give an untrusted user permission to run arbitrary ad-hoc SQL statements against your database -- that's what Stored Procedures are for. If only know how to use a toy database which doesn't support stored procedures then you have no business whatsoever building trustworthy Enterprise applications.
    3. You NEVER put your database server and your web server on the same box in a production enviornment. That's just incredibly stupid in terms of both security and scalability.
    Do yourself a favor and hire a real systems engineer with real-world experience designing secure, scalable, and reliable mission-critical systems; not some pathetic geek clown who "knows" php + mysql from putting together his 20-hit-per-day Blog server.
    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    1. Re:"engineered" by amateur boneheads by cananian · · Score: 1

      We'd love your help, if you're volunteering.

      For what it's worth, the EIRS site is run on separate web and database servers, does not give users the ability to run SQL statements, and the error reporting is a conscious choice on my part because I'd like to find errors sooner rather than later.

      I can't speak for anything except voteprotect.org, which does seem to be still up.

      --
      [ /. is too noisy already -- who needs a .sig? ]
    2. Re:"engineered" by amateur boneheads by skratchpad · · Score: 1

      Hire this guy. Awhile back there was a /. article that linked to one of his sites. It survived just fine.

      Dude really knows his stuff...

    3. Re:"engineered" by amateur boneheads by Tassach · · Score: 1
      I'd love to help, unfortunately my wife roped me into doing some programming for her spiritual group, so I have ZERO spare time at the moment. I'm so over-committed it's not even funny.

      I assumed from the user@localhost in the error message that the DB was running on the same box as the web server. I assumed... my mistake

      While you may not INTENTIONALLY give users the capability to run ad-hoc SQL, you've UNINTENTIONALLY done just that. The design you're using is (at least potentially) vulnerable to a SQL injection attack. An attacker who compromized the web server or found an exploitable bug in one of your forms would then have full control over the database server as well. The reason for using stored procedures is that this give you an additional access control mechanism to the database. SPs also give you the ability to control access at the row level, whereas native SQL security only lets you controll access at the table or column level.

      In a safe design, the webuser db account does not have any select/insert/update/delete permissions on any of the tables directly - all they have is execute permission on the minimal set of stored procedures they need to use the system. This is known as the principle of least privilidge, a basic tenet of secure design.

      Stored procedures (at least in Transact-SQL) work along the same basic lines as SUID scripts in Unix -- they run with the rights of their owner, not the executing user's rights. This way a user can perform operations against the database that they otherwise wouldn't have permission to do. This ensures that even if an attacker is able to mount a SQL injection attack, they won't have permission to do anything to the database that they wouldn't be able to do using the authorized interface.

      I can see your point about error reporting, however, you need to be aware that it's a security hole. The posted error gives me enough information to plan a SQL injection attack against your system. Also, from a usability standpoint this kind of error reporting sucks -- that message is going to look like gibberish to a non-programmer. The end user needs error messages he can understand. You should by all means write that message to a log file, but don't show it to the user!

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  56. MySQL error by Uzik2 · · Score: 1

    Could not connect : Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (11)

    --
    -- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
  57. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  58. new uses for slashdot... by fedork · · Score: 1

    slashdot as free load testing utility

    --
    ...remember good 'ol times when IP used to mean Internet Protocol....
  59. There is no alternative to trusting Diebold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If 90% of the votes are untrustworthy then it doesn't matter how accurately the other 10% are being counted.

    Hell, in the closest swing states, if 10% of the votes are untrustworthy then it doesn't matter how accurately the other 90% are being counted.

  60. Verification by 4of12 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've noticed that technology exists already for anonymous verification of lottery tickets and gambling bets by the bearer. An optically read hash of the transaction is printed and saved by the issuer and can be verified at any network location.

    It should be possible for some of the same technologies to be applied to voting. AFAICT, the big hangup is limiting the paper to official boxes and official terminals to discourage vote selling where a person could produce a ticket and collect $10, a bottle of whiskey, or whatever for voting a verifiable ticket.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  61. Privacy policy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Privacy Statement link points to a non-existent page on another site :)

    Nice...

  62. Not for CT or MD voters by OECD · · Score: 1

    Nice idea, but doesn't seem to work for Connecticut or Maryland (the two I tried.)

    --
    One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
  63. SQL Injection Vulnerability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you go to "edit preferences" and log in, your username is sent to SQL server without being escaped. So if you enter a username with an apostrophe and a semicolon, you can send commands directly to the server.

  64. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  65. This does what? by zahl2 · · Score: 1

    So what is this site supposed to do?

    1. Re:This does what? by cananian · · Score: 4, Informative
      The Election Incident Reporting System (EIRS) is an integrated set of tools to assist Election Protection Organizations and their members in carrying out a number of activities, including:
      • Collect background and testing information from state & local election officials
      • Compile and track election irregularity data before, during, and after election day
      • Organize and manage teams of people and tasks
      • Dispatch attorneys and technologists rapidly to resolve election day incidents at voting places
      • Provide an on-line collaborative environment for rapid communication among advocates, attorneys, technologists, election officials, media professionals, and others
      • Support subsequent research for election policy-making
      Most of the features are for internal use. But the most visible public feature is the Real-time map of election incidents which is updated within seconds as incidents come into the 1-866-OUR-VOTE hotline. Reported incidents are acted on by our lawyer and techie volunteers, to correct those issues which can be corrected and prevent voters from being disenfranchised.

      [I'm the lead coder for EIRS, fwiw.]

      --
      [ /. is too noisy already -- who needs a .sig? ]
  66. Last minute news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Suppose I dropped of my early ballot yesterday.

    Today I learn the Canidate A for the State House is implicated in a scandal. Canidate G for corporation commission is getting "legal" contributions from the electric utility. It's discovered that Canidate Q for local school board is on the teacher's union board of directors. And, presidential Canidate ? actuall voted for something I don't support.

    Now, how do I change my vote?

    I have seen too many elections, especially local ones, where important negative or positive details did not come out until the last, high pressure days before the election. I'd rather wait to get all the information possible before I make my choice.

    (From Arizona, where we have early voting.)

    1. Re:Last minute news! by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      The same thought has crossed my mind. But with pressures to win, I really doubt most of those 'latebreaking' incriminating stories are actually true.

      Besides, Candidate Q could do something bad 2 days after being elected, and no one could change their vote then.

      Voting early for your candidate helps the early-day polls. And as you know, people like to vote for a winner. People are encouraged to vote early for this reason.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    2. Re:Last minute news! by realdpk · · Score: 1

      They won't let news like that get out until after November 2nd anyways. Same problem, just a different day.

  67. Yes, by igzat · · Score: 1

    but how crash proof is the system? And does it leave a paper trail?? That's what I want to know.

  68. Real time EIRS incident maps. by cananian · · Score: 2, Informative
    A real-time incident report map is part of EIRS; follow the 'Research' link from the home page.

    https://voteprotect.org/?display=EIRMapNation

    The 1-866-OUR-VOTE election hotline is open today, so you can watch incidents come into the system in real time. This system will be used on election day to dispatch lawyers and techies to trouble spots in real time. Go to http://electionprotection2004.org or send mail to volunteer@verifiedvoting.org to volunteer.

    [I am the lead programmer for EIRS.]

    --
    [ /. is too noisy already -- who needs a .sig? ]
    1. Re:Real time EIRS incident maps. by praxis · · Score: 1

      I have two questions:

      1) How are "voter wanted to know contact information for county clerks office" an "incident?" Was he denied the information?

      2) How are calls to verify one is registered in King County, WA related to the Florida Primary?

    2. Re:Real time EIRS incident maps. by cananian · · Score: 1

      Every call received by the 866-OUR-VOTE is recorded in the system; I'll admit that our classification system does not always adequately distinguish between *inquiries* and *incidents*. This is partly by design: the first called who wants to know where the county clerk's office is, is an inquiry, but if 100 people call then there's probably something going on that bears inquiry.

      The 'Florida Incident' filter shows the calls received during the hours the Florida primary hotline was in operation. Washington state's primary election is held on September 14, so there were some calls received regarding that (and other late primaries) on the day of the Florida primary (August 31).

      --
      [ /. is too noisy already -- who needs a .sig? ]
    3. Re:Real time EIRS incident maps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually admit the real purpose behind the system. The real purpose is if Bush wins, you will cry out that "our sytem logged 18,299 incidents!" which the media will be glad to report in order to cast doubt on the real outcome of the election. If Kerry wins I am sure we will hear nothing about these "incidents". Am I right?

  69. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  70. Re:Why not blame the IAEA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not blame the IAEA for securing or destroying the material?

    I don't know. I certainly blame them for that trendy furniture that people keep buying.

  71. I went to: by GillBates0 · · Score: 1
    https://voteprotect.org/ and typed in a random login/password, which redirected me to https://voteprotect.org/index.php?display=EIRAddUs er after I clicked on the "Volunteer Now!" link.

    This info incase you need it for debugging/etc...Thanks for the other link.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:I went to: by cananian · · Score: 1

      Ah, thanks; I did miss that one.

      Feel free to email me tomorrow if you don't get prompt responses from the other methods. We can definitely still use techie volunteers!

      [email available from my home page.]

      --
      [ /. is too noisy already -- who needs a .sig? ]
  72. EIRS by cananian · · Score: 4, Informative

    [I'm the lead programmer for EIRS.]

    The EIRS site seems to be holding up fine for me, with a surprisingly modest hardware investment.

    Yes, there are a lot of things I would structure differently if I were coding this from scratch -- but that's not how the Real World operates. This site was developed primarily by a single developer (me) over a period of a few months. I didn't have the luxury of starting with a clean slate; I had to build on existing tools.

    Furthermore, with no budget (because this is a non-profit) hardware is *always* difficult to come by. I would have liked to roll out a lot more machines, but it was not to be.

    The current EIRS site is two web front ends talking to a single database machine. And it's currently quite usable for me, at least.

    [Although I'm noticing that DNS seems to be very slow -- unfortunately that's out of my control.]

    Feel free to disabuse me of my naivete. And check out https://voteprotect.org/?display=EIRMapNation while you're at it -- this is a real-time map being filled with incidents being reported at the 1-866-OUR-VOTE hotline (remember that number, if you need it on election day!). The core of EIRS is the ability to respond in real time to reported incidents and dispatch lawyers and technologists.

    And, yes, the machines serving the hotlines are entirely distinct from the ones which slashdot is digilently trying to take down.

    --
    [ /. is too noisy already -- who needs a .sig? ]
  73. what was that about the missing explosives? by artifex2004 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Might want to take a peek here and see how it fits in with what you say.

  74. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  75. Who's this Chad guy? by vanourek · · Score: 1

    Does this mean I won't be able to trick sexy poll workers into examining my HANGING chad?

    Seriously though, I swear that pregnant chad aint mine !

  76. Another site for all states by baba · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's another site that works for all states:

    vote-smart

    A lot of information here about candidates for both state and federal offices, including finances, voting records, and interest group ratings. Unfortunately they don't have information about state/county/city level propositions.

  77. Just visted the link, and now I'm laughing scared. by DigitalEntropy · · Score: 1

    Looks like [paste your favorite conspiracy perps here] finally got to intelligent voting. I just visited the site to RTFA and got 'Cannot connect to database'. My personal guess is that Ashcroft hired web-monkeys to overload their MySQL database.

    oh shit...

    Nevermind. I just realized that advancement of voting integrity cannot possibly withstand the movement of masses from /. After 15 reloads, the page finally came up.

    --

    Thank you for reading One Man's Opinion. No participation necessary. Offer void where deemed by law or PATRIOT Act.
  78. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  79. Some people like the 3rd party candidates by lakeland · · Score: 1

    I think you'll find that all of the 3rd party candidates have a dedicated following that genuinely like their candidate.

    However, part of appealing sufficiently to the masses means you lose the real loyalty that makes people really like you.

    Until America changes its voting system from FPP to something decent, that won't change.

    1. Re:Some people like the 3rd party candidates by siriuskase · · Score: 1

      A negative compaign strategy doesn't work as well if you have more than one target. Voting for a third party candidate is an effective way to encourage postive compaign strategies. When you sling mud at multiple targets, you tend to look kinda dirty yourself.

      There is probably a signficant portion of the masses that stays home rather than waste their vote on a candidate that has little chance of winning. Others will go to the polls and vote for a candidate they don't particularly like. The votes of these people would be better put to use voting for third party candidates, even if they don't particulaly like them, because having more than two visible candidates will eliminate much of the mudslinging.

      I hope that was clear, it requires a little stratigic thinking beyond simply voting for the guy you like. When the guy you like isn't an option, you should figure out something good to do with your vote other than voting for more of the same.

      --
      If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
  80. "Cannot connect to database" o/t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How should these guys be able to manage the the U.S. voters? Although only about 50% who have the right actually exercise it, there are still more voters than /.'ers. ;)

  81. Verified Voting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could not connect : Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (11)

    Does not look good :(

  82. Fascinating.... by zahl2 · · Score: 1

    Is that election incident map for this election? And live?

    Do you have a version of it normed for incidents per population? Otherwise, I would expect the populus states to have the most incidents...

    1. Re:Fascinating.... by cananian · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, and yes.

      However, we don't have it normed per population. We discussed a number of such display options, but time didn't really permit their implementation.

      What is really wanted is some metric for the # of people affected by each incident (rather than having all incidents count the same). But the reporters were very inaccurate in their estimates of this.

      --
      [ /. is too noisy already -- who needs a .sig? ]
  83. what did it say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The message seems to be gone at the moment.

  84. Nove 2 - we're in for a wild ride! by WomensHealth · · Score: 1
    Before last year's election, I happily, ignorantly assumed that our election process was about as fair and unsullied as could be. Sure, there were stories of vote-selling here and there, especially in the South (I'm a GA native), but most of that was assumed to have taken place in the past, and the effect of any isolated fraud was imagined to be negligible.

    Since the last election, we no longer assume that the election process is infallible. Already, we're hearing stories of falsified registrations and registrations being destroyed. I'm guessing that starting around mid-day on Nov. 2 we'll begin hearing about proposed legal challenges to district election results. Not just a few, but hundreds. By Nov 7, the whole situation will be hopelessley confused, with legions of lawyers working to resolve irregularities and simultaneously raising new challenges to whatever result has been handed us.

    For my part, living in IL, I'll cast my vote for W, not because I don't think that he's a moron, but rather because, after weeks of deliberation, I cannot, as an OB/Gyn practicing in a doctor-unfriendly state, cast a ballot in favor a ticket which includes a personal injury lawyer who made his fortune exploiting my profession.

    Of course, IL will be won by Kerry, so the only reason for me or any other Illini to go to the polls is for the sake of participating.

    All's I'm saying is, whether you're following Iraq or Scott Peterson or football or whatever, get ready to refocus on the post-election debacle, as it promises to be a good show indeed.

    1. Re:Nove 2 - we're in for a wild ride! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a doctor-unfriendly state"
      "lawyer who made his fortune exploiting my profession"

      You really believe those ads, don't you? (I see 'em too, as an IL resident)
      And what the corporate media says? I hope not.

      Put a bit of time into researching Edwards's actual record as a lawyer.
      I think you'll find you're grossly misinformed, sorry to say.
      As for IL being doctor-unfriendly, I've not the time to argue against a narrative even some Democrats are following, even though it's false,
      but I propose we "fix" it as Texas did, so that patients pay just as much, and many doctors are hardly penalized for true malpractice. Yay, we all win ... except the dead and injured, uncompensated victims and families, I suppose. Yay!

    2. Re:Nove 2 - we're in for a wild ride! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > OB/Gyn practicing in a doctor-unfriendly state, cast a ballot in favor a ticket which includes a personal injury lawyer who made his fortune exploiting my profession.

      This statement makes no sense. Actually look at John Edwards' record without spouting what you were told to believe by television. Honestly people, it seems we Americans now deserve a hundred years of poverty.

    3. Re:Nove 2 - we're in for a wild ride! by faring · · Score: 1
      For my part, living in IL, I'll cast my vote for W, not because I don't think that he's a moron, but rather because, after weeks of deliberation, I cannot, as an OB/Gyn practicing in a doctor-unfriendly state, cast a ballot in favor a ticket which includes a personal injury lawyer who made his fortune exploiting my profession.

      You do realize that you have more than two choices, right?

  85. I like... by Laebshade · · Score: 1

    Badnarik, so I'm voting for him.

  86. 100,000 deaths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're on the right track, but the numbers are far, far worse than most people can comprehend.

  87. Secretary of State by Richard+M.+Nixon · · Score: 1
    I find it amusing that the quote on the front page is from Kevin Shelley (CA Secretary of State) who is up to his eyeballs in scandals....

    Well, for one thing, I think that the state Secretary of State is the finally authority in elections in any particular state. At least it is in the state I live in. So that does make him an authority on election matters. That's probably why they quoted him.

    Furthermore, lets look at that quote:
    "The core of our American democracy is the right to vote. Implicit in that right is the notion that that vote be private, that vote be secure, and that vote be counted as it was intended when it was cast by the voter. And I think what we're encountering is a pivotal moment in our democracy where all of that is being called into question."
    This seems like a true statement no matter who said it.

    And I remember hearing that all this stuff started coming up when he started taking action against the electronic voting machines.

    And lets face it, nearly all politicians are scumbags.
    They usually ignore each others indiscretions.
    One hand washes the other and all that.
    --
    Nobody died when Nixon lied.
    I'm meeting you half way you stupid hippies!
  88. hehe, good analogy by adpowers · · Score: 1

    Haha, that is one of the better analogies I've heard about the war in Iraq. Too bad I don't have mod points.

  89. Vote early and vote often by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I voted early last week. Why would you risk waiting until the last second to vote?
    There's a joke in Australia - "Vote early and vote often", born out of electoral corruption in a the past. It remains just a joke since the elections are organised by a central federal body and incidents of election fraud have been diminishing over the years - and the elections all happen on single days. Those that can't vote in their electorate put in absentee votes, and those that can't get to a polling booth at all that day put in postal votes. All very simple, and it has to be, since every adult votes.

    The more I hear about the wide range of US systems the worse they look. Voting is already happening and it is October? Polling booths didn't have paper copies of the electoral roll for the area - have to ring the state capital? You get a choice of paper or sometime punch cards or touchscreens or somthing that looks like a poker machine? Get your shit together guys, it looks like it did need the supreme court to sort things out. People will pretend to be dead people and vote, or will vote multiple times since you have such a long timespan - and you need to be organised to deal with things like that.

    After 2000 you would think prototype voting machines and other weirdness would be banned from the process. I bet the stupid punch card system that became an international laughing stock is still in use. You don't replace pen and paper just for the sake of it - you should only do it if the system is an improvement. Labour costs are not an issue in elections, since it is easy to get an enormous workforce on the day for trivial amounts - and the consequences of failure (very expensive court cases) are such that a few extra people makes sense.

    So why do I care? Australia is a client state, run by a man called by your presisdent "the man of steel (that he can sell to the USA in eighteen years time under the terms of the free trade agreement). We don't want Australia dictated to by another Nixon, so we want to see a clean election over there without a hint of criminal activity.

  90. Can't we do better. by opencity · · Score: 1

    The site doesn't work. As this is /., can't we do better? If not for this election, something encrypted and p2p for 2006?

    --
    Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
  91. welcome to the no fly list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this guy has managed to do is get himself listed on a no fly list (with Ted Kennedy) by March. Personally, I'm going to reregister Republican and join a Protestant church in the hopes of being able to visit my mother after the next 'terrorist' attack.

    First they came for the liberals ...

  92. Also from VerifiedVoting.org by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    Stories from the future..

    November 1, 2004
    Time Magazine Covers Verified Voting and TechWatch Program

  93. Slashdot help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However, we could still use the help of the slashdot community, and all you have to do is click:



    www.johnkerry.com - Let's bring it down!


  94. Re:Please don't vote by Sein · · Score: 1

    Looks fair, at face value. But I wonder if his goal wouldn't be better served by pushing for the electoral college doing their original job and picking a president on the strength of their presumed more informed opinion.

    'Course, then you get into a whole other issue, about how democratic that really is. But then, he's already established that he's not very concerned about that part of the process, right?

  95. Voting and citizenship by Presidential · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is a fallacy to assume you have the right not to vote.

    Voting should be mandatory for every single tax paying citizen. Refusing to vote ought to carry the same criminal penalties as refusing to pay your taxes.

    Our current culture is such that we believe we have these 'rights' to do pretty much anything we wish. To a certain degree, that will always be true. However, the consequences of these actions must be taken into consideration.

    There is a definite, measurable consequence to refusing to vote. Even if a voter despises both (or all three, five, ten, etc.) candidates, they are morally bound to say "I choose no one" and have that voice count as well.

    If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

    Regardless of your belief that our country is a democracy or republic by definition, it is imperative that each citizen who pays taxes must also record their choices during each election.

    Perhaps if we made it a game, to capture the attention of all voters. You get a point for each election you vote in. After you get, say, 10 points, you are entitled to a double vote at the next scheduled election.

    Oh, and to the poster who commented that he cannot find his voting precinct in Texas: all county courthouses are participating in early voting. You do NOT need to find your Election Day voting location if you choose to go cast your ballot early. I live in Williamson County and voted yesterday. It took, including parking, all of 10 minutes.

    --Disgruntled Citizen

    --
    Whenever Mrs. Fitch breaks wind, we beat the dog.
  96. Re:Please don't vote by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 1

    Well, I don't know if I'd say that -- I mean, how "democratic" (or, maybe more to-the-point, "fair"...dang but I hate to invoke the f-word!) is it for you and me to expend the effort to look into the candidates' strengths and weaknesses (and those of their views/plans...or at least their promises) and, after careful and responsible evaluation make an informed choice, but some schmuck with less responsibility than a field mouse gets to cast an equally-effective vote? It seems almost like if you went to college for four to six years (and work extra hard to pay your way through a "good" one rather than a "bad" one), get good marks and take extra classes, etc. to make sure you're entitled to your degree and the job(s) the highschool "Career Day" counselor promised (heh heh), then the big interview with Acme Corp. comes up and the personnel manager says "Well, to be fair I have to let you know there are other applicants than you for this job -- one of whom has no training OR experience OR initiative OR ambition -- I'll be flipping my coin to decide who gets the position this afternoon and my secretary'll let you know on Monday. Have a nice weekend!"

    At this point, I think I'd happily settle for knowing that my vote did "count" for an equal portion of the overall electoral "power" wielded by the entire populace - as it is right now my state (Tennessee) has 11 "electoral votes" and (for instance) California has 55. The way I see it, that makes my single vote worth about 1/5th of what a vote by a Californian's counts (partly because the electoral votes are divvied-out based on population rather than registration; all a state has to do to get a big hunk of electoral power is to have a lot of people living there, whether or not ANY of them actually vote. In other words, if each and every Tennessean voted, we'd all be fighting over those 11 electoral votes, but if only ONE Californian voted he'd be, single-handedly, exercising MILLIONS of times more influence over the election than any of us. That's certainly a far-fetched example but I frequently find it entertaining, if not always particularly enlightening, to exaggerate a problem to ridiculous proportions in order to illustrate it's weaknesses -- a sort of "philosophy by caricaturization".)

    --


    This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
  97. Ad hominim.. by Tassach · · Score: 1

    OH, BTW, I'm sorry for calling you a bonehead. I was grumpy when I wrote my original message. Please accept my appologies for the unwarranted slur.

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  98. Simple answer by learn+fast · · Score: 1
    The answer is really quite simple:

    Bush voters have been misled from what Bush's actual positions are. According to polls, Bush voters have no idea what Bush actually stands for (and the same is not true of Kerry voters). Don't believe me? Click on the link. Here's an excerpt:

    72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

    Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission.