Slashdot Mirror


Does Redskins Loss Presage A Kerry Win?

Puny Human Nick writes "As mentioned before, the last home game the Redskins play before the election has predicted who will win since 1944. Well, the Redskins v. Green Bay game ended a few hours ago and it looks as though Kerry is going to win on Tuesday."

1,343 comments

  1. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Redskins suffered a bad call with 2:35 when they were about to tie the game. If Kerry does win, this must mean he does it unfairly.

    1. Re:No by modernbob · · Score: 5, Funny

      oh yah, you must mean like Bush did in 2000. :-)

    2. Re:No by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 5, Funny

      Must've been keeping score on Diebold equipment.

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
    3. Re:No by Fiz+Ocelot · · Score: 5, Funny

      That just means we're going to need several replays...er recounts to determine the winner.

    4. Re:No by Daimaou · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No it wasn't. The Florida votes were tallied several times and not one of those times did Algore come out on top (in spite of his attempts to bring focus to "dimpled chads").

      Thus, Bush won fair and square.

    5. Re:No by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Was there anything like that in the 2000 Redskins game? I mentioned this little statistical quirk to a friend today, a Packers fan, and she asked what last year's game predicted. That is, depending on how you look at it, both Gore and Bush won...

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    6. Re:No by tonsofpcs · · Score: 1, Interesting

      They never counted the undecisive votes.

    7. Re:No by cshark · · Score: 1

      It also depends on who is viewed as the incumbant. Since Bush stole the last election, the red skins might be representing Gore, the democrats, and Kerry. In that case, Bush wins. But, last time the game pointed to a Bush victory, which would indicate that it isn't the case. My bet, assuming this has any credence (and if it does, I have bigger worries), Kerry wins. Thank god. I don't care if he wins fairly. We need to get this country out of the Bushes while we still have a progressive democracy.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    8. Re:No by ericdano · · Score: 1

      Exactly. They totally should have won. That call was not right.

      --
      It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
      I moderate therefore I rule!
      --
    9. Re:No by DjMd · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and all those elderly jewsh people ment to vote for Buchanan.
      from wikipedia
      The Palm Beach Post's review of the discarded ballots showed that 5,330 votes were cast for the presumably rare cross-party combination of Gore and Buchanan, compared with only 1,631 for the equivalent cross-party combination of Bush and Buchanan.

      Although Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said on November 9, 2000, "Palm Beach County is a Pat Buchanan stronghold and that's why Pat Buchanan received 3,407 votes there", Buchanan's Florida coordinator, Jim McConnell, responded, "That's nonsense", and Jim Cunningham, chairman of the executive committee of Palm Beach County's Reform Party, responded, "I don't think so. Not from where I'm sitting and what I'm looking at." Cunningham estimated the number of Buchanan supporters in Palm Beach County to be between 400 and 500. Asked how many votes he would guess Buchanan legitimately received in Palm Beach County, he said, "I think 1,000 would be generous. Do I believe that these people inadvertently cast their votes for Pat Buchanan? Yes, I do. We have to believe that based on the vote totals elsewhere."

      --
      DJMD - The fourth man - Planetary
    10. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually they did...
      A couple of times too :P
      They all said Bush

    11. Re:No by DjMd · · Score: 1

      More from wikipedia
      Candidate Outcomes Based on Potential Recounts in Florida Presidential Election 2000 (outcome of one particular study; not representative of all studies) Review Method Winner Review of All Ballots Statewide (Never Undertaken) Standard as set by each county Canvassing Board during their survey Gore by 171
      Fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots Gore by 115
      Any dimples or optical mark Gore by 107
      One corner of chad detached or optical mark Gore by 60
      Review of Limited Sets of Ballots (Initiated But Never Completed) Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and Volusia counties Bush by 225
      Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide Bush by 430
      Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes Bush by 493
      Certified Result (Official Final Count) Recounts included from Volusia and Broward only Bush by 537

      --
      DJMD - The fourth man - Planetary
    12. Re:No by haus · · Score: 5, Informative

      I am sorry, you have scored an incorrect answer. The real answer, which has been report to several times, but amazingly is ignored by people such as yourself is that Gore won the election in Florida. When the state wide recount was completed Gore simply had more votes that Bush.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOT E. html

      I now return you to your normal delusion.

    13. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some people just can't read the news or the published documentation.

    14. Re:No by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      How the hell do you count them? You would have to get Ms Cleo to come in and read the mind of the person who cast the ballot without clearly marking a presidential choice. Basic rules of voting are: if you don't cast a vote, your vote is not counted. I don't see any way around that.

    15. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The Redskins suffered a bad call with 2:35 when they were about to tie the game. If Kerry does win, this must mean he does it unfairly.
      I guess this would be in stark contrast to the "complete and transparent fairness" in the 2000 elections.
    16. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are confused. Al Gore never came close to winning in ANY of the recounts. Also, the Democrats were throwing out conservative votes that they didn't like. Funny how that works, huh?

    17. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Not much one for reading your own links, are you?

      A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

    18. Re:No by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Two wrongs don't make a right, you know.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    19. Re:No by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      Only on Slashdot would facts be called "Flamebait"

    20. Re:No by tonsofpcs · · Score: 3, Informative

      Undecisive votes are votes like absentee ballots and possible rejected cards from automatic counting machines. These are only counted usually if the #2 person's decisive votes + all the indecisive votes is greater than or equal to the #1 person's.

    21. Re:No by Sahib! · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I wish I had mod points, if only for that .sig!



      rectal rebuilding, ... and of course, moose bumbs.

      --

      I prayed about it, and God said, "Don't do it!" But I thought, "I know better."

    22. Re:No by PureCreditor · · Score: 1

      Ironically, diebold also manufactures ATM machines used in major US banks, and so far, we've heard few complains. why can't they duplicate that logic when creating e-voting machines ???

    23. Re:No by einhverfr · · Score: 2

      Fortunately, what stands between the American People and fascism are the courts. We can survive 4 more years if W doesn't stuff the court with people who will roll over and suspend Habeas, etc. whenever he uses the T word.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    24. Re:No by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      'Florida 2000' is precisely the kind of 'information' that Wikipedia is least credible with.

      The truth isn't a shouting match.

    25. Re:No by dondelelcaro · · Score: 2, Informative
      Which is then followed a few paragraphs later by:
      But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots.
      Thus, if Gore had won the Supreme Court decision, he still would have lost. However, if 175k rejected ballots had been reinvestigated, it's likely that he would have won.

      The ruling on the field stands.
      --
      http://www.donarmstrong.com
    26. Re:No by ignorant_newbie · · Score: 0, Redundant

      >what last year's game predicted. That is, >depending on how you look at it, both Gore and >Bush won

      um... there was no presidential election last year, so ...

    27. Re:No by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Two wrongs could spur reform though.

    28. Re:No by shoolz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And even further down the article is this...

      In a finding rich with irony, the results show that even if Mr. Gore had succeeded in his effort to force recounts of undervotes in the four Democratic counties, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and Volusia, he still would have lost, although by 225 votes rather than 537

      Please, somebody with mod points please mod the parent down... do not waste your mod points on me.

    29. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do rejected votes matter? Those votes are from morons who can't figure out how to punch a hole in a card... or the core of the Democratic party.

    30. Re:No by schmink182 · · Score: 1

      Never came close to winning?!?! With 5,962,657 votes cast in Florida, the final count had Al Gore losing by 537 votes. That is less than 1/10,000th of the votes. How is this not close?

    31. Re:No by haus · · Score: 4, Informative
      I know that going to page two of a story is such a challage, so I thought that I would help you out.
      Using the most restrictive standard -- the fully punched ballot card -- 5,252 new votes would have been added to the Florida total, producing a net gain of 652 votes for Mr. Gore, and a 115-vote victory margin.
      All the other combinations likewise produced additional votes for Mr. Gore, giving him a slight margin over Mr. Bush, when at least two of the three coders agreed.
    32. Re:No by iMaple · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ironically, diebold also manufactures ATM machines used in major US banks, and so far, we've heard few complains. why can't they duplicate that logic when creating e-voting machines ???

      So that the people with the largest bank balances get the most out of the machines

    33. Re:No by dondelelcaro · · Score: 1
      Perhaps a more careful reading of what I actually said is in order:
      Thus, if Gore had won the Supreme Court decision, he still would have lost.
      Compared to what the article says:
      the results show that even if Mr. Gore had succeeded in his effort [...] he still would have lost
      Note the similarities? Yes. We are indeed saying exactly the same thing.
      --
      http://www.donarmstrong.com
    34. Re:No by OakLEE · · Score: 1

      Gore "might have won." The Times is by no means saying Gore won. They aren't even suggesting there is a greater than 50% chance (denoted by "probably") that Gore won. That statement is logically useless. It's like trying to claim that "Most people own giraffes" from a given statement that "Some people own giraffes."

      So no, you cannot say that this NYT article declares Gore the winner nor even say that it insinuates such.

      --
      The sun beams down on a brand new day, No more welfare tax to pay, Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light...
    35. Re:No by dondelelcaro · · Score: 1
      Gore "might have won."
      Yeah. After submitting I realized that likely was probably too strong of a word to use there. Whether the odds were greater than 50% is up to you to decide, I guess. I wouldn't have been surprised either way.

      Either way I hope we won't see similar instances of disenfranchisement afflicting people who wish to vote for any of the candidates or measures facing US citizens on November 2nd.
      --
      http://www.donarmstrong.com
    36. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      537 is not close to anything. That's a lot of votes.

    37. Re:No by Jeremi · · Score: 1, Troll
      Kerry wins. Thank god. I don't care if he wins fairly.


      The best case would be for Kerry to (fairly) win the electoral college, but lose the popular vote. That way not only would we get rid of Bush and his insane neocon administration, but we'd also have both major parties pissed off about electoral college results, which might (just maybe) get us started down the path towards getting rid of the stupid thing.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    38. Re:No by cshark · · Score: 1

      It would be nice. It's even likely. Problem is, what do you replace it with, without disinfrachising half the country?

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    39. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in other news:
      Wait, there is still more space dust! "How to cook for forty humans"

    40. Re:No by alangmead · · Score: 1

      Diebold didn't create the GEMS election system themselves. They bought the company Global Election Systems in 2002 in hopes to make money Congress was throwing around with the Help America Vote Act of 2001

      Since they didn't have a voting system of their own at the time, they needed to purchase an existing company or product to get into the market quickly. Once they've made the first sale, they can offer bugfixes or upgrades to their current customers. If they didn't get to the contract, they are going to be purchasing those upgrades from someone else.

    41. Re:No by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      It would be nice. It's even likely. Problem is, what do you replace it with, without disinfrachising half the country?


      If it were up to me, I'd replace it with a simple nation-wide ranked-choice vote -- I leave the exact method of ranked-choice vote (IRV, Borda Count, Condorcet, etc) as an exercise for the poster.


      And to address the inevitable complaint that small states would not get enough attention in such a scenario, let me say this: I don't think democracy should be about giving representation to territory, it should be about giving representation to people. Therefore, the system that best represents the "one man, one vote" ideal is the best system.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    42. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goddamnit! You are all a bunch of fucking morons!

      If it was up to me, I'd cut off your internet access just for typing this sort of shit!

      FAGS!

    43. Re:No by NMEismyNME · · Score: 1

      hahahaha! I WISH I had mod points for this one!
      they have the diebold ATMs down under as well... I must confess to being more than a little concerned when I noticed.

    44. Re:No by crazy_monkey · · Score: 1

      I realize that I'm probably feeding, but I found this funny/disturbing

      "In Duval County, for example, 20 percent of the ballots from African- American areas that went heavily for Mr. Gore were thrown out because voters followed instructions to mark a vote on every page of the ballot. In 62 precincts with black majorities in Duval County alone, nearly 3,000 people voted for Mr. Gore and a candidate whose name appeared on the second page of the ballot, thus spoiling their votes."

    45. /me claps This is the best ignorance troll I've seen in a long time. Hat's off to you!

      --
      Sig
    46. approval voting with direct election

      It's arguably simpler than our current system. Just circle everyone you would be okay with, and the person with the most votes wins.

      Third party candidates would have a chance, and there would be little or no need to have primaries. You wanted Dean? Great. He'd be on the ballot with Bush and Kerry. Badnarik ? Nader? All on the ballot.

      There's no complaining about difficult ballots with approval voting. You can vote for every single person on the ballot if it suits you. If someone didn't vote for the guy he liked, he's an idiot, because circling things you like on a list is not hard. You have to circle things to get through a single year of middle or high school.

    47. Re:No by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except then you potentially screw over the rural people, because it will be easier, cheaper, and more effective to campaign in the large cities.

      Better to keep the system, for now at least, and award electoral votes based on the method used by Maine: whoever wins the popular vote gets the two EV's from the Senate presence, and then one EV goes to the person who wins each precint. This makes politicians more accountable to states like California (usually a Democratic stronghold) and Texas (usually a Republican stronghold) that are often ignored in the presidential races.

      Of course, additional balance for this would also hinge on the courts being given the work of redistricting instead of letting the parties carve things up for themselves.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    48. Re:No by ari_j · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are you at all aware of the facts in Bush v. Gore? Gore wanted only certain counties recounted, and even though the recounts continually came up in Bush's favor, they wouldn't stop recounting. Their method of recounting violated Florida law, and the FL Supreme Court let them get away with it. The US Supreme Court held that Florida's court was wrong in ignoring its own election laws.

      No matter how many times you count the fingers on your left hand, you will come up with the same number. And if the number on your left hand changes between recounts, there's no legitimate reason not to double-check your right hand to be sure it hasn't gained or lost any digits during the fiasco.

    49. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wikipedia is certainly the most authoritative place to get your vote tallies... especially when i can change them and hope no one notices..

      say maybe they should have diebold make the voting machines like wikipedia.. every voter comes up to the booth and edits the page, incrementing the value one notch and one notch only...

    50. Re:No by John+Pliskin · · Score: 0

      Yes, but two rights a left they do make.

      $

    51. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a good sentiment, but since the US supreme court has become highly political, and seeks to be more political (several justices planning to delay retirement until they die or can be replaced with like minded conservative justices), it's more of an ideal that reality is mightily trying to drift away from.

    52. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be wise to remember that votes don't elect the president, electors do. In most cases, votes decide the electors, but need not always; and in some circumstances, don't. In fact, there are situations in which electors do not elect the president: when states (that can make or break the election) can not produce electors. In that case, the legislature picks the president.

    53. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is because the security problems with ATM machines are kept extremely quiet. I worked in the industry for awhile, and it's very disturbing the amount of ATM fraud because of poor security practices by manufacturers and banks.

      Diebold's not the only culprit here, but they are a major one.

    54. Re:No by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Microsoft's business plan.

    55. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans are stupid and always looking for patterns where there are none. There is absolutely no connection between who wins a sports game and who wins an election. If you're that gullible, you are visiting the wrong website and should visit one of those psychic hotline pages.

    56. Re:No by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      > Gore wanted only certain counties recounted, and even though the recounts continually came up in Bush's favor, they wouldn't stop recounting.

      I know that it is written in the law and is one of the reasons the US Supreme Court cited. What is the problem with recounting only certain counties? Bush could have challenged some results likewise.

      Continually? Care to tell us how many recounts there were?

      AFAIK, one machinally resulting in only 327 votes (instead of 1000+something) in favour for Bush, before they started recounting manually.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    57. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's interesting is that every machine Diebold has ever built for the banks features a paper trail.

      Maybe that's why we've had few complaints.

      (you'd think democracy would rate a print function as well)

    58. Re:No by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which: Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas are right-wing, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens are left wing, O'Conner is centre. The next president will probably nominate the replacements for O'Conner, Ginsburg, Rehnquist.

      Bush said he'd favour someone like Scalia.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    59. Re:No by dimator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do realize that it is sort of suspicious when Bush's brother is in charge of the disputed state?

      And you do realize it's more than a little suspicious to have Bush's Florida campaign manager play a major role in the recount?

      --
      python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
    60. Re:No by tindur · · Score: 1
      Maybe you could take a look at how it's done in other countries? The system in most democratic countries is better than the one in the US.

      Here is an exemple used in many countries. Everyone votes for his favourite candidate. If none of the candidates gets more than 50% everybody votes for his favourite candidate of the two that were the most popular ones. Simple and fair.

    61. Re:No by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And to address the inevitable complaint that small states would not get enough attention in such a scenario, let me say this: I don't think democracy should be about giving representation to territory, it should be about giving representation to people.

      Which would move the government to focus on urban issues and ignore rural issues entirely. Considering how short-sighted our government is, how long before they'd have to collectivize farming to keep the food supply going?

      The electoral college is better than just going with the popular vote, but I agree it is no panacea. I'm more interested in a ranked voting system at the Electoral College level than I am in a ranked voting system for the popular vote.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    62. Re:No by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      The main problem with that is that it's then possible for someone to win without a majority of the population supporting them. You'd get people voting strategically still, choosing to vote for only one person to prevent the other guys from winning.

      How about a system that requires something like 70% of the population or so to approve the winner? Not necessarily as their first choice, mind you, just that they approve. If you can't find a candidate that can win that much approval, throw out all the candidates and run the election again.

      (I know, not perfect either)

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    63. Re:No by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      But three do.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    64. Re:No by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      We don't even get that now! There have been presidential victories with percentages in the high 30s. Hell, we're lucky if the number of TOTAL voters hits 70%

    65. Re:No by TGK · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The problem w/ recounting only some votes is that it violates the Equal Protection clause of the United States Constitution.

      While (logically) there's nothing wrong with recounting just those counties which are close enough to swing on the recount, legally this presents a problem because you are saying that the state has a more compelling interest to get person X's vote properly recorded than person Y's.

      Unfortunately for Gore, this was a catch 22 (something the GOP won't point out I might add). While the legal side of things dictated that he had to recount every vote, the GOP was trying to stop the recount. If no recount could be achieved before the deadline (I don't remember the exact date but is was coming up fast) then Katherine Harris couldn't certify the election results. Without her certification the assignment of Florida's all important electoral votes fell to the overwhelmingly Republican Florida legislature.

      Gore needed to try to expedite the recount process because a full recount could never be accomplished before Jeb and his cronies could toss the election to the legislature. While Jeb and co could have approached the Gore camp and said that they were going to stave off this maneuver until a full recount could be accomplished, no such approach or effort was made.

      The legal decision was a formality, and the Court knew it. That's why if you read Bush v. Gore you'll discover that the Court goes to great pains to make sure the decision doesn't apply to anything else. Ever.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    66. Re:No by lubricated · · Score: 1

      >Which would move the government to focus on urban issues and ignore rural issues entirely.

      Considering where most of the tax money comes from this would be a good thing.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    67. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With our low turnout at the original election, how many do you think will show up at runoffs?

    68. Re:No by cshark · · Score: 1

      I disagree. There are good guys and bad guys. And each party has their man represented. When it comes down to deciding who's who, it really depends on what you believe is right.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    69. Re:No by IdleTime · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I for one, hope that we can modernize the whole election system. We are worse than a 3rd world country. Which other developed country has as much problems with their elections as we do? Not a single one! You never see a court deciding the outcome of an election in any other 1st world country. Voter frauds? Unknown.

      We also need to get rid of a system that only gives your vote importance if you live in certain states. I live in Florida and you all know the issues we have had and how important it is to vote here. If I had lived in Nebraska or South Dakota I could just as well have stayed at home and not voted since the outcome of those states are already set. Our election system is a leftover from the days of no communication and a different world. We are the most backwards country in the world when it comes to electing a leader, it's a disgrace to this country!

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    70. Re:No by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      I was just wondering if all the posters here have never had an ATM do anything wrong.

      The difference is, neither banks, nor most customers, want anything wrong to happen at an ATM.

      If something goes wrong in favor of the bank, the customer will come in screaming bloody murder, and walk out a little distrustful of ATMs but not that worried. If the ATM makes an error in favor of the customer, the bank will quietly and quickly fix it.

      With electronic voting machines, there is a) the inability to discover errors, and b) possible motive for the company to make an 'error'. Neither of those exist with ATMs. There's absolutely no incentive for the designers, or even most of the users, to make 'mistakes'.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    71. Re:No by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Here is an exemple used in many countries. Everyone votes for his favourite candidate. If none of the candidates gets more than 50% everybody votes for his favourite candidate of the two that were the most popular ones.

      That's what we do in Louisiana, for everything but President. "Vote for the Crook, it's important!" came out of one such runoff election.

      Simple and fair.

      You must keep in mind that to most of /., "fair" means "my candidate wins". There probably aren't more than twelve of us who would think it was "fair" if "that other guy" wins, no matter the popular or electoral vote total.

      That said, I predict that if Kerry wins, the people whinging about the Electoral College will suddenly shut up. Especially if he loses the popular vote.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    72. Re:No by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Sorry. FUD.

      "The presidential candidates are obviously aware that the small states don't have much clout under the Electoral College, and have adjusted their travel schedules accordingly. The states where Bush and Kerry are spending disproportionate time aren't the small states, but the swing states, especially the swing states with the most electors. The gravitational pull of swing states would weaken considerably if the Electoral College were eliminated, because candidates could pick up votes almost anywhere."

      From America's Worst College, Part 4

    73. Re:No by CrayzyJ · · Score: 1

      Wake up and die right. You obviosly do not understand the electoral college. There were primary reasons for setting it up that way. You have one, which was that you could not expect the votes to travel all of the U.S. and not be tampered, lost, etc. The second reason is that if we used a majority vote system, the candidates would only have to win California. How is that fair to those people in RI. Obviously, they (RI-ers) have diffirent concerns/issues than those in Cali. The third and most important and often forgotton reason is that the US is a Collection of States. A govenor is more important than the U.S. president to those in a state. Democrats tend to gloss this over because they want a bigger stronger Fed government; however, viewing the US as a united set of states in america, then you can see that we need equal voting power per state.

      --
      Holy s-, it's Jesus!
    74. Re:No by DCheesi · · Score: 1

      Most of the time you're only making withdrawals at an ATM. If the machine gives you your money and forgets to debit your account, who's going to complain? :) So this doesn't really prove as much as you think about Diebold's security prowess.

      OTOH, Diebold ATMs do have this really nifty feature, where they give you a printed receipt of your transaction. AFAIK, every Diebold ATM has this; so why the @%@%! didn't they think to add this to their voting machines?!

    75. Re:No by CrayzyJ · · Score: 1

      "Better to keep the system, for now at least, and award electoral votes based on the method used by Maine"

      I agree with you 100%; however, keep in mind it is up to the individual STATES to choose how their electoral votes are assigned. If we wish a change, lobby your state, not the fed government.

      --
      Holy s-, it's Jesus!
    76. Re:No by IceAgeComing · · Score: 1

      The problem with the "Equal Protection" argument is that it's never been equal, and until every county uses the same voting technology, it never will be.

      The U.S. Supreme Court fashioned its 5-4 majority opinion on a very weak argument. The court is now tainted with an image of subjectivity that I hope will cause them to think twice before ruling on a close presidential election again.

    77. Re:No by Nemi · · Score: 1
      So the article appears to be saying that if we had counted all the votes of the people not intelligent enough to properly use the ballot clearly then Gore would have won.

      I will leave the implications of this as an exercise for the reader.

    78. Re:No by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 2, Informative
      Actually, this paper does a good job defending the Electoral College. The author argues that the college is a prime reason that our government has been so stable (only one civil war since our founding). Among its effects is that it demands that any president have a widespread geographic base and build meaningful coalitions.

      Yes, parts of the system are relics of the days of poor communication, but parts are quite important.

    79. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "If I had lived in Nebraska or South Dakota I could just as well have stayed at home and not voted since the outcome of those states are already set"

      Anyone who doesn't vote, because they think it doesn't make a difference where they live is shooting themselves in the ass. The only way things change is by making your voice heard (even if it is only a little bit at first). This is like a team ranked 50th deciding not to show up for the game against the number 1 ranked team. There is zero chance of victory if you don't even try.

      I live in Utah. Utah "always votes for a Republican President." Tell that to the over 33% of voters who chose someone other than Bush/Cheney in 2000. 67% to 33% may be a statistical landslide, but what if all the Gore supporters with the "stay at home it doesn't matter" attitude would have voted? Full disclosure: I am voting for Bush, but it pisses me off when people have such a defeatist attitude that they don't want to even try.

    80. Re:No by mjh · · Score: 1

      Uh.. that was *NOT* a bad call. It was an illegal procedure. The call was correct. Just because it happened to take away a touchdown does not mean it was an incorrect call.

      --
      Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
    81. Re:No by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      True for the moment. This is one of those rare things where I think that a Constitutional amendment should be considered. I'm very hesitant to touch state rights, but perhaps in the case of presidential elections, some universal architecture should be considered.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    82. Re:No by Khomar · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If I had lived in Nebraska or South Dakota I could just as well have stayed at home and not voted since the outcome of those states are already set.

      Being a resident of a state in this condition (Montana), I understand the regret that my vote is unnecessary given the overwelming support for my chosen candidate (if only I could vote in Michigan...). However, this is not the fault of the electoral college, nor does it make my vote less important.

      If it were not for the electoral college, my vote would actually be worth less than it is today. Montana has less than 1 million people, and yet we have 3 electoral votes. This makes our votes worth just a little more, and for us, this is a very good thing. Otherwise, the election really would only matter in New York, California, and Texas (possibly Pennslyvania and Florida). As it is, this election could be decided in Iowa or Wisconsin or even Hawaii (that's my personal choice -- cliff hangers are fun :-) ).

      The electoral college just like our congress (with each state having 2 Senators) is designed to try to balance the power between states and popular vote.

      We are worse than a 3rd world country. Which other developed country has as much problems with their elections as we do? Not a single one!

      Now this one is just way out there. Are you kidding me? We have had peaceful elections for over 200 years. Even with our problems in the last election, was there a civil war? Was there a military uprising (and please hold off on the conspiracy/radical anti-Bush talk -- lets be real here)? While most of Americans (popular vote) did not want Bush as president, our country kept trucking along despite what some would call the "wrong" decision. The process was actually fairly painless compared to the rioting and fighting that happens in many other countries.

      Do not get me wrong. Our election system definitely needs improvements, and both parties are guilty of improper tactics. The new paper-less voting, I feel, is a big mistake and needs a serious redesign (and yes, I am a Bush supporter). I don't like voting fraud in any shape or form even if it might help my cause. However, to say that our elections are worse than a 3rd world country is simply ridiculous. And the fact that this post got a +5 insightful... scary?

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    83. Re:No by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      No, not FUD.

      Right now, there are 51 electoral regions (fifty states plus DC). By changing to a representative structure, it would become 477 regions (435 districts plus 50 states minus 8 states with only one representative, and therefore all three votes to one candidate). Each and every region's preference would have a choice, providing a greater chance for smaller states to have an influence, because if a candidate can no longer count on California's 55 votes but instead only has, say, 38 of those votes locked up, then picking up a few more in Nevada or Minnesota might suddenly become more important.

      At the very least, it's a stepping-stone to popular elections, if that is something to ever come about.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    84. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason we don't hear much about 3rd world countries is because of the AK-47. Many voices are silenced before, during, and after the elections. Sadam Husain won many elections.

      The Advantage of the current electoral college, is that the whole country does not look like the inner cities that would win every mob rule vote.

    85. Re:No by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

      the first reason is archaic. that makes sense for the days when things travelled by horse, but that's not necessary anymore.

      your second reason is a bit odd. does california really have over half the population of the country? i find that hard to believe. in fact this proves otherwise. and don't say you were just making a point.

      and your third (and supposedly most important) is a simple attack on the democrats, which you, obviously, are not. do you realize that george bush is making the federal government stronger than ever? homeland security, the patriot act, his proposed amendment to the FEDERAL constitution banning gay marriage (an issue that is traditionally left to the states to decide on and isn't even addressed in the constitution). also, you say that we need equal voting power in each state, but you're wrong there as well. we don't have that with the electoral college. it gives more voting power to big states and the smaller states that no one gives 2 shits about don't matter (such as your example of RI, where i happen to live). my vote here doesn't matter. i'm going to vote anyways, but RI will elect kerry, but the 4 electoral votes we get won't affect the outcome. so it looks like you're wrong there as well. your argument is weak. with the electoral college, you just need to win in a handful of states. it doesn't matter if you win the popular vote in that state by a margin of 2 votes either. maybe the electoral system worked 200 years ago when it was created, but in the modern united states, it doesn't work, at least not the way the electoral votes are handed out in every state.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    86. Re:No by demi · · Score: 1

      First off, the electoral college system we have, with pledged electors and "winner-take-all" states, is not the system the founders gave us. Primarly, they established the electoral college as a measure to blunt popular opinion--they did not trust the electorate with a direct vote. It had nothing to do with ensuring candidates courted sparesly-populated states or anything like that.

      We already have a body that provides equal power to every state--the Senate. There is no reason to hand disproportionate power to sparsely-populated states for the purpose of electing the President. You ask "How is that fair to those people in RI[?]" It's exactly fair. It couldn't be more fair: one person is one vote. What you've identified as an "advantage" of the electoral college is an unfairness: the handing of special powers and rights to some voters over others.

      It's interesting that you bring up the spectre of states' rights, since the Bush Administration has such a poor record in this area. They want to legislate what states can call marriage, they have already raided legal marijuana-growing facilities, quite literally grabbing medicine from the hands of the sick, and here in Oregon they have repeatedly attacked our death with dignity statute, all in an effort to use the "bigger stronger Fed government" to quash the will of the states.

      --
      demi
    87. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but the electoral college has one important function that no one seems to remember. A flat popular vote essentially makes major metro areas the only places of importance.

      While LA, NYC, Chicago, and a few other areas would love this, much of the rest of the country would suffer. It makes no sense to try to appeal to the midwest, cause they just don't have enough people.

      With the EC, at least people have to pay attention to a few other places besides the major metro areas.

    88. Re:No by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      *sigh* Last election's.

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    89. Re:No by Pope · · Score: 1

      Isn't the real problem the fact that it's not a single issue ballot? Here in Canada when there's a federal election, that's all we're voting on: our choice of MP. Don't you Yanks also vote for local representatives and various Congress people on the same time and ballot?

      Simply changing the voting to have only Federal elections taking place would certainly help clean things up, right?

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    90. Re:No by kmak · · Score: 1

      The merits of the Electoral College, well, you can read them anywhere, so I won't post something that enough people already flamed enough about...

      It's true, we do need a modernize the system. It compels me to say, to a certain degree, "Don't hate the player, hate the game", even if it elects someone I prefer not to see.

      But it's unfair to compare the US with other nations - all the infrastructure had to be created from the start. Meanwhile, the "newer" democracies can simply learn from our mistakes, and to know what to look out for, or benefit from the pure fact that they can start from scratch, and not dealing with all the bureaucracy.

      I'm simplifying it all quite a bit, but you see what I mean.

      --

      I'm not the devil.. just his advocate.
    91. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fag, bet you support women's rights too

    92. Re:No by CrayzyJ · · Score: 1

      "some universal architecture should be considered."

      But why? I do not see the purpose such architecture could serve. Each state is given a certain number of votes based on population, why not let each state choose how to hand out those votes? I do not see why a universal architecture is required.

      --
      Holy s-, it's Jesus!
    93. Re:No by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

      as a matter of fact, i do.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    94. Re:No by CrayzyJ · · Score: 1

      Actually, my second reason is most important. My point was that a very few small populous areas would be courted my the candidates. Candidates for/from large cities would be elected and the votes from those not in the city are not heard.

      As far as equal voting power per state, the electoral college helps that a lot more than a popular vote. Consider the population of NYC versus that of Maine.

      Yes, my third point was an attach on Democrats. I believe states should have more control over themselves and that is not a Democrat policy. Whether Bush's policies or Kerry's policies will make the Fed government bigger, well I think Kerry will win that one.

      The only reason I made the first point was to agree with the parent poster. Never did I say it was a current valid reason.

      --
      Holy s-, it's Jesus!
    95. Re:No by CrayzyJ · · Score: 1

      "Primarly, they established the electoral college as a measure to blunt popular opinion"

      No, they set it up because they did not think everyone would be able to travel to Washington to vote.

      "There is no reason to hand disproportionate power to sparsely-populated states for the purpose of electing the President."

      None? How about the fact our Country is huge and that which is important to California is not important to Wisconsin. You cannot give preference to densley populated areas.

      "It couldn't be more fair: one person is one vote. "
      This is only fair if you live in a large city. I bet farmers in northern Maine thing this is a crappy idea.

      "It's interesting that you bring up the spectre of states' rights, since the Bush Administration has such a poor record in this area."

      And previous Democratic adminstrations do not?

      --
      Holy s-, it's Jesus!
    96. Re:No by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      There are no paper receipts on the Diebold machines because it makes it possible to check that the machine did an accurate job with the election. Can't have that. What the machine says is what the result is.

      "I will do everything in my power to deliver Ohio's electoral votes to the President". Diebold CEO.

    97. Re:No by pboulang · · Score: 1
      paper printing technology is *reallllly* hard.

      Do you ever notice that the software seems to never change on those things? Banks really care about testing, apparently. What does that tell you about the Gov't?

      --

      This comment is guaranteed*

      *not guaranteed

    98. Re:No by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Bush said he'd favour someone like Scalia.

      IANAL, but I have been reading a lot of USCOTUS stuff lately.

      I don't have a problem with someone like Scalia. Regardless of his views on 4th and 14th ammendment rights, at least he favors very strong Habeas protections. If we lose all other rights, Habeas will guarantee our liberty. If we lose Habeas, we lose all other rights.

      Bush has also suggested that he would favor someone like Thomas. Thomas does not seem to favor strong Habeas protections, and really seems to think that the executive has compelling reason to do practically anything in the name of the war on terror. This is what frightens me.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    99. Re:No by rizzo420 · · Score: 1

      i still don't think i understand your second reason. you made it more confusing. the candidates don't give a crap about the small population areas. they only need to win in a handful of states to win the election. granted of the handful, half tend to go one way and the other half tend to go the other way. with the electoral college, it's still jsut as easy to only pay attention to the largely populated areas. candidates don't campaign in montana or wyoming. they spend their time in the so-called swing states and the ones with more electoral votes. so even with your argument for the electoral college, my state (RI) isn't important to them with only 4 votes. so instead of just campaigning in large cities (NYC, LA, chicago, etc), they just campaign in states with large populations. that's only slightly better, although you can easily get a majority in NY state by getting all of the NYC metro area to vote one way and the entire rest of the state to go the other. doesn't work if you ask me.

      i agree that the electoral college helps even out the voting power of each state, but it still isn't fool proof (as proved above). they need to give out the votes on a percentage basis in order to make it truly fair (this is done in a few states, but none that really matter, like florida or PA or ohio). according to the democratic senators that i have written to in support of (or against) certain bills, they want to keep certain powers in the hands of the states (again, see the gay-marriage ban). i disagree on kerry's policies making bigger federal gov't, given bush's history of doing just that.

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    100. Re:No by ari_j · · Score: 1

      To me, the scary thing is that my post about the actual facts in Bush v. Gore, disputing the contention made that the Supreme Court appointed Bush President, was moderated as a Troll. Our moderators are pretty subjectively liberal - these are the people not voting for Kerry because he's too conservative for them.

    101. Re:No by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Because at the moment, the populations are not even remotely balanced. One-fifth of the overall needed electoral votes are concentrated in one state. A person could, theoretically, win a handful of states (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, New Jersey, and North Carolina) comprising 57% of the US population, and since only about half of the states' populations is needed to provide that candidate with the electoral votes, that means that barely a quarter of the US population would need to support a given candidate for president.

      Is it likely? No, it's not. But it's also not entirely outside of the realm of possibility. Most of those states are heavily industrialized, and by appealing to them -- perhaps in the midst of a major economic downturn led by manufacturing, something people on both sides of the aisle fear will happen -- the election could be won by someone of whom the overwhelming majority of voters do not approve.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    102. Re:No by Anopheles · · Score: 1

      As a South Dakota resident, I am going to vote. THere's more riding on this election than just the presidential election, by the way.

    103. Re:No by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      It's a good sentiment, but since the US supreme court has become highly political, and seeks to be more political (several justices planning to delay retirement until they die or can be replaced with like minded conservative justices), it's more of an ideal that reality is mightily trying to drift away from.

      Interestingly, your post implies that the conservative justices are not happy with Bush...

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    104. Re:No by WGR · · Score: 1

      Actually Nebraska is a bad example since it now divides its electoral college vote according to the votes in each conggressional district, with the two extra (for senators) going to winner in popular vote. This system (also used in Maine) or one that just divides the electoral college proportional to votes for the candidates would bring the U.S. much closer to a democracy. Right now it is less of a democracy than Russia is.

    105. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they retired in 2004, then the democrats might be able to delay their replacement until after the election, which Bush might lose. If Bush wins, he'll have control of the house and the senate. In that enviroment, they'll tell the Whitehouse to start looking for replacements, if they haven't already, and just keep on keeping on until they can't anymore. It's pretty common for Supreme Court justices to die shortly after they retire, part of it is the length of service, age, and the nature of the job, but there is something to be said for having something to live for too. I might not think much of their politics, or much of the law they cast into precident, but one thing they aren't is stupid.

    106. Re:No by emurphy42 · · Score: 1
      the candidates don't give a crap about the small population areas.
      Some people have pointed to the 2000 election as a counterexample. Look at the results on a per-state basis: Gore won some high-population states, Bush won a lot of low-population states, Bush won the majority of electoral votes. (Okay, this assumes that Bush winning Florida was valid, which is a whole other issue that I'm not going to get into.)

      I strongly believe that things should continue to be done on some sort of per-state basis. (Attempting to recount Florida was bad enough - imagine if we ever had to recount the entire country!) Proportional allocation of each state's votes would make things a lot more interesting in states that routinely split 60-40 or so.

    107. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      does california really have over half the population of the country?

      Think about what would happen if California ever did have more than half the population of the country. If it was enough to get them 270 electoral votes, then the other 49 states wouldn't matter at all in the presidential election.

      But, if we used a popular vote, then if California's election was close enough, the other half of the nation could still outvote the candidate that won California.

    108. Re:No by msborg · · Score: 1

      The problem w/ recounting only some votes is that it violates the Equal Protection clause of the United States Constitution. Totally bogus argument. Election rules are set up on a county-by-county basis. Each county has the power to run their elections as they determine. There is no standing for Equal Protection being applied to one county that runs their election with a less reliable vote-counting system than another county. Never has been in over two centuries of voting. To now claim that problems in some counties cannot be addressed without applying the same remedies to all counties is absurd. The Supremes knew this, which is why they stressed that their ruling could never be used as the basis for any other decision.

    109. Re:No by fingerfucker · · Score: 1

      In your little theory, you are missing the fact that Katherine Harris served as a co-chair of Bush's campaign in Florida. GOP could expect nothing but full co-operation from her.

    110. Re:No by TGK · · Score: 1

      I'm not missing it, I just considered it a somewhat forgone conclusion. Harris is as partisan as they come, and had no buisness administering a Presidental election, least of all one in which her Boss' brother was involved.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    111. Re:No by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      Scalia: "The Constitution just sets minimums, most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires."
      And: In times of war, "the protections will be ratcheted right down to the constitutional minimum."

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    112. Re:No by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Reread Scalia's dissent in both Hamdi and Rasul. I don't think that Scalia's view is so problematic. Yes, congress *could* constitutionally suspend Habeas (whether we are under invasion would be another question for the court at that time).

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    113. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What an idiot....even that bastion of fairness the New York Times conceded that Bush won in 2000 -- any way you count it.....and the 2004 election proved beyond a shadow of a doubt....

      BUSH WON!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    114. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh my -- another conspiracy!! WHen Liberals can't win, they cheat. And when they still don't winn, they go to the courts. Strike 3 -- you lose.

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

  2. yes by calebtucker · · Score: 0, Redundant

    yes

    --
    My sig can beat up your sig.
    1. Re:yes by dabigpaybackski · · Score: 3, Informative

      Indeed, let us hope so. Otherwise...

      --
      "OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
  3. Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, yes it does, but we will find out on Tuesday/Wednesday.

    1. Re:Yes. by drawfour · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, but Tues/Wednesday of what week? Surely you don't think the election will actually end on the day it's supposed to...

  4. Baseball by Sivar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course, Baseball is the definitive method for predicting the outcome of political elections.
    (?)

    --
    Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
    1. Re:Baseball by drawfour · · Score: 5, Funny

      ... The Redskins are a FOOTBALL team.

    2. Re:Baseball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you say so

    3. Re:Baseball by Juanvaldes · · Score: 1

      where are mod points when you need them?

    4. Re:Baseball by RealProgrammer · · Score: 5, Funny
      >The Redskins are a FOOTBALL team...

      <flamebait>

      Barely.

      </flamebait>
      --
      sigs, as if you care.
    5. Re:Baseball by drawfour · · Score: 1

      Not quite sure I understand the "flamebait" mod. The article was about a FOOTBALL team and this guy says something about baseball... I was just correcting him.

    6. Re:Baseball by Juanvaldes · · Score: 1

      neither do I, guess someone though it was a huge joke and knocked you down in the process. Oh well, just /. no intelligence necessary.

    7. Re:Baseball by UserGoogol · · Score: 1

      So... Nader?

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
    8. Re:Baseball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the parent mistook the Redskins as a baseball team before, chances are fairly good he'll mistake them as a soccer team now ;)

    9. Re:Baseball by Sv1ad · · Score: 1

      Not that it matters what game it is. The fact that the next leader of the freaking world can be predicted by a game of something is just as disturbing as the fact that the US president does affect what happens in the rest of the world.

    10. Re:Baseball by Jonny_eh · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    11. Re:Baseball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      =( *waah*

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

      Its flamebait because they mentioned the Redskins. They suck after all.

    13. Re:Baseball by gayak · · Score: 1

      You mean it's a hormone rugby team?

    14. Re:Baseball by fbg111 · · Score: 1
      <geek>
      What's "Football"?
      </geek>
      --
      Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
    15. Re:Baseball by KublaiKhan · · Score: 2, Funny

      you know, funny you should mention this. I heard on NPR the other day a statement by Kerry, in which he said that a heckler had told him sometime last year that he'd only be president when the Red Sox won the world series....

      ......it's a funny world.

      --
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure dome decree
    16. Re:Baseball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the term FOOTBALL was invented in Europe, and americans decided to (again) annihilate a widespread continent term and called it "soccer". So, officially, the Redskins are in fact a whatever-you-wanna-call-it-after-you-slaughtered-t he-term-football-, but they surely are NOT a FOOTBALL team. That would be Real Madrid, Juventus, or Benfica.

    17. Re:Baseball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, what they really are is a racist name. How we changed the Bullets, but not the Redskins is something I'll never understand.

      That and they're easily in the top 5 in the league on defense right now. Which means they are at least halfway decent.

    18. Re:Baseball by bob+beta · · Score: 1

      Football is the 'crowd draw' for Marching Band halftime shows. It's pretty annoying, though, because sometimes those big stupid jocks score and we have to play the fucking school song again.

    19. Re:Baseball by drawfour · · Score: 1

      OK, fine, sorry I didn't say "American Football". The game of American Football is derived from Rugby. But Rugby is actually NOT the name of the sport. It's called "Rugby Football" as Rugby is a PLACE where it was invented. And that is a derivative of soccer (or "football").

      The official name of the sport was called "American Football" for a while, but since pretty much no one in America played the other form of football (the "original", whatever you want to call it), "American Football" was shortened to just "football". Then when European ("world", whatever) football started to become popular, we had to figure out what to do. So it was called "soccer", which is a variation of the term "association". "Association" was used because there was a "football association" or something like that.

      Unfortunately, I do not have links to this wonderful information, but I've read up about it before. Maybe someone else can substantiate my claim with a link. I don't feel like searching for one right now.

      Anyway, you now know why American Football is called "football" in America. Like it or not, American Football is indeed a derivative of regular football.

    20. Re:Baseball by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 1

      Okay, how about "Every year the Red Sox with the World Series in a presidential election year the Democrat candidate wins."

      So far: 1912, 1916.

    21. Re:Baseball by wavedeform · · Score: 1

      let me get this straight... football is the large, brown, oblong, ball, and baseball is the smaller, round white ball, right? They both have stitches, right?

    22. Re:Baseball by pairo · · Score: 1

      How people use Football.
      Why it's called soccer.

    23. Re:Baseball by Sivar · · Score: 1

      Er, oh yeah. Thanks. Clearly, I follow sports very closely. ;-)

      --
      Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
    24. Re:Baseball by innosent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fact that the next leader of the freaking world can be predicted by a game...

      So, anyone want to take a guess as to why the rest of the world thinks Americans are arrogant pricks?

      --
      --That's the point of being root, you can do anything you want, even if it's stupid.
    25. Re:Baseball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm still wondering why people think that correlation is causation? It's not like a football game has any logical bearing on this.

      But yes, I suspect the rest of the world will be mortified to discover that Bush is their leader even now ;-)

    26. Re:Baseball by trawg · · Score: 1

      Baseball results, Diebold - take your pick.

    27. Re:Baseball by xsupergr0verx · · Score: 5, Funny

      The fact that the next leader of the freaking world can be predicted by a game... So, anyone want to take a guess as to why the rest of the world thinks Americans are arrogant pricks?

      Because we refer to the world as the "freaking world" while our military doesn't have a single shark with a "freaking laser" on it's head?

      --

      Click here for a free picture of an iPod!
    28. Re:Baseball by claygate · · Score: 2, Interesting

      arrogant or ignorant? I find a lot of other countries to have much more arrogant population on average but usually a lot less ignorant.

    29. Re:Baseball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because you refer YOUR leader as the leader of the WORLD!

    30. Re:Baseball by Sv1ad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hi, I'm not American, but living as I do in Australia, I might as well be one since the US elections are going to be deciding who runs the land of oz for the next 4 years. And I don't know what scares me more - the idea that Americans think their election outcome might be decided on a sports game or the fact that they do have a hegemony in international relations. Or maybe it's the voting system of the supposed paragon of democracy....

    31. Re:Baseball by Frogbert · · Score: 2, Funny
      So, anyone want to take a guess as to why the rest of the world thinks Americans are arrogant pricks?

      ummm... Because you all can't dig how cool America is?
    32. Re:Baseball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that it matters what game it is. The fact that the next leader of the freaking world can be predicted by a game of something is just as disturbing as the fact that the US president does affect what happens in the rest of the world.

      Does anyone think the political process in the US *isn't* a game?

    33. Re:Baseball by Sv1ad · · Score: 1

      Does anyone think the political process in the US *isn't* a game?
      Good gods, you mean it's not supposed to be like that?

    34. Re:Baseball by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Thanks and who cares what the rest of the world thinks? We're where its f**kin at!
      Nuke football and the overpaid morons who play it.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    35. Re:Baseball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really more sports related than you think.

      The USA election is decided by a coin toss.

      Yes, that's how most people vote. For whomever tosses them the biggest coin.

      We need fewer people voting, not more. Can't answer basic questions on the constitution or how the US govt works? Don't know the names of the people on the ballot? Then you shouldn't be voting.

      On the bright side, the USA govt involves a massive bureaucracy so change is generally very slow.

    36. Re:Baseball by famebait · · Score: 1

      No, you've got it all wrong. The thing is, the seekrit world government immensely enjoys exercising their power to dictate the US election results, but they don't actually care much who wins, it's just for chuckles. So after the war they simply agreed to let it depend on a silly external criterion which is below them to rig, freeng up the debating time for more important things.

      I know, I used to work f#%&&&//7... No Carrier.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    37. Re:Baseball by ThousandStars · · Score: 1
    38. Re:Baseball by nathanh · · Score: 1
      The fact that the next leader of the freaking world

      Is this like "World Baseball" and "World Wrestling" where the US is the only participant? Because your damn president isn't my fucking leader you arrogant wanker.

    39. Re:Baseball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you please think before you speak (well write)?

      The guy wasnt thinking that Redskins is a baseball team but he meant that Baseball is a better prediction method that football.

      If Red Soxs wins the world(?) series then the incumbant president would loose. You heard of that? That was what the parent poster meant and not that he dont know if Redskins is a baseball team or football team.

    40. Re:Baseball by DrCash · · Score: 0
      Of course, Baseball is the definitive method for predicting the outcome of political elections.



      Of course, if you want more information on sports-related curses and how much of an effect they have on things, just ask the 2004 World Champion Boston Red Sox!! (so much for the curse of the Bambino! curse? what curse? :-)



      In support of the election, please do the following:



      If you support President George W. Bush in the election, please drive with your headlights ON during the day.



      If you support John Kerry, please drive with your headlights OFF at night.



      Thank you!


    41. Re:Baseball by sylvester · · Score: 1

      Why can'tcha run your own country?

      We Canadians are an awful lot closer, and we don't have trouble giving the US the big ol' thumbs down when they want us in Iraq (admittedly we couldn't do too much militarily, but it would still be a major moral victory)...or on gay marriage, marijuana, and several NAFTA disputes.

      It ain't the US's fault when other countries' democratically elected leaders kowtow to them, it's those countries' fault for electing those leaders.

      Stop projecting.

      Err..I don't meant to sound like quite as much as an ass that, but it's a line of reasoning that I'm tired of.

      -Rob

    42. Re:Baseball by Sv1ad · · Score: 1

      In the recent Australian elections a show called The Chaser Decides came up with a brilliant idea: random voter testing. They tested for political bias, understanding of the Australian political system, understanding of the voting process.
      If only the satire were reality.

    43. Re:Baseball by Sv1ad · · Score: 1

      Don't mistake me for an American.
      I might be an Australian, but I have standards.
      Back to you matey.

    44. Re:Baseball by Sv1ad · · Score: 1

      You don't think we've tried? I sure as hell didn't vote for the idiot we have now and I tried to convince other people not to vote for him either.
      Unfortunately the sane people in Australia are in the minority. Sigh.
      I don't call it a line of reasoning. I call it a fucked up situation that I'll have to live with for the next 3-4 years unless I can get enough money to leave the country.

    45. Re:Baseball by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and he also said that he actually rooted FOR the Red Sox, before he rooted against them.

    46. Re:Baseball by darkonc · · Score: 1
      The fact that the next leader of the freaking world can be predicted by a game of something is just as disturbing as

      No. The fact is that it has been predicted by a game... This confirms it as a statistical anomaly, but does not indicate an actual causal relationship

      As much as I'd like Dean to win, what this means is that I'll be hoping for the anomaly to hold, causal or not.

      On the other hand, Statistically, there's a 50/50 probability that the anomaly will hold... about equivalent to Dean's currently predicted chances. There's no way that I'd bet against the anomaly holding.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  5. That's why a third party will never be viable... by GreenPenInc · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...unless... can they tie in football?

  6. No... by holzp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Red Sox win 8 in a row, Patriots lose today, old sports adages are breaking all over the place when MA is involved.

    1. Re:No... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't off topic! Kerry is the MA senator.

    2. Re:No... by messiertom · · Score: 1

      And MA is involved in the sports superstition how? Yes, I'm aware that Sen. Kerry (D-MA) is from Massachussets, but what does that have to do with the sports aspect of this superstition?

  7. The game by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As someone who watched the game it means that Bush will win the election and then it'll be overturned in favor of Kerry by the judges. That would be the exact parallel with the game.

    1. Re:The game by Peyna · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're going too deep; the Packers won by a 2:1 margin, so Kerry will win by a 2:1 landslide.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:The game by JohnnyCannuk · · Score: 1

      Yeah, cuz that's never happened in a Presidential election before...

      --
      Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
    3. Re:The game by The_Mystic_For_Real · · Score: 1
      I think that if another election is decided by the government being elected, it is time for another revolution. We need to overhaul the political system in this coutry or we may just have no more elections.

      I guess that would only affect 40% of us though.

      --

      _____

      Thank you.

    4. Re:The game by bigberk · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You're going too deep; the Packers won by a 2:1 margin, so Kerry will win by a 2:1 landslide.
      You're both idiots! :) I wish people would stop with the weird statistical correlations[1]. If you want to do something meaningful, go vote and tell all your friends to vote.

      In the last four presidential elections, the cookie recipe of the candidate's wife (versus the opponent's) has been a perfect predictor of the election outcome.
    5. Re:The game by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      I didn't watch the game. How many calls were made against the Reds? I'm under the impression it was only one, taking back a touchdown...

      Since the most points you can score in one attempt is 8 (6 for touchdown + 2 point conversion), that places the final score at Packers 28 to Reds 14+8=22. Still not a win...

      (I'm probably missing something)
      =Smidge=

    6. Re:The game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm so sick if this crap about our government deciding the winner. All the supreme court did was held up a VALID ELECTION LAW on the books in Florida. You can't count and count and re-count and re-count until you finally get the outcome you wish for. At some point, a re-count has to stand.

    7. Re:The game by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 2, Informative

      I guess that would only affect 40% of us though.

      Ain't that the truth. I read the below this morning and while some of the observations were trenchant ("All politicians are liars"), opting out of the system isn't the proper conclusion.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3439-200 4Oct27?language=printer

    8. Re:The game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're both idiots! :) I wish people would stop with the weird statistical correlations[1]. If you want to do something meaningful, go vote and tell all your friends to vote.

      I agree with you fully, but you should never have taken those two seriously. They were just making fun of it. It would appear that you yourself forgot to take it lightly. :-)

    9. Re:The game by izakage · · Score: 0

      Better yet, e-mail all your republican friends. Remind them about the change. Remember, all people voting for Kerry go to the polls on the regular day. All people voting for Bush go to the polls a day after.

      -------------
      ;)

    10. Re:The game by Hanji · · Score: 1

      If you want to do something meaningful, go vote and tell all your friends to vote.

      Tell you what. Don't go vote. You have my personal guarantee that your not voting will not alter the outcome of the election in a noticeable manner.

      No promise for all your friends, though.

      --
      A Minesweeper clone that doesn't suck
    11. Re:The game by jusdisgi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dude, you're taking yourself way too seriously. These guys knew the shit they were talking was just bullshit......this whole story is. So what? It's supposed to be funny. And, for some of us, it is.

      --
      Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
    12. Re:The game by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 1

      That would be sweet, since the only way Bush got in office was through litigation and 3 years of underhanded preparations in Florida with his brother Jeb and their wench Katherine.

      If what goes around truly does come around, then Bush will win the popular vote and Kerry will take office.

      --
      Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
    13. Re:The game by Stalus · · Score: 1
      In fact, no. I don't have the tape handy, but here's what I recall seeing.

      There was a penalty, however, the ref called it on the wrong player because of an optical illusion, hence the confusion. The rule is "All players of offensive team must be stationary at snap, except one back who may be in motion parallel to scrimmage line or backward (not forward)." The player in motion stopped moving parallel, moved forward, and was in the process of getting set when the ball was snapped. The commentators were noting this.

      The ref, looking at the player in motion, noticed the guy next to him move before the player that was in motion got set. He called the penalty on the second player, even though he moved with the rest of the team. The actual penalty was that the man in motion was not set, and the player who had the penalty called on him was just moving with everyone else.

      Not to mention that even so, the Packers would have had more than enough time to put up a drive equal to the one they scored with to smash the Redskins. So basically, Bush is going to lose fair and square, and whine about someone screwing him.

    14. Re:The game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm so sick if this crap about our government deciding the winner. All the supreme court did was held up a VALID ELECTION LAW on the books in Florida. You can't count and count and re-count and re-count until you finally get the outcome you wish for. At some point, a re-count has to stand.

      The same President that chastises the "activist" courts, asked the Supreme Court to interpret a law that the Florida Supreme Court had already interpreted, a very bold action for the Supreme Court to take, since they have rarely, if ever, done so before. The Florida Supreme Court should have the sole power to interpret Florida's statutes and make Florida law.

      The U.S. Constitution leaves the power to decide how to vote for president to the states, in this case Florida tried to do just that, and the Supreme Court of the United States took that power away from them.

      Come back after you actually read the full opinions of the Supreme Court and realize the fallacies in some of the arguments they make in the majority opinion.

    15. Re:The game by Teese · · Score: 1
      (I'm probably missing something)
      The last packers TD was after the so-called questionable call. So if the Redskins TD would have stood the score would have been 21-20 with 2:35 to play.

      But after the TD was called back, the pack intercepted the redskins on the next play, letting Favre drive down the field against a demoralized 'skins defense. Next thing you know, TD packers, and two-point conversion (to make it a two TD game) sealed the win with barely no time left.

      I'm a packers fan, happy we got to the bye with a 4-4 record, and hoping we face a collapsing 5-3 vikings in two weeks. I'm not sure that the call was a good one, and not sure if the pack could have gotton anymore points if the TD would have stood. But there was plenty of time on the clock.

      --
      "I'm a Genius!"*


      *Not an actual Genius
    16. Re:The game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's fine.

    17. Re:The game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to do something meaningful, go vote and tell all your friends to vote.

      Give me a break. I know perfectly well, and I certainly hope you do too, that an individual vote is in no way meaningful in a presidential election, in the sense of determining the outcome of that election. Feel free to delude yourself into thinking your vote gives you some power over the federal government, but please stop lying to other people about it -- the sooner people recognize the problem, the sooner we can begin to fix it.

    18. Re:The game by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

      "If you want to do something meaningful"

      They are posting on slashdot. Where do you get the idea that they want to do something meaningful? Especially since you are posting on slashdot. You should know better. /absolutely sure that I have no intention of doing something meaningful

    19. Re:The game by danbeck · · Score: 1

      The Florida Supreme Court should have the sole power to interpret Florida's statutes and make Florida law.

      Since when is any judical branch given the right to make law? In any state?

      You have a really, really poor understanding of how our system of government works.

    20. Re:The game by polecat_redux · · Score: 1

      If you want to do something meaningful, go vote and tell all your friends to vote.

      Why the huge push to get everyone and their mother to go out and vote? If 120M people vote as opposed to 100M, what's the difference? For the most part, the percentage of people voting for one person or the other are going to be the same, save for a very minor shift in resolution.

    21. Re:The game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not as familiar with the U.S. system, but here in Canada... the balance of power within parliament turned out just two seatsshort of government majority in the house. To a great degree, the weakness of our current elected government would have been averted if two more ridings had been won by the government's party. What this amounts to is, several hundred votes made a big difference in the way the government works today. Our parliament might now be unable to pass certain laws because of these few votes!

    22. Re:The game by typobox43 · · Score: 1

      Parliament seats aren't national elections, though, are they? A few hundred votes makes a much bigger difference in a smaller sample set than it does against the whole voting population of a country.

    23. Re:The game by slaad · · Score: 1

      I wish people would stop with the weird statistical correlations

      Wierd? You can't deny the truth . Everyone's just going with the facts here! :)

      --


      ~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
    24. Re:The game by Evangelion · · Score: 1


      Yeah, basically. Our national elections are based on voting for the people that sit in parliment. I vote for my local MP, and the head of party with the most MPs elected becomes the Prime Minister.

      In the recent election, the Liberals got 2 seats short of a majority (having more 50%), and are now a minority goverenment (they have the most seats, but not 50%).

      Personally, I like miniority goverenments -- less crap gets done in parliment, which is generally good for the country.

  8. I'm not worried... by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Since the Red Sox won the Series the end of the world must be rapidly approaching.

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    1. Re:I'm not worried... by stubear · · Score: 1

      Nothing to worry about, they didn't play the Cubs. Red Sox Cubs Game 7 of the World Series will undoubtedly bring about the apocolypse but the Cubs have to figure out how to get rid of the curse of the billy goat first. Until then they will never make it to the World Series.

    2. Re:I'm not worried... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      So you're saying Bush will win? ;-)

      * Disclaimer: I have voted for Repbulicans in the past. *

    3. Re:I'm not worried... by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      My opinion is that all statistically signifigant but otherwise non-related predictors like these eventually fail.

      Dutch beat the Zero Factor (although I was REALLY hoping for it to be reestablished during the Clinton years.)

      Dutch also beat (I think) the World Series predictor: NL=DEM

      Lets say I'm not too worried about the 'Skins competence having anything to do with the competence of the electorate.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    4. Re:I'm not worried... by allism · · Score: 1

      Reagan survived his assassination attempt because the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction that occurred during his candidacy fell within an air sign. All the others fell within earth signs. Dubya's Jupiter-Saturn conjunction fell within an earth sign.

      The more interesting coincidence is this: Harrison (the first president to die under this) died in his first term, Lincoln in his second. The term during which the president has died has alternated every time since then. According to this, Dubya is due to die in his second term - which means that there will be a second term.

      The Jupiter-Saturn conjunction moves back into air signs in 2020 and will remain in air signs for a long time.

    5. Re:I'm not worried... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      During the lunar eclipse!.

      Really now how many omens do you need?

      --
      evil is as evil does
    6. Re:I'm not worried... by wass · · Score: 1
      Interestingly enough, one of Kerry's advisors - Bob Shrum - has a losing record of 0 for 7 in his presidential campaigns. People in Kerry's campaign have been hoping to "reverse the curse" of Shrum, same as Red Sox fans. See here, for example.

      So a few days ago the Boston baseball team broke the curse, and now hopefully Shrum can reverse his curse with a Boston candidate too.

      --

      make world, not war

    7. Re:I'm not worried... by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Since the Red Sox won the Series the end of the world must be rapidly approachi.

      So you are saying Bush is going to win?

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    8. Re:I'm not worried... by Roosey · · Score: 1

      No worries here.

      You've got to wait for the Bills to win a Super Bowl before the apocalypse comes.

    9. Re:I'm not worried... by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

      Since the Red Sox won the Series the end of the world must be rapidly approaching

      Don't change horsemen in the middle of an apocalypse.

    10. Re:I'm not worried... by strider44 · · Score: 1

      Could I just put up a theory that perhaps Mr Shrum isn't actually cursed or unlucky, just a complete idiot? I don't know the guy but when the evidence is there...

    11. Re:I'm not worried... by The-Bus · · Score: 1

      So you're predicting a Bush victory?

      *ducks*

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

  9. You think the candidates have it tough.... by Dozix007 · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is not really politically related, but I am a huge Packer fan and a Bush support (wait, do I hear hick jokes in the distance ?). What is a poor divided Elephant with a Cheesehead supposed to do ?

    1. Re:You think the candidates have it tough.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Vote on the 3rd.

    2. Re:You think the candidates have it tough.... by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      What is a poor divided Elephant with a Cheesehead supposed to do?

      Vote.

      A coincidence, however long it's lasted, is still a coincidence. Voting makes a difference.
      =Smidge=

    3. Re:You think the candidates have it tough.... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      (wait, do I hear hick jokes in the distance ?)

      Yes.

    4. Re:You think the candidates have it tough.... by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      Clever troll, there. :)

      =Smidge=

    5. Re:You think the candidates have it tough.... by DeltaSigma · · Score: 1

      I'm an independant (riding the donkey this year) so you don't have to listen, but I'd advise you to:
      Support your football team when you're in a football setting.
      Support your representative when you're in a political setting.

      Oh and try not to get angry when you're accused of flip-flopping for doing so.

      (Oy this flip-flop BS is getting on my nerves... doesn't matter what you change your mind about as much as why you change it.)

    6. Re:You think the candidates have it tough.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the distance?

    7. Re:You think the candidates have it tough.... by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      Any friend of the elephant is a friend of mine.

  10. 1944? by KaSkA101 · · Score: 3, Informative

    It was actually 1932. The washington times quoted it wrong as 1936 also.

    1. Re:1944? by Peyna · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wrong.

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

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

      --
      What?
    2. Re:1944? by nomadic · · Score: 4, Funny

      On 6 November 1932 they won at home against the Staten Island Stapletons

      Woo, Stapletons rule!!! GO STAPES!!

    3. Re:1944? by billbaggins · · Score: 1
      http://www.snopes.com/sports/football/election.asp
      That page is worth reading just for the number of variations on "won" or "lost" they have... "edged", "walloped", even "spooked" for a Halloween game...

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

      *head explodes*

      --
      "The best argument against democracy is a five minute chat with the average voter."
      --Winston Churchill
  11. Here it goes.... by irokitt · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
    I think that sums this article up very nicely. I may be a bit superstitious, but this pushes the envelope a bit.
    --
    If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
    1. Re:Here it goes.... by Siul1979 · · Score: 1

      It is a nice coincidence, but nothing more.

    2. Re:Here it goes.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys are taking this a bit too seriously. See the foot tagged to the blurb? The article is meant to be humourous.

      To anyone who's ever voted according to a sports event: I hate you.

  12. Re:Woohoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    it doesnt matter who is elected, it will be a loser.

  13. You would think... by trevdak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You would think that people with sport superstitions would have had some sense knocked into them after the World Series...
    ... not that I would mind Kerry winning.

    1. Re:You would think... by Beatbyte · · Score: 4, Funny

      politics and sense.. would you like some jumbo shrimp with that? ;-)

    2. Re:You would think... by 1lus10n · · Score: 1

      86:1. I'd take those odds any day.

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    3. Re:You would think... by metlin · · Score: 1

      would you like some jumbo shrimp with that? ;-)


      Don't you mean Squid? Giant, to be precise.

  14. 1936 by Jack+Pirate · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://snopes.com/sports/football/election.asp According to Snopes, Redskins have had magical powers since 1936.

  15. Consciousness by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I believe a better question is does collective consciousness somehow affect the outcome of certain events, and could some events be tied together?

    Remember September 11th 2002, the New York Lottery came out 9-1-1? That was very coincidental.

    http://www.saliu.com/bbs/messages/911.html

    http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:more.abcnews.go .com/sections/scitech/WhosCounting/whoscounting021 006.html

    1. Re:Consciousness by suso · · Score: 0

      Remember September 11th 2002, the New York Lottery came out 9-1-1? That was very coincidental.

      I remember that, and I hated that. Some stockmarket (I think in Chicago) closed at 911.xx too. I don't care if they were trying to make it "in memory of". IMHO, they were being very hypocritical by playing with the numbers like that. It wasn't coincidence, it was just plain obvious that they played with the numbers.

    2. Re:Consciousness by Kwil · · Score: 1

      Here's the answer:

      No.

      All that's happening is when a coincidence is particularly memorable, people remember it. After all, the year that on June 23rd the New York lotto came up 623 nobody remembered.. at least, not more than a couple days later.

      --

      That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

    3. Re:Consciousness by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      I believe a better question is does collective consciousness somehow affect the outcome of certain events, and could some events be tied together?

      The events are tied together only by people looking for pattern matches. This "Redskins last home game" has matched the outcome 17 times (1936 - 2000). With a 50/50 probability assigned, that's 131072:1 odds.

      That sounds pretty creepy until you analyze the math behind it. There are hundreds of big professional and university sports teams in the US; there are probably hundreds of permutations to qualify the outcome similar to "last home game before $EVENT", (last away game, last game, first game in october, etc.). There are hundreds of major $EVENTS to match with, like the presidential election, natural disasters, wars, oscar winners, etc.

      When looking for unlikely coincidences, you increase the odds by the product of each of the "hundreds" given above when you compare all of the different combinations together looking for some kind of match. Given that 100*100*100 = 1 million, it's not hard to find coincidences. Any given coincidence may have long odds, but there are so many possible coincidences, you're guaranteed to find them if you look.

    4. Re:Consciousness by mcb · · Score: 1

      I think part of it is the fact that it's a Washington team, which kind of limits the amount of teams. But anyway it's just a fun fact.

    5. Re:Consciousness by Maserati · · Score: 1

      Specifically, for those who might not know, they're really the Washington D.C. Redskins. As in the nation's capitol.

      Saying that thousands of teams play every weekend isn't very efefctive when we're talking about the hometeam for the government.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    6. Re:Consciousness by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      So Washington, D.C. has their own football team. And soon the Montreal Expos, a team in Canada, will be moving to the U.S.'s nation capitol. Kind of makes you think.

  16. Slashdot...hates religion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Loves science, hates superstition... unless it agrees with their world viewpoint...

    1. Re:Slashdot...hates religion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's because religion is stupid. And so is numerology.

    2. Re:Slashdot...hates religion... by lxs · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just for that I'm sticking another needle in your Voodoo doll. And don't think you can hide by posting anonymously. My crystal ball knows who you are.

    3. Re:Slashdot...hates religion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Loves science, hates superstition... unless it agrees with their world viewpoint...

      Logic and reason have their places, but they are hardly the linchpins of daily human existence. At least on a personal level. You can sum up human nature thus:
      We all want what we want when we want it.

      Or, as in The Big Chill:
      "Don't knock rationalizations. They're more important than sex."

      "Oh, come on. Nothing's more important than sex."

      "Oh, yeah? Did you ever go a week without a rationalization?"

    4. Re:Slashdot...hates religion... by sn0wflake · · Score: 1

      You religious guys are a joke. Show me God or quit whining anonymous coward.

    5. Re:Slashdot...hates religion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No... the point is that you "intellectual" types are a joke. When rationality goes out the door (as it will with politics, sex or the latest greatest sports team or any system that no longer depends on facts but on human intuition and emotion) anybody will buy into any "logial" correlation they think will give them the edge.

      Asimov even wrote a story about it... it's called Nightfall.

    6. Re:Slashdot...hates religion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at yourself. See God. Look at others, see God. If you cannot, you will not.

    7. Re:Slashdot...hates religion... by sn0wflake · · Score: 1

      It's funny how you got a zero rating. Perhaps it's because of what you wrote make no sense. You wrote about rationality even though you're christian and probably think the world is only 3000 years old. I suspect your also one of those types that does not think dinosaurs existed and that the human race originated from Adam and Eve no matter how many proofs there are. I'm sorry to say that you've been brainwashed. Do you also beleive in Santa Clause even though you've never seen him? It makes as much logic. You even post anonymously, hiding like a coward behind the bible.
      I beleive there was something that started the Big Bang but only because science hasn't been able to give a proper answer. Since then we've only been an experiment.

    8. Re:Slashdot...hates religion... by sn0wflake · · Score: 1

      I've looked at myself and others many times and haven't seen God yet. Explain what I should look for. I'm agnostic so I'm still open for any possibilities but as time goes by I'm becoming more sceptic.
      Another thing is it's funny how christianity and politics always go hand in hand. If the scene changes then the answer is that it was the way of God. Nice way to always have an answer.
      I honestly pity you for having wasted so much time and energy on nothing, you anonymous coward.

  17. this is such and idiotic little situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so basically you can find a similar situation in ONE of the major league sports where a team coincides in the direct opposite.

    i bet there is a team that always wins will match with the winning of the contender in the race.

    this is just a stupid thing that got way to much coverage.

    (now the superbowl sony thing is interesting on the other hand, because that isnt just the probability of finding one team that happens to have a patter of losing/winning on random game)

  18. Re:That's why a third party will never be viable.. by KevinKnSC · · Score: 1

    Yes, there's a limit on the number of overtime periods, and then the game is ruled a tie.

  19. Weekly Reader by Helios1182 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Weekly Reader has also correctly picked the president for about the same length of time. They chose Bush.

    1. Re:Weekly Reader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well, there goes their streak.

    2. Re:Weekly Reader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahaha. Good one. Wish I had mod points!

    3. Re:Weekly Reader by irving47 · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing. Are there any other indicators? I remember reading something about the last name not ending with an N means no re-election...

      --
      I had a sucky sig.
    4. Re:Weekly Reader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      roosevelt?

    5. Re:Weekly Reader by Alan+Hicks · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The interesting thing is that the Weekly Reader is an actual Presidential poll of kids, and thus might have some relevance. The idea is that kids can tell you about how their parents intend to vote, and that people without kids or grand kids represent such a minority that they won't seriously effect the outcome of the election.

      Now whether or not this is true or not is the million dollar question, but it at least has some relevance whereas a football game clearly has no relation.

      --
      Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
    6. Re:Weekly Reader by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I remember reading something about the last name not ending with an N means no re-election...

      Yep, that's why we have term limits no. Damn you, Rooseveltn!!

    7. Re:Weekly Reader by Joe5678 · · Score: 1

      Not quite, Weekly Reader predicted (or rather the kids did) that Bush senior would beat Clinton.

    8. Re:Weekly Reader by pretentiousPPC · · Score: 1

      From what I remember in reading the Weekly Reader in a very "Red State" the reader most likely has a larger conservative base. While another kids vote probably has larger liberal base.
      I think nearly all predictors and polls will be tossed out this year. With polls moving 10-20% by weekly, unprecedented new registrants, questionable electronic voting machines, armies of lawyers already prepped, and even our sworn enemy, that the incumbent has said that he wanted "Dead or Alive", and the other saying that "He will hunt down and kill", Osama Bin Laden is even telling us to get out and vote.
      This going to hell of a crazy election, and I have a feeling that it won't be over until well into next year.

      --
      Artist will always make art.
    9. Re:Weekly Reader by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Channel One, the media channel for High School kids, had their mock election last week also.

      Annihilating win for Bush. Electoral votes 393 to 145, popular vote was 55/45 Bush.

      Interestingly (but not surprising), the TEACHERS in the same schools also voted, 85/15 for Kerry.

      --
      -Styopa
    10. Re:Weekly Reader by bigman8 · · Score: 1

      I'm so confused . . . the Weekly Reader poll says Bush, the Redskins game says Kerry . . . who should I vote for? I don't know how this year's election will turn out after all!

    11. Re:Weekly Reader by orcrist · · Score: 1

      Annihilating win for Bush. Electoral votes 393 to 145, popular vote was 55/45 Bush.

      Interestingly (but not surprising), the TEACHERS in the same schools also voted, 85/15 for Kerry.


      <flamebait>IOW, the ignorant vote for the ignorant, the educated vote for the educated.</flamebait> ;-)

      -chris

      --
      San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
    12. Re:Weekly Reader by PjSunray · · Score: 1

      I voted for Reagan in 1980 in the Weekly Reader poll, horrifying my parents. And it's not that my parents didn't talk politics around me...in fact just the opposite. I believe my reasoning for choosing Reagan was that Jimmy Carter's picture made him look ill. What can you expect from a 6 year old.

      I wouldn't be so quick to make the statement that kids would always vote their parents choice. And I'd have to say that I'm so incredibly thankful that kids can't actually vote. We have enough uninformed voters in this country as it is...

    13. Re:Weekly Reader by saintlupus · · Score: 1

      Interestingly (but not surprising), the TEACHERS in the same schools also voted, 85/15 for Kerry.

      It's probably because the teachers are the ones that understand the complete clusterfuck that is the Every Child Left Behind act.

      --saint

  20. WTF^3 by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
    > Well, the Redskins v. Green Bay game ended a few hours ago and it looks as though Kerry is going to win on Tuesday."

    I think I speak for at least three Slashdotters with mod points - whether they be Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Constitution, or Guns-And-Dope Party - when I pound out the following message in Morse code using my head and the desk:

    "What the fuck? What the fucking fuck fuck?!?!"

    1. Re:WTF^3 by zx75 · · Score: 5, Funny

      From all us non-american slashdotters, we let out a collective 'Aha!' after finally understanding how you actually decide who will be president.

      --
      This is not a sig.
    2. Re:WTF^3 by toolio · · Score: 1

      The stat is in the last 17 elections if the Redskins win the last home game before the election then the incumbentpresident wins. If they lose, then the incumbent loses. Hence, John Kerry should win.

      "Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that."

    3. Re:WTF^3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think I speak for at least three Slashdotters with mod points - whether they be Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, Constitution, or Guns-And-Dope Party

      What?? I thought the Libertarians were the Guns-And-Dope Party!?

    4. Re:WTF^3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...when I pound out the following message in Morse code using my head and the desk...

      di-dah-dah di-di-di-dit di-dah dah / dah di-di-di-dit dit / di-di-dah-dit di-di-dah dah-di-dah-dit dah-di-dah di-di-dah-dah-di-dit / di-dah-dah di-di-di-dit di-dah dah / dah di-di-di-dit dit / di-di-dah-dit di-di-dah dah-di-dah-dit dah-di-dah di-dit dah-dit dah-dah-dit / di-di-dah-dit di-di-dah dah-di-dah-dit dah-di-dah / di-di-dah-dit di-di-dah dah-di-dah-dit dah-di-dah di-di-dah-dah-di-dit di-di-dah-dah-di-dit

      With special thanks to this online Morse Code translator, and no thanks whatsoever to the freakin' lameness filter which made me write a perl one-liner to turn dots and dashes into "dah-dit" notation. (Note: the exclamation marks weren't translated.)

    5. Re:WTF^3 by metachor · · Score: 1
      What?? I thought the Libertarians were the Guns-And-Dope Party!?
      No the Guns and Dope Party would never be caught hanging around any group that said they had the "right way" of running your life (or the "right person" to do it for you, for example, Badnarik).

      If you feel up to the challenge of self-government, just write your own name in for President. Besides, I doubt the Libertarians are ready to talk about ostriches.
    6. Re:WTF^3 by starvo · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't you also be shunning us, since we take your precious word "football" and use it describe a sport that is nothing like what the rest of the world considers football?

      Yea, I'm sorry that we're that stupid too. Tell you what I'll vote for John Kerry to make up for our previous stupidity under the bush administration(s).

      (Ok, I lied I would have voted for Kerry anyways..)

      --
      http://thepoliticalgeek.com/blog/ Politics for Geeks.
    7. Re:WTF^3 by Daedalus-Ubergeek · · Score: 1
      Guns-And-Dope Party
      You didn't need to mention the Libertarian party twice...
    8. Re:WTF^3 by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      When did Libertarians ever say they wanted to "run your life" at all? If I recall, it's the Democrats and Republicans who want to do that!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    9. Re:WTF^3 by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1
      finally understanding how you actually decide who will be president

      I only wish it was so logical

    10. Re:WTF^3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please cite your sources. I believe Mr. Michael Bolton from "Office Space" said that in relation to
      a PC Load Letter error on the fax machine?

    11. Re:WTF^3 by zx75 · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Shouldn't you also be shunning us, since we take your precious word "football" and use it describe a sport that is nothing like what the rest of the world considers football?"

      Sigh, this is what I mean when I say that Americans don't give a flying fk about us up here in Canada. I say we should cut loose of the travesty that claims to be Free Trade with the US, stop exporting them our oil, cut the Alaskan pipeline that runs through our wilderness and go our own way.

      We do these things for them, and what do we get? Mockery, disdain, enormous resource tariffs, and they ignore the fact that we also call it soccer.

      --
      This is not a sig.
    12. Re:WTF^3 by Exatron · · Score: 1

      Would you mind explaining it to us American Slashdotters? I understand the football and the whole bit with the rubber glove, but what purpose do the ducks serve?

      --
      "I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
      "Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
  21. Correlation by dead+sun · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Okay, this is Slashdot, where I continually hope that people would understand that correlation does not mean causation.

    Of course, I'm continually let down. What in the heck kind of superstition makes this worthy of being posted to Slashdot in the first place? Are we trying to ignite flamewars? Are there too many mod points being used in technically sound articles and we need to draw some away? Seriously.

    --
    If not now, when?
    1. Re:Correlation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You meant to say that coincidence is not correlation.

    2. Re:Correlation by dead+sun · · Score: 1
      It is somewhat humorous, sure, and I chuckled at it when I saw it on Fark.

      Here on slashdot, though, we get a story titled Does Redsckins Loss Presage A Kerry Win?. Of course it doesn't. If it does happen it's entirely coincidental. On a site like Fark it's amusing. On a site like Slashdot I would hope that it's roughly equivelent to titling the story Do you know how correlation works? or something similar.

      I'm aware this whole politics section is new to Slashdot, but this is a tad rediculous.

      --
      If not now, when?
    3. Re:Correlation by dead+sun · · Score: 1
      Bah, look at the past however many Redskins games immediately before a US Presidential election. Now look at the incumbant's performance in the past elections. Plot them against each other.

      You'll find yourself with a high correlation between Redskins winning and the incumbant winning along with the opposite.

      Correlation does not necessitate causation. We know these events to be coincidental. If they were not we would have to assume the Redskin's performance somehow causes the outcome of our election.

      So no, I don't mean that coincidence is not correlation. Among the set of coincidental data I think you'll find that it necessitates some degree of correlation. Otherwise that data wouldn't coincide very well, would it?

      --
      If not now, when?
    4. Re:Correlation by Peyna · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Satire can spill over into headlines, you know. People with a real sense of humor don't need it spelled out to them that something is satirical.

      --
      What?
    5. Re:Correlation by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      It's amusing is all, that's why /. (and others) are reporting it. It's a real, and very strong correlation. Since 1936 it has been 100%. Of course that's just change and we know it, however it's still amusing to think about.

      Also a great many peopel DO think correlation implies causation. Look at the whole global warming thing. There is now evidence that the world has gotten warmer over the last 100 years, about 0.5 degrees. That's all we know at this point, there's no information to show why this is the case.

      Well CO2 emissions have also risen over the last 100 years. So many peopel have jumped on the bandwagon in claiming that the increased CO2 emissions have caused the increase in temperature. There's no evidence to show this is a causation, it's just a correlation at this point, however there are plenty of people willing to vehemantly claim causation in this case.

    6. Re:Correlation by grammar+nazi · · Score: 1
      With all due respect, dead sun, you are incorrect.


      The fact remains that the Redskins games and the US Presidential elections are not correlated events.


      You mention that if you plot the data against each other than there is a high correlation. Assuming there is some way to plot these against each other (i'll address this issue next), then you are not saying the games & election are correlated. You are saying that the 14 observations are correlated . Your sample is too small. It's that simple. Wait for a few more elections and you will see what I mean.

      2nd point. I'm not sure what you mean by plotting hte incumbant's performance against the past redskins games. Correlation is a measurement between two real random variables. It is not a measurement between one win/lose boolean and another. For that you need some form of copula based methods, not correlation.

      --

      Keeping /. free of grammatical errors for ~5 years.
    7. Re:Correlation by wanax · · Score: 1

      You know, although this is whats called an extrinsic event, ie has nothing to do with the election per se, that doesn't mean that these events don't have highly significant correllations in a statistical sense.

      There was a conference, back in 2000, at NYU on extrensic uncertainty, which presented, among other things, that sun spot activity and the stock market are correllated.

      If you believe in the entire idea of 'statistical signifigance', then its difficult, whether you believe those correllations to be intrinsic or extrinsic, to ignore them.

    8. Re:Correlation by tumbaumba · · Score: 1

      Okay, this is Slashdot, where I continually hope that people would understand that correlation does not mean causation.

      I tend to disagree here with people who say that it is a humorous coincidence and nothing else. What it have to understand here is that the society is not a simple collection of random people with well defined averages, variables and parameters and thus application of statistics to it are often of very dubious quality. It is important to keep in mind that there is a strong positive feedback in a system. Thus somebody claiming that astrology or some other events like ranking of football teams warrant election of some candidate, may actually affect the election independently of how "scientifically" founded these predictions are. In the end what important is that often such correlations do work and astrology, for example, can easily influence and predict certain societal changes if strong enough positive feedback is present. This fly in a face of an idea that society is akin to an ideal gas, i.e. that given same initial conditions it will behave in the same way. That is of course is not true because state of society ( a complex system ) very much depends on its history as well as on set of parameters at each given moment. So, at the end predictions based which football team won what may not be so stupid.

    9. Re:Correlation by tepples · · Score: 1

      See that little foot icon?

      This one?

    10. Re:Correlation by Mr.+Hankey · · Score: 1

      No, no, no. This one!

      --
      GPL: Free as in will
  22. It was very close. by nege · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was at this game only a few short hours ago - the mood there was incredible. I was actually surprised at the number of packers fans who showed up - there was plenty of jeering amongst everyone in the stands (me included, being both a packer fan and a democrat).

    At one point there was what seemed to be the scoring play of the game from Washington Redskins - it would have made the score 21-20, but it was called back for a very interesting foul. (NFL.com reports: " The flag apparently was thrown because Thrash was not set for a full second after going into motion on the play. He said he didn't want to comment on the call because he "didn't know for sure" if it was the right one.")
    Seems to me to be the exact kind of tone of the election too - very close, with some contested calls!!

    1. Re:It was very close. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were surprised at the number of Packers fans who show up? Well, congratulations on attending your first packers game anywhere.

      One thing I'll say about packers fans, as a moderatly obnoxious and long time fan of my own team, they love the football. Packers ex-patriots will not infrequently get season tickets to the football team in their adopted city, wear only Packer gear, and bitch incesently about how they're not at a packers game. These aren't people who are fair weather fans either. They need football like an addict needs a fix.

      That said, the call isn't particularly unusual. There is an illegal shift call like that in maybe one game a week, it just doesn't always happen in a national tv game, and only very rarely takes off a touchdown. Thrash is a pro, and a very good one, he should know better.

      A much more unusual call is a delay of game on a defense for doing essentially the same kind of thing only more actively in an attempt to draw an offence off sides. You might not even get one of those a year.

  23. Statistics... by Remik · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sigh...drawing causation or correlation from 5 data points is just sad. Kerry supporters are grasping at straws.

    There's been 17 elections since this 'pattern' supposedly emereged. At most, that means 9 times an incumbent was running. At most, that means 5 times the incumber lost when the Redskins did. ...sure helps to demystify curses with logic, but most people don't bother.

    -R

    1. Re:Statistics... by Peyna · · Score: 5, Informative

      The rule follows for the incumbent party, not just the incumbent president. That makes 17 data points now, possibly 18.

      It's obviously just a coincidence, but an interesting one at that.

      Also, I'm sure that if the Redskins won, we would have had the same story, and the same things would be said except with "Bush" instead of "Kerry".

      --
      What?
    2. Re:Statistics... by Alomex · · Score: 1

      RTFA, it refers to the incumbent party.

    3. Re:Statistics... by tstorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This curious "streak" has been reported for a week or so, long before anyone knew what the outcome would be. To say that Kerry supporters are grasping at straws is silly, this is merely reporting the result of a story brought up a week ago, no party is seriously trying to spin this, everyone realizes this is just a funny coincidence.

      Also, just to clarify since you didn't seem to understand the story, it involves the incumbent's party not the incumbent himself, so if some correlation did exist (it doesn't), it would apply in every election, not just one where someone was running for reelection.

    4. Re:Statistics... by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sigh...drawing causation or correlation from 5 data points is just sad. Kerry supporters are grasping at straws.

      I think the sad thing is how seriously the Bush camp is taking this. While most everyone else is taking this as a "Ha ha! What a neat coincidence", repeating it tongue in cheek, the rabid frothy spittled Bush supporters have actually come out defensively regarding this (see your post, and many before it). Amazing.

      There's been 17 elections since this 'pattern' supposedly emereged. At most, that means 9 times an incumbent was running. At most, that means 5 times the incumber lost when the Redskins did. ...sure helps to demystify curses with logic, but most people don't bother.

      Huh? Firstly it's not a curse, it's a humorous coincidence. Ha ha. Secondly, RTFA - They're talking about the incumbent PARTY. Thirdly, your convoluted attempt at bringing "logic" to the table looks like it misfired - your logic is nonsensical.

      It _is_ a pretty unlikely coincience....but unlikely coincidences happen all of the time.

    5. Re:Statistics... by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      Not to legitimize this discussion at all, but ESPN just ran a feature detailing this streak. Over the last 17 elections, this "phenomenon" has held true regarding the incumbent party, not the incumbent candidate. So it's 17 for 17 so far, not just 5 or 9 as you imply...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    6. Re:Statistics... by bitingduck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      but unlikely coincidences happen all of the time.

      One in a billion events happen to six people on earth every day...

      Most of them are probably dull and go unnoticed.

    7. Re:Statistics... by madmancarman · · Score: 1
      It _is_ a pretty unlikely coincience....but unlikely coincidences happen all of the time.

      Actually, I thought the whole point of an unlikely coincidence is that it doesn't happen all of the time.

      --
      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
    8. Re:Statistics... by Lime+Sky · · Score: 1

      It _is_ a pretty unlikely coincience....but unlikely coincidences happen all of the time.

      Next you'll be telling us that it was a coincidence that the moment of the long-awaited, Curse-breaking Red Sox victory was marked by a lunar eclipse.

      =P

    9. Re:Statistics... by PureCreditor · · Score: 1

      The definition of "incumbent" is the incumbent party, not candidate. For example, Gore was never the incumbent, but 2000 was counted as Democratic Party incumbency, which lost because Redskins loves repeating history.

    10. Re:Statistics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... and the same things would be said except with "Bush" instead of "Kerry"."

      also with a lot more chanting of "We're all gonna DIE!"

    11. Re:Statistics... by pairo · · Score: 1

      How did you come to that figure? The fact that there are 6 billion people on Earth doesn't mean each person is affected by a one in a billion event per day. And, boy, 'Insightful'?

      I'll be off trying to calculate wether I should sing The Hedgehog Song on the night of the elections for Kerry to win by 1337 votes. Million to one chance, really.

    12. Re:Statistics... by messiertom · · Score: 1

      You of course mean "one in a billion per day events" I suppose if a world-wide lottery with odds of 1:1,000,000,000 (I know this isn't how lottos work) in which every human inhabitant of the world was registered were held, and $1 was given out every day, the organization would give out $6 a day - but many "one in a billion" events are not tested daily.

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

      A one in a million event happens to everyone once a month.

    14. Re:Statistics... by jd678 · · Score: 1

      Nah, that's just thousands to one. Try standing on one leg.

    15. Re:Statistics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying that eventually I will get laid?!

    16. Re:Statistics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I think the sad thing is how seriously the Bush camp is taking this. While most everyone else is taking this as a "Ha ha! What a neat coincidence", repeating it tongue in cheek, the rabid frothy spittled Bush supporters have actually come out defensively regarding this (see your post, and many before it). Amazing."

      No, I think that why there are so many defensive posts, is that there are enough uninformed, sheep-like voters that WILL cast their vote based on the outcome of a football game, that it will likely play a part in this close election. And that should instill a chill in all of us, Republican, Democrat, or Independant.

    17. Re:Statistics... by ergo98 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I thought the whole point of an unlikely coincidence is that it doesn't happen all of the time.

      As a singular event, sure. When you're talking about thousands, millions, billions, or trillions of events happening daily, the likelihood of something "unlikely" happening becomes, humorously, likely (in fact it'd be a statistical oddity if they didn't happen).

      Millions of noteworthy events have happened during the course of the last dozen elections or so, and someone found one particular set of events (home games for one specific team in one specific sport in one specific timeframe) that correlated. It's neat, but it's not unfathomable that such a coincidental correlation could be found. If Bush wins and this run is squashed, I'm sure someone could do some digging and find something equally as amazing ("The number of lefty batter home runs in American League East baseball games for the 7 days prior to the inaugeration date accurately predict the winning candidate over the past X years...").

  24. End of the World? by r4d1x · · Score: 1

    no

    1. Re:End of the World? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4f3R 5331/\/g |_|r /\/4m3 1 c0ul|)/\/'7 h3Lp bu7 c0mm3n7 0/\/ uR 1337-n355.

      P.S. One word posts suck almost as much as flamebait(like me, sorry)

    2. Re:End of the World? by pairo · · Score: 1

      That should be "4f73R'. :-)

  25. I've seen a lot of dumb articles on Slashdot... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1, Insightful

    But this one (and its predecessor) take the cake. How many times have I read about one of these flaky statistical prediction mechanisms? When it's a bull market year, this league will win the Super Bowl, or that league will win the World Series. When this team gets in the playoffs, that party's candidate will win.

    People always trot out these stupid correlations which are roughly true in the past, and then as often as not their predicted conclusions are wrong, because the correlation is entirely spurious. If you look hard enough you'll find something like this that matches past results. The question is how long does this particular metric's 'predictive' power hold up for, and I think you'd find that in general, these statistical correlations/coincidences that people like to trot out have a very poor record of actually successfully predicting anything.

    1. Re:I've seen a lot of dumb articles on Slashdot... by vitaflo · · Score: 1

      Notice the foot next to this article?

      "It's funny. Laugh."

    2. Re:I've seen a lot of dumb articles on Slashdot... by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 1

      We wrote a program that "predicted" the outcomes of every South Carolina state representative elections since 1906 by running through the district numbers in order, and then assigning the candidate (in alphabetical order based on their surname) a base 16 number. We only went back to 1906 because that was the largest string of binary data we could find that actually correlated to anything we had lying around. In the end we wrote the source so it calculated pi (tinypi) and shifted through it several thousand times till it got to the right stuff and start spitting it out. A friend presented it to his lab for extra credit to anyone who figured out how it guessed correctly.

      --
      Direct away from face when opening.
    3. Re:I've seen a lot of dumb articles on Slashdot... by cshark · · Score: 1

      I think this one keeps popping up because a) our democracy is meaningless, and the fate of the republic is actually governed by a broad reaching conspiracy that decides things based on the outcome of football games, or b) people are inherently superstitious, and they look for patterns where there aren't any. They look for a reason for the way things are, when no reasons actually exist.

      Take religion for example. If anyone seriously believes that there is a big man in the sky who is taking notes on everything they do, and will reward everyone based on their performance in life, and strikes down evil people to enforce some twisted sense of divine retribution. Although, crazy as it sounds, it gives people a reason to keep going.

      I think it's the same thing here. Democrats, progressives, moderates, and everyone in IT has had a hellacious time since Bush has been in office. First, he repeals overtime for computer programmers specifically. Then he repeals a woman's right to make the same wage as a man days before it was supposed to take effect. Further more, health insurance has sky rocketed under bush.

      I make more than most programmers as a freelancer, and the fact of the matter is that even the most minimal health insurance would force me into living in a cardboard box. I could see it now "daddy, why don't we have an apartment anymore?" my daughter would say. "Well dear, it's because you have the best minimal health insurance money can buy."

      So is there a giant conspiracy that undermines our democracy that flippantly hinges the results on a football game every four years? I doubt it. When people talk about conspiracies, they're usually uneducated, and have no idea how disorganized our government is at all levels. I've worked on several government projects. In every case, they have an almost militant aversion to productivity on any level.

      So I think the conspiracy theory is out. Although, to play devil's advocate... the 68 year accuracy of this particular scheme is interesting. And if broken, will probably lead to accusations and reasons that George Bush cheated. Wouldn't be the first time. I don't think the man has ever won an election honestly.

      But I'm inclined to believe the latter theory. Those of us that really hate Bush are looking for something. Anything, that will give us hope that things will get better for us. Hope that we won't be subjugated to live in the anti-modernist, morally ambiguous, corporate lobbyist pandering Christian theocracy that George Bush has been attempting to put in place with varying degrees of success.

      No lobbyist left behind indeed...

      We're looking for a anything. Some reason not to give up. Something to have just a little bit of faith in. And if that means paying a little more attention to a stupid football game that we wouldn't have even noticed otherwise... is that really so bad?

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    4. Re:I've seen a lot of dumb articles on Slashdot... by ziggy_zero · · Score: 1

      Sense of humors (or would it be senses of humor?) are fun. You should try getting one sometime.

      --
      I belong to the ______ generation.
    5. Re:I've seen a lot of dumb articles on Slashdot... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      It was moderately amusing the first time it was posted. The second time around it is just stupid, not funny.

    6. Re:I've seen a lot of dumb articles on Slashdot... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      My sense of humor works just fine, but this story doesn't even remotely qualify as funny. It's incredibly annoying to repeatedly hear about these ridiculously stupid statistical coincidences, and this is the SECOND post on the same one on Slashdot alone.

    7. Re:I've seen a lot of dumb articles on Slashdot... by ziggy_zero · · Score: 1

      I've read your responses to the replies that were similar to mine, and....well....no, your sense of humor obviously doesn't work just fine. I mean you might as well accept that and just move on, instead of trying to defend yourself. You're just making yourself look like a bigger ass, with an even worse sense of humor. But whatever floats your boat...

      --
      I belong to the ______ generation.
    8. Re:I've seen a lot of dumb articles on Slashdot... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Congrats, you get the Slashdot "dick of the day" award for being a big dick. I just got modbombed and now you are rubbing it in. Please fuck off and die a painful death with your 'great sense of humor'.

  26. Interesting by Captain+Rotundo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But not because it predicts anything. Interresting because it allows us to discuss critical thinking. This is a perfect example of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - a VERY common logical fallicy, also known as a "coincidental correlation".

    Basically the problem is people frequently see something happen and ASSUME that something they noticed, or known about the prior situation MUST be the cause. - It gets better with increasing numbers (if the reskins game had only predicted the winner once its cute, but after 15 elections it has got to be right!)

    Now the reason this is such a good exercise to use for this important critical thinking skill is because most reasonable people would already know that the redskins game predicting an election is absurd.

    1. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is a perfect example of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - a VERY common logical fallicy, also known as a "coincidental correlation".

      When you just said that, a monkey flew out of my ass.

    2. Re:Interesting by nomadic · · Score: 5, Funny

      "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - a VERY common logical fallicy, also known as a "coincidental correlation".

      What's REALLY interesting is the fact that you spelled the latin words correctly, but still spelled "fallacy" incorrectly.

    3. Re:Interesting by Xshare · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't this make more sense as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, being as how it's an ongoing occurance and not just something that happened after something?

    4. Re:Interesting by venicebeach · · Score: 1

      We also cannot conclude that there is NOT a causal relationship. Futhermore, although it seems absurd on the surface, we should be open to the possibility that there is some interesting relationship here. For example, the mood in Washington may be related to who is going to win the election, which affects the general crowd noise in the stadium, which affects the play on the field, etc....

    5. Re:Interesting by wrinkledshirt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a perfect example of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - a VERY common logical fallicy, also known as a "coincidental correlation".

      "post hoc ergo propter hoc" = "finding coincidences funny"?

      I understand your point, but it's not really a perfect example. It WOULD be a perfect example if somebody SERIOUSLY believed that the Redskins game outcome meant that Kerry was going to win.

      Now the reason this is such a good exercise to use for this important critical thinking skill is because most reasonable people would already know that the redskins game predicting an election is absurd.

      I think it's only a good example to first teach the logical flaw, because the absurdity of the logic is quite apparent. But a better way to point out how pervasive the logical flaw really is (ie: something that really teaches you the necessity of knowing the fallacy) would be to say something like (to take an admittedly-biased political example) Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been effective deterrents to terrorism, as proven by the fact that we haven't had a major terrorist attack in America since 9/11.

      --

      --------
      Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...

    6. Re:Interesting by really? · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I understand your point, but it's not really a perfect example. It WOULD be a perfect example if somebody SERIOUSLY believed that the Redskins game outcome meant that Kerry was going to win.

      Err ... you are not American, are you? Well, at least not part of the "Billy Bob Sixpack" segment...
      (Append :-), :-| or :-( depending on your view of the world.)

      --

      "Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
    7. Re:Interesting by DissidentHere · · Score: 1

      Of course its ridiculous to think a (American) football game can predict the outcome of an election.

      But, I for one, having seen the results, hope that it does.

      --
      "None of us are as dumb as all of us." - meeting mantra
    8. Re:Interesting by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

      Hey, look people, a flying monkey!

      --

      "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
    9. Re:Interesting by pairo · · Score: 1

      Too bad D.C. only has 3 electors out of 538 electors. That's one in ~197, or ~.5%.

    10. Re:Interesting by photon317 · · Score: 1


      The place I hate this the most is medical research news articles. I don't neccesarily fault the medical researchers, as the newsmen are often the ones putting the wrong spin on it. You see headlines like "Study shows that people who prefer the color purple are more likely to get cancer" and such.

      --
      11*43+456^2
    11. Re:Interesting by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Of course, D.C. has dickall to do with the Redskins, who are a Washington STATE team...

    12. Re:Interesting by pairo · · Score: 1

      Mea culpa indeed, as the Washington Redskins do not play their home games in Washington D.C., even though they are based there. They, however, are NOT based in the Washington state (I'm not familiar with U.S. sports teams, but I don't know of any that's named after the state it's based in.).

      So, with 10 electors in Maryland, and 3 in D.C. (I'm guessing people from both states attend the matches.), it's one in ~41 electors, ~2.5%. Which, albeit much higher than my original figure, still is too low to influence all 17 elections.

    13. Re:Interesting by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Wow, you're right. Coulda sworn they were from the state.

      Oh well, I stopped watching football when I realized that my hometown teams were the Giants and Jets. :)

    14. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a perfect example of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - a VERY common logical fallicy, also known as a "coincidental correlation".

      No, it's not. If the claim were that the outcome of one caused the outcome of the other, yes. But that's not what's being said. Nobody is suggesting that the Redskins could, by themselves, change the outcome of the election.

      The claim is that it is an indicator, which merely requires a common cause. That by itself is not absurd. However, for this to be certain, that common cause must be a necessary condition for the game and a sufficient condition for the election. Eg, weather may play a role in both, but the Redskins could win without it and Kerry could lose despite it.

      But you can have a "fuzzy" indicator will weaker common causes. And high correlation is very suggestive of a common cause. Not conclusive, of course, and it doesn't tell you what that common cause is. (and in particular, it doesn't tell you that one of the two events causes the other, which would be a post hoc fallacy.)

    15. Re:Interesting by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      One of the problems is that people seek these things out.

      There have been many predictors made on patterns in the past (there was one recently about why England was going to win the World cup because of some sort of pattern about countries winning, which failed).

      It's like tossing a coin. You get 15 tails, and people will start to think it's a rigged coin, when it could just be chance. OK, it's a one in 8,000 chance, but that means that journalists looking at 8,000 possible predictors are going to find one.

      Personally, I think that Bush is going to win.

    16. Re:Interesting by iceborer · · Score: 2, Informative

      What is even more interesting is that someone so pedantic would fail to capitalize the "L" in Latin. You also improperly used a comma before the conjunction connecting a dependent clause to an independent clause. Of course, I don't want to seem like a nit picker...

    17. Re:Interesting by Darby · · Score: 1

      but I don't know of any that's named after the state it's based in.).


      Well, the New England Patriots are named after an entire region rather than just a state.

    18. Re:Interesting by nomadic · · Score: 1

      No, I simply found it kind of funny that he spelled the hard words correctly but a relatively easy one incorrectly. You're only pedantic when you show ostentation when correcting someone. Like if I pointed out that "nitpicker" is one word, not two.

    19. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course its ridiculous to think a (American) football game can predict the outcome of an election.

      A European football game, OTOH...

    20. Re:Interesting by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      When you just said that, a monkey flew out of my ass.

      Better cut down on clintonian snacks

    21. Re:Interesting by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It is not a spelling error, but an experimental lexical mutation. If it improves readibility, it might spread the world over. After all, the Americas dumped some of the silly British spelling over time.

    22. Re:Interesting by on+the+8ball · · Score: 1
      (I'm not familiar with U.S. sports teams, but I don't know of any that's named after the state it's based in.)


      Arizona Cardinals
      Carolina Panthers
      Minnesota Vikings
      New England Patriots (region of several states)
      New York Giants (could be the state or the city)
      New York Jets (ditto)
      Tennessee Titans

      --
      Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment â" Buddha
    23. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both those "New York" teams you listed have their home in New Jersey (outside both the city and the state).

      If you want a New York team, try the Buffalo Bills.

  27. Only for the superstitious... by sharp-bang · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ...such as those who believe in 'curses', think the useless stats slipped into ESPN/Fox Sports commentator banter actually mean something, think pro wrestling is real, etc.

    Then again, yesterday on the radio, Daniel Schorr said the electorate is looking for something, anything on which to base a final decision. This is why stories that would normally not be gaining a lot of attention any other time (flu shots, 'Azzam the American') are getting so much play.

    --
    #!
    1. Re:Only for the superstitious... by sharp-bang · · Score: 1

      Flamebait?! Why on earth?? Do we have moderators who think pro wrestling is real?

      --
      #!
    2. Re:Only for the superstitious... by drlake · · Score: 1

      Sounds like someone with mod points didn't like the implication of your post, which is that the electorate will respond to this by electing Kerry, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophesy. Either that, or it's the WWF thing...

    3. Re:Only for the superstitious... by sharp-bang · · Score: 1

      Heh, or maybe 'Azzam' has mod points. But he should blame Schorr, not me. ;-)

      --
      #!
    4. Re:Only for the superstitious... by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      Most likely. Go into a redneck bar in the Southern United States and yell out "rasslin's fake!" and see how many guys want to kick your ass. Only try this if you can run fast or if you're a blackbelt in Kung Fu.

  28. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  29. A quick reminder from the world of statistics by jacoby · · Score: 1

    Correlation does not indicate causation.

    1. Re:A quick reminder from the world of statistics by pilsner.urquell · · Score: 1

      Yep. If the laws if probability hold true, probably not.

    2. Re:A quick reminder from the world of statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correlation does not indicate causation.

      Are you trying to tell me that the Redskins do not affect the outcome of a presedential election? Surely you jest!

    3. Re:A quick reminder from the world of statistics by BoneFlower · · Score: 1

      That phrase is thrown out too often.

      If correlation does not indicate causation, then what about aspirin? How do I know that taking it is the cause of my headache going away, and its not just a lucky coincidence?

      Pretty much all science is based on correlation. Sure, there is background work and lots of studies, but how do we know those studies didn't show what they did just through lucky coincidence?

      Correlation does not always mean causation, I'll grant that much. But it is a pretty damn good indicator of it, in reality its the only indicator we have.

    4. Re:A quick reminder from the world of statistics by NichG · · Score: 1

      Well, the way for a correlation to exist and not be due to A->B or B->A is if there is some third thing C such that C->A, C->B. So if you aren't aware of C, all you see is a correlation between A and B.

      However, in the case in which you can control the situation, you can try to eliminate the possibility of there being a C. With aspirin, you can take two groups of people with headaches, and give aspirin to people in one group and not in the other, and compare, keeping other variables the same.

      Of course, there is error in this, but as you increase the group size, the error decreases, so pick a sufficiently large group and the chance of some third factor coming into play approaches zero.

      This also leads to a deeper question: what aspect of taking aspirin causes the headache to go away (if it does)? It might be a psychological effect from taking medicine and believing your headache will go away as a result, but you can test that by giving the control group a placebo that contains the same ingredients except for the active ingredient you're testing. ... And so on and so on. The point being, by using a control of some sort, you can try eliminate possible external causes. Also, usually one wouldn't be satisfied with a result in the sense of the result 'proving' something (which it can't really do, it just supports it) without having some model for how the thing they're testing works. And models like that can make predictions, which you can then test. If you can predict something correctly based on the assumption of a certain model, then that lends support to your model. The next step would be to look for other possible models that make the same prediction, and find the simplest (Occam's razor, which is no guarantee of correctness). Or, better yet, split your models into groups which are each internally mathematically equivalent (which you can't do anything about), and then find out where the models give differing predictions, and test those predictions.

      You're never totally certain, but you can do better than just finding a correlation by controlling the parameters and requiring that your results show some sort of internal consistency and predictive ability.

    5. Re:A quick reminder from the world of statistics by jasmusic · · Score: 1

      Say that enough times and you can just throw out everything we call "empirical evidence". Which is pretty much the birthchild of the scientific process.

  30. Ahh by mmmjoy · · Score: 0

    I love the way you guys run your elections.

  31. As the Skirt Rises So Goes the Economy by d102804 · · Score: 1
    I certainly hope that the USA is not degenerating into another China. In the latter country, numerology and ancestor worship are quite popular.

    Nonetheless, the parent article made me wax nostalgic. Economists of old have an old wives tale: as the skirt rises so goes the economy. In other words, as the economy grows faster, the average distance from the ground to the bottom of the typical woman's skirt rises, revealing more and more leg.

    Anyhow, this election is still too close to call. I would bet good money that it will end up in court again. Both the Republicans and the Democrats have already hired lawyers to prepare briefs challenging the results.

    1. Re:As the Skirt Rises So Goes the Economy by holy+zarquon's+singi · · Score: 1
      In the latter country, numerology and ancestor worship are quite popular
      Now hold your horses! Scientific method is basically a sophisticated method of ancestor worship. Never underestimate the power of the ancestors.
      --
      "...we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." B.Spears 2003
    2. Re:As the Skirt Rises So Goes the Economy by nomadic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now hold your horses! Scientific method is basically a sophisticated method of ancestor worship. Never underestimate the power of the ancestors.

      O Mighty Einstein, use thy divine powers to curse the writer of the parent post; may his equations never ring true, may his chalk break at inopportune times, and may an especially heavy copy of Principia Mathematica fall on his head from a high shelf.

  32. 2002 midterms? by Pyrion · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember those?

    Seems Bush has a history of defying history.

    --
    "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
    1. Re:2002 midterms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *cough* Diebold *cough*

    2. Re:2002 midterms? by drlake · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you're referring to what I assume, there's no defiance of history. The president's party usually loses seats in congress during mid-term elections, but not always. Bush didn't in 2002, but neither did Clinton in 1998, for example. It depends on presidential approval ratings, which under normal circumstances (i.e. not right after 9/11) tend to be highly dependent on the economy.

    3. Re:2002 midterms? by Pyrion · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the Republicans gained seats in the 2002 midterm elections.

      --
      "There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
  33. Thanks by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm glad you pointed all that out. There was me thinking there was a serious cause and effect going on here

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    1. Re:Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a butterfly in Brazil causes a tsunami in Japan and you don't throw spilt salt over your shoulder, then the winner will be a rich person who went to Yale.

    2. Re:Thanks by ralphus · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you included the sarcasm tags. There was me thinking your post was serious. ;P

      --
      Revolutions are never about freedom or justice. They're about who's going to be top dog. -- Kilgore Trout
    3. Re:Thanks by Fnkmaster · · Score: 1

      Thanks, Chuck, for getting me modbombed into oblivion. See, I put sarcasm tags on it, so I don't really mean what I'm saying, in case you didn't realize that. Trying to make me look like an ass is not nice. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't mean to get me modbombed, but you did it nonetheless. And if you haven't realized yet, I didn't mean to imply that most Slashdotters take this seriously. However, the mass media and other statistically crippled people DO frequently take this stuff seriously enough to repeatedly bombard us with it, as if it were interesting. Putting a damned funny foot by it doesn't change the fact that it's not statistically interesting, and not amusing.

      And it doesn't help when the editors KEEP droning on with it. It may have been moderately amusing the first time it was posted. The second time, it was just stupid (and I am a gung ho Kerry supporter).

    4. Re:Thanks by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1
      Trying to make me look like an ass is not nice
      It was very easy though.

      Lighten up dude, it's a lighthearted story and if it doesn't appeal to you then just skip it.

      If the worst thing that happens to you today is your ill-humoured post being "modbombed into oblivion" (snigger) then you've had a pretty good day by most standards.
      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  34. Uh-oh by fresh27 · · Score: 1

    They lost to (G)reen (B)ay.

    --
    http://ipod.fresh27.net/
  35. This trend is already over by evslin · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    I should also point out that the Red Sox broke 80+ years of losing the World Series, the Patriots just lost for the first time in 18 games, and all three major schools in Florida lost on the same day for the first time in almost 30 years.

    1. Re:This trend is already over by evslin · · Score: 4, Funny

      That raises an intesting point, now that I think about it. If Bush wins this year, the statisticians out there can amend this rule to state that the Redskins will determine the outcome of the election except in instances where they lose against teams whose names bear a similarity to one of the candidates.

      Bills = obvious
      Green Bay = George Bush

    2. Re:This trend is already over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was an away game.

    3. Re:This trend is already over by tjowatonna · · Score: 1

      The last Homegame before that election was against the Colts, and they lost 31-16. Fits the pattern. Read snopes.

    4. Re:This trend is already over by sharp-bang · · Score: 1

      You sure about that? Snopes says the Redskins won 31-16.

      --
      #!
    5. Re:This trend is already over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Neat how you got modded up for posting incorrect information. The last Redskins home game before the 1996 election was, as has been pointed out, a 31-16 defeat of the Colts. You mentioned an away game.

      Congrats on getting all those modpoints, but I wouldn't go patting myself on the back for being insightful or interesting.

    6. Re:This trend is already over by sessamoid · · Score: 4, Informative
      It died in 1996 - the Redskins lost to the Bills 38-13 and Bill Clinton was reelected two days later.

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

      --
      "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
    7. Re:This trend is already over by Peyna · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's Slashdot, you don't have to be right to get modded up, you just have to say it like you know what you're talking about. Sort of like all the presidential candidates.

      --
      What?
    8. Re:This trend is already over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

      Not according to snopes:

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

    9. Re:This trend is already over by corsair2112 · · Score: 0

      The loss against the Buffalo Bills was at Buffalo dumbass. It's the last home game for the Redskins before the election that coincides with the outcome of the election.

      The week prior, the Redskins defeated the Indianapolis Colts at home 31-16.

    10. Re:This trend is already over by fusionpit · · Score: 0

      It's actually the last home game before the elections that counts.

      That one aginst the Bills was Away.

    11. Re:This trend is already over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but RTFA: it is their last HOME game.

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

    12. Re:This trend is already over by corsair2112 · · Score: 0

      haha, nice job modding this up. dumbfuck mods.

    13. Re:This trend is already over by evslin · · Score: 1

      Yeah seriously heh. That was my bad guys.

      SORRY! :/

    14. Re:This trend is already over by FauxReal · · Score: 1

      No dude, it's the last home game that they go by.. not the last game before the election.

      http://nflhistory.net/shared/annual_review.asp?T ea m=20&Year=1996

    15. Re:This trend is already over by dze · · Score: 1

      No, that was a road game. Summary. The trend is for their last *home* game before the election.

      --

      "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
    16. Re:This trend is already over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except in instances where they lose against teams whose names bear a similarity to one of the candidates.

      So when they play Chicago, we should simply reverse the prediction.

    17. Re:This trend is already over by sessamoid · · Score: 1
      Yeah seriously heh. That was my bad guys.

      That's all right. You have a 6-digit UID after all. Hey wait....

      :-)

      --
      "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
    18. Re:This trend is already over by afroken · · Score: 1

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

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

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

    19. Re:This trend is already over by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's Slashdot, you don't have to be right to get modded up, you just have to say it like you know what you're talking about.

      Actually, to get modded up at /., you have to toe the party (not necessarily political) line. This generally means linux/FOSS/Kerry = good; MS/Bush = bad.

  36. No surprise. by AbbyNormal · · Score: 4, Funny

    Have the Redskins won a game since 1936?

    Signed, former VA resident.

    --
    Sig it.
    1. Re:No surprise. by Lord+Haha · · Score: 1

      A few...

      Signed, current VA resident.

    2. Re:No surprise. by lubricated · · Score: 1

      I heard that they won a game or two in 1991.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
  37. Ex post facto statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If Kerry doesn't win then we'll just come up with another statistic to "predict" the election with.

    Until a couple of weeks ago, nobody ever won the playoffs after losing the first 3 games. Now they need a new statistic there too.

  38. Futures... by drawfour · · Score: 1

    Maybe instead of using stupid non-related sports "predictions", people should look towards things that actually DO predict outcomes (or at least do a decent job of it). Futures. Try intrade.com for more information.

    During the 2000 election, there was a story about a small town in New Hampshire (I think) who had ALWAYS voted for the winner of the presidential election. (Or at least for a very long time.) They open the polls at midnight and all the votes are cast and counted very quickly. Well, they voted for Gore in 2000. So that means this year there will be no story about them, since obviously they were wrong. At least THAT'S a story that is related. Sports and politics are unrelated and any correlation is just coincidence.

    1. Re:Futures... by zackeller · · Score: 1

      This'll kill my karma, but...

      They were right in 2000.

    2. Re:Futures... by Portal1 · · Score: 1

      Who said they were wrong :)

      --
      There are no stupid questions, Just a lot of inquisitive idiots. (from a good friend)
  39. a better indicator! by macsox · · Score: 5, Funny
    as salon's excellent sports columnist king kaufman reveals:

    Consider this: Every time the Boston Red Sox win the World Series in a presidential election year, Woodrow Wilson gets elected president. You can look it up: 1912 and 1916. Now the Sox have done it again. What's it mean? You read it here first: Woodrow Wilson in a landslide!

    enough said.
    1. Re:a better indicator! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Woodrow Wilson was a democrat. ;)

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    2. Re:a better indicator! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, If they dug out his coffin and he had a chance of winning, I'd vote for him over the other two wankers.

    3. Re:a better indicator! by NullLogic · · Score: 1

      Consider this: Every time the Boston Red Sox win the World Series in a presidential election year, Woodrow Wilson gets elected president. You can look it up: 1912 and 1916. Now the Sox have done it again. What's it mean? You read it here first: Woodrow Wilson in a landslide!

      You do know that you your constitution prohibits him from running for a third complete term, right? In any case, the rather nasty speech impediment he's developed since he died might work against him. I think he might still be able to vote, tho.

    4. Re:a better indicator! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You do know that you your constitution prohibits him from running for a . . . "

      Thanks for clearing that up. For a minute there I really thought we were going to have a zombie Woodrow Wilson on the ballot Tuesday.

    5. Re:a better indicator! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing; the corpse of Woodrow Wilson would make a better president than Bush has. Zing!

    6. Re:a better indicator! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You do know that you your constitution prohibits him from running for a third complete term, right?"

      Perhaps there's a grandfather clause?

      If I remember correctly, the amendment was ratified after Woodrow Wilson was president. So maybe, since he was president before this, he could be president again?

      "You do know that you your constitution prohibits him from running for a third complete term, right?"

      If I remember my poll tax correctly, you have to be a land owner. Since he's buried on Federal land, he's not a land-owner and therefore cannot vote.

      See? The poll tax is good for something!
      (This has been intended as joke)

    7. Re:a better indicator! by RussianBeard · · Score: 1

      That's not even vaguely enough said. If this "Woodrow Wilson" is going to win on Tuesday, I'd like to know something about where he stands on the issues! Someone in the Media (liberal or otherwise) needs to get on this.

  40. Re:It Could Be Worse... by TheOnlyJuztyn · · Score: 2, Funny

    Imagine the headline: Slashdot polls won by serious option (re: not cowboyneal). World assumed to end soon.

  41. What about the other candidates?-Nader. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My ballot has three candidates. Bush, Kerry, and Nader. Bush and Kerry have the majority of whatever metric you use. Nader unfortunately doesn't, and I doubt one more day is enough time to change that.

    1. Re:What about the other candidates?-Nader. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The DNC worked its ass off to keep Nader off the ballot in key states. They think Kerry will get the votes of would-be Nader voters. He's not getting my vote. I haven't decided, yet, whether to write in Nader, or someone else, or vote for Bush out of spite.

    2. Re:What about the other candidates?-Nader. by mcb · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nader isn't just a victim of the DNC. In Pennsylvania, he's off the ballot because there were names like Mickey Mouse, John Kerry, etc. on his petition. It was thrown out because something like 20,000 signatures were invalid.

    3. Re:What about the other candidates?-Nader. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, the Nader people must have gotten help from that Democrat voter registration contractor that was being paid in crack cocain by by a woman from the NAACP. Can't remember where that was, but he made the national news a couple of days in a row a week or so back, along with a sampling of the cartoon characters and ficticious names he had registered as Democrats.

      Let's hope we can disenfranchise a lot of voters... the _fraudulent_ voters unleashed by the Democrat party, that is.

    4. Re:What about the other candidates?-Nader. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Freeper command to douchebag agent AC. You shift is over. Take the rest of the night off.

  42. Grrr..,. by spike2131 · · Score: 2, Funny

    As an anti-Bush Redskins fan, I can't decide whether to be happy or sad. I think my head is about to explode.

    --
    SpyDock: Scientific Python in a Docker container
    1. Re:Grrr..,. by Loonacy · · Score: 1

      Well think of it this way: Which would you rather have, Bush in the White House, or the Redskins lose a single game?

    2. Re:Grrr..,. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Wait a second, you have an online Magic Eight Ball in your sig, and you can't decide?!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:Grrr..,. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's interesting you refer to yourself as "anti-Bush" rather than "pro-whomever". So much hate for Bush its rediculous. Social Marxists are pissed they have been out of power for so long and it has been manifest as a vitriolic hatred for Bush.

      Get over it already. Bush will win and you will still be out of power. Your ideas will be defeated.

    4. Re:Grrr..,. by TheFlyingGoat · · Score: 1

      I feel the same way. I'm a Bush-supporting Packer fan. I understand stuff like this gives TV announcers something to fill the time, but it got out of hand after showing that damn graphic and playing the patriotic music for the 6th time.

      --
      You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
  43. Re:That's why a third party will never be viable.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, a Redskin loss means the incumbent party is not reelected.

  44. Re:What about the other candidates? by bcs_metacon.ca · · Score: 1

    Yes, it *is* actually hard. First-past-the-post electoral procedures almost always create a two-party system that's almost impossible for other parties to break into: Duverger's law. The science part of political science is actually pretty fascinating.

    --

    How appropriate. You fight like a cow.
  45. Surely somebody here understands statistics! by lakeland · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Say we're talking about 15 elections. To be able to predict them accurately is a 1 in 2^15 chance or 1 in 32768. All you need to have is 32 thousand things going on and you're all but assured that one of them will be a perfect predictor.

    It reminds me of a stock scam from a few years back. You mail out aprediction on some random stock to 10,000 people. Half you say it will rise, half you say it will fall. Repeat until you've been right 10 times in a row. Now contact the 10 people you were right for, and offer to sell them your method for $LOTS. How many people would turn down someone who was right ten times in a row.

    Of course, like every other non-american, I'm desperately hoping Bush loses

    1. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes like every other person on the planet....

      hahahahaha.

      dont overemphasize your particular point of view, it is not always as important and shared as you would like to believe.

      you stated every other person, so unless you can find that as a fact that 100% of people polled.. dont bother with some other useless report.

      btw bush will win by 5-10%
      but everyone will just bitch about cheatint etc (even though both sides equally do that)

    2. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm sure somebody here understand statistics, but looks like you don't understand combinatorics.

      You are going to need a hell of a lot more than "32 thousand things going on" in order to be "all but assured" of finding a "perfect predictor".

      I agree with your basic argument though :-)

    3. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by mystran · · Score: 1
      Except the stock scam is pre-arranged. You distribute your predictions evenly, so as to have exactly 10 people with each possible series of predictions (obviously you need 10,240 people for this though, but that's irrelevant).

      On the other hand, if you take 32768 random (and independent) things, for each of them you have 32767/32768 chance that it didn't predict correctly. So the chance of none of them predicting the outcome correctly is (32767/32768)^32768 because they are independent. This, in terms of percents is only ~36.8% which means you have ~63.2% chance that (at least) one of them actually happens to predict correctly.

      If you are happy with 50% chance you only need to look at 22713 series of events, but if you want 90% certainty, you need to look at about 75450 series. So saying "all but assured" (63.2%) does not give that impressive picture of your statistic ability. For 99% chance you need 150900. Obviously you can't reach full certainty.

      That said, you are definitely right in that looking at enough independent actions will (very likely) cause a "correlation" to be found somewhere at some point.

      --
      Software should be free as in speech, but if we also get some free beer, all the better.
    4. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Of course, like every other non-american, I'm desperately hoping Bush loses.

      You know, I hate Bush, but comments like that make me want to vote for him. Almost. Are you from one of those countries that Saddam bought off?

      The USA may be shit, but the rest of the worl is shittier. You criticize us from the shattered remains of your own glass palaces.

      It's HUMANITY that is deeply and probably irreversably broken. No one country has any lock on that.

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    5. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That reminds me of an ST-DS9 episode where there was a person who was always lucky. No matter what was involved, they always got the best outcome possible. As an example there was a game with something like 1 in 2 bln chance of winning and that guy won it every time he run it. Is it possible, yes. Is it probable, no. What does it mean if it really happens?

      So, what if there is absolutely no connection between Redskins and elections, but in fact both will always come 100% correlated?

    6. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5-10% of what? the election is decided by the electoral college.

    7. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by ColdZero · · Score: 0

      My kingdom for a mod point.

    8. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Hey genius,

      try not to confuse "anti current US administration" with "anti-American".

      Thanks,
      The Rest of the World

    9. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I never understood this point of view, the french and german goverments did what the overwhelming majority of their population wanted (over 80% in germany), and the US administration spins it as the government being corrupt and bought off by Saddam?

      No citizen of those countries give a crap about some corporation's oil contracts, or whatever form this bribe was supposedly in, but every 3rd American appears to believe bribes explain their feelings on the matter?
      "The USA may be shit, but the rest of the worl is shittier"
      Have you been outside America?

      The scandinavian countries are normally considered the best nations in the world to live (Some quick googling to back this up)

      I have seen only 1 survey where the US came out the best, most of the time the US is way down the list - the US has the greatest poverty of the developed nations, normally the greatest crime, education isn't very strong, etc.

      Now don't get me wrong, my point isn't to shit all over America's weaknesses, it's a pretty cool place, just saying that "the rest of the world is shitter" is a very naive thing to say. By most indexes the US comes about 5th.
    10. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by Schnapple · · Score: 3, Informative
      Has anyone else noticed how non-rigid this legend is? For starters, it's not every time these two teams meet, it's every time they meet in an election year, so only 25% of their games count toward this election. Plus, it's the "incumbent party", not one party affiliated with a particular team. If the Redskins always represented Republicans and Green Bay always represented the Democrats, then it of course wouldn't work. And - I'm no football junkie - but is this even a significant rivalry? I always figured the Redskins were rivals mainly with the Dallas Cowboys.

      I hope Kerry wins and so I obviously like this "omen", but to me this is more akin to those guys that find the Wizard of Oz/Dark Side of the Moon connection - yeah it fits but how long did it take you to find the correlation?

    11. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by pairo · · Score: 1

      Though I agree with you, I have to say it's people like him that make me question wether or not I'm in the second category.

    12. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by pairo · · Score: 2, Informative

      RTFA. It's the last home game the Redskins play before election day, not their home game against the Packers that season.

      --
      There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear. -- Daniel Dennett

    13. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The scandinavian countries are normally considered the best nations in the world to live (Some quick googling to back this up [bbc.co.uk])

      Which explains why everybody on the planet is trying to sneak into Sweden.

      Oh, wait. Nobody is trying to sneak into Sweden. The PR must be better than the reality.

    14. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
      Of course, like every other non-american, I'm desperately hoping Bush loses

      This guy is not from the US, and details the reasons why he is *for* Bush winning. I may not agree with everything he has to say, but it is well reasoned and not a generic, "FOUR MOR YEARS!!!" post or a rabid response to my admittedly trollish post. (It certainly brought out more useful discussion than I thought it would.)

      There are several posts worth looking at there; just thought I'd point out one of the more articulate 'pro-Bush' posts I've seen on /.

    15. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anti-Americanism predates George Bush by a long, long time.

    16. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Are you from one of those countries that Saddam bought off?

      New Zealand?

    17. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey... I have a New Zealand citizenship and nobody bought me off.

      Where's my cut?

    18. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      The US has been mucking around in almost every countries political system for 50 years, and you're pissed of because a non-american says he doesn't like Bush?

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    19. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey no point out things like that. Next you'll be saying it would only be fair if the US had to be ruled by a dictator pick out by the Iranians as payback for that whole Shah & CIA/Mossad trained terror squads thing.

    20. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by pairo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Damn it. This is a classic example of wasting mod points. Instead of modding the parent down, they mod me up. Sheesh, I only pointed out the mistake in his argument, it's not like I actually had something interesting or informative to say!

    21. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod Parent +1, Insightful

    22. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by pairo · · Score: 1

      Nah, the way I figure it, they will probably mod the original post down. Which is, again, wasteful, since the mistake should be made obvious to more people.
      But, then again, this is Slashdot, we shouldn't expect people (especially moderators) to think.

    23. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by Schnapple · · Score: 1
      RTFA. It's the last home game the Redskins play before election day, not their home game against the Packers that season.
      My bad - I guess I glanced over the particular football anecdotes a little too quickly. Still - this helps my point, it's not even a particular rivalry, it's the "last home game" before the election. If they had picked a particular rivalry then the point would be even harder to fit.
    24. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by blankman · · Score: 1

      The predictor isn't a rivalry with Green Bay; Washington doesn't necessarily play against Green Bay every year anyway. The Redskins' biggest rivals right now would be the teams in their division: Dallas Cowboys, New York Giants, Philadelphia Eagles. They play each of those teams twice a year.

      Anyway the supposed "predictor" is actually this: In any election year in which the Redskins have won their last home game before election day, regardless of the opponent, the incumbent has won the presidency. Of course it's just a cioncidence.

    25. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1

      I'm not pissed off at anything. That's your own brain degenerating ideology reading that into my post. As for the rest of your statement, you clearly need to evolve another 500,000 years before you can begin to even have a hope of grasping the complexities of this world. Talk to me again when you reach the level of an australopithicus robustus.

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    26. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1

      You completely and utterly misunderstood what I meant. Try again. Or don't. I really don't care. You're just another dumbass hairless ape with delusions of sentience.

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    27. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1
      Though I agree with you, I have to say it's people like him that make me question wether or not I'm in the second category.

      Someone vents a little frustration, and you're not sure if it makes you hate an entire nation of diverse people? Way to have command of your own mind there, Sparky. Way to have clarity of vision.

      The problem is that it never is limited to "anti the current administration". The problem is that we are continually broad brush bashed as a people (despite being one of the most diversely populated nations in history) by others in the world who have just as many problems and issues as we do, if not more. You expect us to just bend over and ask for more.

      I loved the study last year where they found a lot of people around the world got their main view of everyday life in the USA from The Sopranos. There's people out there who literally think we're a nation of mobsters. They buy into this media image lock stock and two smoking barrels. That's why we laugh when people call US ignorant of the rest of the world. EVERYONE is ignorant.

      It's the HYPOCRACY that's tiring, not the criticism. The criticism we could give a fleck of gnat's shit about, because it's mostly based on ignorance.

      And for what it's worth, I'm voting for Kerry because the USA needs to be taught a little lesson.

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    28. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1
      Ohhhhhh. Nice comeback.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    29. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by pairo · · Score: 1

      Someone vents a little frustration, and you're not sure if it makes you hate an entire nation of diverse people? Way to have command of your own mind there, Sparky. Way to have clarity of vision.

      Because of people like him, which are quite abundent. Vents a little frustration?

      Are you from one of those countries that Saddam bought off?
      No, thank you very much, I'm from a country that's been behind the US for the duration of the war, even though we're useless sods when it comes to war.
      The USA may be shit, but the rest of the worl is shittier.
      Yeah, sure. Yes, my country is shittier, but that doesn't mean every other country is shittier. The US isn't the best there is, though, ya know? If you _do_ think that, you should get out more.

      And what triggered this?
      Of course, like every other non-american, I'm desperately hoping Bush loses

      Geez, how's that for clarity of vision.

      The problem is that it never is limited to "anti the current administration". The problem is that we are continually broad brush bashed as a people (despite being one of the most diversely populated nations in history) by others in the world who have just as many problems and issues as we do, if not more. You expect us to just bend over and ask for more.

      I can assure you I am not thinking you have more problems than we do, but I am certain we don't feel we own the world. (We're not in the position to, but that's irrelevant.) It's actually _you_ that expect the rest of the world to bend over and ask for more.

      I loved the study last year where they found a lot of people around the world got their main view of everyday life in the USA from The Sopranos. There's people out there who literally think we're a nation of mobsters. They buy into this media image lock stock and two smoking barrels. That's why we laugh when people call US ignorant of the rest of the world. EVERYONE is ignorant.

      I can also assure you I don't belive you're a nation of mobsters after watching Sopranos (Which study was that anyway?).
      "There's people"? You mean, there's a people that thinks that? Which people would that be? The Iraqis? The Afganis? Again, it's not that we're not ignorant, it's just that we don't pretend to be better than everybody else.

      It's the HYPOCRACY that's tiring, not the criticism. The criticism we could give a fleck of gnat's shit about, because it's mostly based on ignorance.

      HYPOCRACY? What's that, is it anything like hypocrisy? From what you've said so far, _you_ are the ignorant one here. Indeed, there are degrees of ignorance, so one may say "you are the most ignorant one". Isn't that hypocrisy on _YOUR_ part? Criticising us for being ignorant, while being one yourself?

      And, yes, my criticism is based on ignorance, but a different kind of ignorance, the willful ignorance of your self-centered, pretentious attitude towards the rest of the world.

      I am fully aware however that not all Americans are like you and the AC that I was talking about, so I still have hopes for some Americans, the ones that do try to think further than their mesely country, which harbors under one fiftieth of the world's population.

      As for the squabble with your own country, you're voting for the Lesser Evil, so I'm not going to argue with you. :-)

    30. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1
      Confused quoting and typo flames. Putting the single example of yourself as a counter to an aggregate judgement... Great. You do not understand a single thing I was saying.

      God, humanity sucks! I hate you all! Where's that fucking ELE asteroid already? Just end this mess once and for all, and give it over to the cockroaches.

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    31. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by pairo · · Score: 1

      There's always suicide, this way you both rid us of you, and you of us.

    32. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1

      God, you're a bore.

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    33. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by pairo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we all know God is boring, that's why we threw him out of politics. Oh, wait...

    34. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1

      Heh heh. Maybe you're OK after all. I'm just fuckin' with ya, man. I just want the election over.

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
    35. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by pairo · · Score: 1

      It's funny that I only noticed you're the author of the message I originally flamed. :-) As for my reply, I was trying to prove that not everybody that dislikes a part of the American population is ignorant. Or something.

    36. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by Starcub · · Score: 1

      And - I'm no football junkie - but is this even a significant rivalry? I always figured the Redskins were rivals mainly with the Dallas Cowboys.

      Yup that's right. Green Bay's chief rival is Tampa bay, or at least it was while they were in the same division. Now I suppose it's the Vikes. But speaking of Tampabay, I'm sure there's an "every year the Bucs win a superbowl..." joke in here somewhere. How about after every year the Bucs win a superbowl, they kick Keyshawn Johnson off the team, which could actually become reality. ;)

    37. Re:Surely somebody here understands statistics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You do not understand a single thing I was saying"

      That seems to be a theme with you.
      The burdon of clear communication is on the speaker, you can blame everyone else for being too stupid to understand you, but you could also try saying something intelligent without cloaking it in all that reactionary incendiary garbage you spew.

  46. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    As a slashdotter, I think we have the responsibility to hack the diebolt boxes to ensure that Kerry wins. Not an Eminem fan, but I liked this video. Eminem's antibush Video

  47. fricken superstitions by deft · · Score: 1

    im only going to put up with this because its halloween, and even I enjoy the occasional creepy coincidence.

    its not going to top the 'curse' being broken on the night of a full eclipse though.

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
    1. Re:fricken superstitions by micromoog · · Score: 1
      its not going to top the 'curse' being broken on the night of a full eclipse though.

      Yeah, I thought that was pretty cool too . . . if I'm not mistaken, the totality was actually going on at the moment the game ended.

  48. I have predicted the election results also..... by etn991 · · Score: 1

    If I get laid on the Saturday before, the incumbent loses.

    Bush wins. Oh well....

    1. Re:I have predicted the election results also..... by JamesTRexx · · Score: 1

      Just look at it this way, if Bush wins, you'll be fscked for the next four years.

      j/k... :-P

      --
      home
    2. Re:I have predicted the election results also..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      votergasm is for you.

    3. Re:I have predicted the election results also..... by Eccles · · Score: 1

      If I get laid on the Saturday before, the incumbent loses.

      If I get laid on the Saturday before, the Libertarian wins.

      Ummm....

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  49. Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by Gldm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real reason Kerry will win is because the polls are very wrong. Just as generals always "plan to win the last war" the polls are showing methods designed to win the last election.

    When they poll "likely voters" they ignore, among other considerations, people who have cellphones. AFAIK, they only poll over land lines.

    Also, there's huge assumptions in the statistical breakdown of voting age. Young voters often don't care about the election and have the lowest turnout. However, many people are so worked up over this election and the results of the last one that I believe we'll see the highest percentage of young voters in a long time. Most younger voters lean more towards the left.

    Thus the polls are skewed because their assumptions are totally wrong. Given that it's a dead heat in most polls right now, Kerry should come out ahead.

    Unless there's some kind of cheating/manipulation of the election, but what are the odds of that?

    --

    Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!

    1. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, "undecided" voters in polls overwhelmingly vote for Democrats in the election. Mr. Zogby said on the Daily Show he is very confident that Kerry will win. He has the most accurate polls compared to others, and the past few days have shown Kerry making slow gains against Bush. Al Gore was 4-5 points behind Bush in the polls going into election day 4 years ago. Kerry is dead even.

    2. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by Gldm · · Score: 1

      Actually electoral-vote.com now has Kerry ahead 283 to 246 as of 10/31.

      --

      Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!

    3. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless there's some kind of cheating/manipulation of the election, but what are the odds of that?

      Pretty high in Florida, and Chicago.

    4. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by bergerdml · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm less convined Kerry is going to win, but the cell phone bias in polling is true...

      Here is a link to one of many articles that talk about the cell phone problem here.

      Now I can't find a link, but I'd swear I read an article this morning saying that Gallup (or some other big poller) just did an SMS survey and found that Kerry was way ahead with that group...

    5. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would presume the odds of cheating and manipulation to be very high. If past history is any indication, the dead will vote democratic, every registered dog will vote democratic, and pretty much everyone that I don't think deserves to vote (non-citizens, felons, etc...) will vote democratic.

      I just wish that there were more of a difference between the two candidates. I'd vote constitution party if it would be of any use, but since it isn't, I'll take tweedledee (bush) over tweedledum anyday, because at least I know what he stands for and can make some sort of attempt at predicting his actions. That and not wanting to bend over for the ineffectual UN or France makes him better than Kerry.

      (And, please, I'd rather not hear that snot about quagmires... it's so far from a quagmire that the term isn't even right enough to be considered wrong. Go *actually* look up what happened in Vietnam, and why, then return.)

    6. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by Nasarius · · Score: 1

      Which they freely admit is nearly meaningless because all the "barely Kerry" and "barely Bush" states are actually statistical ties. Comparing two data points within the margin of error is utterly meaningless, which is one of the reasons why the decision to accept Bush's ~1000 vote margin in Florida last election was a terrible mistake.
      In these "tied" states, it's all about getting people to the polls on Tuesday.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    7. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If past history is any indication, the dead will vote democratic, every registered dog will vote democratic, and pretty much everyone that I don't think deserves to vote (non-citizens, felons, etc...) will vote democratic.

      And Republicans will do everything they can to keep minorities, young and poor voters from voting. They'll also make sure that all the snowbirds in Florida vote in their home state and in Florida.

      Both parties engage in election fraud; my hope is that it balances itself out and is just a big waste of all of their time.

      because at least I know what he stands for and can make some sort of attempt at predicting his actions.

      That's right, he's so stubborn he would keep digging a hole to china even after you proved it to him a million times over that it was impossible. But at least you know he'll keep digging, that's what I want in a leader. Reminds me of other stubborn leaders that let their narrow-minded thought get in their way (Hitler, anyone? If he had bothered to slow down and realize he couldn't conquer the whole world as quickly as he had hoped, he might have had a better chance.)

    8. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > When they poll "likely voters" they ignore, among other considerations, people who have cellphones. AFAIK, they only poll over land lines.

      When the polls are ballpark close they're useless anyway, because the election isn't decided by the popular vote. What matters is how the votes are distributed through the various states.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    9. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by node+3 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just as generals always "plan to win the last war" the polls are showing methods designed to win the last election.

      They are only polling the Supreme Court justices?

    10. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by dnb415 · · Score: 1

      It seems that you are implying that the only way Bush can win is by cheating. If you go look around online, you will see polls leaning both ways. I couldn't agree more that polls are useless, the only one that matters is the one conducted on Tuesday. You can find research to support anything (look at this whole topic), but to make a statement that Bush winning indicates cheating on the GOP's side seems a bit ignorant. There is plenty of non-poll based research to support a win by Bush, as there is with Kerry. Polls are the media's way to make people involved in the election process. If you were really into politics you have been watching every poll and taking them with a grain of salt. You would have also been watching what the political science departments have said, what the economic sector has had to say, and numerous other non-polling sources. If you had done all that you might never had made such an ignorant statement.

    11. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comparing two data points within the margin of error is utterly meaningless,

      It's a margin of error, but the futher you deviate from the numbers the less likely that is the actual result. For instance, if you have 52% for one candidate, and 48% for the other, the chances are very high that is the correct polling result, even with a margin of error of +-3%. When you to the extremes, and go 49%/51%, the odds of that being it are very slim.

      "Stastical tie" is a myth invented by the media.

    12. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by nanosmurf · · Score: 1

      ... and as Canadian's learned in our last Federal Election. The actual results blew the polls out of the water. Polls are meaningless because the only results that have any sort of official "reliablility" are conducted on the shrinking minority of those who are home to answer their phones when the pollsters call. Who is that? Seniors, housewives, and childless computer geeks?

    13. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by Sahib! · · Score: 4, Informative

      Now I can't find a link, but I'd swear I read an article this morning saying that Gallup (or some other big poller) just did an SMS survey and found that Kerry was way ahead with that group...



      Here is a link to a Daily Kos story from today. The polling was done by Zogby in partnership with Rock the Vote and Motorola. Here's Zogby's article. The Rock the Vote Mobile site is not responding for me at the moment.

      --

      I prayed about it, and God said, "Don't do it!" But I thought, "I know better."

    14. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by headwes · · Score: 0

      I haven't been able to find a link either, but I did see it mentioned on one of the news networks. IIRC, the results were 55% Kerry, 40% Bush. That particular survey was by Zogby, polling cell phone users 30 and under (or was it under 30?).

    15. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by Repton · · Score: 1

      Ok, IANA statistician, but I have studied stats a bit.

      Anyway, I thought the basic assumption underlying all random sampling is that the sample is, well, random. If you break that by saying you're gonna poll x people in this demographic and y people in that demographic then you cut the base out of your theory and all the mathematics collapses.

      Or am I wrong about that?

      --
      Repton.
      They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
    16. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by NoodleSlayer · · Score: 1

      Well last time around the polls were showing Bush up 5 points...

      On top of that they were worried that Bush would win the popular vote and then lose the electoral vote.

      And then Gore won the popular vote and lost Florida because the Supreme Court told them to stop counting votes with 96,000 votes remaining uncounted, and included in the ruling "this only applies in the one instance." Despite them having no constitutional basis for doing such.

    17. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by sadr · · Score: 1

      You're all wrong about this.

      They poll a bunch of people about the election, but also get demographic data about them.

      Then they weight the results for each candidate based on the size for that population.

      This is the same kind of statistical weighting the census uses for some of it's surveys, but is legally prohibited from doing for apportionment. You can find more details in the discussions a few years ago about the census if you want more info.

    18. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by mindriot · · Score: 1

      Regarding all the polls, in the past days I found this page pretty interesting. These guys collect all the polls that come out and provide a convenient map including different prediction methods for the final result.

      The poll map there, of course, is not showing you much more than how close things actually are (this story from yesterday is an interesting read) -- but at least it gives you a good overview of what is going on.

    19. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real reason Kerry will win is because the polls are very wrong. Just as generals always "plan to win the last war" the polls are showing methods designed to win the last election.

      When they poll "likely voters" they ignore, among other considerations, people who have cellphones. AFAIK, they only poll over land lines.


      because everyone knows republicans don't have access to cell phones!

    20. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by wass · · Score: 1
      It's actually more complicated then that. Many of the polls oversample republicans in their predictions. It doesn't make sense because they sample about 1000 people, but then re-normalize the votes of registered republicans to account for about 5% more than registered democrats. This is fallacious because exit polls from previous elections usually demonstrate number of democrats voting as exceeding number of republicans voting by a few percent.

      But don't just take my word for it, look for yourself. You can see the results of many different polls just before the 2000 election here. Remember the popular vote was pretty damn close between Gore/Bush, with Gore getting 48.38% and Bush getting 47.87% nationwide. Notice that almost all the polls shortly before the election favored Bush, several times significantly above the Margin of Error.

      --

      make world, not war

    21. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by be-fan · · Score: 1

      It comes down to what question the poll answers:

      Simple example. There are two types of people: A, who always vote for Kerry, and B, who always vote for Bush. If there are equal numbers of A and B people, and you do a random poll, you'll find out that 50% of the population supports each candidate.

      However, consider what question this poll answers: "what candidate does the population as a whole prefer." That's not the question we want to ask. We want to know "what percentage of the votes will each candidate get?" Here is where the correction comes in --- the pool of voters is known not to be a random subset of the population. Voting is strongly correlated with particular demographic properties. In our previous example, if group A is young people, and only votes 50% of the time, and group B is old people and votes 75% of the time, then our election will turn out a landslide victory for Bush (60% to 40%), even though support among the population is about even.

      So in order to accurately estimate who will win, you've got to make some estimates about what percentage of each demographic will make it to the polls. If you then sample support for each candidate in each demographic, you can come up with some (statistically sound), numbers. Now, while these numbers may be statistically sound, how accurate they are depends on how accurate your estimates of the turnout demographics is.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    22. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by killjoe · · Score: 1

      I believe 4% of the population has cell phones but not a land line. That's a pretty big number when the lection is so close.

      I would think that a younger geekier crowd would trend towards kerry but will they even bother to vote when the time comes. Remember when Dean was going to win because so many young people were visiting his web site? Well none of them showed up to vote and kerry got the nomination.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    23. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by aaza · · Score: 1
      I invoke Godwin's Law.

      This thread will now end.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
      In practice, however, there is.
    24. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by Rallion · · Score: 1

      It's interesting to note that Zogby says he thinks Kerry will get it. Interesting because he is one of the men to listen to. He knows what people are saying now, he knows what they said in the past...he knows what happened in the past, he's got a good idea of what will happen now.

      Of course, he's not SURE. It's close, and he knows that polls aren't reliable. But, again, he knows the ways in which polls aren't reliable, he knows he's not getting huge chunks of voters, and he has an idea of what those chucks are.

    25. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 1

      Despite them having no constitutional basis for doing such.

      The President is elected by the Electors, and the Electors are selected by the State Legislators in any way they see fit. It turns out that in Florida, the State Legislators agreed on a method that doesn't really bother to count the votes.

      The Florida Supreme Court ruled, correctly, that the Florida State Legislature was a bunch of crack-smoking ass clowns, and that the method they described to select the Electors didn't make any damned sense.

      The US Supreme Court then ruled, correctly, that the Constitution specifically says that the State Legislature can select the Electors using any half-assed method they want to use, and the Florida Supreme Court doesn't get much say in the matter.

      The Florida Supreme Court may be generally responsible for intervening when the State Legislature writes laws indistinguishable from a shit sandwhich, but in this case the citizens of Florida are out of luck. If the citizens are interested in influencing who their State Legislature chooses as electors, the citizens are perfectly welcome to get off their asses and ask to vote.

      Of course, the chances are good that the citizens of Florida aren't going to have much influence over the process again this year. Their State Legislature has, for all intents and purposes, taken the rotting, maggot infested dung pile of laws they're using as a voting procedure, and took an extra crap on it, smoothed it out, and called it frosting.

    26. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if you try to take away their right to self-determination, they may exercise their natural right to slaughter their oppressors.

      Oops.

    27. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by ucsckevin · · Score: 1

      i think it was james carville who once said:
      "you know what we call someone who is relying on new voters? a loser"

      anyway...back to demagogery

    28. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by awol · · Score: 1

      Well, I am not so sure about your analysis. I think that amongst certain circles the young lean left but those circles are not particularly large (Univerisities being the place were your view holds most water).

      It is true that the polls can get it very wrong, but you forget that it is the pollsters JOB to get it right and so they have an incentive to design a method that will capture the right answer.

      Interestingly enough there is another pool of statistics that are extremely useful in assessing the results of elections and it is the bookmakers. When taken in conjunction with the polsters, it really does suggest a republican win. In Australia (where recently they had a national election) the polls and the bookies presented an interesting combination of results. Because of the nature of the system in Australia, there are two metrics for the measurement of the result, one is the "which party would you vote for" and the other is "which leader would you like to have as prime minister". The "party" vote was closish, with the incumbent a few percent preferred, but the "leader" vote was vastly in favour of the incumbent, like about 45% to 30%. The bookies showed a strong result in favour of the incumbent and it was effectively a landslide for the incumbant with them being returned to power with an increased majority. A result which made the whinnying left weep tears of blood, but I digress.

      A quick google, found three bookmakers, all showing a strong lead to the republicans. I think it would be hard to find a bookmaker showing pro democrat odds. Now remember that this is not becuase the bookies care who wins, they are just reflecting where the money goes. In other words they have a _truly_ impartial factor in the odds they show, they have no "survey question" bias, and in many cases they are offing spread books which means they are not even offering the odds themselves but it is the other punters.

      Now this is not fool proof, there is a lot of the money in these books that will be influenced by the polls, and it is almost certainly the case that they are not being used as a hedge against the result, but the diversity of sources saying "republican win" does seem to suggest that there is an increasingly slim chance of the democrats pulling it off.

      Which then brings us to the electoral college. Some will argue that it is a huge problem, causing all sorts of bias and peverting the results of the election, well, here we have the joy of a single winner in a federal system (ie where there can be only one winner but a diverse series of "electorates"). I think that it is important for some kind of protection of the minority view in a democracy and if you are going to have a plebescite election of president in a country the size of the USA then some kind of electoral college is necessary in order to do that. I can think of better ways of doing it. I am sure we all can, but even the left will have to admit that if Bush is such a diabolical leader and the republicans such a morally bankrupt administration and that they "stole" the last election, then the current polling and likely result tomorrow should scare the shit out of them because maybe, just maybe it is they who are out of step with the view of a majority of the electorate (and by that i don't mean people).

      Look, don't get me wrong, I think Bush is a crap president (you haven't really had a good one since, well, probably FD Rooseveldt, some might argue Kennedy or Reagan, but hey that's the joy of debate). I also think that Kerry will probably make a better one, but the information available to predict electorate behaviour all seems to suggest a Republican win.

      --
      "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
    29. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by Nasarius · · Score: 1

      Ah no, that's completely wrong. Please review basic statistics that you'd learn in any university science course.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    30. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by kir · · Score: 1

      I tired to do that the other day, but it didn't work.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    31. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by revscat · · Score: 1

      Look, don't get me wrong, I think Bush is a crap president (you haven't really had a good one since, well, probably FD Rooseveldt, some might argue Kennedy or Reagan, but hey that's the joy of debate). I also think that Kerry will probably make a better one, but the information available to predict electorate behaviour all seems to suggest a Republican win.

      I'd argue that Clinton was a great president in every measurable way, and frequently in immesurable ones. You look at the economic and social statistics coming out of the Clinton years and you can't help but be impressed. Detractors try and chalk 100% of the economic prosperity up to the tech bubble, but I think that is only a part of the story. Poverty was down, welfare recidivism was down, environmental regulations were streamlined and made more effective, the US was respected, so forth and so on.

      BTW: At the time I write this message it looks like Kerry will win. Early voting in three swing states show a whopping 9 point advantage for Kerry. If this pattern holds -- and I don't think it's too difficult to say that it will -- then Kerry should have no problems winning.

      Assuming, of course, that Diebold, et al, doesn't undermine the democracy.

    32. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by Bobman1235 · · Score: 1

      Thus the polls are skewed because their assumptions are totally wrong. Given that it's a dead heat in most polls right now, Kerry should come out ahead.

      You may be right, you may be wrong. One thing people tend to overlook is that we DO NOT have a national election in America, we have 50 state elections on the same day. Most polls are national polls, which as last year shows us, mean pretty much nothing. Just because you have a majority in the national poll doesn't mean squat - I'm much more interested in polls done in "swing states."

      I'm not trying to start an argument about the stupidity of the electoral college or anything like that here, just pointing out the fact that if you're listening to a "national poll," you're not really getting any kind of useful information.

    33. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by ahoehn · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, they only poll over land lines.

      Good idea, but wrong. I was listening to NPR the other day, and heard an interview on the topic of polling. The most orginizations poll people is to type in the area code and one of the 3 digit prefixes of a geographical area they're polling, and than have a random number generator generate the last 4 digits dialed. So, any cellphones in a given area code would be just as likely to be called as landlines.

      --
      Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
    34. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by barawn · · Score: 1


      It is true that the polls can get it very wrong, but you forget that it is the pollsters JOB to get it right and so they have an incentive to design a method that will capture the right answer.


      Not if you think about it. Most politicians don't know statistics - if they did, they'd be asking for the systematic error as well as the statistical. It's in the pollster's best interests to have polls that jump all over the place, and to have as many biases as possible. That way the politicians will be encouraged to buy more polls.

      Here's a simple example:

      Suppose you know the distribution of male/female people in your country: let's say it's 50/50, perfectly. Also assume that there are 10,000 people in your country.

      Now let's assume you go out and get a random sample of the people in the country - you want to find out who likes A, and who likes B. You get 600 women, and 400 men. 100% of the women like A, and 100% of the men like B.

      Naively, you'd conclude that A is favored 60% to 40%, with a sampling error of 2.9%. So a 50/50 split is excluded at 6 sigma, which is huge.

      The problem is that something apparently was wrong with your polling method, because the distribution of women and men doesn't match the distribution of people. So you post-weight your results to have the sample accurately represent the country. So that sample of 600 is weighted by 4/6 (2/3), so you then get a 50%/50% split again. You have to do more work to calculate the error properly, so I won't do it here.

      The problem comes when you don't know how to post-weight the results properly: suppose that you polled to get that 50% male/50% female number, and the poll was accurate +/-10%? Then your post-weighting becomes 0.66+/-0.44, which means that your poll now has an error term which is huge - your result is now 50%/50% with a 2.94% statistical error and a 10% systematic error (actually, it's more like +10%/-6.6%, but I'm not taking the time to work it out fully). And the problem is that this error term is systematic and not statistical, which means more polls don't help you at all - all those polls will be wrong in exactly the same way.

      This gets worse for election polls. The relative percentage of men and women is deterministic: there is an absolute answer, and it is determinable. But election polls don't want a sample of people, they want a sample of voters who will actually vote. So they need some way of figuring out who is going to vote - there is, of course, no way to do that until after the election has happened.

      Yes, polling companies post-weight their results. Yes, some post-weight it based on previous years' election data. Some do even worse - they determine the likelihood that a person is going to vote via an independent poll, and use that result (coupled with the registered voter demographic) to determine a "likelihood estimate" for voters at a certain age bracket, and use that to post-weight their data.

      There is no way to do this right. You can only guess at the distribution of who will vote, and that guess contains a systematic error. That none of the polling companies tell you about.

      So no, the pollsters do not "get it right". They can't. They don't even do a good job - if they did, they'd show systematic errors as well. Then you could possibly compare multiple polls and get a feel for what it truly might be, as well.

    35. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by barawn · · Score: 1

      Anyway, I thought the basic assumption underlying all random sampling is that the sample is, well, random.

      Two things:

      1) You don't get a random selection of people via any sampling method. Calling people at home, for instance, heavily biases you towards older populations, as they tend to be home more, and hang up less. So you have to correct for those biases, because you can't do a perfect sampling. That correction is called "post-weighting", because it happens after the poll.

      2) You aren't trying to get a random sample of people, you're trying to get a random sample of people who will vote on Election Day. The only time you will know what the demographic fraction of people who vote are is after the vote happens. To compensate this, they either try to determine voter likelihood, and then postweight by this likelihood fraction, or they base it on previous year's results. They do not quote the systematic error that results from this, though, which is terrifically bad.

      So yah, the polls are bunk. Why do you think all the polls from last election were not spread around the final result - 8/10 predicted Gore? Not enough data points, but it still is a pretty significant bias.

    36. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by barawn · · Score: 1

      You may be right, you may be wrong. One thing people tend to overlook is that we DO NOT have a national election in America, we have 50 state elections on the same day. Most polls are national polls, which as last year shows us, mean pretty much nothing. Just because you have a majority in the national poll doesn't mean squat - I'm much more interested in polls done in "swing states."

      His argument applies for swing states, as well (it's a dead heat in all of those states, and thankfully, those states have a large young population as well). The polls are likely to be wrong in that case, as well. Naively, given the estimated direction of the bias, it bodes very well for Kerry in the electoral result.

      The polls are bunk - the worst thing about them is that people don't realize that the systematic component is likely to be comparable to the statistical, especially with such a tiny sample size. And systematic components do not improve with the number of polls you do, so even though, for instance, there have been 25 polls in Florida, and if you average them, he has a tiny lead. However, systematic errors don't improve with averaging (statistical errors do). So, you know nothing more.

    37. Re:Yes but not because of this superstitious crap. by barawn · · Score: 1

      Look at the respondant distribution - it isn't representative of the voting distribution, nor the population distribution. There's a heavy bias towards older voters (they're home more often) and female voters (ditto).

      To correct it, they need to post-weight the results. They use the previous election's results (or a likelihood distribution and the registered voter distribution) to determine the weighting. Both of those methods are imperfect: therefore they generate systematic errors, which they don't quote.

      And I'm not sure if you understood that right - randomly calling cellphones is illegal in most states that I know of, including both my current state and the state that my cellphone is from.

  50. Re:What about the other candidates? by nomadic · · Score: 0

    I mean, Kerry is so close to Bush that if he wins you Americans will be no better off.

    Yes, I'd believe that too if I routinely did sit-ups under parked cars.

  51. IMHO Kerry was going to win anyways by rbeattie · · Score: 1, Insightful

    'nuff said, really.

    Please vote. Please encourage your friends and families to vote. Please don't vote for Bush.

    -Russ

    --
    Me
    1. Re:IMHO Kerry was going to win anyways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no dont vote.

      i like how you dont even mention voting FOR KERRY, but simply against bush.

      that is why kerry will lose, because no one actually likes him. the masses dont like the idea of voting for kerry, they just dont want bush. not exactly a person they are gonna get behind.

      kerry loses by atleast 5-10% (regardless of both sides cheating)

    2. Re:IMHO Kerry was going to win anyways by corsair2112 · · Score: 0

      What the fuck is insightful about this post? Am I missing a joke here or something?

    3. Re:IMHO Kerry was going to win anyways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agreed..don't believe the hype, Kerry is not even close. and the only reason he appears to be close is because the 'progressive' media wants him to be.

      Bush winning is a good thing. folks just hate him because the media wants them to. don't be sheep. read and inform yourself. watch voicesofiraq if you think the US is evil. and don't believe that Michael Moore crap.

  52. Correlation Indicates Causation (!) by MarkPNeyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ahem. Allow me to demonstrate to you chaps my fine-tuned statisical methode for calculating the electature of the united states presidentiary - because as we all well know, a correlation implies causation, especially when we have a data set of such magnitudinous proportions ...

    I personally didn't take the article as anything that was meant to be remotely serious - I figured it was just some people having fun and saying 'hey, look at this neat thing' - is that so wrong? I seriously doubt there is anyone who thinks this actually means something, but everybody's pounced on this story as if someone suggested that installing linux causes bad breath - it's obviously meant to serve as a little bit of humor to lighten to overly virtriolic political atmosohere. Let's not go crazy over it...

    --

    My blog
    1. Re:Correlation Indicates Causation (!) by tumbaumba · · Score: 1

      because as we all well know, a correlation implies causation

      Normally it does not of course. However in this case subject and object of the experiment are the same (society), which skews such simple models. In other words, correlation itself does not mean causation, but published and widely disseminated correlation creates new causation and in the end correlation may be equivalent to causation.

  53. Re:What about the other candidates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny you should ask, I worked with a guy once who said he was voting for X party, not because he liked them or because they where giving him money, the only reason he voted for that party is because had had always voted for that party and his father had voted for them and his grandfather had as well. That has to be one of the lamest reasons ever to vote for a candidate, and given the people I have met around here(Colorado) he is not the only person voting for those kind of reasons. So, when you ask why we don't just elect someone like Nader, or anyone who isn't a Democrat or a republican for that matter. Think about the millions of Americans who vote for one party or anther for no better reason than, "That's who my father voted for." then you might realize what people with ideas in their heads are up against.

  54. You're kidding, right? by Infonaut · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Kerry is so close to Bush

    Yes, they're both rich white men. But aside from that there are a host of rather large differences.

    For one thing, the Bush Doctrine is a serious departure from previous American foreign policy. Kerry has advocated an approach that relies on the sort of coalition-building that Bush Sr. used with such effectiveness in the first Gulf War.

    Kerry believes that excessive tax cuts for those who make over $200k per year is counterproductive. Bush believes that tax cuts of any kind, particularly those that favor the wealthy, result in increased entrepreneurial activity, which pumps up the economy, resulting in more jobs for everyone. These differences definitely have an effect on economic policy.

    On the environment, the candidates aren't even close. Kerry has a long history of working for the environment, and Bush doesn't even know what the word "environment" means.

    Bush has to cater to his "Base" by nixing stem cell research. Kerry knows that science is not something to be feared.

    The differences go on and on and on...

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:You're kidding, right? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Kerry knows that science is not something to be feared.

      I'm so tired of hearing this. It's not about "fearing science", it's about ethics. Whatever your stand on the issue is, it is undeniable that experimentation on human embryos has significant ethical considerations.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    2. Re:You're kidding, right? by drlake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You may be tired of hearing it, but considering the behavior of this administration with regard to science in general (not just stem cell research) it's clearly true. This administration is probably the worst since WW II in terms of not supporting science and misusing discoveries which happen in spite of government neglect or even opposition.

      As for ethics, given how ethically challenged Bush is I hardly think he's making ANY decisions based on ethics. He simply panders to his base and advisors, rather than making any effort to think about what is good for the country.

    3. Re:You're kidding, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've made a lot of vague accusations but haven't said anything specific.

      If you're going to slam a man's name you can do better than assume that your reader automagically agrees with whatever unsaid thing is in your head.

      I find his compromise on stem cell research acceptable. I find people who call it a "ban" are intellectually dishonest. Tell us, how much Federal money was going to stem cell research prior to Bush making a policy on how much Federal money can go to stem cell research?

      The answer may surprise you. In fact, I'm sure it will. Your homework is to go find that number.

    4. Re:You're kidding, right? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      As for ethics, given how ethically challenged Bush is I hardly think he's making ANY decisions based on ethics. He simply panders to his base and advisors, rather than making any effort to think about what is good for the country.

      Sheesh, I'm no fan of Bush, but at least TRY and get your facts straight. He took a lot of heat from his base for allowing ANY funding on the existing stem cell lines. The religious right (which who I assume you're referring to be the 'base') wanted an outright ban.

      You may argue with Bush's decisions, but the one thing he doesn't do is stick his finger in the wind and do whatever the public tells him to do (a la Clinton).

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    5. Re:You're kidding, right? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I'm so tired of hearing this. It's not about "fearing science", it's about ethics. Whatever your stand on the issue is, it is undeniable that experimentation on human embryos has significant ethical considerations.

      I think it's undeniable that letting those embryos go to waste has significant ethical considerations. Gee, we can use this tissue to advance medical science or we can incinerate it. Man, that's a hard decision.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:You're kidding, right? by MongooseKY · · Score: 1
      You may argue with Bush's decisions, but the one thing he doesn't do is stick his finger in the wind and do whatever the public tells him to do (a la Clinton).
      Not to mention the other places Clinton was sticking things.... cigar anyone?
    7. Re:You're kidding, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you make over 50K a year, by the democrats definition, you are one of those rich people

      except the coalition that kerry so wanted ala Bush Sr. HE TRIED TO DEFEAT THEN

      in practice they will do similar things that result in no radically different outcomes.

    8. Re:You're kidding, right? by 1lus10n · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I am wrong but isnt the presidents job to do what the people want ? "of the people by the people and for the people". We are supposed to have a democracy here.

      I for one do not want a goddamn dictator telling me what to do or how I should live my life. This is supposed to be a free country, so long as I dont force someone to do something against there freedom I shouldnt have someone doing that to me.

      Some of the religious right wanted a complete ban on stem cell testing because they think stem cells must come from abortions. (which is bullshit) A decent ammount of his base wanted stem cell testing so long as it doesnt come from abortions. One group is informed, the other is being misled by the assholes behind the pulpit.

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    9. Re:You're kidding, right? by fbg111 · · Score: 1

      "Kerry knows that science is not something to be feared."

      I'm so tired of hearing this. It's not about "fearing science", it's about ethics. Whatever your stand on the issue is, it is undeniable that experimentation on human embryos has significant ethical considerations.


      Whoever rated this a Troll doesn't deserve the use of modpoints. Modding should be a process by which we subject our political opinions to an objective analysis of the post, not the other way around. This post was a perfectly legitimate counter-argument to its parent, and should have been rated interesting or insightful, if anything.

      --
      Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
    10. Re:You're kidding, right? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1
      Correct me if I am wrong but isnt the presidents job to do what the people want ?

      Absolutely freakin' not. The President's job is to represent the people, and make decisions based on information that the people are not privy to, or don't have time to full research.

      We are supposed to have a democracy here.

      No, we are supposed to be a Republic. We elect representatives to look at the issues and vote on them. True democracy is impossible, and is not what we want. The people don't have time to educate themselves on every issue, and are too easily swayed back and forth.

      I for one do not want a goddamn dictator telling me what to do or how I should live my life. This is supposed to be a free country, so long as I dont force someone to do something against there freedom I shouldnt have someone doing that to me.

      That's certainly the ideal view. But where the difficult comes in is defining what "forcing someone to do something" really means. For example, a lot of people think drugs should be legalized, since your only harming yourself. But that's not really true -- areas with heavy drug use also carry with it higher levels of crime. So drug legalization is a more complex issue; there are ramifications beyond simple "live and let live".

      With stem cells, there are people who believe, legitimately, that life begins at conception, and therefore, it is unethical to experiment on something clearly human. This has absolutely nothing to do with religion, although many people use religion as their guiding principle. But it really comes down to human life. If we value human life, then human life has to be defined, and what that definition should be is arguable.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    11. Re:You're kidding, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had mod points, you'd get one. I hate it when mods whack people for a different viewpoint. BTW, I try hard to whack those mods in M2.

    12. Re:You're kidding, right? by 3D+Lover · · Score: 2, Informative
      and Bush doesn't even know what the word "environment" means.

      This is so unbelievably biased. I find it amazing how many /.ers are so intellectually lazy that they gobble this kind of argument up.

      I actually find Kerry's total sellout to the extremist greenies revolting. There is a bill in the works that would litteraly lock up (yes, gated with padlock) access to huge sections of National Forest land all acrost the west. They want to take the Wilderness Area designation originally designed to protect the trully wild and scenic wilderness areas such as mountain peaks and other inaccessible mountainous terrain and apply it to lower lying forested mountains and hills, areas that are currently multipurpose recreational lands. I have a cabin in the mountains of eastern Oregon, and it sits right in the middle of a massive area slatted for lock up. If this goes through, there will be a thin 100 yard wide access corridor from the highway to my place and a few others in the area. Kerry has already stated that he will sign this bill if it gets passed the House and Senate.

      It really makes me sick to think that a bunch of city-dwelling good for nothing enviromental lawers and their "lock it all up" greenie friends have the power to take away the rights of ordinary Americans like myself who just wants to enjoy what little multipurpose recreational forest land remains.

      I for one hope that Bush wins.

    13. Re:You're kidding, right? by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      I ended up voting for Kerry. However, I didn't vote for him because I like him, but rather because he's not Bush (I was a McCain supporter in 2000 and did not vote from Bush or Gore) and the third party candidates seemed too extreme for me.

      Your post seem to make Kerry look like a saint, but us geeks will end up being disapointed if we believe that Kerry will solve all our problems. Here are some differences about Kerry that you've failed to mention:

      1. Both Kerry and Edwards are lawyers and their biggest contributers are also lawyers. They have no incentive to lobby for patent reform as lawyers benefit greatly from patent suits.

      2. The TV, movie, and entertainment industry historicly donate more to the Democrats, which could mean that Kerry will not do anything to curb RIAA's all out war against the consumers.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    14. Re:You're kidding, right? by mcb · · Score: 1

      I'd rather a president stick a cigar there than 150,000 US troops into an unnecessary war. But hey, maybe it's just me.

    15. Re:You're kidding, right? by div_2n · · Score: 1

      I bet dollars to doughnuts that if you were diagnosed with Parkinsons or if you suffered a spinal cord injury and the only hope you had was embryonic stem cell research, you wouldn't have a problem with it. But I digress.

      I find it extremely unethical that anyone would stand in the way of potentially finding cures for many diseases. That is, essentially, what you do when you stand in the way of embryonic stem cell research.

      When your "ethics" put the value of cells doomed to die anyway above those that are living, I would call that egregiously unethical.

    16. Re:You're kidding, right? by wass · · Score: 1
      It really makes me sick to think that a bunch of city-dwelling good for nothing enviromental lawers and their "lock it all up" greenie friends have the power to take away the rights of ordinary Americans like myself who just wants to enjoy what little multipurpose recreational forest land remains.

      You're recreational forest land won't last as long as it should if Bush is re-elected. Are you at least aware of Bush's legislation to ease anti-logging resistrictions, and remove ability of public (ie - yourself) to have input on the management of National Forests, etc etc. You say you're from Oregon, so try reading this (you'll probably claim it's an 'extremist greenie' organization, though).

      How would you like it if the area around your cabin was slated for logging (for fire prevention of course, not catering to the timber lobby or anything like that)? I bet in that case you'd rather have the Kerry plan go through. Unless the forest was logged by someone else's cabin far away, then Bush's plan would be okay, right?

      I for one hope that Bush wins.

      Until the lumberjacks decide your property is in a high-risk fire zone and that the trees need to be logged.

      --

      make world, not war

    17. Re:You're kidding, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in most places in this country, making over 50k a year *does* mean you're rich. america isn't just the coasts.

    18. Re:You're kidding, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not american and from what I see in the news (mostly CNN) both candidates are bad.

      Bush is obviously intellectualy challenged (and I don't say this as a hollow insult). I don't know what his IQ is, but it's certainly not very high. I can't understand why anybody in the US could vote for him as president. It's beyond me. I mean why not choose at random a 12 year old kid and put him in charge while we're at it?

      As for Kerry, is it me or this guy is about as transparent as a brick wall. He says a lot of things, he makes a lot of promises, but I don't have the slightest idea about what he really thinks. Each time he says something I feel like he really means : you're a bunch of morons and I'll say whatever you want to hear because anyway you're to stupid to understand anything.

      Now, some thought on some specific points you mentioned...

      Kerry could never build a coalition for Iraq. Never. You have no idea how bad this war was for the US image. Honestly, I don't see how the US could get out of this mess. My guess is both Bush and Kerry would do exactly the same thing (i.e. continue whatever the US are doing right now).

      As for tax cuts, both Bush and Kerry are right and, in the end, I don't think that choosing one policy or the other will have a significant effect on the economy. Of course, if you're poor it makes more sense to vote for Kerry and if your rich you should vote for Bush, but for the economy in general, one or the other won't change anything. Anyway both Bush and Kerry will have no choice but to raise taxes for everybody.

      Now, for the environment, maybe Kerry is more environment friendly than Bush, but I don't see what he could do. Forget about Kyoto. Clinton was not able to have it and I don't think Kerry is better than Clinton. Maybe he could do some small changes but nothing really important. The way I see it is Bush don't care about the environment but Kerry won't be able do do anything. So in the end it's still the same.

      The last point you mentioned is science. Sure, Bush is against stem cells research... So? If the US won't do it, other countries will. Anyway, stem cells research may be very important for us as individuals but it is not that important for humanity. The real question is : will the US (both government and pricate corporation) spend more money on research with Kerry? I don't see why.

      Yes, Bush and Kerry are different... but in practice, I believe they will do exactly the same thing.

    19. Re:You're kidding, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Bush is stupid, Kerry is even more stupid. Bush had the higher SAT scores of the two.

    20. Re:You're kidding, right? by Creedo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I bet dollars to doughnuts that if you were diagnosed with Parkinsons or if you suffered a spinal cord injury and the only hope you had was embryonic stem cell research, you wouldn't have a problem with it.

      You're on. In my case, it's a family predisposition to diabetes. I fully recognize what my fate could be, and I have no qualms with saying that my stance on embryonic stem cell research would be exactly the same.

      I find it extremely unethical that anyone would stand in the way of potentially finding cures for many diseases. That is, essentially, what you do when you stand in the way of embryonic stem cell research.

      Use adult stem cells. No issue there. Heck, I'll even donate some of mine.

      When your "ethics" put the value of cells doomed to die anyway above those that are living, I would call that egregiously unethical.

      Last time I checked, we were all just a bunch of cells doomed to die anyway.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
    21. Re:You're kidding, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      it is undeniable that experimentation on human embryos has significant ethical considerations

      I deny it.

      A shrimp has more life and I eat those all the time.

    22. Re:You're kidding, right? by Infonaut · · Score: 2, Insightful
      us geeks will end up being disapointed if we believe that Kerry will solve all our problems

      I'm not sure what the "geek agenda" in American politics might be, as I feel that there are as many differences between geeks on "geek issues" as there are between average everyday Americans on average everyday issues.

      Your statement about Kerry not being the cure-all is right on the money as far as I'm concerned. But on the issues that matter most to me, Kerry comes out ahead in my book. Compromise is definitely the name of the game in a representative democracy.

      --
      Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    23. Re:You're kidding, right? by n9fzx · · Score: 1
      How would you like it if the area around your cabin was slated for logging (for fire prevention of course, not catering to the timber lobby or anything like that)

      Actually, I'd like that very much. I have a place in remote northwest Montana, and my lot is infested with way too many tamaracks. Thanks to the out-of-state envriowhackos, the logging industry has been largely put out of business, unemploying thousands. I've been able to employ a few loggers to pull out trees that were basically weeds to me.

      Of course, I have a place up there to get away from the I-know-better-than-you ignoramuses on the Left Coast...

      --
      ...-.-
    24. Re:You're kidding, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush has been the worst president for the environment for further back than I can remember.

      http://www.sierraclub.org/wwatch/
      http://www.si erraclub.org/sierra/200409/sins.asp
      http://www.nr dc.org/bushrecord/
      http://www.bushgreenwatch.org/
      http://www.environment2004.org/documents.php

      That one bill may affect you more than any other policy, but that is no excuse to remain blind to the bigger picture, and then to dismiss all of the atrocities you are ignorant of as being of similar importance.

    25. Re:You're kidding, right? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Thanks for explaining what a republic is; now I don't have to. However, I do have a few issues with your post:

      True democracy is possible, but only in small groups -- it worked in ancient Greece, on the order of ~1000 people. It wouldn't work here though, with a population on the order of hundreds of millions of people.

      Areas with heavy drug use have higher levels of crime because the drug use is illegal. Legalize the drug use and a big chunk of the crime magically disappears. Moreover, a lot of the ancilliary crime disappears too, because it's not lost in the "noise" of drug offenses, and drug-using victims no longer need to fear coming forward and being charged themselves. An analogous situation is the legalized prostitution in Las Vegas, where crime against prostitutes (rape, etc. -- think GTA3) is lower than elsewhere.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    26. Re:You're kidding, right? by 1lus10n · · Score: 1

      "No, we are supposed to be a Republic."

      I call bullshit, prove to me that the founding fathers built the system of government we use to be a republic. I care not about the money/power grubbing assholes in office and what they have done since to change the government to a republic.

      "True democracy is impossible, and is not what we want."

      WE who ? I bet if you put it to a vote of american citizens they would overwhelmingly vote for a democracy over any other kind of government. Furthermore what is or is not possible is an opinion. Based on recent evidence I dont think this "republic" that we live in is working out to terribly well either.

      "The people don't have time to educate themselves on every issue, and are too easily swayed back and forth."

      The people in office obviosly are not much better at being swayed (or not.) all it takes is a check from haliburton or disney and they are flip-flopping right to the bank and the vote. As far as what the average person is capable of and what best serves them ... why do you think there is a low voter turnout ? Its because people dont think their vote matters, and in the current system it truely doesnt. If you gave people a chance to have the power in their hands you would be surprised how much information they could aqquire and use. I dont recomend the average person be required to know every little bill or piece of information that a senator is required to have information on (although not to many of them know very much.) because that would be ineffective. However if the average person had the ability to be more involved in government they would have a good idea on the baseline issues.

      "For example, a lot of people think drugs should be legalized, since your only harming yourself. But that's not really true -- areas with heavy drug use also carry with it higher levels of crime. So drug legalization is a more complex issue; there are ramifications beyond simple "live and let live"."

      Their are ramifications for everything, reaching farther than its worth getting into. We dont however outlaw driving because it hurts the enviroment or could kill people.

      Look at the reasons why crime is higher in "high use" areas. Drugs are not alone, high poverty and poor living conditions are. We already sell several forms of drugs legally, some of which are more addictive than the drugs most people would use if given the chance. Guns dont kill people, neither do drugs. People kill people. If the government wants to get into the whole "preventative" justice issue ... my ass is on the next jet outta here. How long until thinking about crime becomes illegal ? Legalizing drugs would have far reaching benefits increased tax revenue, more jobs, less criminals. Look into some of the physological angle's on why drugs are so popular, most of them have to do with the fact that they are considered taboo by mainstream society.

      "With stem cells, there are people who believe, legitimately, that life begins at conception, and therefore, it is unethical to experiment on something clearly human."

      I can argue this from any number of angles. First and most important is that a fertilized egg is not a human. Human life does not begin until that life can make a logical decision and survive without a host. Also of note is that we have access to thousands of untainted cells that are sitting in various places waiting to be destroyed that could be used WITHOUT abortion, yet this president banned that based on his religion (something which IMHO should have had his ass impeached and thrown to the wolves from his damn commercial.) not on facts or public opinion. Which is exactly what most people's problem with him is. The majority of people in this country (voter eligability, registration, turnout be damned) are not nascar fans, dont own oil stock, dont attend church regularly, and sure as shit would like their president to LISTEN to them. Fur

      --
      "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
    27. Re:You're kidding, right? by 3D+Lover · · Score: 1

      The logging community here in Oregon could really use a shot in the arm. Despite popular belief, loggers are not evil enviroment haters bound and determined to ruin the land forever. I'm not a logger, but I have friends that are and they are some of the most passionate people I know when it comes to the forest. They work in the forest because they care about it and they enjoy it. Yes, loggers used to do large clear cuts and the slash and burn tactics, but because of modern forest management techniques, the Forest Service does not issue these kinds if logging contracts any more. Now it's selective harvesting, thinning, and removal of downed timber. Add to that the mandated replanting and the additional stream thread conservation and anti-errosion practices and todays logging process does not resemble the logging practices of even 10 years ago.

      The woods around my cabbin is SO FULL of downed timber, that it's a virtual tinder box. We are scare shitless of a fire. There has been no logging in our area for a good 7 years, and even then it was spotty at best. The last major logging was almost 12 years ago when Clinton stopped 90% of the logging within the first few months of his term. If we could get the forests around our cabin, and the forests for 50 miles in every direction thined and managed, I'D LOVE IT!!!!

      You don't get it. When is the last time you wondered more than 100 yards off of a blacktp highway. The forests in this country are worse then they have been in years. The forest around my cabin could go up at a moments notice, and the fuel load is so high that any fire in the area would crown easily. I can't cut a single tree on the national forest land around my property without getting an expensive permit (and even then I can't cut most live trees I can't cut dead yellow pine because they need saved for the birds and the bugs), so I can't properly create a firebreak big enough to deal with a crowned fire.

    28. Re:You're kidding, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      STFU!! Gaia rules! Yankee Imperialist Bastards SUCK!

    29. Re:You're kidding, right? by div_2n · · Score: 1

      You just don't get it. There are many many embryos that will NEVER be used. They WILL be destroyed. So what do you suggest? Having a solemn ceremony and bury the cells that you can't even see with your naked eye and will never be implanted?

      That is just plain nonsense no matter how you slice it.

      By the way, there is no definitive research yet that says adult stem cells are adequate. There is no doubt that embryonic are adequate for research. So in 10 years when scientists announce that adult stem cells don't cut it and they need embryonic for certain diseases what will your response be then? We need to bury the cells, not use them?

    30. Re:You're kidding, right? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Why is the Bush Doctrine "a serious departure from previous American foreign policy"? What do you call the Spanish-American War, Korean War, Vietnam War, Panama invasion, Haitian invasion, Somialia invasion, the Gulf War, Monroe Doctrine, not to mention a half-dozen "secret wars" in El Salvador, etc.

      These were all wars of pre-emption. Some had "coalitions," some did not. One may disagree with some or all of them, but the Iraq invasion and the Bush Doctrine is "business as usual," although perhaps it has never been so explicitly spelled out recently.

    31. Re:You're kidding, right? by Darby · · Score: 1

      Of course, I have a place up there to get away from the I-know-better-than-you ignoramuses on the Left Coast...

      Of course, California can pay its own way at least.

      Maybe when Montana grows up and starts actually paying its own bills, then it would have earned a say in its own affairs.

      As long as we're subsidizing your existence, deal with it. Or get off your ass and get your state off of welfare.

      There's a reason most of the richest states are those liberal coastal states, and most of the red states are welfare states.

    32. Re:You're kidding, right? by danila · · Score: 1

      The difference are only significant if you compare them next to each other. When you compare them both with someone else, such as Nader, it becomes harder to tell Bush from Kerry. There was a story here on Slashdot about these three candidates interviewed by some youth organisation, and I got an impression (judging from that interview alone) that on a 0-10 scale Bush scored about -2, Kerry scored 1, while Nader was somewhere near 7. Yes, Bush is very bad and Kerry is obviously better (much better in some areas, a little better in other), but they both really suck. America needs a huge jolt to make sense of itself, let's hope it will receive one relatively soon.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    33. Re:You're kidding, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I realize this will be modded as a troll, but it's something that needs to be said:

      You can't argue that Bush values life. You can say that Bush values destroying embryos instead of using them for scientific research. Also, you can say that Bush gave the order to get 1000+ US military personnel (with families back home ) and thousands more innocent Iraqi civilians killed in a pointless war over oil.

      Simply put, Bush values strict control of personal liberties and economic freedom for corporations. In the case of stem cell research, his desire to control personal liberties wins; however, this is mainly because the opposing party supports it. Otherwise he would be all for stem cell research, since it would benefit the drug companies.

    34. Re:You're kidding, right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Kerry has advocated an approach that relies on the sort of coalition-building that Bush Sr. used with such effectiveness in the first Gulf War.

      Is this the same coalition-building Kerry VOTED AGAINST? Why yes it is! Imagine that. France and Germany are helping in Afghanistan. Did you know that? They have said Kerry will not get them to provide troops in Iraq. Spain had troops in Iraq until the Al Queda terror attack lead intimidated the people of Spain leading to the ouster of the party-in-power. Polish troops are in Iraq. How will someone who has insulted allies we do have bring them into his "wrong war, at the wrong place at the wrong time?" Do you understand whether the UN or NATO are involved or not a disproportional burden will always fall on America which expends HALF of the World's investment into defense? There are more ways to contribute than troops alone. Troops are important and always welcome. We're training Iraqis, they're doing difficult world side-by-side , and even sometimes without, the Americans and others. Do you realize the historical *LOW* mortality rate of this war or do you only hear the talking-point and go tilt? 45,000 die in car accidents each year. 1100 noble sacrifices for the freedom of millions, 1100 noble sacrifices in seeking justice for hundreds of thousands or millions of those murders under Saddam's genocide? 1100 noble sacrifices in more than 18 months. You know how to use Google, right?

      Kerry says he has a plan and would do everything differently than Bush. Tell me, what is that plan? Bush asked the UN to be involved in reconstruction. It hasn't happened. France has been on the take in the oil-for-food program. We have a similar problem with German and Iran. Look into these stories rather than accepting the Michael Moore media's presentation.

      There was yellow cake uranium in Iraq, the weapons inspectors said so. It's missing. There were explosives available for nuclear detonation, the weapsons inspectors said so. It's missing. Nuclear weapon plans were found in a scientist's garden.

      No WMDs? Well there were plans, parts, materials and intentions to rebuild his WMD program when sanctions ended.

      Kerry believes that excessive tax cuts for those who make over $200k per year is counterproductive.

      The Kerry's are not paying their "fair share" now. While using legal tricks, common to the loathed "rich", they've managed to pay just 12-13% tax rather than the 35% of the top bracket. Kerry's a hypocritical scoundrel. You repeat the talking-point about $200k earners but that's not what Kerry's plan is. Check his website. He'll increase the top two tax brackets to return them to the Clinton levels. Those brackets, if you look at the details, will reach well below $200,000 earners even into the mid-$80k range. Even still, raising those rates back to Clinton-era levels, will not cover all the new spending he proposes. He'll have to make that up. Where will he do that? Guess.

      Remember, Clinton had 5.4% unemployment moving into re-election. We know in retrospect we had a dot-com bubble, venture capitalists pouring money into startups which had no revenue plans, we had corporate earnings fraud at Enron and other corporations. The bubble burst, the scandals came. It's passed, the recession has passed, the trillion lost from the economy due to 9/11 has been recovered. We're at 5.4% unemployment now. With those phoney bases behind us, does that suggest the economy is more solid than in 1996?

      I'm concerned about spending too but Kerry will not do any better and he'll pay for it with hire taxes while he and his wife continue to avoid their "fair share" and Heinz Corp. will be the 2nd largest outsourcer among U.S. businesses. Kerry's a fraud. Check his two decade long voting record. Don't buy the hype. Look beyond his FUD.

      Bush has to cater to his "Base" by nixing stem cell research. Kerry knows that science is not something to be feared.

      Bush is the first president to *allow* any federal dollars for st

  55. NO, the redskins just lose. by mekkab · · Score: 0

    Mod me anyway you want, but the "s" in Skins is for "Suck."

    Lets hope the new DC baseball team doesn't suck (yeah right).

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    1. Re:NO, the redskins just lose. by Dac+Vin · · Score: 1
      Lets hope the new DC baseball team doesn't suck (yeah right).
      It WILL suck. I know, I'm from Montreal too, I KNOW what i'm talkin of!
  56. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Then your as bad as the people you're trying to kick out. Don't drop to the republican's level.

  57. Hardly by drlake · · Score: 4, Informative

    While the umps named the wrong player, the player on the far right side of the redskins line wasn't set when the ball was hiked, so the call was a good call. They screwed up, and paid the price. Of course, we could say the first part of that about Bush, and I hope the second as well.

    1. Re:Hardly by xenocide2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, the umpires could be percieved as either the UN which Kerry is charicatured as bowing to, or the Supreme Court that validated Bush's 2000 presidency.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    2. Re:Hardly by plumby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What really fascinates me is how Kerry 'bowing to' the UN is being presented by the Republicans as a bad thing, yet the justification for going to war in Iraq is now claimed to be that Saddam refused to bow to the wishes of the UN.

    3. Re:Hardly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that but, after the first debate, the Republicans tried to attack Kerry by misrepresenting his expression "global test", to imply that Kerry would bow to international opinion about U.S. preemptive actions. Of course, unlike Iraq, the US can use its veto to prevent any UN security council decision that might be critical of its actions. The US has used its veto, or the threat thereof, to block a number of proposed Security Council resolutions critical of Israel's activities against the Palestinians.

    4. Re:Hardly by IndependentVik · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just so long as there's no kneeling. The only person that the President should kneel before is Zod. Superman, where are you?

      --
      I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
    5. Re:Hardly by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      Well everyone knows globals are bad... In multithreaded programs unprotected globals can lead to race conditions, or worse....

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

  58. In related news, every time I flip a penny on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    ... election night, a Republican wins on heads, and a Democrat wins on tails. Oh yeah, and the 3rd party guy wins every time the coin lands on its side.

    Wow, I must have a magic penny. Maybe it will be worth something on ebay!

  59. Re:Stop being so naive, you idiots by octaene · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Love your comments about the polls. I think it's hilarious that people pay such close attention to them; they ask 3,000 out of millions of registered voters and claim that it has an accuracy of +/- 5%... ludicrous....

  60. Ummm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think you're reading WAY too much in this. Get out and vote, rather than saying who's going to win based on a football game...

    1. Re:Ummm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? He'd just vote for either a giant douche (Kerry) or a Turd Sandwich (Bush). Really, there's no point. Spend the hour it takes to vote reading a book so that at least you do something useful.

    2. Re:Ummm.... by strider44 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't you see? It's proof that John Kerry is a definite winner! No need for Kerry supporters to go out and vote now obviously - he's already won.

    3. Re:Ummm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try Freeper! I already voted for Kerry 10 times. =p

    4. Re:Ummm.... by Plazzma · · Score: 1

      Then don't complain if you won't vote.

  61. Pull the stick out of your ass, please ... by mios · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Holy shit .. by the looks of these replies, you'd think you folks were on his Doctoral comittee and he just submitted this as his Disertation thesis ...
    It's an 'interesting' statistic -- an urban myth. You people are busting out with Chebyshev's law this, and according to Modus Ponens that ... sweet jesus, it's just a funny coincidence ...

    hey, news flash, you're not going to find the meaning of life encoded in the articles of slashdot ...

    Wow ... hey, there is no Santa Claus either so I don't want to hear about that weird deer you saw running around on your roof on christmas eve last year, either ...

    1. Re:Pull the stick out of your ass, please ... by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Or a grain of sand?

      Apparently your nhilism is flourishing here :P

    2. Re:Pull the stick out of your ass, please ... by really? · · Score: 1

      I was 100% with you till almost the end.
      Come on, I mean, everybody knows that Santa is real. My father, for example, wold not lie to me. Well, im my 4o+ years I have never heard a sillier allegation. No Santa? NO SANTA???
      Some people ...

      --

      "Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
  62. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Hatta · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ah, but only a harsh demonstration of the fallability of these machines will make them get rid of them. I'm thinking a land slide victory for Homer Simpson.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  63. The odds... by Quaoar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ignoring which team was better each year, the odds are 1/2^14 that the game would predict the outcome of the election (14 elections since 1944). That's .0061%, roughly. Of course, you gotta realize that they look at all the games played over the years and look for patterns, and ANY football game of the season could possibly be a predictor of who will be elected. In the NFL, there are 32 teams, which have played about 8 games each so far this year. So total number of games played = 32 * 8 / 2 = 2^7. that brings our odds to 2^7/2^14 = 1/2^7 = .75%. Not at all negligible. Now you can start including multiple criteria for each game. For instance, if the total points stored in the Redskins game is over 30, the incumbent wins. Or, you could change it to a certain party winning. And we're just considering football, imagine if we included games from other sports played this year. The sheer number of baseball games almost guarantees that one annual match-up will be a good predictor of any "coin-flip" event such as a presidential election. So, the moral is, this isn't the least bit extraordinary.

    --
    I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
    1. Re:The odds... by Artemis · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You do realize that part of what makes this "predicition" popular is the fact that it's the Washington Redskins (the Washington D.C. team) and it's related to their last HOME game before the election. This myth would not be nearly as popular if it were some prediction based on the St. Louis Rams last game at Green Bay or something. This is one that is relatively non-obscure, but still just coincidental of course.

    2. Re:The odds... by PancakeMan · · Score: 1

      But it ISN'T just a random team, it's the Washington home team - don't you see how that (coincidentally) seems to be particularly meaningful when you're talking about the fate of the incumbent party IN WASHINGTON DC?

    3. Re:The odds... by nine-times · · Score: 1
      Your post reminded me of this funny thing about statistics that I like to point out to those who live and die by them: According to statistics, the most statistically unlikely things are likely to happen.

      Before you jump all over me for spouting nonsense, think about it for a second. Let's say you have event A, and the chances of event A happening to any given person at any given time is about 1 in one-billion. So when you say, "What are the chances of event A occurring to me right now?" The answer is, "That's almost impossible."

      But that applies to any given time, so look at any particular person, over the scope of their entire lives. How many moments are there in a person's life? So instead of, "What are the chances that event A will happen to me right now," let's ask "What are the chances event A will happen to me ever?"

      Now look at the billions of people in the world, each of them with so many moments in their lives. So suddenly the chances of event A happening to some person at some time become quite good. This much should be pretty obvious. Think of the lottery. What are the chances of me winning the lottery today? Astonomically small. What are the chances that someone will win, sometime? Very good.

      Now, (and here's where I think it gets interesting) consider all the other 1 in a billion possibilities. There's event A, (let's say winning the lottery) but there's also event B (meeting your long-lost twin), C (getting struck by lightning), D (travelling backwards through time), each unlikely. What are the chances that one of them, A, B, C, or D, will happen to someone at some time? Almost guaranteed. But that's only four unlikely possible events. How many possible unlikely events are there? Uncountable.

      When you figure this in, that something statistically unlikely will happen to someone at some time is pretty much guaranteed. In fact, it becomes likely that very unlikely things are happening all the time. It becomes statistically impossible for statistically-impossible things to not happen. Of course, this relies on a certain indeterminacy about which unlikely things will happen when and to whom, but it's still worthwhile to remember that impossible things happen every day.

  64. Mod "article" -1 Flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If ever an article deserved a flamebait mod, this post certainly does.

  65. a quick reminder from the world of open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nobody gives a shit about statistics when it contradicts the answers they want

    1. Re:a quick reminder from the world of open source by jacoby · · Score: 1

      That's so true.

  66. what about the Halloween masks statistics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Supposedly Halloween mask sales have determined the winner every presidential election.

    If Kerry wins, that will break that statistic as Bush is outselling Kerry. Maybe Bush is just scarier !
    http://www.buycostumes.com/presidentialmask.asp x

    (Personally, I am looking forward to this trend breaking, enough of these silly pre-determinations!)

    1. Re:what about the Halloween masks statistics? by objekt · · Score: 1
      I thought this was Kerry http://www.davidgalbraith.org/images/kerry.gif

      Either way, it's a Halloween election. Are you voting for John SKERRY or George BOOOOsh?

      --
      -- Boycott Shell
  67. Who the hell cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeez, people, the Steelers just punked the Patriots and broke their streak, and you're talking about the Redskins? /black and gold forever

  68. Iowa Election Futures Are What Worry Me by SlideGuitar · · Score: 1

    I know this is light hearted... but this isn't: http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem// I believe in futures markets. If Kerry wins, I reevaluate my belief.

    Until then, I'm very worried, because I think these numbers mean something very bad for my guy. We shall see.

    1. Re:Iowa Election Futures Are What Worry Me by Peyna · · Score: 1

      It just shows that Bush supporters are just as stubborn and crazy as he is; so much so that they'll even put money on it.

      --
      What?
    2. Re:Iowa Election Futures Are What Worry Me by The+Conductor · · Score: 1
      When I looked, the market quotes indicated 55% probability Bush would win (the popular vote. anyhow). Though Bush is judged to have a better chance of getting better than 52% of the vote, that's still only about 1 in 5. (Kerry is pegged at 1 in 7 for the same feat.) So the futures market doesn't say anything we don't already know: The outcome is pretty much a coin flip as far as anyone knows, and is likely to be close.

      You didn't think Kerry had it sewn up, did you?

    3. Re:Iowa Election Futures Are What Worry Me by SlideGuitar · · Score: 1

      No... I never thought Kerry had it sewn up, because the futures market has never suggested that.

      "Pretty much a flip of the coin" would be 50/50. The people with money on the line say it's 55/45.

      That means what it means... not even odds... just that people aren't willing to pay 46 cents for a chance to win a dollar if Kerry wins, and won't accept less than 55 cents for a chance to win a dollar if Bush wins.

      Most people think in binary terms... "I think Bush will win" or "I think Kerry will win." Well the market thinks there is a 55% chance that Bush will win, and a 45% chance that Kerry will win... that's all it means, and it's depressing, if it reflects reality, but things that have a 45% chance of happening can still happen, and markets can be wrong.

      It also means that if you offer someone 44 cents for a chance to win a dollar if Kerry wins, they will say "no, the odds are better... you'll have to pay me 45 if you want that chance." The market certainly thinks Kerry COULD win, at 44 to win 100, it just thinks a bet on Bush is an even better bet, at 55 to win 100.

      Who knows.

    4. Re:Iowa Election Futures Are What Worry Me by vidarh · · Score: 1

      But for any of this to have ANY value, the people in question needs to have seriously considered all the available data and acurately predicted the outcome. The number of people who regularly lose money on stock markets, and even more so the number of people who gamble with no basis in fact should indicate that it's unlikely to be a great indicator. Even more if the people involved are self selected, in which case the chance is high that the numbers are influenced by a number of people who are unreasonably sure about their choice because of personal convictions.

    5. Re:Iowa Election Futures Are What Worry Me by spitzak · · Score: 1

      I agree. It's a common confusion, people think that means the prediction is that 55% of the voters will vote for Bush, or that Bush will win by 10%, or some other equivalent of "Bush is predicted to win". It does not mean that.

      What it means is equivalent to them thinking there are 20 equally-likely results of the election, where 11 of them Bush wins and 9 of them Kerry wins. If you pick one of these at random, you should not be too suprised if you pick one where Kerry wins, even though there is slightly more chance you will pick one of the Bush ones. If Kerry wins it in no way invalidates their methods. The fact that you can roll two dice and get numbers other than 7 does not invalidate the prediction that 7 is the most likely outcome.

  69. Re:Bush is going to win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *I* fear a world where bible-thumper Bush crams more of his cockamamie beliefs down the throats of average Americans (separation of church and state, anyone???), and continues is favortism of the megacorps and the rich while fucking the middle class.

    Frankly, I'm terribly afraid of what the evil cocksucker will do in a second term when he no longer has to worry about re-election and can do whatever he damn well pleases.

  70. karma burn by Vegeta99 · · Score: 2, Funny

    THERE'S NO SANTA CLAUS?!?!

    lameness filter... it really sucks.

    1. Re:karma burn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then who does the Easter Bunny split his Florida Timeshare with?

  71. Re:Stop being so naive, you idiots by bergerdml · · Score: 1

    Nothing wrong with this. Pick up any introductory stats book and look up confidence intervals. Assuming that your 3000 voters are an acurate random sample (which is of course the big problem, not the fact that a sample size is only 3000) you can accurately predict outcomes with some probability. I assume that they are using a 95% confidence interval which would state (assuming a random sample) that there is a 95% chance that the true scores are within +/- 5% X% for Bush and Y% for Kerry. You can increase the certainty to 99% if you want, but you then as a trade-off you increase the size of +/- percetage...

  72. We can only hope so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -- The rest of the world

  73. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Davak · · Score: 1, Informative

    Since you brought up football and the election...

    here is a scary thought...

    Monday football as a terrorist target. It would be right before the election, would be very public, and would impact a large group of people.

    Scary...

    Davak

  74. Re:What about the other candidates? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Policies aside, at least with Kerry the rest of the world won't be snickering so much.

    I mean, ~290 million people to choose from* and George Bush was viewed as the USA's best choice for President? That really is funny on a very fundamental level.

    * Yes, I'm aware that the entirety of the US population isn't eligable to be president, but anyway....

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  75. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  76. Re:Stop being so naive, you idiots by dedazo · · Score: 1

    Yes, but when the polls favour your POV/platform/chosen candidate/party/etc... then they're fantastically accurate and a good indication that the other side 'sucks', ad nauseam.

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  77. Re:Stop being so naive, you idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    alright, well we'll see who'll have the last laugh on Tuesday.. congratulations on being a servant of the morons..

    i Love how you link to a school site which links to a Bush blog.. retard

  78. This means a Copyright War by argoff · · Score: 2, Interesting

    IMHO Just like dealing with 'indian' violence had to be put on hold until after the Civil War. I really think the war on terror is likely going to need to be put on hold till the US solves some of it's internal problems. And I think this election will reflect that.

    The biggest problem that no-one is talking about, but everyone is going to half to face is the trillion dollar question about copyrights. They simply can't survive in an age defined by the unrestricted flow of information so something is going to half to be fought out soon. The question is will the Government finally get it and back off on the copyright gestapo - or will they go full blast untill all hell breaks loose, and they fail crash and burn.

    Since Bush is more accountable to the tech industries, and Kerry is more accountable to the legal and hollywood sector. I think a Kerry win will symbolize the copyright battle being fought inspite of the system, a Bush win will symbolize the battle geing fought within the system. It's a tough call.

    1. Re:This means a Copyright War by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Bush's administration has been a staunch supporter of the DMCA and similar copyright efforts. Not only have they been fighting in defense of it at home, they have been ramming it into every international treaty they can. There's a proven track record here.

      Sadly I cannot find any solid information on Kerry's position on copyright issues, other than a non-commital but promising comment that he was "open" to addressing the issue.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  79. In Other News... by hunterx11 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Economic well-being linked to sunspot cycles.

    I have also been informed by reputable sources that the tidal force of the moon affects human behavior, in spite of the fact that monitor you are looking at right now has a greater tidal interaction with you than does the moon.

    --
    English is easier said than done.
  80. More GOP fuzzy math by leftie · · Score: 2, Funny

    What was the final score? Packers 28 Redskins 14

    What is a Touchdown worth? 6 points + PAT.

    Now, the neo-cons are claiming a call on one touchdown prevented them from winning.

    Looks like the neo-cons their touchdowns are worth 15 points.

    1. Re:More GOP fuzzy math by DaveSchool · · Score: 1

      That's because instead of getting a touchdown, they just got the next down. In the following play, the Packers intercepted it. If the touchdown had been scored, the Packers wouldn't have intercepted it and scored. And in this theoretical universe, the score would have ended up 21-21.

    2. Re:More GOP fuzzy math by idiotnot · · Score: 1

      Actually, it would have been 21 - 20, as the Packers scored a 2-point conversion after the interception to make it 28 (they kicked two field goals earlier in the game).

    3. Re:More GOP fuzzy math by leftie · · Score: 1

      But, but, but, France believed Iraq had WoMD... but, but, but, just because the White House lawyer typed a memo approving of torture by US forces, it doesn't meant the White House approved of torture...but, but, but...

    4. Re:More GOP fuzzy math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The packers scored another TD after the skins TD was called back. The skins threw and interception on the very next play and then the packers scored. The game was over after that horrible call. I still think the packers would have won since all they would have needed was a field goal but maybe not. We will never know since the refs totally fucked up that call.

    5. Re:More GOP fuzzy math by leftie · · Score: 1

      No, the refs were right, and the replays showed it. The replays were run on ESPN after the game. The replays showed the player was not set, and all the ESPN commentators agreed.

  81. Ain't we a funny species by TENTH+SHOW+JAM · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We can see sequences and coincidence in anything. Give me a large enough stat base and I can probably work out the odds of Kerry winning based on the nth decimal place in pi.

    --
    A sig is placed here
    To display how futile
    English Haiku is
    1. Re:Ain't we a funny species by Cynox · · Score: 1

      Actually, because of the irrational nature of the number Pi there has to exist a sequence of zeros and ones in its decimals that accurately predicts the election outcomes

      or something ... someone correct me if I am wrong

    2. Re:Ain't we a funny species by pclminion · · Score: 1
      We can see sequences and coincidence in anything.

      Yes, but... There have been 15 elections since 1944. This relationship has "held" since then. Assuming that the presidential race and the Redskins game are completely uncorrelated, there should be a 50% chance each election that the results will match up.

      A 50% chance, over 15 elections? That's like flipping a coin 15 times and having it land heads each time! Have you ever seen something like that? The odds are 32768 to 1!

      I don't think anyone is claiming some direct link between a football game and the outcome of the election, but come on, you have to admit that's it's a little weird, no? Perhaps there is some unseen third factor at work here.

    3. Re:Ain't we a funny species by TENTH+SHOW+JAM · · Score: 1

      My point is that 32768 to 1 odds happen approximatly one time in 32768. So given a large enough map of stats. Lets look at all the games of baseball played ever. Soeone has to have had a winning streak of 15 games in a row. Someone has to have had alternate wins and losses 15 times in a row, and the redsox just happen to be following the trend. What would be freaky is if this relationship held for astonomical odds. (ie above 1 in 1,000,000) This would require the relationship to occur for 20 times in a row.

      It might not be the Redsox, but there will be a team somewhere with a large enough sample.

      --
      A sig is placed here
      To display how futile
      English Haiku is
  82. Re:What about the other candidates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't y'all just elect someone else for president? It's not really that hard.

    But what makes you think the majority of Americans want someone different from these two clowns? I believe Americans as a group will elect someone like Kerry or Bush no matter if there are two candidates or twenty. Keep in mind, the American elections is not about who's best for the country, but how much profit the media makes while exposing skeletons from the past, analyzing meaningless polls and discussing issues that relate to the latest Hollywood movies.

  83. Re:That's why a third party will never be viable.. by jmauro · · Score: 1

    Except the poster was asking about the event that the teams tie. In a tie, the Redskins neither lose nor win. The election would then be thrown into complete chaos. One can only hope that never happens, for the sake of the country.

  84. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's bad luck when a black cat crosses your path.
    Walking under ladders and breaking mirrors produce similar results.

  85. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flamebait??? The mods are on crack again...

  86. Once again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot campaigning for Kerry.

    If you get your wish, boys, I have a prediction to make. Kerry will be the second president to authorize the use of nuclear weapons.

    1. Re:Once again by militiaMan · · Score: 0

      I imagine in one of the next two terms the presiding president will press the button. Although, I think India will be nuked or nuke Pakistan and/or Iran before that happens. We will simply choose sides. I see 400 Million deaths with about 1 million US citizens.

  87. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Monday Night Football is always a target. The stadiums are virtually always full when Monday night arrives. Not to mention the millions that watch every Monday night game on the tube...

  88. What about the kids? by Billobob · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Every time kids/teenagers have been polled en masse about the presidency, the president they chose won. Strangely enough, Bush came out on top by about 10% in ChannelOne's massive poll of teenagers. Does this mean Bush will win? No, it means superstitions are bullshit.

    --
    If you have to ask, you'll never know.
    1. Re:What about the kids? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... channel one brainwashing, bush comes out ahead. Correlation? Or is it more? =P

    2. Re:What about the kids? by The+Grey+Clone · · Score: 0

      Channel One may have had Bush winning, but Nickelodeon, I believe, picked Kerry. I haven't really watched Nick, but in the last election, I believe they were saying that they had always predicted correctly. They chose Bush last time. But I agree, superstitions are bullshit. But that doesn't stop me from always putting on my right sock first.

    3. Re:What about the kids? by DavidBrown · · Score: 1

      Does this mean Bush will win?

      Well, that depends on whether or not these kids can beat the Washington Redskins. And in this year, they probably can.

      --
      144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
    4. Re:What about the kids? by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1
      Actually, it means the fix is in - Diebold has got this one 'delivered' as well.

      Actually, I got this link off Bush's site. Went there and started laughing. I seriously would not put it past Rove to get this 'vote' fixed. For some people, hearing these 'predictions' are enough to decide their vote.

      Everyone wants to be right.

    5. Re:What about the kids? by vegasbright · · Score: 0

      When I was a child reading my daily worker...ugh, I mean weekly reader I was bombarded with "apocalyptic climate change" stories and "meat is bad" articles. Did anyone else catch this same vein of disinformation/brainwashing?

      --

      Tyler: You don't know where ive been, Lou. YOU DONT KNOW WHERE IVE BEEN!!
    6. Re:What about the kids? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      STFU!! Fascist Yankee Imperialist Bastard!

    7. Re:What about the kids? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the football game is obviously irrelevant, the kids opinions are not. The presumption is that kids often vote like their parents.

      Of course it's not a perfect predictor, but it might not be entirely useless either. And "superstition" it most definitely isn't.

    8. Re:What about the kids? by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1

      At least there may be a possible link in this case. What do kids think about politics? Until the age of about 13 when they become a bunch of rebellious idealists, probably exactly what their parents think.

    9. Re:What about the kids? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh, but like a true pundit, you're ignoring the Nickelodeon poll in which 57% of the kids voted for Kerry to 43% for Bush. The Nickelodeon poll has picked the correct winner in the last 4 presidential elections.

    10. Re:What about the kids? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like 12 issues in a row declaring the evils of "war toys?"

      Yep, it's just brainwashing. When I was a kid they had me convinced that playing with those toys would make me insane, so I stayed away from them, consequentially becoming insane since I wasn't like any other kids, even though I wanted to be and was, I was convinced I had to be different for my own good, and avoid those fun little toys.

      However, once I got to third grade I wised up to the school's brainwashing, and when they started teaching us about posture I made certain to always slouch down in my chair and never stand upright when walking.

      School is so damned useless.

    11. Re:What about the kids? by vegasbright · · Score: 0

      Wow, such use of elocution. Pulled your head out of the trough long enough to post, eh?

      --

      Tyler: You don't know where ive been, Lou. YOU DONT KNOW WHERE IVE BEEN!!
  89. It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by leftie · · Score: 0

    Just like the Redskins were caught trying to cheat the rules and failed on the play in question.

    1. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just like Gore tried to steal the election in 2000 but failed?

    2. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by thopkins · · Score: 0

      All the ballots were later counted by several (liberal) mainstream newspapers and Bush won in every scenario. Look it up. The right outcome happened.

    3. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you do your research, the US Supreme Court simply stopped a 3rd recount. All votes WERE counted, they just weren't recounted 3 times. The US Supreme Court was following the Constitution which states that all states have to certify the vote in early December. So if Florida didn't certify the vote right away, their 27 electoral votes wouldn't have counted for either candidate.

    4. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More liberal BS. Several newspapers did their own recounts using FOIA requests and Bush won. Get over it!

    5. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      And about the rejected black and hispanic voters? Most of them don't tend to vote republican...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    6. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what about the rejected military ballots? Most of them don't tend to vote democrat. Get over it, he won fairly.

    7. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

      No. He didn't. In the scenario that the Florida supreme court ordered (incl. overvotes), Gore won:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0, 36 04,430276,00.html

      Gotta stop this myth at its source :P

      Besides, forget not that the largest amount of contested votes, by far, was from the "felon list". You know, the list that contained around 20,000 black voters and around 50 hispanic voters?

      --
      POTUS Witch Hunt tracker: 75 charges filed against 19 witches, 4 witches cooperating and 5 witches have pled guilty.
    8. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Rei · · Score: 1

      Nope. Overvotes weren't ever counted in most places, nor were dimpled ballots. And your excuse for the US Supreme Court's ruling is not the reasoning they stated in Bush v. Gore (which was an "equal protection" argument - since each county has its own way to count votes, there's no way equal protection can be guaranteed in a recount; kind of an insane argument if you ask me, but it was their ruling).

      --
      POTUS Witch Hunt tracker: 75 charges filed against 19 witches, 4 witches cooperating and 5 witches have pled guilty.
    9. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Agent__Smith · · Score: 0

      There has NEVER been any evidence to that fact other than a few fringe dems claiming that it happened. The only people that were not allowed or "disenfranchised" were convicted felons. And by the way, in Florida, more of them happend to be white than all other races combined. Check it out bub, it's the law. Convicted felons are not allowed to vote. That is not disenfranchisement.

      By the way hot shot, Florida was not as close as originally thought. There has been plenty of PROOF (that nasty stuff the dems seldom have to back up their rediculous claims and charges) that over 60000 voters in heavily democrat areas, had already voted in their home states. Florida has a very transitional population due to retireds that only come for the winter. That makes them ineligeble to vote in Florida as that is a duplicate vote. But you dems know all about that don't you? Especially those of you in in Chicago. Vote early vote often!

      --
      "It seems that we are at the age where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away..." Indiana Jones
    10. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by jasonbowen · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, Gore won the popular vote. The Florida Secretary of State(head of the Bush campaign in Florida, talk about a fucking conflict of interest that makes me lose faith in our system) made some seriously questionable moves with regards to the election and I'm pretty convinced that some serious shenanigans put Bush in office. Personally I wish McCain had one the nomination, I would've voted for him. The fact that the Republican party can't admit that Bush is an asshole that should be replaced places even more doubt in the future of politics in this country imho.

    11. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

      Well, Gore would have lost had the partial recount continued (the keyword being "partial"), however he would have won if he had pushed for a total recount.

      But, Gore did not push for a total recount, and he lost.

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    12. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

      These?
      http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/15/politics /15BALL. html

      ehhh

      --
      "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
    13. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There has NEVER been any evidence...

      Wow, get outside once in a while.

    14. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      but all their chads were dimpled.. and they were 'clear gore votes'...

      I remember watching those schmucks on tv staring at the cards.. the man would say 'clear bush vote' and the lady would scowl and say 'clear gore vote'.. repeat the process ad infinitum.

    15. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Agent__Smith · · Score: 0

      Gee, that was a brilliant rebuttal! typical of a dem.

      --
      "It seems that we are at the age where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away..." Indiana Jones
    16. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      agreed..

      now for everyone else: you know what- even if you can somehow account for the real intention of every voter and gore should have won for some reason.. bush is in office, his term's days from being over, the country hasn't melted, people need to let it go.

    17. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't aware the Florida supreme court ordered any specific scenario. To my knowledge, they just told the counties to all count undervotes/overvotes by hand using whatever method they see fit, which was the problem -- no consistency between counties in what qualifies as a vote.

    18. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by cicatrix1 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I like your sig! But how does it make sense? Bin Laden has been completely ignored for over a year. Sounds like Bush is pretty damn tough on those who attack us! Let 'em go! Attack someone else! I feel real safe under this rabid baboon.

      --

      I know more than you drink.
    19. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by cicatrix1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the country hasn't melted

      But it's about as close as possible.

      Budget: fail
      Foreign Policy: fail
      Education: fail
      Healthcare: fail
      Jobs: fail

      What else? Oh yeah, we were attacked, and we started a war that we are losing with people totally unrelated to our attackers.

      What else can go wrong?

      --

      I know more than you drink.
    20. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      What exactly *is* a dimpled chad? I mean, I can grasp the idea that it's a hole in a card not properly punched through, but why would that mean there is any question as to who that vote was cast for?

    21. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 3, Informative

      All the ballots were later counted by several (liberal) mainstream newspapers and Bush won in every scenario.

      Wrong.
      1. The Wall Street Journal was amoung those newspapers. (It isn't liberal)
      2. Out of the 24 scenarios they considered, Gore won most of them.
      3. The scenarios that counted the most votes Gore won. Bush only won if (a) recounting stopped after just a few counties, or (b) a large number of votes were disgarded as spoiled.

      So in the final consideration, although the recounts Gore asked for wouldn't have made him the winner, a full, correct counting of the whole state would've. The only reason nobody's made a big deal about this result is that it was released on September 13, 2001.

    22. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Keebler71 · · Score: 3, Informative
      Actually it contained thousands of hispanics,...almost all were (correctly) listed as "white" since "hispanic" is an ethnicity not a race... but why believe me? Check out a screenshot of the list refrenced on Greg Palast's website (I assume he is the author of the Guardian author you cite since your link doesn't work and he is the only one I have seen quote these incorrect numbers.)

      more in my journal

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    23. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by gowen · · Score: 2, Funny

      Criminy, its almost as if the Supreme Court were voting on party allegiance rather than the facts! Inconceivable!

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    24. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by anagama · · Score: 1
      • ... we were attacked, and we started a war that we are losing with people totally unrelated to our attackers.

      This is an extremely concise summary of events - perfectly accurate in less than 20 words.
      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    25. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't reach that page, any more. The Ministry of Truth has been correcting the facts, again.

    26. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by N3WBI3 · · Score: 0, Troll
      Lol it is so sad tis funny:

      Budget: fail This i will give you but I did not see any democrats vote against spending measures
      Foreign Policy: fail Yea the whole libya giving up its wmd program was a terrible failure, as for Europe they were bound to get pissed when we turned off the oil for money err I mean food scam they were running with the UN.
      Education: fail Gee Bush has increased spending more than 50% even *TED KENNEDY* voted for his education bill, so is it really a Bush problem?
      Jobs: fail Unemployemnt is right now where is was under Clinton in 1996 was he a failure?

      --
    27. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by leftie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wrong. More neo-con spin. There is only one scenario that the Florida State Supreme Court considered. Counting all the votes statewide.

      Gore also won Florida when all the votes in Florida were counted by the newspapers after the election by the standards the FLA Sup Ct. had ordered and the US Supreme Ct. ordered stopped.

      Pointing to various Bush/Gore campaign strategies is pointless, becasue the FLA Sup Ct. never ordered any of the campaign strategies. The FLA Sup Ct. ordered all the votes in FLA counted. The US Supreme Ct. stopped that and prevented the votes from being counted and appointed Bush President.

    28. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Eccles · · Score: 1

      All the ballots were later counted by several (liberal) mainstream newspapers and Bush won in every scenario. Look it up. The right outcome happened.

      Simply not true.

      The real result of the recounting was ... that it was too close to call. The result you would get depended on judgement issues: not just chads, but when to disqualify improperly filled-out overseas and absentee ballots, votes in the wrong polling station, etc. Their best guess numbers had a different winner for different scenarios and standards. In general, the larger the recount, the more Gore was helped.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    29. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by leftie · · Score: 1

      Repeat after me: THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT DID NOT ORDER A PARTIAL RECOUNT. The FLORIDA SUPREME COURT ordered the entire state be recounted. The US Supreme Court order the recount of THE ENTIRE STATE OF FLORIDA stopped.

      Too bad little details like the actual facts involved get in your way.

    30. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by operagost · · Score: 1

      Because once the cards are run through a machine, the pins must apply some pressure to the holes in order to read them, so even the unpunched holes are "dimpled". This is why they should never have counted any votes that were not properly punched, and more important is that punch cards really should be punched by machine and not with hand tools!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    31. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by leftie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Budget: The Democrats tried to force some fiscal restraint on Bush on the famous 87 billion vote. Dems were ready to support the money spent if Bush had removed the tax cut to the top 1% of the most wealthy to pay for it. Bush refused and threated to veto that 87 billion in defense spending funding if any of the tax cuts that were only going to the top tax bracket were removed

      Foreign Policy: Do some reading. Libya happened becasue Khadafi had a ludicrous fantasy about Libya hosting the World Cup that was scheduled to be held in Africa, and was awarded to South Africa. Khadafi's son plays pro soccer in Europe, and Khadafi had strange visions of his son returning home to play the World Cup in Libya. anyway, to have his bid have a remote chance in hell, Khadafi had to get in compliance regarding international law.

      Case of truth being stranger than fiction.

      Education: Bush signed the No Child Left Behind bill with Kennedy, then refused to spend the money budgeted the bill by Congress. The money is still sitting there and the bill's provisions are not being followed by Bush.

      Jobs: Nice try. Clinton created 23 million jobs during his presidency, and Clinton had the lowest unemployment rate since WW2. Bush has lost more jobs than any President since Hoover.

    32. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by operagost · · Score: 1
      You are begging the question on every count.

      Budget: This is a mess, but we're spending a lot on military right now to make up for what should have been spent on arms and intelligence during the 90s.
      Foreign policy: What is your yardstick? Afghanistan just had their first democratic elections in, er, EVER, and Iraq will have theirs in January. Oh, so France and Germany don't like us anymore. When did they ever place their alliance with us over the almighty Euro? Oil for Food is the proof.
      Education: No Child Left Behind was passed and is a success. It's moving more slowly than expected, but it's moving. Is this the President's fault? Must the Fed micromanage every local school? This is the responsibility of the inept governors, mayors, and city councils that let them go to waste.
      Healthcare: A new prescription drug benefit for seniors. Clinton didn't do ANYTHING in eight years for health care because he insisted on an all-or-nothing Canada-like plan that likely wouldn't work for the US because we are NOT Canada. Meanwhile, Democrats keep blasting the plan even though they haven't done anything themselves to help.
      Jobs: Bush inheirited a recession, and this caused a lot of lost jobs between October 2000 ad January 2002. Most of those have come back due to boosts for small business and tax cuts for all but the wealthiest individuals. What's Kerry's plan? Heavily tax everyone making over $200,000, even though most of them are actually small business like partnerships and sole proprietors that are taxed like individuals.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    33. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      Unemployment is the exact same now as 1996. The jobs created under Clinton (and a republican house / senate) were created by the internet bubble not by any policy of Clintons.

      Look Enjoy the kool-aid and have a safe election day..

      --
    34. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Yutznut · · Score: 1

      Education: Bush signed the No Child Left Behind bill with Kennedy, then refused to spend the money budgeted the bill by Congress. The money is still sitting there and the bill's provisions are not being followed by Bush.

      Wrong --- the money is there, it's up to the school districts to apply for it and use it. nobody in the administration or in Congress can force the school districts to do that. They have to take responsibility and do the application work themselves. Oh wait we already know they don't want to do anything themselves, after all they simply want someone else to do the friggin work for them.

      That was a BS claim.

      --
      When in doubt.. do it on someone else's machine
    35. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by leftie · · Score: 1

      The internet business explosion was STARTED by Clinton tax policy and the tax breaks he gave to high tech start up and high tech capital improvements.

      Who gives a fuck what the unemployment rate was in 1996. It's one of those neo-con, look-over-here-not at the facts CrapPoints (Trademark - Republican National Committee) that neo-cons throw up to distract from the truth.

      TRUTH: Clinton policies created 23 million jobs. Bush policies lost more jobs than any president since Hoover.

    36. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      So do we give Clinton credit for the nasdaqq colapsing as well, it happened under his tax policies. Also the Bush budget did not take effect until Fiscal year 2002 so are all the lost jobs in 2001 also clintons fault.

      Fact: THE PRESIDENT HAS MUCH LESS TO DO WITH THE ECONOMY THAN PEOPLE THINK..

      --
    37. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by leftie · · Score: 1

      Wrong. There's lists and lists and lists of school districts that have tried to properly apply for that money that were refused by the Bush administation.

      Your claim is a lie.

    38. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by leftie · · Score: 1

      The NASDAQ had it's total value go up 20 times in the bubble, then sanity took hold and the NASDAQ gave a little more than half that 20 fold increase in value back. What's left. Clinton policies that directly lead to massive total increases in NASDAQ stock valuation.

      Clinton tax policy supporting high tech innovation caused the tech boom. some people took the tech boom too far and thought the tech party would never end. That's silliness. I remember Lou Dobbs saying on his show that the tech boom would last forever. He really said that. Booms don't last forever. However, it sure created a lot of permanent increases capital value in the US economy.

    39. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
      Clinton tax policy supporting high tech innovation caused the tech boom.

      Yea cause the technology actualyl maturing over the past 20 years had little to do with it. Nor did the Republicans who held both houses of congress and thus were the only ones who could set tax policy...

      --
    40. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Agent__Smith · · Score: 0

      it makes perfect sense if you listen to the ENTIRE Bin Laden tape from last friday... Bin Laden actually tries to strike a deal, state by state, that he will not blow up stuff in states that go for Kerry. Kinda says it all.

      --
      "It seems that we are at the age where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away..." Indiana Jones
    41. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by leftie · · Score: 1

      The Clinton tech and tax policy was set in 1993. Not one Republican supported the economic and tax package that created the tech boom. It passed completely on votes in Congress by Democrats.

      Yes, the technology was maturing in university labs, but all that research needed capital to be implimented industry-wide. The Clinton high tech tax cuts got the money out there to have all that fiber optic cable installed nationwide that the internet now runs on, and all those servers and equipment to high tech start ups through tax breaks to venture capital for high tech.

    42. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by leftie · · Score: 1

      That's a lie. When all the ballots in FLA were tabulated by newspapers, Gore wone by 20,000 votes.

      You're trying to pick and choose from a couple of the partial recounts. Sorry. That's crap, and you know it's crap.

    43. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by leftie · · Score: 1

      You Republicans invented that bullshit. Sorry. Try again.

    44. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Rei · · Score: 1

      I misspoke; it wasn't the Florida Supreme court, but Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis, who was supervising the recount. Lewis told the Sentinel that he would not have them reject overvotes.

      --
      POTUS Witch Hunt tracker: 75 charges filed against 19 witches, 4 witches cooperating and 5 witches have pled guilty.
    45. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Rei · · Score: 1

      Completely untrue. There were over 22,000 who *identify themselves as black*, but only 61 who *identify themselves as hispanic*. The official reason for the error was a merge problem; they merged a system with hispanic as a possibility with one that didn't have it, and the system simply dropped hispanics unless their race was listed as "unknown" during the merge.

      http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/relatedarticl es /29475.php

      Some choice quotes:

      "Florida election officials used a flawed method to come up with a listing of people believed to be convicted felons, a list that they are recommending be used to purge voter registration rolls, state officials acknowledged Friday. As a result, voters identifying themselves as Hispanic are almost completely absent from that list."

      "This was absolutely unintentional," said Nicole de Lara, spokeswoman for the Florida secretary of state, Glenda E. Hood, an appointee of Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's brother. "The matching criteria were approved by several interested parties in the lawsuit and the court. I don't know how it got by all those people without anyone noticing."

      "But the database of felons has only five variables for race: white, black, Asian, Indian and unknown. And a voter registered as Hispanic whose name and birth date matched a felon's would be left off the purge list unless his race was listed as unknown."

      --
      POTUS Witch Hunt tracker: 75 charges filed against 19 witches, 4 witches cooperating and 5 witches have pled guilty.
    46. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      So you are saying in 1994, 1995, and 1996 that there was not one tax measure passed?

      --
    47. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's saying you're ignorant. Frankly, after reading your replies I agree with him. The important question is are you less ignorant now and simply obstinate? I suppose it all depends on your next answer. Let's hear it.

    48. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by gowen · · Score: 1

      Err. You're weird. I was accusing the Republicans... Eejit.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    49. Re:It means GOP will try to cheat and fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Insightful" my ass. If this idiot can not deal with reality, maybe he should go someplace more porgressive (i.e., France, or maybe Cuba).

      The budget: Recovering nicely from Clinton's recession, the World Trade Center massacres, and the war on Terrorism.

      Foreign Policy: we have NOT been attacked since 9-11. That is the ONLY foreign policy most people care about.

      Education: I agree. The Democrats and the NEA have screwed up our educational system beyond repair. Vouchers will help those out who want better.

      Health care: Again, I agree. Government interferance and greedy trial lawyers have made health care quite costly. Get rid of these two factors, and health care will be a lot more affordable.

      Jobs: Gee, the economy is booming again, hiring is up, inflation is low. Exactly what is your problem? Are you a "buggy whip maker" or a "telegraph specialist"? The economy changes, jobs move or are eliminated completely. It is not one of government's roles to hold your hand and ensure you a job (at the wages you demand, with the benefits you require.)

      And in case you haven't heard, the main terrorist asshole in Iraq at the moment IS AN AL QUEDA member -- not exactly unrelated to 9-11. And in case you missed it, the US's policy is to destroy terrorsits and terrorism and the governments that harbor such.

      What else could go wrong?! We could elect Kerry, a clueless, spineless, valueless liberal -- and let hime raise our taxes, send our troops all over the world on "humanitarian" missions, make our schools even less accountable, and spend even more that Bush. Gag me with a spoon!

  90. World Series by NiTr|c · · Score: 1

    There's also something with the world series win that says Republican in the whitehouse. I don't recall the exact way it is presented, but by the Red Sox winning it corrosponds with republican presidential win.

    --
    Try actually thinking for yourself. It's quite refreshing.
  91. Well, but, yes. by mattdm · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's because Gore was foolish, and only demanded a recount in counties where he expected to do well. That's a dubious strategy anyway, and as you say, it turns out Bush would have "won" counting that way too. (Never mind that it's really a statistical tie and we all pretty much lose.) But when a _real_ recount of all state ballots was conducted by a consortium of newspapers, the results came out with Gore winning by over 20,000 votes. Too bad the Supreme Court didn't order that!

    1. Re:Well, but, yes. by Aexia · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's because Gore was foolish, and only demanded a recount in counties where he expected to do well. That's a dubious strategy anyway,

      Gore had to follow state law that limited in the numbers of counties he could request a recount.

    2. Re:Well, but, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what fscking state law was that?

    3. Re:Well, but, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Not true. None of the military absentee votes were counted at all. They all were thrown away because military mail doesn't have a post mark. This is in excess of fifty thousand votes.

      But a bigger problem is so few study history. The first two years of Vietnam, under a Republican administration, we never had more then 950 troops in Vietnam. After two years of a Dem administration there was over one hundred thousand men in Vietnam. And Kerry has openly said he is going to send more men. If Kerry wins it's Vietnam all over again.

    4. Re:Well, but, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is like the gun I used in Nam.

      --
      You were never in Nam, Cartman.

    5. Re:Well, but, yes. by turbotalon · · Score: 1

      where do you get this information from? Every newspaper article I have ever read says the outcome of the recount done byt the NYT and others ALL came out in Bush's favor. I'd like to see your source.

      --

      I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy

    6. Re:Well, but, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought he said he was going to fight a 'smarter war', which more or less meant all but pulling out of iraq and using more strategic ways to destroy the terrorists? That was the impression i got from his ads anyway.. Care to enlighten?

    7. Re:Well, but, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Law. You Law & Order types don't keep up with the Law? Why should I vote for you all?

    8. Re:Well, but, yes. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1
      Every newspaper article I have ever read says the outcome of the recount done byt the NYT

      Instead of reading articles about other articles, why not read the actual article:
      1. the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots.


      In other words, a full recount of all ballots in Florida would've made Albert Gore the USA's President.
    9. Re:Well, but, yes. by foooo · · Score: 1

      Gore never wanted a full state-wide count. He was aiming for a recount in counties that were Democrat heavy. Oddly... if Gore had "gotten his way" he would have still lost.

      And all of this talk doesn't take into account the ill affects of the press calling the race early. The turnout in the more heavily Republican panhandle was much lower than expected.

    10. Re:Well, but, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your statement that Gore would have won by 20,000 votes is pure bullshit. I'm sick of hearing this untrue statement repeated. Read the article "Florida recount study: Bush still wins" on CNN:

      http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/s tories/main.html/

      From the article:

      "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

      The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN. "

  92. They predicted the popular vote winner, obviously by SlideGuitar · · Score: 1

    Any argument about predicting 2000 by tea leaves or NH towns can always be argued to be about the popular vote, as opposed to the winner.

    One problem with this: http://www.biz.uiowa.edu/iem// is that they don't have an electoral college vote futures market which would be much more relevant than the popular vote in a close election.

    And futures markets can't be expected to function in the event of wholly novel circumstances like a Supreme Court coup d'etat.... so whether it is New Hampshire towns, or futures markets, you can't hold them responsible for the 2000 election outcome, only, perhaps, for things like the total number of votes.

    Fluky electoral college votes, and supreme court interventions come under the heading of "acts of (a particularly bloody minded) God"... beyond prediction by futures markets.

  93. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    so, how is Kerry going to make things better? All I see from him is more money taken out of my paycheck.

  94. Re:Stop being so naive, you idiots by Peyna · · Score: 1

    The bigger problem that I see is that the sample size is actually more like 20,000; and only 3,000 chose to respond. Were it a more compulsory sample, I'd have a little more faith in it.

    --
    What?
  95. What game did you watch w/ 15 point touchdowns? by leftie · · Score: 1

    The score was 28 to 14 Packers.

  96. Re:How Fucking Stupid Is This Question?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah go figure

    News for Nerds, Stuff That Matters?

    I'm a nerd
    I hate politics
    Football is alright
    I don't believe in superstitions

    Where does any of this fit into the "nerd news?"

    Fuck this.. I'm sticking to the register for good..

  97. Re:Stop being so naive, you idiots by nomadic · · Score: 1

    Well they just don't stop there, they then compare them to the actual votes after elections. They actually do tend to have an accuracy of +/- a few percentage points.

  98. That last touchdown... by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    was when the Redskins just sort of gave up there. The Packers probably wouldn't have had the scoring opportunity if that touchdown counted, provided the defense kept its act together.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  99. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Monday football as a terrorist target. It would be right before the election, would be very public, and would impact a large group of people.

    Just like every other major sporting event or human gathering has supposedly been a terrorist target for the past 3 years.

  100. Re:Stop being so naive, you idiots by drlake · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, you'd get +/- 5% out of much less than 3,000 respondents, under 1000 actually. You might want to study elementary statistics before you try to discuss it, so at least you won't be talking out of your ass like this time. While there are certainly grounds to be suspicious of the poll results, the quantity of people polled isn't one of them. I'll leave it to you to figure out the real issues, after you study some stats...

  101. Re:That's why a third party will never be viable.. by 1lus10n · · Score: 2, Informative

    Pro football has "sudden death" ovetimes. First team to score wins. If nobody scores its a tie.

    --
    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
  102. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by fyngyrz · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    Not to worry - this means Kerry will win just about as much as sampling rising temperatures over the last 80 years or so means humans are causing global warming. It's just a stupid misuse of statisitics and co-incidence.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  103. Re:That's why a third party will never be viable.. by secolactico · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's why a third party will never be viable..

    You silly... Everybody knows a third party candidate wins whenever the Washington Generals beat the Globetrotters.

    --
    No sig
  104. You have your Theories, I have mine by Zoko+Siman · · Score: 1
  105. Ah yes but... by photonrider · · Score: 1

    ...this affect is countered by the Red sox win. Bush will win!!!!

  106. Size of population irrelevant by spaceturtle · · Score: 1

    they ask 3,000 out of millions of registered voters. With 3,000 voters the standard deviation will be under 1%, so the probability that too few samples will cause an error of more than +/- 5% is less one in a million. This analysis doesn't consider biased sampling methods and voters changing their minds, but increasing the number of samples won't help with these problems anyway.

  107. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by aerojad · · Score: 3, Funny

    Considering the teams playing, it might be more of a mercy killing.

    --

    SecondPageMedia - Wha
  108. Pick a stock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Email 262144 people, tell half that the stock will go up next week, half that it will go down. Pick another stock. Repeat 10 times. You will have 256 people who have been given a correct stock tip 10 weeks in a row.

    Just because it is possible to find one sports team whose record correlates with the election, it doesn't mean you're on to anything. Nevertheless, it's a lot of fun

    1. Re:Pick a stock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      find one sports team whose record correlates with the election

      But what if that one sports team happens to be in Washington of all places? See, it's not just a coincidence.

    2. Re:Pick a stock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, Kerry paid the Redskins to lose, to instill doubt in conservative voters.

  109. And they say ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .... that Rome fell on a wednesday.

  110. In 1994 we were in a war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    In 1994, we were in a war and the incumbant won.

    1. Re:In 1994 we were in a war by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      There was no presidential election in 1994. At least not in the U.S.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  111. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, the terrorist apparently are big Tom Clancy fans. 9-11 was just a ripoff version of "Debt Of Honor." What your describing is "Sum of All Fears."

    Well, there's only one thing to do:

    Let's use the PATRIOT Act to throw Clancy in the clink for abetting the enemy! That'll learn him!

  112. Sounds like GOP spinning Iraq explosive theft. by leftie · · Score: 1

    We were busy in Baghdad, so the US forces kinda gave up the explosives there in Al Qaqaa. They wouldn't have stolen the explosives if we thought those explosives really counted, provided the British and Iraqi defense forces kept their act together.

    1. Re:Sounds like GOP spinning Iraq explosive theft. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The explosives were gone before US troops even got there.

    2. Re:Sounds like GOP spinning Iraq explosive theft. by leftie · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Everyone has seen the video tape of the explosives sitting in the bunkers in Al QaQaa from the reporters imbedde with the 101st Infantry Division.

      Again, the neo-cons yell, but, but, but, why are you going to believe evidence you see on TV with your lying eyes when you can believe totally uncorroborated spin with no evidence supporting it whatsoever?

    3. Re:Sounds like GOP spinning Iraq explosive theft. by Nutria · · Score: 0, Troll
      The explosives were gone before US troops even got there.

      According to an explosive ordinance Major who was there, he and his team blew it all up.

      Again, according to the Major, his team blew up 7,000 tons of ordinance. According to the Pentagon, ~400,000 tons of ordinance has been detonated.

      So, in a war zone,
      • ~0.0001 of the total destroyed ordinance is a rounding error
      • it's probably already been destroyed, anyway


      Many people inside both the NY Times and CBS News have an active animus for W. Is it any wonder that they'd try to spin this crap as news late in the cycle?
      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    4. Re:Sounds like GOP spinning Iraq explosive theft. by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      ~0.0001 of the total destroyed ordinance is a rounding error


      The ratio is kind of irrelevant, isn't it? If we found out that terrorists had got their hands on a Soviet nuke, would you say that wasn't important because there were 40,000 other soviet nukes still safe and secure? The fact is, 380 tons of high explosive can do a lot of damage in the wrong hands. These were explosives that were secured and accounted for before Bush's grand invasion, and now they are missing and nobody knows where they went. Maybe you think that is okay, but I don't.


      Many people inside both the NY Times and CBS News have an active animus for W. Is it any wonder that they'd try to spin this crap as news late in the cycle?


      it's probably already been destroyed, anyway


      "Probably" isn't exactly a recipe for a secure America...

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    5. Re:Sounds like GOP spinning Iraq explosive theft. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great so now you're saying we can't even find our own WMDs? Just great. VOTE Anyone-but-bush!

    6. Re:Sounds like GOP spinning Iraq explosive theft. by LMCBoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Is this the same Major who said he never saw an IAEA seal on any of the bunkers he visited? The same Major who said he blew up "munitions" and couldn't say if any of it was the high-grade explosives that are in question? The same Major who said he was at Al Qaqaa 5 days before the embedded KSTP TV crew shot video of US Soldiers at Al Qaqaa breaking IAEA seals, opening the bunkers, and examining the barrels of the high explosives still contained therein? Same guy? How can you conclude from his testimony that the explosives had been detonated?

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    7. Re:Sounds like GOP spinning Iraq explosive theft. by TGK · · Score: 0, Troll

      I don't understand how this logic works. Maybe you and your friends on the right can help me.

      Media: 370 tons of high test explosives have gone missing in Iraq. Evidence now suggests they may be in the hands of terrorists.

      Bush Inc: Yea, well, the explosives were missing before we got there. See! Saddam was giving weapons to terrorists.

      Media: Oh, and here's video tape of the US Army inspecting the explosives we talked about.

      Buch Inc: Crap, guess they didn't go missing before we showed up... uh... er.... Oh yea! Here's some guy with a vague notion of having destroyed those very explosives you see on video tape. No one else from his unit has come forward and his account is so sparse on details that he might be talking about blowing up a sawdust stockpile in Montana, but he says he did it.

      Media: What???

      How can you call this an animus against W? You've fundamentally got to admit one of two things. Either the Whitehouse's first response was a flat out lie and fabrication based entirely on a need to control the story and prevent it from damaging Bush's campaign, or the first bit was an honest mistake and the second bit is a complete and total fabrication for the aforementioned reasons.

      Either the explosives were or were not there. You can't have it both ways. When the administration said those explosives were missing when our troops arrived, it said so as if it knew where they were. Was that not in fact the case? Was that a lie?

      When the administration said that this solider and his compatriots blew up the stockpiles it either demonstrates that the first bit was a lie (they really had no idea what was going on) or it demonstrates that BOTH statements are lies and that confronted with video footage they needed something more concrete than "uh.... pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

      Which is it?

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    8. Re:Sounds like GOP spinning Iraq explosive theft. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Incidentally...your sig? Bullshit. I thought it wasn't possible to put "spin" on a definition, but you have done it.

      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.


      Free from bigotry? Nowhere in any definition.

      Tolerant of others? Bullshit. Nowhere in any definition. Perhaps you meant "tolerant of change".

      Open to progress? Sure. But implying that a conservative is a bigot who hates everyone else, is bullshit. Incidentally, just because it's "progress" doesn't always mean it's in the right direction. It seems like progress that we now have electronic voting machines in several counties in Florida. In fact, it could result in organized fraud. Some progress. A sensible liberal, just like a sensible conservative, would have checked to be sure the solution wasn't worse than the problem. Switch from butterfly ballots to a lever voting system, like we have in Pennsylvania, perhaps.
  113. Confusing Causation with Correlation by matt_sinclair · · Score: 1

    Yet again, confusing correlation and causation (to misquote Carl Sagan). I'd hazard a guess that it's part of the reason why GWB is there in the first place, because it certainly has nothing to do with democracy!

  114. For the last time! by Gldm · · Score: 1, Troll

    Bush is not another Hitler!





    ...Hitler had charisma.





    /so going to hell but I don't care.

    --

    Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!

    1. Re:For the last time! by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Hitler provided walls and a roof for his prisoners. Bush puts them in chain link cages (in cuba). We don't really know what happens in Aghanistan, quatar, pakistan or elsewhere to the prisoners.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    2. Re:For the last time! by Lime+Sky · · Score: 1

      We do all have an idea what happened to prisoners in Abu Ghraib, however...

    3. Re:For the last time! by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Actually we also know that several prisoners died from beatings in Afghanistan while in US custody. Some others were tortured and killed by other Americans but nobody seems to know their relation to the US govt for sure. They claim they were under govt orders but the govt is denying it. Makes you wonder why somebody would get off their ass one day, go to afghanistan, set up a prison, capture people, torture them and kill a couple just for fun though.

      --
      evil is as evil does
  115. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by nyekulturniy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On the other hand, Monday Night Football might have saved some lives September 11, 2001. One of the New York teams was playing September 10th, and I suspect a few groggy stockbrokers and office workers got into the office late.

    --
    Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!
  116. Yeah, but what about when by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 2, Funny

    monkeys fly out of my ass?
    Who does that mean will win? Because it happened to me this monring, I swear it did. While I was watching FOX news, a troop of flying monkeys burst forth from my rectum, wearing bellhop hats and carrying tin cups.. I also heard this strange organ grinder music while it was happening...

    Damn, I knew I shouldn't drink Starbucks and watch FOX news at the same time..

  117. "So, if the rules of Football aren't enforced... by leftie · · Score: 1

    ...and points are taken off the scoreboard for the Packers, and the Packer were never allowed to have possession of the ball again..."

    Sounds like Cheney rationalizing the lack of WoMD in Iraq.

    You neo-cons rationalize ANYTHING.

  118. Oh come on by Aexia · · Score: 1

    You may argue with Bush's decisions, but the one thing he doesn't do is stick his finger in the wind and do whatever the public tells him to do (a la Clinton).

    Just like the time he stood his ground on opposing a department of homeland security in face of public opinion?

    Or the time he opposed the creation of a commission to investigate 9/11 in face of public opinion?

    Or refused to allow Rice to testify in face of public opinion?

    Or refused to testify before the commission in fact of public opinion?

    Or stood his ground on campaign finance reform in fact of public opinion?

    The Bush administration has collapsed on numerous issues when public opinion has turned against it.

    1. Re:Oh come on by Hatta · · Score: 1

      The Bush administration has collapsed on numerous issues when public opinion has turned against it.

      But that's a good thing! We want a leader who is responsive to the needs of the people. Otherwise we're just picking which dictator we want every 4 years.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  119. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Are you trying to unsubtly boast that you make > 200k/yr? Or do you believe the bush propaganda that he's going to raise taxes for everyone? Kerry said on national TV that he's not going to raise middle class taxes, but he has to do something to pay for Bush's adventures in Iraq. Bush's father lied about not raising taxes, but at least he had some sense - Bush just plans to keep printing money to pay for his failed policies, and we all know where that will take us.

  120. Just because it wasnt YOUR guy doesn't make it bad by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Informative

    What would you propose then? They had to certify somebody and Bush was ahead after 2 recounts (one was definately illegal, the other was questionable since it was not statewide) and ahead after several more recounts following the certification that were done on the whim of the various press agencies.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  121. Someone should get a comment from him by HBI · · Score: 1

    Head over to the National Cathedral, i'm sure some voices from the granite will be forthcoming.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  122. Re:That's why a third party will never be viable.. by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1
    To quote the aliens on the Simpsons - "Third party candidate? Go ahead and waste your vote!"

    In the regular season, a game can end in a tie of no one scores during the overtime period. In the playoffs and superbowl, they just keep adding overtimes until someone scores.

  123. Yes, very funny. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    We can see sequences and coincidence in anything.

    Except when the connections are logical and verifiable, apparently, --particularly when the results of the observation call for decision-making and back bone.

    Bush should have been impeached a couple of years ago for lying and manipulating like a bastard.


    -FL

    1. Re:Yes, very funny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh man, a politican was lying and manipulating?

    2. Re:Yes, very funny. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
      Oh man, a politican was lying and manipulating?

      There are lies and then there are LIES.

      It doesn't take a genius to figure out which is which.

      . . .

      Then again. . .


      -FL

  124. convention by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well, the republican convention was held in new york, and the democratic one in boston, so when the red sox came out of a three game hole to beat the yankees, that foretold kerry's win.

  125. No! Please don't vote for . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . . either presidential candidate.

    The only difference between political parties is how they plan to fuck you out of your hard-earned money and squander it on their friends. Anything else you may believe about politics is bullshit.

    Do I sound jaded?
    Call 1-800-GETBENT

  126. Oh, but their words were mistaken. by sageo · · Score: 1

    Actually the redskins won the game before they didn't.

  127. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by allism · · Score: 1

    Actually, I was surprised that the Redskins/Packers game wasn't targeted. Given bin Laden's recent videotape, I thought it was going to be a target for sure.

  128. Kerry or Bush wins = America loses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The apathy of the electorate, in *not* demanding better candidates from the major parties, has gotten us into a mess. The parties have no interest in *really* fixing things, because a fixed government is one that doesn't need to give handouts. But the handouts are what buys the votes of the uneducated/ignorant/lazy.

    1. Re:Kerry or Bush wins = America loses by justins · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The apathy of the electorate, in *not* demanding better candidates from the major parties, has gotten us into a mess.

      Roughly half the country still thinks Saddam Hussein had something to do with blowing up the world trade center. We've got bigger problems with the electorate than their judgement in candidates.
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    2. Re:Kerry or Bush wins = America loses by kir · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing we've got educated/intelligent/hard working people like you to fix our problems for us. I would never have thought they could be fixed here on slashdot. Thank the gods you are here.

      --
      3cx.org - A truly bad website.
    3. Re:Kerry or Bush wins = America loses by rdean400 · · Score: 1

      Their judgement in candidates led to the situation that has them believing Saddam Hussein was complicit in the World Trade Center. If the Republicans had picked McCain in 2000, none of this Iraq fiasco would have happened.

  129. Football? by GrahamCox · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought football was that game where the ball was only played with the feet. Oh that's right, you think that's called Soccer. So calling them a base ballteam doesn't seem so odd to me. :)

    1. Re:Football? by tonsofpcs · · Score: 1

      Ya, you're right, thats football, this is Americant Football.

      --
      Football? Soccer? Baseball? Who cares?!?! Interrobang still isn't in ASCII!

    2. Re:Football? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only in America can a game that primarily involves the hands be called "football".

    3. Re:Football? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only in the rest of the world can a game that does not involve spousal abuse be called "soccer".

    4. Re:Football? by orcrist · · Score: 1

      I thought football was that game where the ball was only played with the feet. Oh that's right, you think that's called Soccer.

      Hell, the term originates in England, not in America, so don't blame us Americans for being more traditional ;-)

      -chris

      --
      San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
    5. Re:Football? by nizo · · Score: 1

      It is easy to remember which is which: baseball is the game where you watch the grass grow while people run around in circles and spit tobacco on it.

  130. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The redsocks just ended a 86 year streak...

  131. Left out UNC over U. Miami (+death of FL football) by leftie · · Score: 1

    Let's get the future Veep school in on this.

    There's got to be some sort of sign when the whole freaking state of Florida loses football games on the weekend before an election.

    UNC over Miami? I'm sure that's in Revelations somewhere

  132. Upcoming Flame Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is off topic, but I bet the internet is going to see the some of the worst flame wars in history the night of nov 2.

    Anyone else looking foward to it?

    1. Re:Upcoming Flame Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i can't imagine..

    2. Re:Upcoming Flame Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i agree. i can not imagine a more divisive topic

  133. Why do people hate Bush so much? by argoff · · Score: 1


    As a libertarian, Bush really isn't my favorite - but I just can't see why so many people hate him that badly!

    Lets face it - inspite off all the bullshit about WMD's and maby there's even some oil/cronyisim - the simple fact is that Bush moved the front lines on the war on terror out of here and over there. As commander and chief, I really thought he did his job, or atleast made more than a half ass try.

    And, as for the economy and jobs, I thought he sucked as a libertarian, but considering all the bad crap that happened with the WTC, oil, corporate scandal, and the stock market that was out of his controll - I thought it could have been a lot worse and that he really softened the damage.

    Finally, between sales, property, income, and other misc taxes - the avg person pays up to 40% of their life without even knowing it - does anyone really believe that we're suffering so much because we're not soaking the rich enough. Look, if a rich person does something corrupt to become rich - then lets address that, but don't be jealous or greedy just because someone else has money and you don't. Besides, whens the last time you were ever given a job by a poor person, and becises US law only allows the taxing of income, not wealth - so that means that the guy with a billion in the bank won't even notice - but the small buisness man who makes his first mil and creats 10 jobs will get his nuts ripped off and his teeth kicked in. As much as I don't love Bush, I think he's more sympathetic to the latter.

    1. Re:Why do people hate Bush so much? by be-fan · · Score: 1

      As a libertarian, Bush really isn't my favorite - but I just can't see why so many people hate him that badly!
      As a libertarian-leaning liberal, and mostly an economic conservative, and let me explain why I hate bush.

      the simple fact is that Bush moved the front lines on the war on terror out of here and over there.
      That's presuming that Iraq has anything to do with the war on terror. Afghanistan did, and Saudia Arabia or Sudan would, but Iraq didn't. And the war on terror doesn't have a front-line. Analogizing like that is misleading. Attacking Iraq, even though the terrorists weren't plotting there, doesn't at all prevent them from attacking us. Indeed, no amount of toppling governments furthers the war on terror, because by definition terrorism is a guerilla movement.

      As a student of history, I also have to say that the idea that democracy in Iraq (if it is even possible in the next few decades) will stem terrorism is silly. Terrorism thrives under chaos, in places where law and order are weak. That's why places like Sudan, northern Africa, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc, are hotbeds of terrorism. It's just naive to think that a weak, fledling democracy in Iraq is a worse environment for terrorism than a scrict, secular dictator.

      As commander and chief, I really thought he did his job, or atleast made more than a half ass try.
      You do or you do not. There is no try. Seriously, though, the way I see it, there were two possible reasons why Iraq could be justified. Had Iraq had WMD, and attack was imminent, then it could have been justified. Had Iraq been harboring significant terrorist elements, then it could have been justified. Since neither of these panned out, Bush had to fall back to "well, Saddam was a bad guy and we freed the people of Iraq." Well, that's not a very libertarian (or conservative) justification. Indeed, that sounds like something hippy liberals would say...

      I thought it could have been a lot worse and that he really softened the damage.
      It really was worse than it needed to be. We've had worse recessions in the last half-century, yet we haven't had such a large net-loss of jobs. The recession, I can understand, that's out of Bush's control. But given how mild the recession was (by Bush's own claims), the job numbers are really out of line.

      Also, he hasn't paid any attention to the soaring costs of healthcare, something many economists are citing as something that could significantly impair our economy. The US, as a whole, spends 13.6% of it's GDP on healthcare. This is way out of line with the 6-7% most European countries spend on healthcare. We spend twice as much per capita on healthcare, even though our system is really not very good. Clearly, something needs to be looked at, but he's totally ignoring it.

      Finally, between sales, property, income, and other misc taxes - the avg person pays up to 40% of their life without even knowing it
      There are two problems here. First, the "less taxes at any cost" isn't an idea supportable by modern economics. Lowering taxes is generally a good idea, but if it comes at the cost, for example, of 13.6% of GDP being spent on healthcare, then it's not a net benefit to the economy. That's really the primary reason why I'm a libertarian-leaning liberal and not a libertarian --- they're too ideological about their economic policy and not rational and scientific. They haven't managed to integrate the last 50 years advancements in economic understanding into their positions.

      Beyond that, Bush is still a crappy candidate with respect to cutting taxes. State and local taxes have skyrocketed as a result of reduced federal support. Unless your income is way out of line with the value of your home, this means that much of your federal tax cut was wiped out by increases in other taxes. The lesson here is that you cannot cut taxes without cutting the government machinery that depends on it. The government won't just shrink when given less money --- they'll just get the

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    2. Re:Why do people hate Bush so much? by argoff · · Score: 1

      In consideration of some of your points, IMHO terrorisim mostly happenes in western comntries not because of chaos and unstability, but because very specific interests are suverely threatened by other peoples freedoms. In that way, the threat of freedom in Iraq has forced a refocus. Also, "imposing" freedom on another country that isn't free isn't so anti libertarian, that would be like saying someone could "impose" freedom of speech.

      As for healthcare, lets just face it - most of the inflation is specifically because of government flipping the bill at all cost, and government regulations that remove direct accountability from the consumer decision. IMHO, I don't think that situation will be improved with Kerry even if Bush isn't all that great either.

      Also, I think the tax reality is that the government won't just get the money elsewhere, because they're already trying to get the max they can anyhow. Blocking it at any point is a worthwhile endeavor. And, I reject the notion that high taxes are just something we half to accept as part of a modern economey - I think it would be more honest to argue that modern economies have not kept pace with modern libertarian thought.

      As for the deficit and all the empty promises, the problem isn't that the "bully has bought a bigger house than the kids on the playground can afford" the problem is that the bully has the power to bully away the kids lunch money to begin with. Solve that problem, and the others will solve themselves - even if it is a little ugly. Hell, what in life isn't - IMHO, government is about people organizing to secure liberties, not to 'protect' people from the natural consequences of their stupidity.

    3. Re:Why do people hate Bush so much? by Colonel+Cholling · · Score: 2, Funny

      the simple fact is that Bush moved the front lines on the war on terror out of here and over there.

      Reminds me of the drunk who dropped his keys in a dark alley but looks for them under the streetlight because it's easier to see there.

      --

      I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
    4. Re:Why do people hate Bush so much? by Darby · · Score: 1

      As a libertarian, Bush really isn't my favorite - but I just can't see why so many people hate him that badly!

      Lots of reasons.

      First, he has repeatedly broken his oath of office. He swore to defend the constitution of the United States. He has repeatedly launched attacks on it. He has specifically come out in favor, for the first time in history, for an amendment to reduce rights and freedoms for a segment of the population based on how they were born. This is 100% anti-freedom. I despise anybody who seeks to limit freedoms based on their own ignorant hatreds. To do this in direct violation of his oath of office is, quite simply, treasonous.

      One of his first acts when he came into office was to rape the freedom of information act. This act is absolutely essential to a free society as has been amply demonstrated by the multitude of brutal inhuman crimes committed by various government agencies. Democracy dies behind closed doors and Bush has slammed as many shut as he can.
      This was a naked act of aggression against a free society, against democracy, and against America.

      He has done everything in his power to help America deteriorate into a fundamentalist theocracy. Just look at who he picked for Attorney General. Anybody with a scrap of sense and a basic knowledge of history knows that allowing religious zealots of any particular faith into positions of power is a recipe for disaster. Never in history has it worked out well. It has always degenerated into brutal repression and it always will. That's just the nature of the beast.

      Now look at what his appointemnt of Ashcroft has done.
      To a zealot like Ashcroft, things like boobies, dirty words and the like are far far more important than terrorism. This is evidenced by the fact that terrorism was demoted below these as priorities for the justice department as soon as Ashcroft took the job.

      Further, for whatever reason, Bush systematically dismantled the cross agency anti-terrorism task force Clinton set up in the wake of the Cole bombing. He went so far as to ban the leader of the task force from re entering Oman. Why?
      Who knows, but the close tiess between the Bush's and the terrorist funding Saudi regime sure looks suspicious.

      As if that wasn't enough to completely despise the person, how about the biggie that is so delusionally swept under the rug by his supporters.

      He lied about Iraq.
      He lied over and over again.
      He knew full well that they were lies that he was telling, because the CIA told him not to run with the information because it wasn't good.

      Now, after the fact, he tries to revise history saying that we're there to bring freedom to the region.
      He also tries to change the question to whether or not it is a good thing that Saddam is gone.
      That is completely irrelevant to the issue.
      It is irrelevant to that question whether or not the world is a safer place.

      The ends are completely irrelevant to that basic fact:
      Bush knowingly deceived the American people about Iraq's weapons programs. He knowingly deceived us about the threat posed to us by Iraq.
      He has cost the citizens of this country over 100 Billion dollars and 1000 lives based on something that he knew for a fact was a lie.

      That alone is enough for anybody with any respect for themself or this country to despise Bush.

      There are really only 2 types of people that I have seen who support Bush.

      1. Republicans who are republican first and American second. Their loyalty is to their party rather than to their country. That is why they do not care about how badly our freedoms are being raped and how our government is betraying the people of this country.

      2. Fundamentalist religious zealots. Bush supports their petty hatreds and ignorant prejudices. As long as he is in favor of keeping "them damn faggots" from being treated with the same basic human rights as everybody else, then they do not give a flying fuck what else he does.
      The truly sad thing is that these s

    5. Re:Why do people hate Bush so much? by be-fan · · Score: 1

      IMHO terrorisim mostly happenes in western comntries not because of chaos and unstability, but because very specific interests are suverely threatened by other peoples freedoms.
      That's idealistic bullshit. There are people who are threatened by other peoples' freedoms, no doubt, but you don't recruit that kind of support just from envy. Look at it logically: Israel is a bitter enemy of the Muslim world. Every year, we give billions of dollars in aid to Israel, a number totally out of proportion with the relative wealth of the country. We also sell them a whole lot of weapons, the same weapons they use on the Palestinians. Now, if people who support Palestine decide to attack is, is it because they hate our freedom? Is that the simplist explanation, or one contrived for political convenience? No! The simplest explanation is that they hate us because we support their enemy! I mean, seriously, did the IRA attack Great Britain because they hated the British's parliamentary democracy? Of course not!
      Whatever the reasons behind terrorism, that doesn't change the fact that terrorism is wrong. However, we have to understand the real reasons, we cannot just subscribe to what is ideologically convenient, because not understanding your enemy can be fatal.

      Also, you missed my point about where terrorism happens. The attacks of terrorism may occur in western countries (though, as often as not, they occur in other countries --- consider the terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia). However, training of terrorists is not easily accomplished in a developed country. It's best accomplished where there is no government to see them, and no government control --- places like Afghanistan, Sudan, etc.

      In that way, the threat of freedom in Iraq has forced a refocus.
      Freedom in Iraq isn't a threat for the terrorists. It's an opportunity. Under Saddam, terrorist operations were severely limited. Why? A dictator's only goal is to stay in power. The terrorists hated Saddam for being secular, and he had to supress them because they could be a threat to his rule. With Saddam gone, you're just left with a weak democratic government in Iraq. That means that terrorists can operate with greater freedom, since law and order has broken down.

      Also, I should point out that 90% of the fighting in Iraq is against insurgents, not terrorists. An insurgent is a very different thing --- if somebody came and invaded the United States, you'd be an insurget too. Indeed, that's the founding principle of the 2nd amendment.

      Also, "imposing" freedom on another country that isn't free isn't so anti libertarian, that would be like saying someone could "impose" freedom of speech.
      Interventionist wars in other countries is anti-libertarian. It goes against the principles outlined by the founding fathers. Thomas Jefferson once said:

      "I do not believe war the most certain means of enforcing principles. Those peaceable coercions which are in the power of every nation, if undertaken in concert and in time of peace, are more likely to produce the desired effect."

      If freedom is a principle we desire to enforce on the world, then war isn't the way to do it.

      and government regulations that remove direct accountability from the consumer decision.
      If you're talking about lawsuits, I should point out that the cost of insurance for doctors in 2003 was $6.3bn. That means that payouts were some number less than that, because the insurance companies are still in business. The total cost of healthcare was $1.6tn. That means the cost of lawsuits was 0.39% of the total cost of healthcare. we pay 100% more for healthcare than the Canadians --- where does the other 99.61% come from?

      Bush really pisses me off on this account because he's pulling a complete diversionary tactic --- 0.39% is a trivial sum, and the lawsuit issue is a total red herring.

      Also, I think the tax reality is that the government won't just get the money elsewhere, because they're already trying to

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  134. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by fyngyrz · · Score: 0, Troll
    I see the tinfoil hat crowd has mod points tonight.

    Flamebait, indeed. :)

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  135. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by LardBrattish · · Score: 1

    Saving the slaughter of Dolphins - does this make Osama a Green?

    --
    What are you listening to? (http://megamanic.blogetery.com/)
  136. Re:That's why a third party will never be viable.. by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

    They can tie. The one football game I've ever been to, an Eagles v Ravens game back in 2000 I think was a 13-13 tie. Funny, since I had grown up in Philadelphia and then moved to Baltimore to go to high school.

  137. Hardly Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It was on James Thrash and he didn't have to be set because he wasn't moving forward. It was just plain bs. Granted the Redskins played like crap most of the game anyways, but the refs made a bad call which was unfortunately unreviewable (I think).

    And in American football, they're refs not umps.

    And this doesn't belong on slashdot's front page.

    1. Re:Hardly Indeed by TopShelf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually there are several different officials on the field, one of which is an umpire.

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    2. Re:Hardly Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't that he was moving forward. You need to have seven men set on the line of scrimmage at the start of a play. The 'Skins had six. Simple as that.

  138. Umps? by kajoob · · Score: 3, Funny

    Umpires? Mr. Kerry, please stop playing around on slashdot and go campaign or something.

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
    1. Re:Umps? by drlake · · Score: 1

      Hmm, should just stick to calling them "zebras", I guess...

    2. Re:Umps? by stienman · · Score: 1

      Mr. Kerry, please stop playing around on slashdot and go campaign or something.

      I'd appreciate it if he did his job and showed up for votes in the senate.

      -Adam

  139. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is bullshit that the parent is modded as flamebait! It's funny if you don't have a stick up your ass.

  140. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    GNAA supplies arms, expertise to Iraqi Freedom Fighters
    GNAA supplies arms, expertise to Iraqi Freedom Fighters
    September 21, 2004
    GNAA Headquarters, Nigeria

    In a surprise move early this morning, the GNAA announced its new policy of open support for Iraqi Freedom Fighters, pledging aid and expertise to the troubled region. GNAA spokesman Gary Niger appeared on the Orly Factor this evening to field questions about the alliance. What follows is an unedited transcript of his response to a question on the GNAA's motives for alliance.

    "I don't think it's surprising. We were initally skeptical of these people's ability to deliver, since we discovered that Jews, not arabs were the ones responsible for WTC 9.11 NEVAR 4GET. After the Nick Berg affair, we got interested."

    "We looked over the Saddam Loyalist\Radical Fundamentalist adgenda and found that we had a lot in common with these guys. These guys are really focused. Just look their insistance that women keep their homely faces covered at all times, to keep men focused on men, the way our Gay Nigger God, Allah intended."

    "But what really sealed the deal was compassion. When we looked over their financial records, we were shocked. These brave, oily men are out there on the streets of Fallujah every day, risking their tight asses, and they're not seeing even 1% of the revenue associated with their heroic actions."

    "Look at the Nick Berg video. Here you have a great artistic vision, marred not only by poor equipment, but also by the scheming jews at Ogrish.com who unjustly stole their copyrighted material and made a huge profit on it. It's unconscionable."

    "Fortunately, we at the GNAA believe in freedom, and we believe in helping out the underdogs. That's why I'm so pleased to present the freedom fighters of Iraq with the following gifts:"

    "To prevent further exploitation, we are assigning our top programmers to share our DRM (Dong Rights Management) technology with these valiant men. Biometric Dong Recognition is becoming widely recognized as the most secure means of identity establishment, and with our new vibrating scanners, it's easier than ever."

    "While these guys don't lack heart, their VHS camcorders have got to go. We're supplying not only three professional Betacam SP units, but also 25 Canon XL1s camcorders, for agents in the field. This will greatly increase not just the number of beheadings caught on tape, but also the quality."

    "Say goodbye to grainy, choppy beheading videos. The next time you see some poor bastard getting his shit lopped, it's going to be in 3 CCD quality, with image stabilization. With Canon's XL lens mounting system, you can now be decapitated with Mohammeds's (PBUH) full blessing, at potential focal ranges between 24 and 17,280 mm."

    "And of course we'll be encoding it all with 'Terrorist's Choice' OGG Theora\OGG Vorbis."

    "Finally, I would like to present one gross of top of the line Husqvarna 3120XP chainsaws. We've all watched with embarassment at the struggling efforts of these spindly-armed arab boytoys. Now, junk lopping can be accomplished in a fraction of the time, even by the pathetically malnourished."

    "This is a great day for both the GNAA, and the movement to free Iraq from its oppressors. Allah Al Akbar. Jews did WTC."

    Mr. Niger concluded his speech by blasting semen into Mr. O'Reilly's eyes, effectively ending the debate.

    About Iraqui Freedom Fighters

    Iraq has long been known as the world's premiere terrorists to meet, greet, and defeat their zionist oppressors. With the Israel-led coalition forces squatting on holy sites, Iraq is a modern day decapitation bonanza. Iraq's Freedom Fighters are well known as the world's most industrious

  141. Yes... by theendlessnow · · Score: 1, Funny
    Yes... of course, well.. actually, I mean no. Definitely no.... but could be yes.


    What do you think?


    I'm John Kerry, and I appove this message. I think.

    1. Re:Yes... by weighn · · Score: 1
      It used to be "We the people".
      Then it was "You da man".
      Now its . . . I dunno.

      show the world you are not a bunch of dicks (see sig).

      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
  142. Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The definition of a democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner.

    Any of you lefties care to show me any single instance of the US government being defined as a democracy in our Constitution? For bonus points, show me where the right to vote in a federal election is guaranteed.

    bzzzzt. Time's up. You'll have to keep waiting for your precious Socialist Utopia, cause it ain't gonna happen on Tuesday. Not on my watch.

    Love,
    Thomas Jefferson

    PS: Move to Canada. They have "free" healthcare there. Just remember that you get what you pay for, and TANSTAAFL.

  143. Underrated point by wrinkledshirt · · Score: 1

    It's mystifying because it's just so specific, but chances aren't half bad that things like this need to become specific just to maintain the pattern.

    --

    --------
    Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...

  144. Fortunetellers... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    I've heard a good explanation for these "amazing coincidences".

    Say you take a thousand fourtune-tellers(all fakers) and make them predict some future event.

    Say five hundred of them get it right. You then ask them to predict something else. You're now down to 250. Wash rinse and repeat a few more times.

    You're now down to one guy who's gotten them all right, around 9 more times. Now ask him another question. His odds? No better than the other thousand, but odds are that 1 of the thousand would make it that far.

    Pile up enough events, and you'll get "amazing coincidences".

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  145. Calculating the probability of this 'predictor' by SamNmaX · · Score: 1
    An interesting problem is how likely it is to find such a coincidence.

    Lets assume that all two team/player competitions have no predictive powers, and wins half the time. Lets also assume the incumbent wins half the time. Therefore, on average a team will be 'right' half the time. The probability of a team being 'right' 15 times in a row is 0.5^15, or 1 in 32768.

    So, what does all this mean? Not a whole lot. Now, I doubt there are that many major teams/players of any sport that have been around long enough to be right that many times. Also, I'm not sure when they decided to track this specific team's ability to 'predict', but if back in 1936 (or even a fair amount later) they stated that this would happen, it would be interesting.

    Also, though it may be unlikely to come up with this kind of sports predictor for any specific 50/50 event, there are many important 50/50 events in the world that may happen to have such a predictor. It's pretty meaningless, but some people clearly have fun looking for them.

  146. Re:That's why a third party will never be viable.. by GreenPenInc · · Score: 1
    You mean, one can only hope that never happens again, for the sake of the country...

    About the football games though, that's interesting. I honestly didn't know if they could tie or not.

  147. This could be the year by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Bush wins because he's got a brother in one of the most contested states in the country, Diebold is counting and tabulating, and the 'lost ballots' are ever-increasing.

    Bush is cheating - and this fraud screws up the natural order of things.

    This looks to be reverse cause and effect? The Redskins lost *because* Kerry wins. It makes perfect sense when coupled with Hawking's views on gravitationally depressed chronospaces.

    I find this to be intriguing - yet dangerous, as it is not wise to play with local cosmic areola.

    1. Re:This could be the year by Bull999999 · · Score: 1

      Bush wins because he's got a brother in one of the most contested states in the country, Diebold is counting and tabulating, and the 'lost ballots' are ever-increasing.

      You forgot to say "Bush will California because the governer is a Republican who's also a Bush supporter".

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    2. Re:This could be the year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want some of that thing you are smoking ;) My cosmic areola is demanding it!

    3. Re:This could be the year by vegasbright · · Score: 0

      Didn't you forget to pull something more out of your ass? how about string theory equating to the level of prostate cancer in males? Newtonian physics and the speed at which the short bus you ride travels at? Did the authorities finally tell you to stop studying things you will never understand and learn how to work in a call center selling long distance service?

      Run along and play now.

      --

      Tyler: You don't know where ive been, Lou. YOU DONT KNOW WHERE IVE BEEN!!
    4. Re:This could be the year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dude.

      local cosmic areola.

      Look it up. Then look up. There's the joke going right over your head.

    5. Re:This could be the year by vegasbright · · Score: 0

      Another poor attempt at sounding intelectual I see. Stop tickling your wazoo corona and realise that all the time reading spidey man comic books was a waste. How's that telemarketing job? Has the IT staff in the call center blown you off again, or are they still reeling from the hillarious email with your resume attached?

      --

      Tyler: You don't know where ive been, Lou. YOU DONT KNOW WHERE IVE BEEN!!
  148. Speaking as a member of the RNC by Shihar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let me be the first to say that we here at the Bush camp concede early to Kerry. It seems clear that due to this unfortunate turn of events that Kerry has won the election. As a side note, we should also point out that with the election already all but decided, you shouldn't burden yourself on election day with voting if it is an inconvenient, especially if you happen to be black, gay, poor, a college student, or a woman. So stay home. Nothing to see here.

    1. Re:Speaking as a member of the RNC by AhabTheArab · · Score: 2, Funny

      What Republicans need to do is get some people on the NFL schedule making committee to control the outcome of the election.

    2. Re:Speaking as a member of the RNC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      karl rove, is that you?

  149. Caterpillars by mordors9 · · Score: 1

    I thought it was well known that the official predictor is the wooly bear caterpillar. It's not just for winter prediction any more.

  150. It's ok man by fluxrad · · Score: 1

    Don't worry about it too much. Most people agree this is the skins' rebuilding decade.

    --
    "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
  151. Re:In related news, every time I flip a penny on.. by slothman32 · · Score: 1

    It is a funny story but I would say that the coin would more likely land on it's side than any third party win.

    --
    Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
  152. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You do realize that it's this kind of paranoia and fearmongering that got things like the PATRIOT act and DMCA passed?

  153. The Meaning of Life by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 2, Funny

    hey, news flash, you're not going to find the meaning of life encoded in the articles of slashdot ...

    *ponders mios's uid*

    7+1+5*7+3-4 = 42

    1. Re:The Meaning of Life by mios · · Score: 1

      hahah ... I stand corrected.

      Shit ... my theory is imploding on me now ... wait .. I used to be in that polaroid on the wall and I'm slowly disappearing ... dang space flux capacitors ...

  154. Re:That's why a third party will never be viable.. by tenton · · Score: 1

    Yeah, since this is regular season game, that limit is 1 OT period; it's a sudden death OT (first score wins).

  155. Have you seen.... by gr3y · · Score: 1
    --
    Slashdot is my Mercer Box.
  156. Short answer by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 3, Insightful
    No.

    To believe otherwise is metaphysics.

    I hope this helps.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
    1. Re:Short answer by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Nice try, Harvey, but to believe anything is metaphysics -- i.e. you are subscribing to some sort of metaphysics when you believe something.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    2. Re:Short answer by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      metaphysics

      I do not think that word means what you think it means.

      "Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, and related to the natural sciences.... It is notoriously difficult to define, but for purposes of briefly introducing it, it can be identified as the study of any of the most fundamental concepts and beliefs about the basic nature of reality..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/)

      You're looking for "mysticism".

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    3. Re:Short answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Metaphysics, as others have pointed out, is not neccessarily wrong. Case in point is the mind-body problem.

    4. Re:Short answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing more embarrassing than a poster who really tries to be succinct, firm and authorative, but is fundamentally ignorant.

      As an exercise, look up the word "metaphysics" in a dictionary. What you're looking for is probably "superstition" or some such.

  157. Right from the source: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Umpire -- Primary responsibility to rule on players' equipment, as well as their conduct and actions on scrimmage line.

    1. Re:Right from the source: by kajoob · · Score: 4, Informative

      He said "umpireS"...There is only 1 umpire in the NFL. Couple that with the fact that he said the ball was "hiked" (the ball isn't hiked - "hike" is what you say for the center to "snap" the ball) and I'm pretty certain the guy has no clue what he's talking about. But 'twas a joke, so don't get your jockstrap in a wad.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
    2. Re:Right from the source: by sik0fewl · · Score: 1

      "Hike" is what you say when you want the center to "hike" the ball. To hike the ball is to snap the ball.

      --
      I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
    3. Re:Right from the source: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never thought the day would come when I couldn't follow along with a /. thread or at least until I was very old and slow.

    4. Re:Right from the source: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Halloween. He meant vampires, not umpires.

    5. Re:Right from the source: by Politburo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow what a typical "know-it-all" slashdot attitude. He gets 2 ridiculously minor details wrong so of course he doesn't know what he's talking about..

      In other sports, such as baseball, the officiating crew are called "the umpires". This nomenclature does carry over sometimes to football, although the more correct term would be "the officials".

      Yes, technically after the QB says "hike", or otherwise indicates to the center, the ball is "snapped". However, to say that the ball is "hiked" is not incorrect. The usage is common.

      What's next, are you going to start running around posting how "ain't" isn't a word so any poster who uses it must be wrong? Hold on, gotta check my grammar.. wouldn't want you to think I have "no clue" because I have a misplaced comma..

  158. No by foxhound01 · · Score: 0

    Since the Red Sox won the World Series, the fabric of the space-time continuum has been disrupted, and things don't happen the way they're supposed to anymore...

    --


    Linux is to the internet as Duct Tape is to the Universe.
  159. WTH?!?!? by Cranky_92109 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think the real question here is, how the hell have the Redskins been rigging the election for the past 60 years?

  160. You're kidding, right?-Slip n' slide. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "I think it's undeniable that letting those embryos go to waste has significant ethical considerations. Gee, we can use this tissue to advance medical science or we can incinerate it. Man, that's a hard decision."

    Or a third option. Not creating them in the first place. But then we wouldn't be human if we didn't create slippery slopes every chance we got.

    1. Re:You're kidding, right?-Slip n' slide. by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Or a third option. Not creating them in the first place.

      So what's your plan? Forced sterilization? Complete segregation of men and women until marriage? Face it, the tissue is there, we might as well use it.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  161. Mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably the most insightful comment yet, because it's true!

  162. Re:Just because it wasnt YOUR guy doesn't make it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem Democrats have is not so much the WHAT, but the HOW.

    The ideal political situation would have had Bush and Gore shaking hands and jointly petitioning Florida for a statewide recount. (Which Bush would have won). Instead Bush declared victory before the election was certfied.

  163. Yes by mpost4 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Yes it means Kerry will win, you Kerry supports don't need to go vote stay at home, and don't bother to vote.

  164. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Jonathan+the+Nerd · · Score: 5, Funny
    Good idea, but let's choose a better candidate.

    "President Mitnick's first official act was to pardon everyone who had anything to do with his unexpected landslide victory."

    --
    Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are not necessarily my own, as I've not yet had my medication today.
  165. Rats by Anonymous+Squonk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was hoping for a tie...then this pattern theory could really be put to the test...

  166. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Baka. The sorts of things you're implying are borne from Socialist policies such as what the Democrats like to trumpet.

    Or do you really believe Universal Healthcare in the USA would be done without taking the name and number of every living human in the country?

    Before you go shooting your mouth off, remember that people in this country worry about Democrats in power, too, and for much better reason.

  167. Re:What about the other candidates? by The+Conductor · · Score: 1
    The best man who (a) has enough political history that people feel they know what they are getting (whatever his other faults, you do know what you are getting) and (b) is willing to take the job where his name, and all his family members, get dragged through the mud by political opponents. Citizen legislators and citizen executives are one of those ideas that seem to work well on a smaller scale, but for governemnts that rule over millions, it looks like we are stuck with professional politicians.

    Unless, of course, we get a radically different system of voting. If you chose 50 people at random to be candidates, and 1,000 others at random to be electors, then we could see citizen presidents.

  168. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by phasm42 · · Score: 1
    All I see from him is more money taken out of my paycheck.
    A pretty short-sighted view. If that's all you see, you must be blind.
    --
    "No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
  169. Why not some good ol' fashioned augury? by H_Fisher · · Score: 1
    "The spots and bumps on the entrails of this vulture I just disembowled prove that John Kerry shall be the victor!"

    Seriously, guys & girls. The only thing that matters on election night is (a) the number of votes cast or (b) the number of lawsuits filed within hours contesting same. Whoever wins, wins based on one of these two factors, possibly both. It's our job to make sure that the process is as fair as possible, not to further devalue the process by trying to find a random-chance way of saying it. Real life should, at some point, come into play.

    (Insert segue to next argument topic here; suggestion: electronic voting.)

  170. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by jcenters · · Score: 0, Troll

    Here's a scary thought, though somewhat off-topic here, I think it needs to be addressed: What if Bush loses, but refuses to leave office?

    The reason wouldn't matter so much, he could have plenty. But think about it, who could actually MAKE him leave? He is technically in charge of the military, and would have the United State's entire arsenal at his disposal if need be.

    Not an accusation, just something to chew on.

    --

    vi ~/.emacs

  171. What money? by Nomihn0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    May I ask what money you are referring to?

    * Do you earn more than $200,000 a year, if you do: welcome back to 1999. Big deal. You just helped our country. If you earn less than that, you keep your tax break.

    * Are you referring to premiums for non-privatized health insurance? That's why Kerry supports a cap on insurance payout: $30,000.01 and up is covered by government. This effectively reduces how much you pay for your insurance premium each year. Privatizing health insurance leads to misinformed citizens and patchy plans - backed by companies that could go under any second in the resulting big business competition.

    * Are you referring to the war in Iraq which has cost over $120,000,000,000? Are you not concerned that nearly half of your taxes go to the military and fund this war? That's what is being deducted from your paycheck. Vote with your wallet.

    1. Re:What money? by eggnet · · Score: 1

      If we don't bring the 21st century to the middle east, they'll bring the 10th century to us.

      Wiping the area (and other similar locations) off the face of the planet would pretty much do the trick, but most people don't consider that an option.

      It's amazing how many people don't understand why we're in Iraq.

      And btw, I expect the US federal gov't to protect the US. And that means before nukes are detonated in major US cities.

    2. Re:What money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S.government has no business in the health care business,they have done their best to screw up the best health care system in the world as is.

      The military and federal law enforcement is just about ALL our tax dollars should be going for. Not redistribution of wealth.

    3. Re:What money? by The+Conductor · · Score: 1
      Do you earn more than $200,000 a year...

      Those are only the tax increases he has promised. The OP'er may be expecting other, unpromised taxes. (And not without reason--it is a logical consequence of criticizing deficits while proposing lots of helathcare spending.)

      I don't remember hearing in 2000, "If elected, I promise to invade Iraq with 320,000 troops," but we got it anyway...

      Kerry supports a cap on insurance payout: $30,000.01 and up is covered by government. This effectively reduces how much you pay for your insurance premium each year.

      And then clearly the the excess beyond $30,000 comes out of thin air. All this does is subtitute a tax program for high-deductible insurance. That type of insurance is already affordable (less than 10% of a major medical if I remember correctly). And given the perverse effects of FEMA property insurance, I would humbly suggest that the world is a better place when the feds stay out of the insurance business.

      Who modded this insightful? Informative maybe (for the bit about $30,000), but who needs to read that post to realize that Kerry is claiming his taxes won't hit the midlle class (or that war costs money)? It's only been on the news all flippin' summer!

    4. Re:What money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans! Damn you are stupid. The grandparent was fully acurate. DEAL WITH IT!

    5. Re:What money? by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      we have the best medical technology in the world, yes.. whether or not we have the best way of paying for it is pretty much established as being shitty..

    6. Re:What money? by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      one problem.. no president knows what wars are going to come to the forefront while theyre in office. If we had a clairvoyant president, maybe you'd start hearing promises that they'll go to war with this country or that country..

      btw, i agree that government needs to stay out of insurance, among other things.

    7. Re:What money? by chaboud · · Score: 1

      Did you miss the point in the second debate where Kerry pledged to not raise taxes on those earning less than $200k/year?

      I think majority of this chatter is rather uninformed, but I can't just let this "prove a negative" garbage pass as an argument.

    8. Re:What money? by aichpvee · · Score: 0
      No, I think most people understand the defenseless nation with lots of oil business. How fucking weak do you think we are that you could truly believe our society can be taken over by religious fanatics... oh wait, it already has.

      Wake up and smell the fascism, asshat.

      --
      The Farewell Tour II
    9. Re:What money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      From what I have heard, W. Bush was pretty sure about going to war with Iraq before he came into office.

    10. Re:What money? by lav-chan · · Score: 1

      The war did not 'come' to the forefront. It was brought to the forefront. Nothing that happened in Iraq was any different from anything that was happening before.

      Whether that justifies going to war with them or not, or whether Bush planned to go to war before he was made president, that's up to you. But nothing happened to make Iraq any more of a threat than it was while President Bush was campaigning for office. :/

    11. Re:What money? by wicka_wicka · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh, yes, our Yankee Imperialist Bastards who have done absolutely nothing for the world...oh no wait...we liberarted half of Europe, yeah...and there's Kosovo too, a lot of that was us...and Kuwait in 1991...yeah I'd have to say we've done jack shit.

      --
      hi
    12. Re:What money? by bbuR_bbuB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you're not with us, you're against us. If you're not supporting Bush, you're a terrorist. If you don't support the war on terrorism, you hate freedom. Why must you see things in black or white? There's a reason why we have DIPLOMATS, because every issue is NOT black or white. I don't mean to insult you, but it appears as though you have a 3 year old's view of the world.

    13. Re:What money? by Natchswing · · Score: 1
      Does this mean I can stop working and the war will end?

      I've been waiting for a really good reason to quit anyways...

    14. Re:What money? by u-238 · · Score: 1

      Privatizing health insurance leads to misinformed citizens and patchy plans - backed by companies that could go under any second in the resulting big business competition.

      Why the fuck should I have to turn over unneccessarily large chunkcs of my paycheck so the red-tapped and currupt government can manage it for me? You'r saying so because there are a lot of dumb fucks who can't manage their own money, and because of that, I shouldent be allowed to? That's what you call communism, friend. 5 insightful, ha. That is very telling about how the slashdot crowd thinks. Keep

    15. Re:What money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woooooooo yeah!!! Hook your brain up to the fear machine mah man!

    16. Re:What money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't bring Kosovo into this. That was an unjust war. Just because it didn't cost as much as Iraq and was conducted by a democratic president, does not make it good. Yugoslavia was not a threat to us and never could've been.

    17. Re:What money? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      But, given Kerry's promises, he has 3 choices.

      1. Increase the deficit.
      2. Increase taxes (beyond what he says he will).
      3. Break his promises.

      Given his history, #2 is the most likely.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    18. Re:What money? by aurum42 · · Score: 2, Informative
      This is true - a Bush biographer has come out with the story, and this corroborates what Paul O'Neill has said as well. See this article for more information.

      Here's an excerpt:

      Houston: Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

      After reading about this bit of shameful opportunism at the expense of so many lives, I wonder how anyone can contemplate voting for Bush.

      --
      "The slave who knows his master's will and does not get ready...will be be beaten with many blows."Luke 12:47-48
    19. Re:What money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we don't bring the 21st century to the middle east, they'll bring the 10th century to us.
      Bullshit. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that OBL and friends could destroy this country. They can attack, cause damage, kill people, and whip up reactionaries like you into an apocolyptic frenzy, but that's about it. All bad, but the idea of Osama taking over and imposing an Islamic theocracy on the US is laughable - and by the way is not even his stated goal.
      The only way they'll destroy us is if we let our knee-jerk reactions guide us. In which case we will continue along the path of all past empires, which eventually leads to ruin (unless of coarse we follow the British model, in which case we'll end up being someone else's bitch).

      Wiping the area (and other similar locations) off the face of the planet would pretty much do the trick, but most people don't consider that an option.
      Actually that would work very well. There would be no more terrorism if we wiped out the entire Middle East (and maybe Indonesia for good measure). Unfortunatly, that's called genocide, and those of us with even a speck of morality are opposed. That's why it's not "considered an option".
      Though it is the logical conclusion of the "War on Terror" as we are currently waging it. Which is why we need a serious change of coarse.

      I expect the US federal gov't to protect the US. And that means before nukes are detonated in major US cities.
      So that's why we're leading the world in nuclear proliferation and starting up another arms race. Not to mention the lesson we just taught the Iranian mulllahs - you better have nukes, or you could be next.

      It's amazing how many people don't understand why we're in Iraq.
      Yes, it really is. Shame you seem to be one of them.

    20. Re:What money? by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We didn't have to pay for the war in Iraq, we borrowed all that money. It's like putting it on a credit card with no limit, and we don't even have to make a noremal minimum payments - just cover the interest! I can't imagine what could be more american (or more foolish) than that!

      (You wonder if GW got his financial savvy from his daughters)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    21. Re:What money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KEEP drinking the KERRY KOOLADE.

    22. Re:What money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Do you earn more than $200,000 a year, if you do: welcome back to 1999. Big deal. You just helped our country. If you earn less than that, you keep your tax break."

      In the words of Ronald Reagan, "I never got a job from a poor man."

    23. Re:What money? by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      You mean the 21st centruy Hitler, Franco, Stallin, and other euopians would have brought us or the 21st centruty that Christofascist America created by saving you from them?

      --
    24. Re:What money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we don't bring the 21st century to the united states, Neocons and fundamentalistChristians will bring the 10th century to united states.

    25. Re:What money? by john_shadows · · Score: 1

      "And given the perverse effects of FEMA property insurance, I would humbly suggest that the world is a better place when the feds stay out of the insurance business." I'm afraid that that's completely wrong - every country that has socialized health insurance has lower administrative costs, and universal coverage. The U.S. system is completely private and we rank 27th in health care. When you pay for insurance in America, you're paying for some asshole CEO's home in the Hamptons, or the Cape, or wherever. Sorry to tell you this - but there is an objective truth out there: take profit out of the system and it will be cheaper.

      --
      Will there be people in 2100? Will they be real skinny? vote : the_real_38@yahoo.com
    26. Re:What money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long can this country operating on the current growing defict? How long before foreign investors stop buying US debit? Taxes are going to have to come up some time or spending is going to have go way down. The Bush tax cuts are nothing more than letting the rich get richer and the middle to lower brackets get shaft. Unless you are in the top tax bracket, your taxes actually increase because your property taxes increase because a lot of the costs have been shifted over to the state and local communities. I don't know if Kerry can do a better job, because he so "liberal" even though American politics centers on the right.

    27. Re:What money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we liberarted half of Europe
      So we get to take all the credit for good things, and take no blame for the bad things? Nice logic.

      The Soviet Union suffered unbelievable casualties (BTW, almost 30 times as many casualties as the US) to help stop the spread of fascism and Nazism. Just cause they were commie bastards, doesn't mean we get to take credit for their sacrifices.

      So will history give the Soviet Union a free pass on all the terrible things they did because they helped save the world from the evils of fascism? No, and we shouldn't expect it either. Remember it was the same war in which we used atomic weapons.

    28. Re:What money? by The+Conductor · · Score: 1
      I should have been clearer in what I meant by insurance. Properly, insurance is a means of spreading the cost of unpredictable (but statistically chracterizable) large expenses. We buy fire insurance on our houses, but ordinary maintenence is financed differently. Health "insurance" (which should properly be called health "plans") as we see it today is a conflation true insurance, for rare but expensive treatments, with a 3rd-party payment system for smaller, more ordinary costs (prescription drugs for example). The latter exists mostly because the income tax code exempts health "plans" from gross income.

      Thus the private sector comes out ahead if the administration overhead, plus the inefficiencies inherehent in a 3rd-party payment system, is less than the total income tax rate, which, with state & FICA, weighs in somewhere the 40%'s. So Kaiser-Permanente can waste almost half and still be competitive. A colossal gov't program gets the advantage of a monopsony, which can help efficiency, but doesn't get any competitive pressure, which gradually drags efficiency down (and stymies innovation). So gov't heathcare (for ordinary expenses) trades one problem (high cost in the private sector) for another (poor innovation and often poor service). The logical solution is to rationalize this perverse tax treatment, with IRA-like tax-deferred savings accounts for example.

      There are other ways to do it, and other problems that need solved like physician licensure that blocks entry into the profession, inflating costs. And there are confounding factors like how to properly account for externalized costs. An MRI is an expensive piece of equipment, so gov't programs try to keep a deep backlog of appointments on it. That way you can serve more people with fewer machines, saving money. But when people have to take a time off to travel to their MRI appointment, that is a cost that doesn't appear on the books. A private-sector MRI operator won't only try to minimize costs, but also maximize revenue. I would pay $100 extra to not have to take a day off work or travel 500 miles for an MRI appt. So in this case higher medical costs are a good thing, because that $100 is cheaper than some other external cost. I touch on a lot of issues briefly here, but hey, this is just a /. post!



      That's the regular predictable costs. True insurance, however is fairly easily marketized, using actuarial principles known since the 17th century. Gov't insurance, if FEMA is any guide, is always under pressure to levy premia at below-true-actuarial rates, and then require tax-paid bailouts when insovlency hits. So you are paying for those oceanfront Hampton properties, because tax money effectively insures them against nature's fury.

      But at least one rich dude is kind enough to thank you for it.

    29. Re:What money? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1
      How long can this country operating on the current growing defict? How long before foreign investors stop buying US debit? Taxes are going to have to come up some time or spending is going to have go way down. The Bush tax cuts are nothing more than letting the rich get richer and the middle to lower brackets get shaft. Unless you are in the top tax bracket, your taxes actually increase because your property taxes increase because a lot of the costs have been shifted over to the state and local communities. I don't know if Kerry can do a better job, because he so "liberal" even though American politics centers on the right.


      I agree that the deficit is way out of control. But Kerry isn't raising taxes to cover the deficit, he's raising taxes for still more spending! THAT isn't going to solve our problems!
      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    30. Re:What money? by wicka_wicka · · Score: 1

      The Soviet Union suffered unbelievable casualties (BTW, almost 30 times as many casualties as the US) to help stop the spread of fascism and Nazism. Just cause they were commie bastards, doesn't mean we get to take credit for their sacrifices.

      I didn't try to take credit for their sacrifices. That's why I said half of Europe...Russia liberated (and then absorbed into the USSR) the other half.

      --
      hi
    31. Re:What money? by eggnet · · Score: 1

      How naive of you to think that America will change substantially enough that terrorists will not want to destroy it.

      That leaves two options for us: change the general opinion of America in the Middle East, or destroy them.

      Terrorists resort to terrorism because they have nothing else to negotiate with. America, get out of the Middle East so we can kill more Jews or we'll kill you! America, stop paying us for our oil or we'll kill you! America, become Muslim or we'll kill you! Terrorists, stop killing us when you don't your way! Negotiation only works when there is the potential for give and take where both sides can walk away with something they can live with. Not going to happen.

      Wake up and smell reality.

    32. Re:What money? by Nomihn0 · · Score: 1

      Half of Slashdotters are below the median for the population, not neccesarily the average. Some certain extremely stupid people can bring down the average, all while still being valued as only one unit person.

      Given the sheer volume of comments posted on Slashdot, I'd care more to know the mode than either the average or median. Okay you geeks, gimme a histogram.

  172. One in 32768 chance? by sbaker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So 1944 to 2004 is 60 years - 15 elections (excluding this one) - so the odds of the elections going the same way as the Redskin games (if there is no connection between them) is 1 in 32768.

    With the vast numbers of unrelated binary-outcome public events happening close to the elections, it should be possible to find plenty of them with seemingly better predictive power than this one...

    Numbers of Florida voters pushing out the wrong cardboard chads for example.

    --
    www.sjbaker.org
    1. Re:One in 32768 chance? by dapyx · · Score: 1

      Actually, according to Snopes, it was valid two times before than (ie from 1936). So, that would be 1 in 131072, or 0.000007.

      --
      I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
  173. Re:That's why a third party will never be viable.. by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

    "The election would then be thrown into complete chaos."

    A tie might mean that Congress would decide (no ties allowed in the election). Especially interesting since I think that it is the *outgoing* Congress, so Kerry and Edwards (and possibly Cheney) might conceivably get to vote. Or there could be other tiebreakers (maybe it would go back the home game before that).

    Ties are relatively rare in professional football. Maybe once every two or three seasons. We may never know.

  174. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by jmcmunn · · Score: 2, Interesting


    And every college game at Michigan's "Big House" draws 110,000+ fans, but I keep going there every home game. I'm sure as hell not going to let anyone scare me away from living my life.

    They did stop allowing advertising planes above/around the stadium during games though, probably to reduce the risk. This happened right after 9/11.

    On a side note, the most powerful moment of silence I have ever taken part in was the Michigan football game following 9/11 when EVERY fan in the stadium was silent, not even breathing. It was the only time that every person in the stadium sung the national anthem, I think. And the only time the anthem was followed by humbled silence, instead of rowdy cheers. I don't remember who won the football game, but I remember that.

  175. Florida recount study: Bush still wins by g00set · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "But when a _real_ recount of all state ballots was conducted by a consortium of newspapers, the results came out with Gore winning by over 20,000 votes."

    Real eh?
    "A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.

    The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN."

    Florida recount study: Bush still wins
    --
    ... and furthermore ... I don't like your trousers.
    1. Re:Florida recount study: Bush still wins by FungiFromYuggoth · · Score: 5, Informative
      That was the headline, but the body of the actual report showed that a statewide recount would have elected Gore.

      So would a count of clear overvotes (where Gore was circled and also written in). The article you cited mentioned that, but didn't mention that the Florida judge was strongly considering counting these overvotes where the intent of the voter could be determined (since that was the Florida standard).

      What is without a doubt true is that more people went to the polls in Florida with the intent to cast their ballots for Gore.

    2. Re:Florida recount study: Bush still wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So would a count of clear overvotes (where Gore was circled and also written in).

      are you saying that fewer people who voted for bush did this? sounds pretty dumb to me...

    3. Re:Florida recount study: Bush still wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The article you cited mentioned that, but didn't mention that the Florida judge was strongly considering counting these overvotes where the intent of the voter could be determined (since that was the Florida standard).

      And who wrote in and/or circled Gore's name? The voter or the democrat conducting the recounts?

    4. Re:Florida recount study: Bush still wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So would a count of clear overvotes (where Gore was circled and also written in).

      I've read more than once that the number of overvotes for Gore was more than 10x those for Bush? That leads to the question of why so many people in our party are so dumb? Why? Why can't we vote for the right candidate? Is voting really that hard? Sigh, I worry about us sometimes.

    5. Re:Florida recount study: Bush still wins by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      AC: I've read more than once that the number of overvotes for Gore was more than 10x those for Bush? That leads to the question of why so many people in our party are so dumb?

      Here's a serious answer for that troll: Did you hear of the "Butterfly" ballot? Take a look. On that ballot, Bush is the first name and Gore is the second name- but although Bush is the first bubble, Gore is the THIRD bubble. Filling in the second bubble actually gives your vote to Pat Buchanan!

      So it's not that Republicans were smarter, it's just that their voting input had less opportunity for error (Democrat voters apparently erred about 5% of the time)

      Furthermore, Florida Democrats in that county are usually retirees, with degraded eyesight and dexterity.

    6. Re:Florida recount study: Bush still wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Did you hear of the "Butterfly" ballot?

      Only a few of the claimed overvotes were butterfly ballots. Why are you mentioning them? My question still stands, why are our party members so much poorer at voting?

  176. The mistake 'critical' thinkers make here is. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    that they assume that people who take interest in this stuff believe that baseball games cause election results when that is not necessarily the case.

    There is another way of looking at this sort of thing which I have never seen the sceptic, (as opposed to the skeptic), consider. I'll try to present the idea in this highly simplified manner. . .

    What if. . .

    The universe we live in works like a fractal equation? --Think of such an equation represented graphically, like the fractal art which became popular during the nineties. Now consider that you and I, and all our world, everything there is, may all be interconnected, living parts of such an equation.

    With me so far? Okay. . .

    Now say there is a very tiny observer and that he lives as one portion of that fractal graphic. His life and actions are all built into the essence of the graphic. This tiny observer can look across space at another portion of the same graphic, far, far on the other side of the medium in which the fractal graphic exists, (say a computer screen). The portion he is observing on the other side of the screen bears no outward resemblance to the portion he happens to be part of. Further, because he is so very small in comparison to the size of the image as a whole, the fact that the portion he is part of and the portion he is observing on the other side of the screen are in fact connected, is not obvious to him. Indeed, thinks he is looking at a completely unrelated object.

    However, because both portions of the image were generated from the same fractal equation, it stands to reason that information can be derived about the portion the observer is standing on by measuring the characteristics of the portion he is looking at.

    Now, I don't know anything much about baseball, but the idea outlined above does raise some interesting possibilities, doesn't it?

    Also interesting, I find, is that every hard-core sceptic I have ever discussed this subject with, (astrology in particular), has judged the subject very harshly without ever having fully exploring the subject being judged. --Nothing beyond laughing at paper place-mats in Chinese resturauntes or looking at the nonsense astrology section in the lifestyles section of the daily newspaper. These are certainly not proper representatives of a very deeply annotated subject which takes rather a lot of work to properly grasp. I have NEVER met a single harsh judge who has really looked that the subject. Not a single one.

    This behavior in itself, (that of making strong judgments based on little or no research), runs counter to the very tenets of the scientific analytical process which is often touted as being the reason such systems cannot exist. Indeed, this paradoxical behavior appears to me to be based on a high degree of blind faith. --Which, according to everything I have learned on the subject, is a faith very much misplaced.

    But that's old news to anybody who knows about this stuff. The truly fascinating and immediate question raised by all of this, is why do so many people have such strong automatic responses to the subject, (as evidenced by the various negative responses to this very /. article), and how does this affect society and the role of the human participant in that society?

    Something to chew on. --Or reject out of hand, depending on whether you spell with a 'C' or a 'K'.


    -FL

  177. statistics.... by slashname3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. This idea of predicting the election is silly. About like watching those signs at the roulette table listing the past numbers and seeing 5 reds come up in a row. You just know that the next number to come up has to be black. No such thing. The last roll has nothing to do with the current roll.

    If you want a predictor try this out:
    http://128.255.244.60/graphs/graph_Pres04_WTA.cfm

    And if you want put $50.00 on number 35 for me. It is a sure winner. :)

    I know a few people that feel that this election may result in wide spread violence in the streets. In effect a civil war. So far there has been nothing very civil about this election. Just look at the replys to this item. People are split with few people undecided.

    Have to say the article is not a bad troll just before the election. The editors might want to watch that in the next couple of days. I am sure there will be more troll arcticles like this. Would be nice to be able to moderate the main article instead of just the replys.

    1. Re:statistics.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some John Titor quotes about civil war. I don't necessarily believe that he really was a time traveler but I do believe that what he had to say is good for study, just as a fictional novel can lead to insights and ideas on a non-fiction reality. Look at them as a source of thought, not as predictions that will come true or as truth. It doesn't matter if you agree with them or not as long as you think for yourself and have an informed intelligent opinion, regardless of what that opinion is. I happened to find his posts interesting and on the same level as a really good story. I don't believe in conspiracies but I do believe that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense, truth doesn't.

      "Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of the West as a result of degrading US foreign policy and consistency. This becomes apparent around 2004 as civil unrest develops near the next presidential election."
      Dec. 2000

      "n my 2012, I was 14 years old spending most of my time living, running and hiding in the woods and rivers of central Florida. The civil war was in its 7th year and the world war was three years away."
      Dec 2000

      "The year 2008 was a general date by which time everyone will realize the world they thought they were living in was over. The civil war in the United States will start in 2004. I would describe it as having a Waco type event every month that steadily gets worse. The conflict will consume everyone in the US by 2012 and end in 2015 with a very short WWIII."
      Jan 2001

      "I was born in 1998 so I do share some childhood memories with all of you. I remember going to Disney World at Christmas and I remember going to the beach in Daytona. When the civil "conflict" started and got worse, people generally decided to either stay in the cities and lose most of their civil rights under the guise of security or leave the cities for more isolated and rural areas. Our home was searched once and the neighbor across the street was arrested for some unknown reason. That convinced my father to leave the city.
      From the age of 8 to 12, we lived away from the cities and spent most of our time in a farm community with other families avoiding conflict with the federal police and National Guard. By that time, it was pretty clear that we were not going back to what we had and the division between the "cities" and the "country" was well defined. My father made a living by putting together 12-volt electrical systems and sailing "commodities" up and down the coast of Florida. I spent most of my time helping him.
      Outright open fighting was common by then and I joined a shotgun infantry unit in 2011. I served with the "Fighting Diamondbacks" for about 4 years. (Hearing in my right ear isn't as good as I would like it). The civil war ended in 2015 when Russia attacked the U.S. cities (our enemy), China and Europe. As unusual and bad as my childhood might seem, I wouldn't trade it for anything."
      Feb 2001

      "4. Yes civil liberties are more important. You will feel the same after having your house searched a couple of times....
      7. My definition of a patriot is anyone who defends the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."
      Feb 2001

      "'John says the civil war leads to the world war in 2015. The civil war lasts for ten years?'

      It's 2004. I apologize for a missed key (very observant - we all need good critics). Perhaps our definition of war is different. I would define it as a conflict where organized groups engage in maneuver and armed conflict. The first U.S. civil war lasted 4 years and the English civil war lasted 6. How long is too long?"
      Feb 2001

      "'Does the civil war start in such a way that those willing will have time to remove themselves to safer locations?'

      Yes. You will be forced to ask yourself how many civil rights you will give up to feel safe.

      'Will you readily be able to identify the enemy?'

      They will be the ones arresting and holding people without due process."
      Feb 2001

  178. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by GomezAdams · · Score: 2, Insightful
    What it means is that since Congress is the actual body that can tax, anyone making less than a member of congress will pay more taxes when they go up. Congress NEVER raises taxes on it's own income level and higher. There are many multi-millionaires in Congress, Kerry among them, and they pass tax codes to take care of themselves. Corporations (think Heinz and not just big oil and pharmaceuticals) never pay taxes, they are just a collector. Taxes for any company are a Right Hand side of the ledger entry. A pass through expense. Raise taxes on corporation and pay more for your condiments. Investors have to make something for putting money into a stock. Besides if you actually taxed corporations all they would do is move off shore to a friendlier location like a lot now incorporate in Delaware because of local tax structures in most states. Same as they have done because of counter productive US labor laws. HR costs are much lower in India and China, etc. not just wages which are only about 60% of a company's cost of hiring you in the US. The rest is HR compliance expenses. When you raise taxes or labor costs on corporations, they must raise prices to stay solvent which then makes their product less competitive with a foreign made product. People vote with their wallets. Made or coded in China, India, Taiwan, or Singapore is cheaper, and there goes your job.

    Looks as if you are swallowing the Democrat party line of class hatred and not looking at the actual process and results of taxation and the history of how Congress votes.

    Another Democratic platform is codifying 'workers rights' into labor laws that companies are forced to adhere to that is the same as taxation. When's the last time you bought any thing European other than a tin of biscuits, wine, or a Linux distro? They are not expensive because they are good. They are expensive because you are paying for the outrageous taxes and labor costs which many European companies have to pay.

    Do the research and really think before you vote.

    --
    Too lazy to create a sig...
  179. Re:Just because it wasnt YOUR guy doesn't make it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there were zero recounts in most counties. the recounts gore wanted were never completed, not a single time.

  180. The Philosopher Speaks from Beyond the grave by iamatlas · · Score: 1

    David Hume said it best: Cause and effect is bullshit. I'm paraphrasing, of.

  181. Don't you mean ... by EggplantMan · · Score: 3, Funny
    --

    ?-|||-----x<*))))><
  182. Aah...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But Boston Red Sox has just broken their urban legend (they won). I don't know what might happen with this urban legend.

  183. quoting the simpsons by denisdekat · · Score: 1

    it does not matter who you vote for, we are all doomed!

  184. Flamebait? more like funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I participated in moderation I'd of modded it funny

    1. Re:Flamebait? more like funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if I'd have participated in the moderation, I'd have modded your Post Dubya-level grammar.

    2. Re:Flamebait? more like funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, if you're going to rip on someone's grammar, at least get the correction right: If I had participated in the moderation, I would have modded your post "Dubya-level grammar."

    3. Re:Flamebait? more like funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was too lazy to correct my own mistakes. I don't apologize for anything, like the current Pres of the USA. If I did, you'd accuse me of flip-flopping, and we all know that's a sin.

  185. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by fr2asbury · · Score: 1

    I didn't see any planes before yesterday's game againts MSU, but I know that the advertising planes have been back for most of the games this season and I think I remember them last season as well. Of course they only fly well before the game and the wind yesterday might have had as much to do with them not flying as anything else.
    I do live close enough to see parts of the "Big House" from my house and we park cars for the game in our yards.

  186. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Laugh you may, but if the US poll was held in the UK, Homer Simpson would win!

  187. Redskins loss no big deal by tytyty · · Score: 1

    The redsox had the "curse" since 1918 it's now broken time to throw this falicy out with it.

    Go responsible leadership.
    Down with half stated goals.

    --
    REAL penguins build their own kernels and binaries!
  188. Who Cares? by militiaMan · · Score: 0

    They both are a combination of socialist, fascist, and communist. Not that we a better candidate could get anything done. It's like the oil prices. The US has not built many refineries for thirty years, and people are suprised by the high oil prices. It's like energy cost. The US has not built any new nuclear reactors, yet people wonder why their electric bill is high. Good grief wake up people. Unless you want to become a tree hugging minimalist your screwed for at least 30 years no matter who you pick. Where is my dam flying car already?

  189. Obligatory Einstein Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "... a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.

    Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

    1. Re:Obligatory Einstein Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah... and he hardly meant monotheism when he said that you brainfucking cHRISTIAN retard.

    2. Re:Obligatory Einstein Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa, somebody mod parent down? Is this kind of ignorant hate speech to be tolerated, even if it's directed against Christians?

    3. Re:Obligatory Einstein Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      STFU! Stupid CHRISTOFASCISTS!

  190. Quite possible. by stealth.c · · Score: 1

    Nader has been hit-and-miss, getting on only 35 state ballots, and the Libertarian Party's Michael Badnarik is on 48. On top of this, the Badnarik campaign has just launched aggressive advertising in four swing states, aimed at fiscal conservatives.

    One of them is Arizona, where Nader is not on the ballot. And Libertarians, who have a tendency to attract conservatives, are polling higher all the time.

  191. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by iMaple · · Score: 1

    Here's a scary thought, though somewhat off-topic here, I think it needs to be addressed: What if Bush loses, but refuses to leave office? The reason wouldn't matter so much, he could have plenty. But think about it, who could actually MAKE him leave? He is technically in charge of the military, and would have the United State's entire arsenal at his disposal if need be.

    Dude, the military does not listen tho Mr. Bush but the President, if Kerry wins the military follow Kerry's orders.

  192. Offensive tomorrow? by imaginate · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wouldn't be surprised if Bush & Co. decided on a major offensive Monday:

    It's certainly interesting that a huge number of fresh troops just arrived in preparation for just that.

    Would it work against the administration to do this? Polls say no.

    Obviously, I'm not sure if they'd be that daring, but if they are, you heard it here first (if they're not, this comment, like most conspiracy theories, will just lapse into oblivion).

    1. Re:Offensive tomorrow? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you medicated?

    2. Re:Offensive tomorrow? by imaginate · · Score: 0, Troll

      Nicotine and alcohol only...

    3. Re:Offensive tomorrow? by vegasbright · · Score: 0

      Wow, I never thought I would hear something lapse into oblivion, but I guess if you wait long enough and are in the right place at the right time...Yep! there it goes!

      a low flushing sound is heard from the parent post.

      --

      Tyler: You don't know where ive been, Lou. YOU DONT KNOW WHERE IVE BEEN!!
  193. Re:What about the other candidates? by The+Conductor · · Score: 1
    True enough on FPTP. But the US electoral system further stymies 3rd parties with ballot acess laws and such. The secret ballot reforms in the 19th century made ballot access such an issue. Before then, to get on the ballot, all a party had to do was, well, print some ballots and distribute them. The last new party to become sucessful was the Republicans. Ballot access has since closed the door.

    If that isn't ironic enough for you, put this in your pipe and smoke it....
    In their greed for power, the incumbents have passed incumbent-protection acts, under the guise of campaign finance laws. Since the principal way for challengers to beat incumbents is to outspend them (by an average of 2 to 1), and because politcal parties are often the source of this money, campaign finance laws are emasculating the political parties. Think about it: An incumbent GOP senator has more to fear from the Democratic party (who can fund a challenger) than he does from any Democrat senator, and vice versa.

    Witness the rise of 527's. These are becoming politcal parties in all but name. The next step in the evolution is for 527's to print voter guides to take into the voting booth (cf. 19th century pre-preinted ballots). The next step after that is for major 527's to organize coalitions and pool endorsments (with backroom deals and campaign money being distributed). In the end, the major parties will be shell organizations, forced to nominate whomever the 527's endorse.

    Tammany Hall all over again. Thanks McCain-Feingold...for nothing.

  194. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by pairo · · Score: 1

    For the past 3 years? What, did terrorists come to be only three years ago?

  195. Where's your flying car? by stealth.c · · Score: 1

    Why, right here. And you're right. The Dems are Socialist, Bush is a Fascist. So I voted Libertarian.

  196. Re:Stop being so naive, you idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, they have been right every election going back to Truman/Dewey, then they were wrong. Bush will be relected Tuesday.

  197. Since Kerry is now assured of a win... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Democrats can safely stay home Tuesday...

  198. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a slashdotter, I think we have the responsibility to actually listen to "Mosh" and act responsibly. The republicans can sink to their own filthy level of voter fraud and intimidation by themselves. There are two ways to stop them:

    1) Get out the vote, and overwhelm any cheating the bad guys can do. That kind of cheating works great if the candidates are tied (which every wishful poll in the country would have you believe). The more people get out to vote for Kerry, the less chance cheating can throw the election. So don't go to those polls alone: bring your friends, family, and anyone else you can (without forcing, kidnapping, or bribing them, of course). Give Kerry a landslide from the people those polls don't count.

    2) Join the efforts by various rights groups to help monitor and protect voting polls and voters.

    Personally, I think Eminem delivered the true October surprise. He's right too, the coming of the King of Terror began in a schoolroom, it's reign should end there too, with the only real swing state that matters: the youth of America.

    There is hope Kerry can win, and not only from sports omens. Leading Hindu astrologers and a noted Hindu mystic believe that Kerry is going to win, Bush will never again be president, and Kerry will end terrorism and bring world peace! The sun and the moon have even endorsed Kerry.

    "The last hope is to fight by ourselves."
    Belebera, "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"

  199. Re:Bush is going to win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then fucking move. God you liberals can whine.

  200. and watch out for fraud and suppression by gad_zuki! · · Score: 5, Informative

    dailykos has the details. The GOP doesnt like to lose.

    ourvote.com has a site up and a hotline ready. See also: my earlier post on fraud and corruption in American politics.

    I care who wins, but I care more about winning legally and properly. I care about every vote being counted. I wish more of my fellow countrymen felt the same way.

    1. Re:and watch out for fraud and suppression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      While you're at it, why don't you tell your own damn party to quit performing fraudulent voter registrations. Or if you're going to do it, make sure you don't do it to excess so it's obvious---like creating more registered voters in a precinct than there are eligible voters living there.

    2. Re:and watch out for fraud and suppression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      dailykos has the details. [dailykos.com] The GOP doesnt like to lose.

      I'm just curious why this site doesn't post any references to back up their claims. The entire site reads like a compliation of email chain letters.

      Is it just a humor site, or what? I hope you aren't silly enough to accept their posts as fact without verifying from outside sources. UFO abduction websites provide more support for their right-wing conspiracy theories.

    3. Re:and watch out for fraud and suppression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you really looked around on dailykos you would see very thorough links and other references like scanned documents, etc. In fact, the article linked above is filled with links to supporting evidence and scanned images of these documents.

      Face it the GOP is by its nature undemocratic and no amount of rationalization on your part will change that.

    4. Re:and watch out for fraud and suppression by frogg320 · · Score: 0

      We care very much about winning legally and with every vote being counted...if the other guy looks like he might have an edge!

    5. Re:and watch out for fraud and suppression by rfunches · · Score: 1

      I wish more of my fellow countrymen felt the same way.

      William Safire's "On Language" column in the New York Times not only talked about the different (and confusing) terms that can be used on election night -- maybe something that could influence the election a la 2000? -- but also that the phrase "my fellow countrymen" is redundant.

      [end slightly OT grammar-nitpicking section]

      Almost everyone's setting up an election "hotline" to report voting problems. NBC (1-866-MY-VOTE-1) reports 60,000 calls, most coming from...you guessed it, Florida. Winning legally and properly means that by the time a winner is determined, we'll be ready for the next election.

    6. Re:and watch out for fraud and suppression by argStyopa · · Score: 2, Informative

      The GOP doesnt like to lose

      Only on /. would this be considered "informative" and not "troll". :(

      --
      -Styopa
    7. Re:and watch out for fraud and suppression by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      I care about every vote being counted.

      Even the ballots cast from beyond the grave?

      The GOP doesnt like to lose.

      Policitians like remaining in power!! film at 11.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    8. Re:and watch out for fraud and suppression by lowmagnet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It informs the reader. You must not like reality.

      That is a troll.

      --
      Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
    9. Re:and watch out for fraud and suppression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As much as I itch to mod it troll (because Kos is about as fanatical and onesided as it gets, anything he writes is basically unsupported trolling), I'm not going to because it is a valid opinion for him to hold. Granted, it shows he has intelligence on par with a flaming bag of dogshit for believing anything a nutcase like Kos has to say, but its still an opinion.

    10. Re:and watch out for fraud and suppression by schotty · · Score: 1

      Well Duh, nor does the DNC.

      It wont matter who is in the lead, the other will fire back.

      --
      Sigs are nice guns ...
  201. Democrat explanation: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Karl Rove must've been out with a pulled hamstring.

  202. Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want to remind the rather large group of you that promised to move to Canada if Bush is re-elected that you should be packing and the rest of us expect you to pretty much be gone by the end of the week. That is all. Thank you. Turn off the lights before you leave.

  203. To All People Voting Against Bush: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What did Bush ever do to you?

    1. Re:To All People Voting Against Bush: by MorrowLess · · Score: 0

      What HASN'T he done TO us?

    2. Re:To All People Voting Against Bush: by vegasbright · · Score: 0

      Yes, another educating post from those with no better reason than rhetoric to base a decision on.

      Looks like we have to pull out the lesson manual: The proper way to respond to a question using a properly constructed statement must answer the question being asked if one wishes intelligent discourse. Most logical responses to a question can be stated in a syllogism, which is a three part logical construct used to prove an ideas truth (in a matter of speaking).

      Now, repeat after me: All bad men do X. Bush did X. Therefore bush is a bad man.
      Let me start: True leaders would not testify about war crimes they never committed nor saw someone commit. Kerry claimed he saw war crimes and did not even report the actions to his commanding officers. THerefore Kerry is not fit to be president.

      --

      Tyler: You don't know where ive been, Lou. YOU DONT KNOW WHERE IVE BEEN!!
  204. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Dizzle · · Score: 1

    You mean like Milton?

    --
    -Dizzle
    "I most likely AM so interested in myself."
  205. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the name and number of every living human in the country?

    What the fuck is social security?

    You stupid dipshit.

  206. The 'Ground Game' Wins It by Izaak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Of course as a cheesehead I am very happy the Packers won, but I am not counting on that to hand Kerry the election. Fortunately, there is another game that will decide it... it is called the election 'ground game'. In this game, armies of volunteers knock on doors, talk to their neighbors, drop off flyers, and give rides to the polls. It is grass roots politics at its finest.

    The republicans seem to be finally getting into the ground game this year. Compared to previous elections, their ground team this year is very impressive. Unfortunately for them, the democratic and Kerry supporting groups are fielding a force that is probably four or five times larger. I've been talking to campaign veterans that have been doing this for over 30 years, and they describe the current groundswell of grasroots activism in support of Kerry with words like 'unprecedented' and 'staggering'.

    It is also interesting to see the differences in how to ground game is run by both sides. The republican effort is pretty much all the RNC. It is top down, hierarchical, very organized. There are great many dedicated volunteers, but their actions are very cordinated by the campaign.

    On the Kerry side, however, it is much more bottom up. There is a huge swath of liberal leaning non-profits and newly created ad-hoc citizen groups all doing their own part. The DNC itself is very experienced at the ground game and just by itself can put up a good fight against the RNC effort. Add all those third party groups to the mix, like MoveOn.org, ACT, the NAACP, the Seria Club, and newcomers like The League of Pissed of Voters... and you begin to see what the Republicans are up against.

    Lets put it all in perspective for a moment. Gore was trailing in the polls by up to five points but ended up winning the popular vote due to unexpectedly high democratic turnout. Kerry is now polling about even with Bush, even ahead in some polls, going into the election. All indications are that the Democratic turnout will break records this year. To me, that looks like a Kerry win.

    1. Re:The 'Ground Game' Wins It by vegasbright · · Score: 0

      Yeah, its amazing to see how many slacker college students appear for a kerry event. I wonder what percentage will actually vote? Your wishful thinking was a disease I had during clinton vs Dole in 96. Sorry to tell you, but the polls are not as favorable for Kerry as you think.

      --

      Tyler: You don't know where ive been, Lou. YOU DONT KNOW WHERE IVE BEEN!!
    2. Re:The 'Ground Game' Wins It by Izaak · · Score: 1

      Yeah, its amazing to see how many slacker college students appear for a kerry event. I wonder what percentage will actually vote? Your wishful thinking was a disease I had during clinton vs Dole in 96. Sorry to tell you, but the polls are not as favorable for Kerry as you think.

      The poll numbers you point to back up point. It is basically a statistical tie well within the margin of error. If turnout is as high as many predict, it will add several points to Kerry's numbers and hand him the win. If turnout is mediocre, the election goes to Bush. Long lines at early voting, a huge influx of volunteers, massive ground game... these all point to high turnout. I'm not ready to declare victory, but there is definetely reason for Kerry supporters to be optimistic.

    3. Re:The 'Ground Game' Wins It by vegasbright · · Score: 0

      Ah, the ability to post is a wonderful thing. Once again the non-existant youth vote turned out to be par for the course. So much for optimism on your part. Learn how to accept defeat, the dems are headed in the current direction of the Whig's.

      --

      Tyler: You don't know where ive been, Lou. YOU DONT KNOW WHERE IVE BEEN!!
  207. Apples != kumquats by Safety+Cap · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ironically, diebold also manufactures ATM machines used in major US banks, and so far, we've heard few complains.

    It is very easy to tell if your ATM withdrawal/deposit went through, by simply calling the bank/going on-line/waiting for your monthly statement. If there was any hint of a impropriety, the bank would drop Diebold like a hot rock (banks rely on their own reputation of trustworthiness in order to be successful).

    There is no way to check if your vote was recorded, let alone tallied correctly. The unelected civil servants who run the elections don't give a Tinker's Damn whether your vote went through or not; they just care about their yearly rating and doing just enough to not get written up. The cherry on top of the cupcake is the fact that the average politician is incapable of understanding the technical issues and operational risks behind e-voting, so you won't get any help from that corner.

    --
    Yeah, right.
    1. Re:Apples != kumquats by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      maybe im nuts, but it seems like the only way things are ever going to work for the electronic voting machines is if the machine prints out the receipt of your vote which you verify and then stick in a good old fashioned iron box for a possible recount.

      If i were going to still use optical scan.. id make a card that had one candidate on each line, with a punch box to the right of their name.. underneath each box (behind the card) is a LED that shows through when youve punched the card properly.. not to mention, youd have punches that are electric or in some other way more or less fool(elderly)proof... Maybe you slide a bar that has a cutout so you can see the text through the cutout.. so you slide the bar down until the candidate you want is visible in the window, then push the button and if the light is shining through you've made a correct vote and you can see it visually.. thats a pretty low tech way to make sure its right..

    2. Re:Apples != kumquats by raodin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      maybe im nuts, but it seems like the only way things are ever going to work for the electronic voting machines is if the machine prints out the receipt of your vote which you verify and then stick in a good old fashioned iron box for a possible recount.

      Yup, just about everyone with even an ounce of sensibility wants a paper trail for electronic voting - both the Democrat and Republican candidates for WA Secretary of State placed that among their top priorities. Makes it hard to choose when both of them say they're going to do the same thing. :)

    3. Re:Apples != kumquats by lav-chan · · Score: 1

      The unelected civil servants who run the elections...

      Er, you say 'unelected' as if it would be better if they were elected. ... Which brings up the question of who would run their elections.

    4. Re:Apples != kumquats by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 1

      The obvious right way to handle electronic voting is to stick a pressure-sensitive switch in a series of punching bags. Each bag would carry the likeness of one of the candidates on the ballot. You would go in and hit each one with as much hatred and angst as you have against them.

      The one you hit the least hard, or the one you don't hit at all is the one you voted for.

      Simple enough, right?

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
    5. Re:Apples != kumquats by anagama · · Score: 2, Interesting

      • Yup, just about everyone with even an ounce of sensibility wants a paper trail for electronic voting - both the Democrat and Republican candidates for WA Secretary of State placed that among their top priorities. Makes it hard to choose when both of them say they're going to do the same thing. :)

      Well, the libertarian candidate for SOS has them both beat. Here's what she says:
      • To ensure transparency we must have voter verified paper ballots, mandatory random audits, and open source elections software.

      She's also the cutest of any candidate running for state office in WA.
      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    6. Re:Apples != kumquats by dswartze · · Score: 1

      Or, you could instead make it not complicated.

      In Canada a ballot consists of a list of the candidates names' and their parties. there's also a white circle beside each name. put an x in the one beside who you want to vote for and put the ballot in the box. It's extremely hard to screw that up. That and I think the ballots have a standard nation wide way of looking in order to be fair all accross the country.

      I don't ever remember hearing stories of people accidentilly voting for the wrong person or any of that.

    7. Re:Apples != kumquats by dwaggie · · Score: 1

      That's not true. Why aren't we doing a simple server/client scenario? Lottery companies are able to certify, and are legally bound by a contract if a terminal spits out a lottery ticket with any numbers on it -- why can't the same kind of technology be used in voting? :P

    8. Re:Apples != kumquats by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      I totally agree about standardization.. every polling place should have the same rules, equipment, etc. There's no reason for one county to be using chisel and tablet while another uses diebold vote changers... err machines.

      only thing wrong with the 'x' system is that theres no good way to reliably count those, so it would have to be done by hand. I guess what the world is looking for is something thats fast but irrefutable- a tough combination.

    9. Re:Apples != kumquats by WGR · · Score: 1

      You must not live in Quebec. At one time political parties were not printed on the ballot, just the candidate's name and occupation. It was common practice for one party to arange for an idependent candidate to run with the same name as the candiate of the other party. So there would be a ballot with 2 Jean Claud Tremblays or Pierre Gauthiers on the same ballot. One could only know who was the candidate they intended to vote for by the occupation.

  208. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That wouldn't be scary. It would be a godsend. Sports enthusiasts have nothing to offer the world other than beer to urine conversion and date rape. They are scum, and deserve to die along with trial lawyers and Scientologists.

  209. Re:You mean "Global Consciousness " by ArcticCelt · · Score: 1
    A couple of month ago I would have discarded your post as the equivalent of comments from people who believe in the horoscope. But since I found this project from Princeton University I started to wonder if it's possible that something like that could exist.

    "...The Global Consciousness Project (GCP) is an international effort involving researchers from several institutions and countries, designed to explore whether the construct of interconnected consciousness can be scientifically validated through objective measurement. The project builds on excellent experiments conducted over the past 35 years at a number of laboratories, demonstrating that human consciousness interacts with random event generators (REGs), apparently "causing" them to produce non-random patterns. A description of the technical implementation is given under procedures. ..."

    "...Continuous streams of data are sent over the internet to be archived and correlated with events that may evoke a world-wide consciousness. Examples that appear to have done so include both peaceful gatherings and disasters: a few minutes around midnight on any New Years Eve, the first hour of NATO bombing in Yugoslavia, the Papal visit to Israel, a variety of global meditations, several major earthquakes, and September 11 2001...."

    Princeton Global Consciousness Project

    Kind of freaky.

    --

    Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
  210. Michigan Stadium & Flight Restrictions by jaredmauch · · Score: 2, Informative
    I was in Michigan Stadium for two games in 2002 where there were moments of silence before the games. It's a sharp contrast from what the place normally sounds like..

    Here's the deal with the stadiums. Yeah, it was really windy on saturday here..

    Here's a copy of the NOTAM (Notice to airmen) from saturday which applies to Michigan Stadium (and also other large seating stadiums).

    3/1862 (PREVIOUSLY MISSING TEXT) PART 1 OF 2 SPECIAL NOTICE. THIS NOTICE MODIFIES FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS PREVIOUSLY ISSUED IN FDC NOTAM 2/0199 TO COMPLY WITH STATUTORY MANDATES DETAILED IN SECTION 352 OF PUBLIC LAW 108-7. EFFECTIVE 0303061100 UTC (0600 LOCAL 03/06/03) UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 99.7, SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS, COMMENCING ONE HOUR BEFORE THE SCHEDULED TIME OF THE EVENT UNTIL ONE HOUR AFTER THE END OF THE EVENT, ALL AIRCRAFT AND PARACHUTE OPERATIONS ARE PROHIBITED AT AND BELOW 3,000 FEET AGL WITHIN A THREE NAUTICAL MILE RADIUS OF ANY STADIUM HAVING A SEATING CAPACITY OF 30,000 OR MORE PEOPLE IN WHICH A MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, NCAA DIVISION ONE FOOTBALL, OR MAJOR MOTOR SPEEDWAY EVENT IS OCCURING. ALL PREVIOUSLY ISSUED WAIVERS TO FDC NOTAM 2/0199 ARE RESCINDED. THOSE WHO MEET ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA MAY REAPPLY FOR A WAIVER TO THESE RESTRICTIONS: (A) FOR OPERATIONAL PURPOSES OF AN EVENT, STADIUM, OR OTHER VENUE, INCLUDING (IN THE CASE OF A SPORTI NG EVENT) THE TRANSPORT OF EQUIPMENT OR PARTS, TEAM MEMBERS, OFFICIALS OF THE GOVERNING BODY, THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS AND GUESTS OF SUCH TEAMS, AND OFFICIALS TO AND FROM THE EVENT, STADIUM, OR OTH ER VENUE, END PART 1 OF 2 WIE UNTIL UFN

    PART 2 OF 2 SPECIAL NOTICE. (B) FOR BROADCAST COVERAGE FOR ANY BROADCAST RIGHTS HOLDER, (C) FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY PURPOSES OF THE EVENT, STADIUM, OR OTHER VENUE. THIS RESTRICTION DOES NOT APPLY TO; (A) THOSE AIRCRAFT AUTHORIZED BY ATC FOR OPERATIONAL OR SAFETY PURPOSES INCLUDING AIRCRAFT ARRIVING OR DEPARTING FROM AN AIRPORT USING STANDARD AIR TRAFFIC PROCEDURES; (B) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, LAW ENFORCEMENT, OR AEROMEDICAL FLIGHT OPERATIONS THAT ARE IN CONTACT WITH ATC. STADIUM SITE LOCATIONS AND INFORMATION REGARDING WAIVER APPLICATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 352 OF PUBLIC LAW 108-7 CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE FAA WEBSITE AT HTTP://WWW.FAA.GOV/ATS/ATA/WAIVER OR BY CALLING 571-227-1322. PART 2 OF 2 WIE UNTIL UFN

    1. Re:Michigan Stadium & Flight Restrictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I want to know is how did u get past the lameness filter - u know the "Don't use caps. It's like yelling" thing.

    2. Re:Michigan Stadium & Flight Restrictions by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      so its ok to blow up a stadium with 29,999 people? interesting.

      Why not just say its illegal to fly over any major sporting event?

      *shrugs*

      I know you didn't write it, but just had to comment..

    3. Re:Michigan Stadium & Flight Restrictions by fr2asbury · · Score: 1

      Because saying "major sporting event" is up to interpretation. Rather than deal with the law suits, they chose where "major" begins and that's at 30,000 people.

  211. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, though the man deserves jail for his recent awful fiction. Whatever happened to the qulity of Red October-type stuff? Has anybody read The Bear & The Dragon. It is such a load of horseshit, it's ridiculous!
    BTW, in Soviet America, the Butterfly Ballot punches YOU!

  212. This is the year of busted correlations.... by Evil+Poot+Cat · · Score: 1

    Lesseee, what nonsense has been stepped on this year (steppers listed in parens)?

    Curse of the Canadiens: Nobody who beats the Montreal Canadiens in the NHL playoffs wins the Stanley Cup. (Tampa Bay Lightning)

    Curse of the Babe: The Red Sox will never win a World Series after trading Babe Ruth in 1920. (The "BoSox" win 8 straight to dispatch the two best teams in baseball to win the WS)

    Curse of the Swamp: University of Georgia has lost 13 of the last 14 annual football games against rival University of Florida. (UGA wins 31-24)

    Sun always shines on Sunshine State football: The "big three" Florida football programs (U. of Florida, Florida State U., U. of Miami) are too good to all lose on the same day. (all three lose for the first time since 1978, courtesy U. North Carolina, U. Maryland, U. Georgia)

    So given the above silliness that has been stepped on this year, I wouldn't bank on this Redskins thing. Besides, if it doesn't hold, consider it a silver lining to have dismissed a bit of nonsense.

    Boogedy, Boogedy!

  213. Attention, Echelon/Carnivore! by Caraig · · Score: 1

    So, whatever happened to that OTHER great presidential superstition, specifically the Zero Factor? Where any president whose term starts in a year ending in zero is assassinated or has an attempted assassination on them?

    --
    "I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
    1. Re:Attention, Echelon/Carnivore! by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Someone mentioned it earlier in this thread. The term of the assassination attempt alternates, and with Shrub, it's a 2nd term. If it holds, he'll win, and get blasted (gods willing).

    2. Re:Attention, Echelon/Carnivore! by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      Ronald Reagan broke that curse when he survived for 2 terms.

      On the other hand, if you count the 9/11 terrorist attack as an attempt on president's life, then the Zero Factor still holds (the one that slammed into the ground).

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
  214. Better than relying on Diebold by rsax · · Score: 1

    The results of this election might as well be determined based on the outcome of this football game considering the questionable integrity of the electronic voting technology involved. I mean really, the CEO of Diebold publically stating that he's committed to helping deliver electoral votes to the president should be a good sign that Bush is going to win, one way or the other. Is it really that much of a surprise that there isn't a paper trail at all? Who needs to deal with those pesky recounts? Four more wars!

    1. Re:Better than relying on Diebold by vegasbright · · Score: 0

      Paper printout voting machines are installed here in Nevada. This is the only state in the country with them, actually.

      --

      Tyler: You don't know where ive been, Lou. YOU DONT KNOW WHERE IVE BEEN!!
  215. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Methuseus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bush's regime would have you believe terrorists just came to be 3 years ago. They don't want you to think about the fact that there have been terrorist attacks before and we didn't need things like the Patriot act to make ourselves feel safe....

    --
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
  216. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lol, you need to add ACs hell-bent on flaming the world, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Pervez Musharraf, Kim Jon Il and George W. Bush.

  217. I have by militiaMan · · Score: 0

    My Pres Votes (Seriously): 1992: Perot 1996: Bob Dole 2000: Libertarian I think it was Harry Brown 2004: No One I'm Moving Away From Big Government Soon I usually vote libertarian if a candidate exists except for president in my first two presidential elections.

  218. the halloween mask theory by opencity · · Score: 1

    Bush is ahead in halloween mask sales. That and the Bin Laden / Putin endorsement might cancel out the game.

    The Red Sox, however ... that might mean the rapture.

    Too late and, temporarily, bipartisan for a slashdot post.

    --
    Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
  219. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by hazem · · Score: 4, Funny

    > What your describing is "Sum of All Fears."

    And a character in Sum of All Fears, the book, actually refers to a movie that had the same scenario - I think it was "Black Sunday".

    Have you ever noticed how you never see George Bush and Clancy in the same place at the same time? It's clear to me that Clancy is really the president, being an expert on all government conspiracy kinds of things, and is only dressing up as a dufus, pretending to the president.

  220. What's even more fascinating by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Is that people whine about spelling so much. Seriously folks, get off it. Every browser I've ever used does not have a spell checker. Also a great many people, even computer people (myself included), cannot type without looking at the keyboard, and thus can't see mistakes. Further, many people have a learning deficiency that makes spelling difficult for them (dyslexia would be one, but there are others). Finally, even people who have no problems otherwise, still make spelling mistakes.

    This is all not to mention the numerous posters for whom English isn't their first language.

    So really, shut the fuck up about spelling on an informal Internet forum already. People screw up here, and as it's quite informal, aren't going to go get it copy edited to make sure everything is correct.

    The fallicy/fallacy is an easy one to make. It's not a word you type that often, so most people are guessing on spelling. Now, most American accents pronounce the second syllable as though the vowel was an i, not an a. Thus when one is guessing at the spelling, fallicy is a reasonable guess.

    I mean really, the spelling and grammar nazis here need to just can it. It doesn't make you look intelligent, just petty. If the only thing you can attack is the form of someone's post, not the content, it means you have no real argument.

    1. Re:What's even more fascinating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was funny, asshole.

    2. Re:What's even more fascinating by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Every browser I've ever used does not have a spell checker.

      Safari does.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    3. Re:What's even more fascinating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey "sycraft-fu", you misspelled "retard".

    4. Re:What's even more fascinating by dapyx · · Score: 1
      Every browser I've ever used does not have a spell checker.

      You've used only IE, didn't you?

      --
      I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
    5. Re:What's even more fascinating by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      I am currently posting from Firefox. Nowhere do I see a spell checker.

    6. Re:What's even more fascinating by Captain+Rotundo · · Score: 1

      well I have to say your over reacting. I wrote the first post, and I am sorry I misspelled fallacy... I have the flu, and ussually I try to speelll moorre Korectly.

    7. Re:What's even more fascinating by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

      > I mean really, the spelling and grammar nazis here need to just can it.

      Um, you split an infinitive there, cowboy.

      Carry on.

      Virg

    8. Re:What's even more fascinating by JLyle · · Score: 1
      well I have to say your over reacting.
      Your so right.
    9. Re:What's even more fascinating by Merk · · Score: 1

      Actually, the sound you hear in the middle syllable of "fallacy", as it is pronounced in the US, is a schwa. In a stress-timed language like english, non-stressed syllable sounds tend to be pronounced as a schwa.

      If someone has something interesting to say, but there are a few meaningless spelling mistakes, it doesn't really bother me. When I have to translate from what they actually wrote into what I think they meant to write, and that becomes like a lot of effort, that's when it bothers me.

      English spelling is very difficult. I don't think there's any language with more difficult spelling. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't try. If you want to communicate effectively, and not have people constantly working to understand you, you should make an effort to spell things properly.

      Criticizing someone's spelling on a blog like this is like criticizing someone's manners in person. It may not have a direct influence on their argument, but it sure does have an influence on whether or not you want to listen to what they have to say.

    10. Re:What's even more fascinating by nomadic · · Score: 1

      I mean really, the spelling and grammar nazis here need to just can it. It doesn't make you look intelligent, just petty. If the only thing you can attack is the form of someone's post, not the content, it means you have no real argument.

      Settle down, sonny. It wasn't an attack, it was simply an amusing observation. Now if he had spelled a lot of words wrong, I wouldn't have said anything, because it would have been pointless. The fact that he got all the hard words right made the one he got wrong funny. I wasn't insulting him, it was actually sort of a compliment.

  221. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can u do me a favour and crapflood this website. I guarantee you some entertainment

  222. look into kerry's senate record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the man has a well documented history of going after corruption regardless of all his fellow senators and everyone else in washington telling him it would ammount to political suicide. beginning with Kerry's uncovering of what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal, he and his staff spearheaded investigations that went straight to the white house -- a dangerous place for a senator to point their finger, to say the least.

  223. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by morbiuswilters · · Score: 1

    I was almost with you until you got to the astrology part... wtf? That sounds just as nutty as the x-ians who want us to believe the "Son" endorses bush. Sorry, but politics blows.

    --
    I have come here to chew memory and kick ass... and malloc() is returning a null pointer.
  224. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoops, I meant this link. Pretty please. Pretty pretty please. Please. Thanks.

  225. Hahahahaha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Luser

  226. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Erwos · · Score: 1

    I think I'm going to be voting for Tom Clancy on Tuesday, in fact. I mean, hey, at least we know where he stands on the issues (the same place as Jack Ryan, presumably).

    -Erwos

    --
    Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
  227. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by OwlofCreamCheese · · Score: 3, Funny

    while I admit there is a possiblity that your a real japanese person and saying 'baka' was slipping into your native language.... I highly suspect your mixing up your own real life with the anime you watch.

    --
    -You're wasting your time. Alfador only likes me.
  228. Re:Trolling by The+MESMERIC · · Score: 0

    Trolling is rude.
    You should write nice things ya know. Get you points up - gives you a bonner.
    By the way who is Kerry? Is she a girl?
    And what is RTFA? Must be a society of some sort I guess.

  229. Baseball seems to agree with football here by kevinatilusa · · Score: 2, Informative

    Note that Boston just won the World Series in Busch stadium.

  230. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by 5foot2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    so are you saying that it's GWB's fault that we did nothing before 9/11 (like a response to the first WTC bombing, the African embassies bombings or the Cole bombing)? Or are you saying that after Bad people knocked down two huge buildings in lower Manhattan and killed a bunch people in a multi pronged assault hitting 3 out of 4 targets that it was wrong for GWB (and the congress) to try and take steps to stop it from happening again?

  231. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by pairo · · Score: 1

    So ignorance _is_ bliss, innit?

  232. Re:Left out UNC over U. Miami (+death of FL footba by TiMac · · Score: 1
    Eh...I'm not a fan of either team. But the parties in Chapel Hill were KILLER last night after the game, and tonight even more so (Halloween and all).

    So what does this lead me to believe? That it's a sign that I'll be partying come Tuesday, too! I hope Kerry pulls it out!

    --

  233. New US electoral process by darnok · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dear USA,

    We've decided to step in to fix a problem you seem to be having.

    Unfortunately, the election of your President impacts many of us greatly. While it has been a source of considerable amusement to us in the past, recently we have become less tolerant of the outcomes it has produced.

    Starting today, here is the amended process whereby a US president gets elected:
    - US citizens get together to elect a US Presidential *candidate*. Your current options: Bush, Kerry, various others nobody cares about. Method: Toss a coin, spin a bottle, use the results of a sporting event nobody cares about. We don't care, so knock yourselves out
    - candidate is put forward to the rest of the world to decide whether he/she/it is suitable. Their current options: winner of Bush/Kerry, "go find someone else". Method: secured regulated ballot process, as used in nearly all Western countries for many years without problems. Feel free to read up on it some time if you're interested
    - results announced: "go find someone else"
    - repeat approx 300 million times, or until point is made...

    WE REALLY LIKE YOU AMERICANS, BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY. SURE, YOU DRESS FUNNY AND MAKE US LAUGH WHEN YOU'RE IN INTERNATIONAL VENUES, BUT YOU'RE REALLY NICE PEOPLE REGARDLESS AND WE LOVE HAVING YOU ALONG FOR THE RIDE. ON TOP OF THAT, YOU'VE GOT SOME OF THE REALLY SMART PEOPLE IN THE WORLD LIVING IN YOUR COUNTRY. HOWEVER, WHAT CRAZY SYSTEM LETS YOU IGNORE THE REALLY GOOD PEOPLE AND SPIN OUT SUCH LEADERSHIP CANDIDATES AS YOU MANAGE TO COME UP WITH?

    Ahem, sorry about that. Anyway, please understand that these changes take place immediately, no correspondence will be entered into, yada, yada, yada.

    Yours truly,

    God (no, NOT yours, and not yours either. In fact you were all wrong, and what the hell made you think I'd give a stuff about you tiny little humans anyway?)

    1. Re:New US electoral process by Purist · · Score: 1

      Kerry would probably approve of the process you outline above...I mean...he just wants to "get everyone together" right?

      Better idea: Let's bring all coutries in the world together and force them to do whatever the majority lemmings want to do.

      --
      I used to fear clowns...but I'm discovering that chimps are far, far, worse.
    2. Re:New US electoral process by hugesmile · · Score: 1
      SURE, YOU DRESS FUNNY AND MAKE US LAUGH WHEN YOU'RE IN INTERNATIONAL VENUES

      What really annoys me about many non-Americans is when they think that the United States is less "international" than their country. Your country is international to us; ours is international to you.

      Just because our countries are different doesn't mean that one is better than the other. Ever think how silly foreigners look in the US? OK, so BFD.

      Yours truly,

      God

      No wait.... what really annoys me is when non-Americans think they are God!

      your post was humorous, though, even coming from an inferior non-American.

    3. Re:New US electoral process by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Personally, I would suggest God read PJ O'Rourke.

      (Apologies if I misquote this), but whenever he is baffled by the bumbling fools put forth as 'leaders' in our political system, he just remembers high school:

      - the social people were out having fun
      - the talented were playing sports, or doing debate, or drama, or whatever
      - the go-getters were out working to save money for college
      - the intelligent were reading or working on experiments
      - the burnouts were off doing drugs
      - and it's only the complete asswipes that were left to run for student government.

      We respectfully submit that there are a lot of very talented people in our country that find the idea of running someone ELSE's life uninteresting, if not downright abhorrent, and a significant fraction of the remainder just find politicians to be one step removed from tapeworms.

      Combine that with the ridiculous shallowness and excruciatingly personal examination made by the media of every candidate, and this weeds out the few actual altruists who would be willing to suffer through a government job to perform useful service for their country. No, thanks.

      --
      -Styopa
    4. Re:New US electoral process by MrPink2U · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but this is a NATIONAL election, not an INTERNATIONAL election. That means you must be a part of the NATION to participate. If you really want to be part of the process we will be more than happy to accept your application to become a US citizen. In a couple of years you should be able to get citizenship, barring any complications of course. If you hurry I'll bet you could make the next election.

      Good luck!

    5. Re:New US electoral process by danielobvt · · Score: 1

      Dear Rest of the World, re:our election system F'n back-off.... You don't want to go there. Signed, USA

    6. Re:New US electoral process by Merk · · Score: 1

      I think the point the original poster is making is that Americans (not the country, the people from the country) are often really out-of-place in other countries. And that's just not true of people from virtually anywhere else (except maybe Japan).

      It isn't abnormal to grow up in the US and never leave the country on vacation or on business trips. Throughout most of the rest of the "first world", that's really rare. In Europe, other countries are closer (and better connected) than are nearby states in the US.

      The US is also a net exporter of media -- TV, movies, music, etc. Almost nothing is imported, so while Canadians get half their TV networks from the US, Americans don't even realize that Jim Carrey or Peter Jennings are Canadian.

      So when a typical American finally does go somewhere outside the country, they stand out like a sore thumb. They have never been exposed to the world outside their own borders.

      Not surprisingly, the locals all find that pretty funny.

    7. Re:New US electoral process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out the "International" section of any given newspaper. In most countries, it will feature stories on what's happening in other parts of the world. In the US, it will feature stories on what Americans are doing in other parts of the world.

  234. Reminder to republicans by MorrowLess · · Score: 2, Funny

    Remember to get out and vote for Dubya on Nov. 3rd.

    1. Re:Reminder to republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would but it is absolutely pointless in Montgomery county Maryland. Both are so heavily Democrat (about 2/3s) that, in the current divisive environment, George has absolutely no chance of winning either. Since Maryland is a "winner take all" state in the Electoral College (I'm not complaining; it's just the way it is) the only reason to go to the polls is for state and local issues and even those aren't very interesting this time around.

    2. Re:Reminder to republicans by Lightjumper · · Score: 1

      Maryland seems to have a lot of Bush signs this time around. Last year on the eastern shore I saw none, Now this is all you see. Also true for a lot of AA county. All I know is we need to mix up the judges in this state as they are all appointed by the passed Govern and I hold them responsable for releasong a 10time convected crimnal out of jail each time and lead to my 93year old friends death.

  235. Entirely ignores younger generation of voters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The idea is that kids can tell you about how their parents intend to vote, and that people without kids or grand kids represent such a minority that they won't seriously effect the outcome of the election.
    Most of the people I know who are aged 18 to 25 or so don't have kids, and don't subscribe to Weekly Reader either. There are millions of these people in America, and by all accounts, record numbers of them are registering to vote this year. I wouldn't call them "such a minority" by a long shot.

    All of these polls (and especially the superstitions) are a crock of shit.
    1. Re:Entirely ignores younger generation of voters by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just like the "record numbers" registered in 2000, in 1996, in 1992...

    2. Re:Entirely ignores younger generation of voters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the people I know who are aged 18 to 25 or so don't vote.

  236. Re:Stop being so naive, you idiots by bergerdml · · Score: 1

    I hadn't realized that detail. But this of course would fit in nicely with my statement that the problem isn't the sample size but that its a non-random sample

  237. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Informative

    When's the last time you bought any thing European other than a tin of biscuits, wine, or a Linux distro? They are not expensive because they are good. They are expensive because you are paying for the outrageous taxes and labor costs which many European companies have to pay.

    My cars were made in Germany and England. My best suit was made in Italy, and my spectacles have Italian frames. My coffee grinder is from Germany, and the best shoes I have were made in Spain. My favorite beers are made in England, Germany, Denmark and Belgium (Ok, I admit I like beer a lot...), while my girlfriend is addicted to Swiss and Belgian chocolates. My phone is Finnish and the engine in my boat was made in Sweden.

    I do the research when I buy and, while all of these item are good quality, they are not the most expensive by any means. I don't think your argument against European products is is true at all.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  238. Errrmmm... What about the 0 Year? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Isn't Bush supposed to be done in by an assasins bullet?
    I mean, the 0 year "curse" has been responsible for the deaths of US Presidents longer than the Redskin election "prophecy" has been around.

    So I'd say the 0 year curse trumps the Redskin Prophecy and I see you one war before 2006.

    1. Re:Errrmmm... What about the 0 Year? by phillymjs · · Score: 1

      Isn't Bush supposed to be done in by an assasins bullet?
      I mean, the 0 year "curse" has been responsible for the deaths of US Presidents longer than the Redskin election "prophecy" has been around.


      Reagan broke that curse-- elected in 1980, survived through two terms.

      ~Philly

    2. Re:Errrmmm... What about the 0 Year? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I thought the curse covered the *attempt* instead of the success? He WAS shot, he just lived.

    3. Re:Errrmmm... What about the 0 Year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure he lived!? It was so hard to tell with that guy sometimes. He could have been a Disney animatronic.

  239. What about Madden or the 1918 thing? by noctrnl9 · · Score: 1
    I am hoping this will be a week of blue states but losing the Madden thing and 1918 brings some doubt. I wouder if everyone makes a request for:
    • "Blue Monday" New Order or Orgy Cover
    • "Bullet the Blue Sky" U2 Joshua Tree or Rattle and Hum

    One can hope we can inspire enough counter spin to get a sea of blue, the likes of which will counter a lot of the spin (read:LIES) out there in the final week.

    1. Re:What about Madden or the 1918 thing? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Has anybody tried replaying this game using the various football simulation games? It might be more accurate, as a computer game would better simulate the effect of the Diebold election machines.

  240. Does this mean... by Corpsesarecute · · Score: 1

    Kerry's gonna win 28-14?

    1. Re:Does this mean... by iapetus · · Score: 1

      Only Diebold makes it possible...

      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
  241. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, I know it's lame to respond to sigs, but I'm a bit befuddled by yours:

    "If I say "holding all other things equal", you better take that into account for me to care about your response."

    My econ teacher always liked to say, "ceteris paribus", so I know what "holding all other things equal" means, but I just don't get what you mean.

    Clancy for pres! I like it! Who should be his vice?

  242. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm, steps to prevent that from happening again include the following:
    Stop treating the outside world with a condescending attitude.
    Stop pretending to be the champion of human rights and democracy and then go and suck China and Saudi Arabia's cock.
    Stop giving money to dictators like Saddam Hussein when convenient and drop him the next

    Making Americans give up their hard-fought freedoms doesn't solve the terrorist moron. Now stop packing Bush's fudge and try using that shit-for-brains inside your skull. Fuckface. Turdboy. HorseCockSucker. Bitch.

  243. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you fucking nuts? Are you that indoctrinated that you would suggest something so outrageous? I hope you look back on your naivity someday and realize that you had a lot of growing up to do.

  244. Re:That's why a third party will never be viable.. by typobox43 · · Score: 1

    The vote would go to the House of Representatives, and Kerry and Edwards are both senators, and Cheney's vote would be in the Senate if it were to be necessary. None of those three would get to vote.

  245. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by some+damn+guy · · Score: 1

    Yes, but it won't happen. After all, it would look very bad for President Bush. I'm sure with the election this close Al Qaida won't chance throwing the election to Kerry.

  246. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow that is a crappy site. I left some good comments for the owner

  247. Somebody has been watching West Wing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.nbc.com/The_West_Wing/episode_guide/2.h tml

    Besides, the Redskins had to lose today. I'm wearing my good socks.

  248. Just a note... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1
    "The more people get out to vote for Kerry, the less chance cheating can throw the election."

    Does this imply more people voting for Bush/against Kerry won't have the same effect?

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  249. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by secretsquirel · · Score: 2, Funny

    Cowboy Neal for president!

  250. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The military follows who they choose to follow. Don't think for a second that the constitution is as important to the military as it to others.

    That's fucking wrong! This is the sort of thing that makes me hate democrats and liberals from time to time. Everyone in the military swears an oath to uphold the constitution, they don't swear an oath to the president. Millions of men and women who have served have taken that oath and fullfilled it so that your stupid liberal ass could write dumb BS like this. So keep that in mind before you type something that stupid again.

  251. Fifty percent by xixax · · Score: 1

    Now's your chance. Come up with some weird prediction method, the more looney the better.

    If you are wrong, no-one will care.

    If you are right, you can get a spot on a talk show and be feted as the next market statistics guru!

    Xix.

    --
    "Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
  252. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could this whole Redskins coincidence be a glitch in the matrix?

    There is no Bush...

  253. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by secretsquirel · · Score: 1

    oh, and didn't notice till after I posted, but Get your own sig!, I don't wanna have too call shenigens on you.

  254. We all need... by Marthisdil · · Score: 1

    To get our congressmen and senators to get rid of the stupid electoral college so everyone's vote counts for something - instead of just counting for something in the states their candidate wins in =/

  255. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I agree with you that our rights have been infringed somewhat under Bush, you do not acknowledge that there has not been another attack in this country since 9/11. By taking the offensive against all terrorists (not just Al Qaeda) Bush has kept us from being attacked and reduced bin laden to making idle threats on video tape prior to a major election instead of mounting an actual attack. Meanwhile other countries like Russia and Spain continue to be attacked.

    BTW, everyone gives Bush shit about the patriot act (I'm not for it myself) but FDR locked up thousands of US citizens after 12/7/1941 without due process or a trial of any kind.

  256. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by yog · · Score: 1, Insightful

    wtf? Why are seemingly all the pro-Bush, or at least not pro-Kerry comments being modded down? I don't necessarily agree with all of his points but this fellow's posting seemed reasonable enough. I hope a few people take the trouble to metamoderate some of these questionable ratings.

    What has turned me off of John Kerry is not so much his liberal ideas about raising taxes and increasing social spending as his rather transparent and hypocritical attacks on Bush. To hear Kerry talk, he seems to believe that Bush is dishonest and incompetent and has accomplished nothing of note either domestically or in his foreign policy. He blames Bush for everything but the weather. Heck, he blames him for global warming. He's got some pie-in-the-sky health care reform plan and he's got a malpractice lawyer for a running mate.

    If the Dems presented a candidate with credible foreign policy credentials and some concept of how to spur economic growth, I'd be all over him. As it is, I'm worried Kerry will become a 2nd term Clinton with a hostile Congress and no real mandate to govern other than "Whew at least I'm not George W. Bush!!"

    --
    it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
  257. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by secretsquirel · · Score: 1

    hmmm i guess imitation is the finest form of flatery though, so i'll hold back on calling shenANigans on you for now for now.

  258. I took a crap... by Sevn · · Score: 1, Insightful

    And it looked exactly like the number "7". When that happens it means a few things:

    1) Democrats become president
    2) My penis grows 48 inches (cool, eh?)
    3) I meet a girl with an 8 foot deep vagina (and this time she doesn't moo)
    4) My ferrari needs new brake pads
    5) I've been looking at my own poop again

    So please, everyone look at the poop that makes you think happy thoughts. We'll get together and compare notes REAL SOON.

    PS: "The Sky Is Fallin'" by Queens Of The Stoneage is a really great song after hearing it 10 times for some reason.

    --
    For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
  259. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Hatta · · Score: 1

    I've had this sig for years. Judging by your UID, for longer than you've had a /. account. But hey, it's a good sig. :)

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  260. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lisa: That's spacious reasoning dad. Homer: Thank you honey. Lisa: By you're logic, i can claim that this rock keeps tigers away. Homer: Hmm..how does it work? Lisa: It doesn't work. Homer: Uh huh. Lisa: Its just a stupid rock! Homer: Uh huh. Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around here, do you? Homer: (looks around, thinks) Lisa, I wanna buy your rock.

  261. Slip n' slide.-Fertility Clinics by monkeyfamily · · Score: 1

    So would you ban fertility clinics? 'Cos they create lots of embryos, most of which don't end up implanted in a woman's uterus.

  262. ketchup by kongit · · Score: 1

    mmmmm ketchup. although I prefer del monte

  263. Tired of confusion between religious moral & e by aepervius · · Score: 1

    What you describe is a break against religious moral and not an ETHICAL decision. Using stem cell for something other than what the "great plan of God" is against religious moral. On the other hand, ethic does not burden itself with "religious moral" but about what is right to do within a society. Proof : if you erase the religious moral from the debat, by going in a more religious relaxed society (and do not mistake it US society at large is really religious strict, just look at how easily have people censor some book or other stuff but that is another debat) then the religious moral argument DISAPPEAR and stem cell research becomes "authorised" or ethical for the purpose of curing illness. If it was only a question of ethic then every western society would in mass have blocked stem cell research. But it is not the fact, even western traditional catholic countries have authorised it (France / Italy ?). Now those country have imposed a ban on stem cell research for OTHER purpose (reproduction, Cosmetic etc...).

    Now about the real ethical question : Is it ethic to let go a mass of cell go to waste , and be incinerated, when it could be used to search for cures against illness that would heal people with sever neural injury ? No it is not have already decided many country the other side of the pond.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  264. Conflicting predictors! by studog-slashdot · · Score: 1
    The "Halloween mask" index is predicting Bush.

    ...Stu

    1. Re:Conflicting predictors! by vegasbright · · Score: 0

      I like that. It relies on actual choices instead of mere chance that a bunch of overpaid idiots can toss a ball better than an equally idiotic group of individuals. The reading of the entrails, tea leaves, etc are evolving into yet again another unconnected system that wishful thinkers employ to prove their ego right. This is a different situation with the halloween masks, as the masks are a system connected to choice and the result of that choice is in the hands of the same people who make that choice.

      --

      Tyler: You don't know where ive been, Lou. YOU DONT KNOW WHERE IVE BEEN!!
  265. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by secretsquirel · · Score: 1

    touche

  266. Impressions by achurch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    [What's even more fascinating] Is that people whine about spelling so much.

    Maybe because not making the effort to use proper spelling and grammar demonstrates a lack of respect for the reader? Nobody's perfect, but even without a spell checker you can catch the vast majority of your errors by just re-reading your post, and if you don't know the spelling of a word, there's a handy thing called a dictionary (there are even online dictionaries) to help you out. I'll agree that criticizing another's errors is generally uncalled for, but the nature of Slashdot (an "informal Internet forum", as you put it) doesn't mitigate the impression your post makes on readers--especially given the emphasis many people here seem to put on proper spelling and grammar.

    Just a thought . . .

    1. Re:Impressions by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      It's just not worth the time. Slashdot is just an informal discussion, like talking amongst friends. I don't go and write and edit a speech before I say something to a group of friends, likewise I don't bother to spend the time editing posts on something like Slashdot.

      Seriously, if you can't get beyond the simple mistakes in form, then you really don't have anything to contribute. I regularly speak with people who just butcher the English language. Their speech skils are very poor so they use bad grammar, misuse pronouns, and mispronounce nearly every word. No matter, I can deal with it, and funny thing, they are quite intelligent individuals and if you ignore the language problems, you discover they have interesting things to say.

      So really, if spelling and grammar are the be-all, end-all to you, then go somewhere else. Read academic journals (though you'll find errors in them form time to time) not some Internet site. Otherwise, give it a miss.

      Oh and dictonaries don't help those that don't know they are mispelling something. If you seriously think that someone should check every word, then you are kidding yourself on the amount of time or effort a post merits.

    2. Re:Impressions by achurch · · Score: 1

      Standards are different when you're talking with people you know (e.g. friends) versus people you may not know (Slashdot audience). I have no problem with friends using all-lowercase text, lazy grammar, and the like; but for people I don't know, I have only the appearance of something from which to judge whether it's worth spending my time on, so--regrettably--appearance does become a significant factor in a first impression. If you have the time to give a detailed examination to everything that comes your way, then I can only envy you, because I don't.

    3. Re:Impressions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you like to know why slashdot doesn't work that way? Lots of people just don't agree with you. It's a take it or leave it bullshit and bonus buffet. The simple fact is, your standard isn't the community standard. And your appeal to the authority of convention is as hollow, and ultimately meaningless, as anything else which fails to genuinly represent the observed facts.

      Keep in mind, that slashdot's community standards include an ascii picture of some dude gapping maw of an ass as the lead off post for every other topic. If slashdot was a bar, it wouldn't be listed in zagats guide, it would have a wine list but not a cellar with an extensive collection of rare vintages. You'd be able to throw peanuts on the floor, but you wouldn't be able to see them through the straw, dirt, and fringe political literature. And closing your eyes and wishing really hard won't change it and doesn't mean that it should change either.

    4. Re:Impressions by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      I don't need to give them a detailed examination. A once-over is plenty. The human brain is excellent at coping with degraded input. There is a study that shows, interestingly enough, that provided the first and last letters are intact, the remaining letters in a word can be scrambled and we'll still be able to correctly identify it.

      Misspellings and minor grammar errors do not cause any real trouble in understanding. Generally speaking, those who pick them out do so because they do not like the point the poster has made, yet lack the ability to think up a coherent counterpoint. So they pour over the post looking for minor errors, which are quite common in an informal medium, and seize upon those to try and make themselves look intelligent and the poster look stupid.

      To try and claim that a detailed examination is reuired to get past some minor spelling errors is silly. What's more, your argument ends up against your position. Yes, people have little time for things like this. As it happens, it requires far more time to copy edit a post than it does to understand what a minor mistake is supposed to mean. The reason people are careless is because they do not feel that it is worth spending the time to correct.

      When I write a paper for something important, I generally spend 2-5x the amount of time reading and editing as I do writing it. When I post on an Internet forum, all me time is spent writing, and then I submit. The reason is, it just isn't worth my time. If my dislexia or poor typing skills manafest themselves, well people can get past that with only a moment's hesitation, if that, and get my message. It's not worth my time to pour over what I wrote to ensure it is a good as can be, espically considering that to really ge tit right I need to leave it for a day before I re-read it, and have at least one other person read it as well.

      So if a few spelling errors deter you from reading a piece (interseting, since one would have to read it to find the errors) that's fine, but I am guessing that's not the case. Humans are barely slowed down by fuzzy input. More likely, it is that they make a point you can't easily rebut, and want an easy way to justify to yourself, and possibly others, that you don't forward an argument.

    5. Re:Impressions by achurch · · Score: 1

      The human brain is excellent at coping with degraded input.

      Yes, but I would argue that degradation requires added effort, and therefore time. Try removing all the punctuation and upper/lower-case distinctions from your post, then ask someone to read it; you may find that it takes longer than you expect.

      There is a study that shows, interestingly enough, that provided the first and last letters are intact, the remaining letters in a word can be scrambled and we'll still be able to correctly identify it.

      You mean this story, don't you? (I could have sworn there was another one, but the link escapes me . . .) And even so, again it takes time for the brain to reconstruct the intended meaning, more so as the degradation increases.

      What's more, your argument ends up against your position. [...] As it happens, it requires far more time to copy edit a post than it does to understand what a minor mistake is supposed to mean.

      Until you multiply the additional time it takes readers to interpret your unedited post by the total readership. I don't feel it appropriate to save two minutes of my time if it costs hundreds of readers two seconds each; put another way, I feel that if I'm going to take the time to post something, I should take the time to do it well, so that readers who don't have much time won't have to expend as much effort to read it. (Perhaps I would feel differently if I posted more frequently.)

      I think that in the end, we have two different views on how Internet forum posts "should be", and no amount of debating is likely to change that. This discussion is completely off-topic anyway, so why don't we just agree to disagree?

  267. coincidences happen regularly by RussP · · Score: 1

    If you search hard enough, perhaps even with a search engine, you can always find some oddball coincidence that coincides with which party wins the presidential election. So what?

    It reminds me of all those great psychics who predicted the last 18 earthquakes. Ya, but they forgot to tell you that they also predicted the last 1800 that never happened.

    --
    I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
  268. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So at which point does the constitution say it's ok to sodomise a prisoner with broken lights? Go choke on a freedom fry, bitch.

  269. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    10th Amendment, maybe? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

  270. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by The+Conductor · · Score: 1
    ...or at least not pro-Kerry comments being modded down?

    It's that "not pro-Kerry" factor that is so annoying, and it has been going on here for weeks. I while back I took the time explain what motivated the Swifties to oppose Kerry, why his actions appeared so baleful to that group, but never saying I agreed with any of it. The original poster actually thanked me for my rational response, but some hot-head moderator modded it down along with (apparently) every other non-pro-Kerry post in the vicinity.

    Sure is hard to have a rational conversation when you can't even explain what you disagree with. Anything outside of regurgitated Kerry propoganda is a mod-down target.

    I do have a seemingly perpetual invite to meta-mod. So I suppose I am partly to blame for these abuses.

  271. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by flyingsquid · · Score: 4, Insightful
    To hear Kerry talk, he seems to believe that Bush is dishonest and incompetent and has accomplished nothing of note either domestically or in his foreign policy.

    Well, MOST people who follow the situation in Iraq closely believe that the Bush administration is incompetent. Where do we begin? Letting looters run wild? Not securing the arms depots (not just the high explosives, all kinds of stuff was left unguarded- hell they stood by and watched as insurgents carried weapons off)? Disbanding the army? Going into Fallujah? "Flip-flopping" and getting out of Fallujah when it got a little too messy? Total cockup start to finish.

    Afghanistan has been done better but there is still more of the country under the control of the Taliban and warlords than Karzai. Half-assed, but not a total cockup.

    Bush on the economy has been something of a failure. Sure, we're coming out a recession, and I'm sure the tax cuts helped that- they could hardly hurt. But instead of directing the money where it would do the most good (the middle class) it went to where it did much less good (the wealthiest people in America) and created a massive budget deficit that will take years to pay off. This didn't help the economy so much as it helped the rich. The recovery has been far from amazing.

    Socially? Most people feel he did a good job post 9-11. But it's amazing to see how much that has been messed up. He said he'd be a uniter, and he hasn't been- he's divided this nation. America is now more divided than it has been since the Viet Nam War. For some people he's been a good leader. If you're rich, right wing, and/or Christian he's great. But he seems to think that everyone else can go fuck themselves.

    Finally, how about those American values like freedom and our rights that he is supposed to be protecting? Under the Bush administration we have seen people locked up without trial for years at a time. Four years ago if you said that America would do that I'd never have believed it. Sure, governments do that. But just the bad guys- the USSR, China, Nazi Germany- right? Those kinds of governments lock up people without trial. Not the good old freedom-loving USA.

    I could go on forever. As for mandates, let's not get started on that. Bush lost the popular vote, so he has no mandate.

  272. Re:Channel One survey showed Bush winning by 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh good the Freepers have sent their offical rep. to "correct" all the people who live in reality.

  273. Sneaking into Sweden by Gorimek · · Score: 1

    Nobody is trying to sneak into Sweden.

    I realize this is just a mud slinging match at this point, but as a matter of fact, Sweden has quite high immigration, including plenty who try (and succeed) sneaking into the country.

    I personally went the other direction and left Sweden for California. Long story...

  274. So the fix is in.... by Baldrson · · Score: 0, Troll
    The Red Sox curse is broken and the Redskins lose to the team from one of the two swing states needed to win the election.

    How much money did these guy spend on the campaigns? How much money does it cost to fix baseball games these days?

    Yeah I can believe the psychological impact on the electorate alone would be enough to swing the election to Kerry.

    So now the question is, how does Kerry get all those cynical young guys to join the military to go off to the middle east and fight for USrael? Its not like they have fresh-off-the-farm guys like my father to volunteer for overseas conflicts anymore. Most of the GI generation's boomer children got economically sterilized so there isn't a pool of naive dutiful kids to sucker with Disney animations of pompous Muslim clerics goose stepping around.

    They'll have to do something really dramatic to get them excited about fighting for "their country".

    I know! How about killing a school full of children? Yeah, that's the ticket.

  275. But change is in the air by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To which the Bush camp must surely say, "Why, just look at what happened to Boston's curse! Not only did they beat the Yankees, but went on to win the World Series, free to dominate baseball for the next four years, invade enemy team locker rooms preemptively with baseball bats to take away the opponents' ability to fight them on the field, and attack cities that are known to harbor and aid other teams."

  276. Curious what shrub would share with us if he won? by ninejaguar · · Score: 1
    A victory salute. He's so funny. I remember a clown like him in at least one junior high class every semester. Always the joker, never the graduate.

    = 9J =

  277. Adult stem cell research is fully supported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    Bush has to cater to his "Base" by nixing stem cell research. Kerry knows that science is not something to be feared.


    Actually, you're incorrect.

    The Bush administration nixed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

    Adult stem cell research is still fully sponsored by the federal government and the Bush administration.

    Private funding for embryonic stem cell research is still legal as well.

    Actually, this makes sense. If you needed stem cell therapy in the future, wouldn't you want to use adult stem cells harvested from yourself, rather than stem cells harvested from an embryo that has a stranger's DNA?
  278. Re:What about the other candidates? by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

    Admittedly though, being from the rest of the world, I'm eager to find out who the "leader of the free world" would chose to bomb next. With Kerry it might not happen. At least dubya will keep things interesting.

    Signed: A Canadian who can't wait for the Canadian Dollar to surpass the US dollar so I can go do some serious shopping for a digital camera :)

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  279. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    I think Richard Stallman or Kevin Mitnick would be better (more ironic) choices.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  280. That depends.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you wanted Redskins to win to guarentee the Bush Win, well then, the cat is in the bag and you have nothing to worry about. Have a drink. Have a few more. Throw a great several day party. :)

    Today, my name is evil George

  281. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by pairo · · Score: 1

    BTW, everyone gives Bush shit about the patriot act (I'm not for it myself) but FDR locked up thousands of US citizens after 12/7/1941 without due process or a trial of any kind.

    And that makes the Patriot Act less evil?

  282. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

    I dont know what scares me more.. that people think of this stuff, or that the people that think of this stuff don't always work for the US government...

  283. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Dude! Bush IS dishonest and incompetent and has accomplished nothing worthy of note either domestically or in his foreign policy. He HAS accomplished some seriously unworthy things domestically and in his foreign policy. The things he's done would have gotten a democratic president impeached and investigated ten times over. He is the first republican presidential candidate who couldn't get an endorsement from The American Conservative, for pete's sake. Kerry has been endorsed by officials from every Republican administration since Eisenhower's. Nancy Reagan could even be voting for Kerry.

    C'mon, turn off Fox news sometime and read a newspaper.

  284. Pull the stick out of your ass, please ...Diet dud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm...This week it's pulling sticks out of my ass. Last week it was shitting bricks. I really need to change my diet.

  285. Bush and science by Infonaut · · Score: 2, Informative
    Beyond the issues involved in stem cell research, the Bush Administration has shown a tremendous disregard for scientific method as the basis for informed policy. They have politicized science to such an alarming degree that a host of scientists have gone on record about it.

    Some of the objectionable actions they made note of include:

    • Ordered massive changes to a section on global warming in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2003 Report on the Environment. Eventually, the entire section was dropped.
    • Replaced a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fact sheet on proper condom use with a warning emphasizing condom failure rates.
    • Ignored advice from top Department of Energy nuclear materials experts who cautioned that aluminum tubes being imported by Iraq weren't suitable for use to make nuclear weapons.
    • Established political litmus tests for scientific advisory boards. In one case, public health experts were removed from a CDC lead paint advisory panel and replaced with researchers who had financial ties to the lead industry.
    • Suppressed a U.S. Department of Agriculture microbiologist's finding that potentially harmful bacteria float in the air surrounding large hog farms.
    • Excluded scientists who've received federal grants from regulatory advisory panels while permitting the appointment of scientists from regulated industries.
    To me this is fear of science - fear that scientific inquiry will derail Bush's political agenda, which is largely driven by religious fundamentalists and big business interests.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  286. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you know, you had a few points in there somewhere that might have been listened to had you not felt it necessary to insult your readers. it doesnt get your point across, it makes you look like a fool and makes people want to do bad things to your house.

  287. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

    I made the mistake of purchasing a copy of his Net-Force series after playing lots of xbox clancy (splinter cell/s.c.p.t./ghost recon/rainbow six 3/r.s.3.b.a) and thinking it might be interesting..

    the encryption/technological stuff was so wrong i threw the book away after 20 pages.. It may be a good book, but the incorrectness of it bothered me too much to read. Back to Koontz- at least you know its going to be weird but interesting, and very little technology to be pissed about its incorrectness.

  288. Modern mythology by vegasbright · · Score: 0

    How bad has it become when people actually take chance and a bunch of useless idiots tossing a ball around seriously! I see this as an indicator of the state of how we view football statistics as the modern reading of entrails, tea-leaves, bumps on the head, etc.

    --

    Tyler: You don't know where ive been, Lou. YOU DONT KNOW WHERE IVE BEEN!!
  289. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

    Neal Stephenson? (sp?)

  290. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eh.. without people, thered be no excess of greenhouse gasses, pollution, etc.. not to mention not having several billion hot bodies and the houses they heat up (or cool off which puts heat outside).. etc etc

  291. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And just how the fuck does the constitution apply to the prisoners in question? Non-US citizens, on non-US soil, during wartime. There are treaties and conventions for that but they do not include the constitution.

  292. Etats-Unians are Morons ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NO , public vote in the US is worthless and just for show. You dont live in a democracy where its the public who decide who gets to be leader ( sorry Bush is not a real president in my eyes ) of your country.

    Its the college electoral vote that decided and will again decide who is your President and they voted for Bush last time and probably will too this time too , any moron who cant see that one when 85% of the population voted for Gore is a moron of an Etats-Unians.

    Real American live in a democracy thats why your country is called United States "OF America" , you live in a republic.

    1. Re:Etats-Unians are Morons ... by rale,+the · · Score: 2, Informative
      I guess its kind of silly to reply to an anonymous troll, but I will anyway.

      when 85% of the population voted for Gore

      The actual results were:
      Bush: 50,456,002 votes, 47.87%, 271 electoral votes
      Gore: 50,999,897 votes, 48.38%, 266 electoral votes
      Nader: 2,882,955 votes, 2.74%, 0 electoral votes

    2. Re:Etats-Unians are Morons ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      240 millions of people in the US of A :

      Bush: 50,456,002 votes, 47.87%, 271 electoral votes
      Gore: 50,999,897 votes, 48.38%, 266 electoral votes
      Nader: 2,882,955 votes, 2.74%, 0 electoral votes

      And the votes where all counted in the sate of florida right ;-) , personnaly I dont trust false numbers put out by a falsely elected governement.

      let me rephrase this so that you can understand it too , more people publicly voted for GORE but
      Bush whas elected as leader of the US because of the college electoral ( 85% come from the 135 million who feel they should have voted after seeing the 2001 events )

    3. Re:Etats-Unians are Morons ... by claar · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that many people don't bother to vote in states where the outcome is already known (Before you flame me, yes, I still vote though my state always votes the same as I do). If we did not have an electoral vote system then you can't assume the number of votes would be the same.

      --
      I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous...
  293. Rectus! Dominus! by tepples · · Score: 1

    Really now how many omens do you need?

    Four, or my name isn't Damian.

    I predict Bush will beat the odds.

    1. Re:Rectus! Dominus! by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "I predict Bush will beat the odds."

      I hope not. If we wins we will most likely invade another country in the next four years. I am betting on syria but iran is also a strong possiblity. For some reason he seems to be afraid to go into north korea.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    2. Re:Rectus! Dominus! by tepples · · Score: 1

      Some would claim that Iran was the target all along, and the USA invaded Iraq because it needed a new alliance with Iraq in order to have bases from which to invade Iran.

    3. Re:Rectus! Dominus! by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Or as John Stewart said "we were only off by a letter".

      --
      evil is as evil does
  294. And firefox/mozilla spell check is here... by Mia'cova · · Score: 1
    Safari has been mentioned (though I've never used it). But, for those who are curious or might find this helpful, there is an optional firefox spell checker extension that can be installed from here...

    http://spellchecker.mozdev.org/

    It has been around for a while and was recently accepted into the Mozilla trunk. Don't think it's just a cheap hack.

    Alternatively, quick search turned this up for IE. With the right design, something as simple as a spell check should be quick and painless. Some IM clients even have a live spell check built in which can be of great use. Nothing can beat the live spell checker for helping you pick up on your own problem words. Or do what I recently did and parse through the last five years of IRC chat logs to find your most common mistakes. That was ugly, let me tell you! I can't make the rest of the world love my crappy spelling so fixing it is all I've got. But at least after doing that I felt a little better about myself.

    But seriously, learn how to type ;)

  295. I hope Kerry wins but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the Bush gang proven willing to steal elections (Florida 2000), their backers in position to declare the electronic voting results to be whatever they want (Dibold, no audit trails etc.) and a result that is likely to be close enough that poll-fixing will tip the result it seems probable that Kerry will win but Bush will remain in office.

    1. Re:I hope Kerry wins but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, and who has all the lawsuits in Florida right now looking to mess everything up if the vote actually goes correct and Bush wins (again) legally? Hmm....

  296. You're kidding, right?-Joseph Mengele. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I find it extremely unethical that anyone would stand in the way of potentially finding cures for many diseases. That is, essentially, what you do when you stand in the way of embryonic stem cell research."

    Would you stand in the way of using Joseph Mengele's research if you knew it was the only way you'd stay alive?

    See that's the funny thing about using "people's lives" as the yardstick for doing what's right, and what's wrong. There is no wrong, for all can in one fashion or another be justified in the name of "saving lives".

    So what's a few million dying in a concentration camp, if it cures billion's across the planet? The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.

    "When your "ethics" put the value of cells doomed to die anyway above those that are living, I would call that egregiously unethical."

    Concentration camp prisioners=="cells"

    1. Re:You're kidding, right?-Joseph Mengele. by Darby · · Score: 1

      Would you stand in the way of using Joseph Mengele's research if you knew it was the only way you'd stay alive?

      Given that we have used Mengele's research to advance medical science (think artificial limbs among other things), I'm not sure what your point actually is or if you even have one.

    2. Re:You're kidding, right?-Joseph Mengele. by danila · · Score: 1

      We wouldn't associate Mengele's name with devil's incarnate if his research was useful for saving lifes. Turns out most of it was just sadism masqueraded as amateurish medicine.

      However, the doctors and researchers all around the world has used some of his results for decades, because noone could reproduce them. The results concern people freezing to death and being warmed up using different methods.

      After much deliberation the medical community has decided that it is ethical to use results that Mengele obtained while torturing concentration camp prisoners if that allows you to help people. Think about it.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  297. Not in Saudi Arabia by tepples · · Score: 1

    In other words, as the economy grows faster, the average distance from the ground to the bottom of the typical woman's skirt rises, revealing more and more leg.

    Then what explains the full-length black dresses worn by women living in major petroleum exporting countries?

    1. Re:Not in Saudi Arabia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is because kafir women are whores. The skirt thing does not apply to moral women.

  298. US != world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The rest of the World doesn't give a fsck about baseball (except a few Americanophiles in Japan and Cuba).

    But I can assure you the rest of the World gives a fsck about the US presidential election, because their life is affected by it even though they don't have any influence on it.

    And they sure as hell root for Kerry.

    1. Re:US != world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine. You can speak on behalf of the rest of the world.

      This is a powerful argument in favour of voting against him. BTW, you might want to be careful in your use of the word "root" which, I think, you are using to mean support/encourage. In some parts of the world it has a very different meaning from what you meant.

    2. Re:US != world by Purist · · Score: 1

      They root for Kerry because the only media they get stuffed in their face is derived from U.S. sources

      I recently traveled to Italy and EVERYONE wanted to know who I was voting for - they all wanted Kerry to win. However, after a 5 minute discussion with someone who has a DIFFERENT (btw Slashdot has a huge "lemming syndrome" problem when it comes to politics) opinion they seemed more open to both sides of the election.

      Everyone hates a strong leader - that's why Clinton was so popular.

      --
      I used to fear clowns...but I'm discovering that chimps are far, far, worse.
    3. Re:US != world by forkboy · · Score: 1

      Greenbay vs Redskins? It's football, you douche, not baseball. And I mean real American football, not that pansy-ass running around the field aimlessly crap. Try and be more educated about these things if you want to pretend to give a shit about our election.

      This site is run by American citizens and is hosted in America and the majority of the readers are American. Get over yourself and your Eurotrash bandwagon-jumping America-hating attitude. I know it's what all the French kiddies are doing these days, but Paris hasn't set the standards in the last 30 years or so.

      Oh, and vote Kerry. ;)

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
    4. Re:US != world by forkboy · · Score: 1

      Wait, did you just call Bush a strong leader? Just because the captain's posturing and talking tough while refusing the steer the ship away from the iceberg doesn't mean he ain't about to wreck the fucker.

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
    5. Re:US != world by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Everyone hates a strong leader

      Some of us have the ability and desire to be our own leader. We don't need to be the slave of a system that enforces the will of the average.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  299. No way by Fringex · · Score: 1

    Let us not forget that the Boston Red Sox actually won the world series in a sweep and everyone said they would never ever win a world series again.

  300. Sneaking into Sweden by The+Cookie+Monster · · Score: 1

    Yes, but only because the Swedish border with Mexico is so heavily guarded.

    FWIW other developed nations have a problem with illegal immigrants, in Australia it's even an election issue - and they're an island continent!

    The US is one of the few (only?) developed nations to directly share a border with a 3rd world nation, that is the reason there are so many people trying to sneak in.

  301. Re:That's why a third party will never be viable.. by rleibman · · Score: 1

    A tie might mean that Congress would decide (no ties allowed in the election). Especially interesting since I think that it is the *outgoing* Congress, so Kerry and Edwards (and possibly Cheney) might conceivably get to vote. Or there could be other tiebreakers (maybe it would go back the home game before that).
    RTFC (Read the F Constitution). In the case of no candidate winning a mayority of the votes (and a plurality doesn't count) the NEW house gets to choose the president and the NEW senate gets to choose the VP. I'm not sure if Kerry or Edwards get a vote, or what would happen if the vote gets tied in the senate again (since normally the VP casts the deciding votes). But it is possible that we could end up with a Bush/Edwards presidency.

  302. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by scoobysnack · · Score: 2, Informative

    Corporations never pay taxes, they are just a collector. Taxes for any company are a Right Hand side of the ledger entry.

    Berkshire Hathaway paid $1.75 billion in federal taxes last year or 2.5% of ALL taxes paid by corporations. Read about it here. Or, as Buffett writes in his Annual Report:

    In 1985, Berkshire paid $132 million in federal income taxes, and all corporations paid $61 billion. The comparable amounts in 1995 were $286 million and $157 billion respectively. And, as mentioned, we will pay about $3.3 billion for 2003, a year when all corporations paid $132 billion. We hope our taxes continue to rise in the future - it will mean we are prospering - but we also hope that the rest of Corporate America antes up along with us.

    There actually are some honest companies out there. If we can get rid of the corrupt CEO's and cut down on executive salaries, then we would be moving in the right direction. While I am liberal, I miss the days of the fiscal conservative... at least I can understand where they're coming from.

  303. US President decided by a game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, now we understand how the US president gets picked:
    - it's not by popular vote
    - it's not by the 30% who actually vote
    - it's not by the 15% who haven't been brainwashed by Faux News.
    - it's not be the electoral college
    - it's not by the Florida state secretary
    - it's not by the spineless Democrats who act as if the Republicans played fair.
    - it's not by the Florida supreme court
    - it's not by the US supreme court
    - it's not by the Republicans who suppress the
    votes from the poor and the non-white

    It's by a fscking baseball game!

    1. Re:US President decided by a game by MrPink2U · · Score: 0

      No, it's by a fscking football game. geez, get it right... :-)

  304. Hey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you happen to be a Redskins fan in this thread and have never been to www.extremeskins.com you better check it out.

  305. Amazingly enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've seen a picture of that while browsing at -1!

  306. Hi. I just wanted to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hitler called, and he said "You should just let it go. Life is too short."

  307. yeah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    America, Fuck Yeah!

    Lick my butt and suck on my balls!!

  308. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by MeanSolutions · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find it highly amusing, but at the same time disturbing, that the Americans since 9/11 have been shouting for terrorists heads on a plate while for many years before 9/11, and quite likely after 9/11 as well, collections has been and are being made in support of the IRA.

    Do tell me that you actually realise the double morale in that...

    --
    Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
  309. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by some+damn+guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, truth be told, it has been done elsewhere. Putin in Russia seems unlikely to give up power, though he is not in danger of losing any elections. The opposition parties are finding it curiously hard to gain any ground against him. It helps to have all the TV stations on your side. He has a vast majority in their congress and he can legislate more terms for himself as he sees fit.

    But we're not Russia. Truth be told, I really think it's just not worth it in a truely robust, though obviously imperfect, democracy like ours. Even if the election goes horribly for the Republicans they'll still hold nearly half the congress and in just four short years they'll get another shot at the White House.

    What you are talking about isn't an impossible scenario, given extremly dire circumstances, but it's very difficult to imagine it now. We did have a civil war once upon a time, but we were a different country then, and people's allegences were much more local. I think that anything like that happening now would never work because people, despite their differnces, would rightly see it as an attack on democracy on a very fundamental level. In other places in the world were democracy is a relatively new thing this might not be as huge of a concern. Many peoples have known only periods of disorder and periods of tyrany. Look at Russia or Iraq, many people there still believe that however scary it may seem, one all powerful man may be the only force that can actually keep order. Saddam was a brutal tyrant, but he kept the many fractured, tribal elements in his country from endless bloodshed.

    America, fortunately has no such history. We have seen democracy work. We have a peaceful country and we are not concerned about internal strife like this. The Republicans, or the Democrats for that matter, have lost many presidential elections but have always been able to get power back down the road. Our political warfare has so far served both sides relatively well. If Bush loses, a war will certainly begin to restore power, but it will, thankfully, be a peaceful one.

  310. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by jcenters · · Score: 1

    Geez, chill out, it was an idea, and I even implied in my post that it was to be taken with a grain of salt.

    Sometimes, the outrageous can happen, and there's no harm in wondering "What if?"

    --

    vi ~/.emacs

  311. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by jcenters · · Score: 1

    Wow, an actual serious response to my proposition, and not more of "DuDE, YOU ARE THE NUTZOR" or liberal v. conservative flaming. Kudos to you.

    And I understand that my suggestion was a bit outlandish, but look at what's been happening for the past four years! Things have gotten so weird that some on here have started to really wonder if the John Titor story is true.

    In any case, the next couple of days are going to be interesting indeed. Must be a Chinese curse.

    --

    vi ~/.emacs

  312. Wow by edbarbar · · Score: 0, Troll

    So there are 9 choices the boston red sox have predicted.

    I wonder if the number of times I masturbated last year % 3 predicts the outcome
    Or the number of times I masturbated last year % 5
    Or the number of times I masturbated last year % 7
    Or the number of times I masturbated last year % 11

    . . .

    I'm sure there are all kinds of random variable that have nothing, or almost nothing to do, with a chance as large as 1/512 that predict the election.

    --
    Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
  313. Re:The mistake 'critical' thinkers make here is. . by Grym · · Score: 1

    This behavior in itself, (that of making strong judgments based on little or no research), runs counter to the very tenets of the scientific analytical process which is often touted as being the reason such systems cannot exist. Indeed, this paradoxical behavior appears to me to be based on a high degree of blind faith. --Which, according to everything I have learned on the subject, is a faith very much misplaced.

    The reason why scientific people respond in such a manner is because such thinking undermines the very point and thesis of science itself. For instance, if my experiment can be tangentially connected to/affected by the arbitrary pattern of lights formed in the sky above a particular location on a particular planet hurtling through space (which is what astrology, for instance, is), why even bother experimenting?

    Furthermore, even if the universe were constructed in such a way, how could we even begin to understand it or prove that it does? It would be similar to trying to experiment for the existence of God. Science is limited to the physical world, and most mindful scientists are very careful not to interject scientific theories on what are really meta-physical questions.

    -Grym

  314. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by mkldev · · Score: 4, Funny
    The mods are just returning the favor for the Patriot Act.

    :-p

    --
    120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
  315. Re:Think before you vote... Cuba next? by Esteanil · · Score: 1
    At a rally in Miami, Bush appealed to Cuban-Americans by describing his support for the ouster of Cuban leader Fidel Castro. "We will continue to press hard and ensure that the gift of freedom finally reaches the men and women of Cuba," Bush said as the crowd chanted, "Viva Bush." He added, "I strongly believe the people of Cuba should be free from the tyrant."
    Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nat ion/president/2004-11-01-bush-campaign_x.htm (Or google news it)

    As the parent said, think before you vote.
    Time to go vote yourself into another war, america?
    --
    I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
  316. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by lav-chan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You know, it's interesting that people (even Republicans, i find) totally ignore Democratic cases of voter fraud. Republicans are not the only ones responsible for it -- in fact, they seem to me like they're less likely to do it than Democrats, on the whole.

    Some of these are really biassed, but here are some examples:

    http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article385 5.html

    http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/004765.html (LOTS of articles about it here)

    http://powerlineblog.com/archives/007968.php

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1250035/p osts (admittedly, Free Republic is a pretty bad place to go for potentially reputation-harming information about Democrats, but there it is anyway <_<)

    http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/fund20040913 0633.asp

    Even The New York Times had a story about Democratic voter fraud.


    This isn't to say that the Las Vegas thing and Chuck Hagel's involvement with that voting-machine company and the convenient Diebold incident in Georgia aren't troubling, because they are, very much. But so many people mysteriously forget that the other party isn't the only one that can be 'filthy'.

  317. Too low to ever get noticed but here's my comment by drachenfyre · · Score: 1

    Once again, we the people of the world, are confusing the law of probability and the law of averages. What we have here is a string of 1s on the 0 or 1 random binary generator. Just because the average is .5 doesn't mean long strings of 1's don't happen. The fact that the redskins have "predicted" the presidential election for the last 60 years is nothing more then an interesting coincidence and has no more basis in reality then saying it raining on election day somewhere had the same effect (And if you look you'll find such a place I'm sure). I was once told that if there are 30 million license plates in a state, the odds of seeing a certain license plate are one in 30 million. Since the license plate I was looking at on the car ahead of me was distinct I was experiencing a one in 30 million event, just like everyone else driving down the road with a car ahead of them. Its not hard to bend statistics people.

  318. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh oh, the big bad Government would now your, uh, name! Oh no!

    Wait, they already do. Several times over.

    people in this country worry about Democrats in power, too, and for much better reason.

    They're paranoid fucknuts?

  319. Spell checkers by dapyx · · Score: 1
    --
    I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
  320. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

    Nice that you have the courage of your convictions and post anonymously. Typical neo-con posturing. If you're so hardcore in your beliefs, have the balls to attach your name, even a pseudonym, to them.

  321. You (and the rest of the world) fell for the trick by michaelmalak · · Score: 1
    Yes, they're both rich white men. But aside from that there are a host of rather large differences.

    For one thing, the Bush Doctrine is a serious departure from previous American foreign policy. Kerry has advocated an approach that relies on the sort of coalition-building that Bush Sr. used with such effectiveness in the first Gulf War.

    So, let me get this straight. Kerry is nothing like Bush; instead, he's like elder Bush?

    Elder Bush wins the election of 2004 either way.

  322. Correlation != Causality by Ingolfke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone repeat after me... Correlation does not prove causality... correlation does not prove causality.

  323. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by DarkEdgeX · · Score: 5, Informative

    Unless you earn > $200,000 a year, you should be safe. In fact, according to Kerry, you could be getting even more tax breaks under his administration. From the second debate--

    Question 11: Sen. Kerry, will you pledge not to raise taxes on families making less than $200,000 during your first term?

    GIBSON: Sen. Kerry, the next question will be for you, and it comes from James Varner, who I believe is in this section.

    Mr. Varner? You need a microphone.

    QUESTIONER: Thank you.

    Sen. Kerry, would you be willing to look directly into the camera and, using simple and unequivocal language, give the American people your solemn pledge not to sign any legislation that will increase the tax burden on families earning less than $200,000 a year during your first term?

    KERRY: Absolutely. Yes. Right into the camera. Yes. I am not going to raise taxes.

    I have a tax cut. And here's my tax cut.

    I raise the child-care credit by $1,000 for families to help them be able to take care of their kids.

    I have a $4,000 tuition tax credit that goes to parents -- and kids, if they're earning for themselves -- to be able to pay for college.

    And I lower the cost of health care in the way that I described to you.

    Every part of my program I've shown how I'm going to pay for it.

    And I've gotten good people, like former Secretary of the Treasury Bob Rubin, for instance, who showed how to balance budgets and give you a good economy, to help me crunch these numbers and make them work. I've even scaled back some of my favorite programs already, like the child-care program I wanted to fund and the national service program, because the president's deficit keeps growing and I've said as a pledge, I'm going to cut the deficit in half in four years.

    Now, I'm going to restore what we did in the 1990s, ladies and gentlemen: pay as you go. We're going to do it like you do it. The president broke the pay-as-you-go rule.

    Somebody here asked the question about, Why haven't you vetoed something? It's a good question. If you care about it, why don't you veto it?

    I think John McCain called the energy bill the No Lobbyist Left Behind bill.

    I mean, you've got to stand up and fight somewhere, folks.

    I'm pledging I will not raise taxes; I'm giving a tax cut to the people earning less than $200,000 a year.

    Now, for the people earning more than $200,000 a year, you're going to see a rollback to the level we were at with Bill Clinton, when people made a lot of money. And looking around here, at this group here, I suspect there are only three people here who are going to be affected: the president, me, and, Charlie, I'm sorry, you too.

    (LAUGHTER)

    GIBSON: Mr. President, 90 seconds.

    BUSH: He's just not credible when he talks about being fiscally conservative. He's just not credible. If you look at his record in the Senate, he voted to break the caps -- the spending caps -- over 200 times.

    And here he says he's going to be a fiscal conservative, all of a sudden. It's just not credible. You cannot believe it.

    And of course he's going to raise your taxes. You see, he's proposed $2.2 trillion of new spending. And you say: Well, how are you going to pay for it? He says, well, he's going to raise the taxes on the rich -- that's what he said -- the top two brackets. That raises, he says $800 billion; we say $600 billion. We've got battling green eye shades.

    Somewhere in between those numbers -- and so there's a difference, what he's promised and what he can raise.

    Now, either he's going to break all these wonderful promises he's told you about or he's going to raise taxes. And I suspect, given his record, he's going to raise taxes.

    Is my time up yet?

    GIBSON: No, you can keep going.

    (LAUGHTER)

    BUSH: Good.

    --
    All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
  324. How to chose what to bomb next by michaelmalak · · Score: 1
    I'm eager to find out who the "leader of the free world" would chose to bomb next. With Kerry it might not happen.
    You're right -- it would be the UN that would do the bombing.

    People seem to forget that Clinton had NATO bomb Serbia and Kosovo.

    1. Re:How to chose what to bomb next by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      I'm referring to the media that refers to the President of the US as leader of the free world.

      And FWIW, those wars had international backing, this one didn't.

      I'm more curious to see who dubya bombs next - Kerry's next four years are pretty easy to envision.

      Bush OTOH can bankrupt America in the next four years.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  325. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by LtOcelot · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

  326. Diebold ATM machines *g* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Ironically, diebold also manufactures ATM machines used in major US banks, and so far, we've heard few complains.

    http://cubalan.net.nz.nyud.net:8090/kiwibank/P1010 006.JPG

    more more

  327. What the heck, where are all the republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Man, I have been a reader of slashdot.org since it opened and I always read, just never post. But I can't believe all the liberal pinko commies on the board... Where are all the republicans?

    1. Re:What the heck, where are all the republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hiding their heads in shame.

  328. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Looks as if you are swallowing the Democrat party line of class hatred and not looking at the actual process and results of taxation and the history of how Congress votes.

    I know you're probably trolling, but lots of people really believe (and spread) this kind of BS, so I'll pretend you really think what you say.

    In short, you get economy 101 but apparently you didn't make it to 102.

    Sweden (yes, 50%+ income tax Sweden) has a massively positive trade balance with the USA. When I say massively positive I mean they sell you almost three times as much as they buy from you ! And no, it's not biscuits or linux distros. It's high tech industry-oriented goods. Except for Ikea, Ericsson and Volvo, most Swedish exports are from small specialised companies that employ ridiculously educated workers to desing and produce high value-added goods.

    France and Germany are a mess, but that's not because of taxes or social security. It's just that they dug themselves into a bureaucratic hole. Saying that a strong state with highly developed social services entails sprawling, Franco-German like bureaucracies is a lie ! Hell, you Americans share a border thousands of miles long with Canada, don't you ever look at what's going on up north ?

    Your whole argument about labor costs and massive offshoring is dumb. The same BS that politicians serve us daily. Read any book by Paul Krugman as an introduction (looks like you'll need it), then hit a real economy manual. In short, wages in any given national industry tend to equal the average productivity of this industry in this country. Do you really think that wages in India and China have not risen in the last decade ? See South Korea or Taiwan for other recent examples.

    Do the research and really think before you vote.

    Yup, good idea.

    Thomas-

  329. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Tonytheloony · · Score: 1

    When's the last time you bought any thing European other than a tin of biscuits, wine, or a Linux distro?
    Oh, let me try! AMD processors from Dresde, Germany?

    --
    The quickest way to become an atheist is to study the Bible thoroughly.
  330. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

    You know, I've never liked a rap song in my life, save for a few Run DMC songs, and Eminem was one of my least favorite artists ever, but, dayum, I liked that video (And not just because it was anti-Bush, but because it actually did give some good moral points). Not really what I expected from him.

  331. Causality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Certainly slashdotters are too intelligent to buy into this line of thinking. If not, then why not trade voting for a football game every four years and save everyone a lot of grief.

    For the record, I think all of your choices are poor. None of the candidates is worth a warm bucket of spit.

    "Clowns To The Left Of Me, Jokers To The Right..." -- Stuck In The Middle With You by Stealers Wheel

  332. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Flaming+Foobar · · Score: 2, Interesting
    (With the fear of being modded offtopic...)

    My favorite beers are made in England, Germany, Denmark and Belgium (Ok, I admit I like beer a lot...), while my girlfriend is addicted to Swiss and Belgian chocolates.

    What, no Ireland (Kilkenny, Guinness) nor Czech Republic (Staropramen, Pilsner Urquell, Kozel) on the favorite beer list!?

    As to chocolates... Any chocolate connoisseur owes it to herself to check out Finnish Fazer Blue chocolate. It's legendary.

    --
    while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done
  333. Re:What about the other candidates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    believe me. from the last four years, there is plenty to laugh about for the next four.

    anybody remember g bush's iq. fantastic. we have a chimp running the country.

  334. Re:What about the other candidates? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    > at least with Kerry the rest of the world won't be snickering so much.

    ... right up until he takes office. At that time the rest of the planet will participate in its usual cathartic game of US bashing. Bashing whomever or whatever is on the top of the heap is not a new phenomenon. The US has been, and probably will be for many years to come, the favorite target of the effete intelligentsia who can ALWAYS find fault with ANYTHING. It's generally much easier to tear down than build up.

  335. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know what you mean. I was scared away from the books by the mini series where they try to use a special terminal at the presidents desk to destroy the interweb.

  336. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When's the last time you bought any thing European other than a tin of biscuits, wine, or a Linux distro? They are not expensive because they are good. They are expensive because you are paying for the outrageous taxes and labor costs which many European companies have to pay.

    You're either kidding, or just delusional. More than half the worlds largest corporations are European. European GDP is larger than that of the United States. US and EU exports are almost neck for neck. Seriously; disliking European labour laws is one thing but why stick your head in the sand and pretend the US is still the worlds biggest economy? Thats a good way to ensure you loose your lead in the world.

  337. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by visualight · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Also: Norway and pretty much anything nautical.

    From a purely economic standpoint, anyone who works for a living and votes republican is an idiot. They've been duped into voting "what's good for the country" instead voting based on their own situation.

    For 2003 a single man making 28,400 dollars, and living in WA state (8% sales tax) he will pay 27% of his wages in tax. This assumes that 50% of what he makes will be spent on taxable goods, and that he takes the standard deduction. It should be noted that this same table gives the U.S. tax rate at 35% because it only displays the highest rate for countries with a variable tax.

    According to www.worldwide-tax.com, if the same man lived in Germany he would pay 25% of his wages in tax. In Norway, 28%, in the UK, 30%.

    The way I see it, the big difference here is not how much we pay vs. European countries, but what we get for those taxes vs. what people in European countries get for thos taxes. Free medical, free University level education, real Social Security. We get give two billion dollars to Halliburton.

    --
    Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
  338. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by piper-noiter · · Score: 1

    As slashdotters I think we have a responsibility to respect the vote of the people.

    That said, I'm not a fan of Bush either.

    --
    Shick's Law: There is no problem a good miracle can't solve.
  339. The game was rigged... by Purist · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...On one of the last plays of the game the Redskins scored to take the lead. AFTER the play had been completed a flag was quietly tossed in the backfield. A flag that was thrown for absolutely no visible reason - look for yourself. That flag effectively ended the game for Washington. We're not talking about a "bad call" we're talking about a call on a game winning play after the fact that was fabricated. Could it be that professional football has lowered itself to the level of the media at large and indeed the frenzied and violently vocal anti-bush lemmings? You decide...

    --
    I used to fear clowns...but I'm discovering that chimps are far, far, worse.
    1. Re:The game was rigged... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FINALLY! I was beginning to think I was the only one who noticed this...

    2. Re:The game was rigged... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The game was rigged?

      Yet another parallel between football and American politics!

  340. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by FlopEJoe · · Score: 5, Funny
    Holy crap, people! This could have been a great discussion of superstition and how people base things on a statistical count of about 20. I'm sure there are comments to that affect but I'm not going to wade through 500+ rabid fan-boy posts to find them.

    If I had a million mod points, I'd mod all the "Kerry will raise taxes on small businesses" and "Bush is an imperialist" posts as off topic. It seems I'm in the minority so mod me to the bucket if you must. Yeah, I know, I must be new here and welcome to /. but doesn't the nerd-atrons, pulsing through your veins, find the /actual/ article at all interesting to comment on?

    Let me save the submitters to the Politics topic some time. We can enumerate all the off topic responses and save reading time to thouse that want to read about the actual submission:

    Dibold

    Bush is an imperialist

    Bush administration is incompetent

    PATRIOT act

    Bush stole the 2000 election

    Counter: all recounts had a Bush win

    Kerry flip-flops

    Kerry has been consistant

    Edwards is way under qualified

    Kerry has his secret plans for everything

  341. All you Bush haters .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It appears that many of the /. readers still think Gore "won" the 2000 election by winning the popular vote. If Bush wins this election but loses the Electoral College, will you be crying and whining just as loudly for the next 4 years? I didn't think so.

    PS. I'm not voting for Bush and didn't in 2000.

    1. Re:All you Bush haters .... by AveryT · · Score: 0

      Nobody with half a brain thinks Gore won because of the popular vote.

      We believe he won because, if everyone eligible to vote in Florida had been allowed to vote, and if every vote had been counted, he would have won in the electoral college, too.

  342. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does the recent voter registration fraud committed against demographics likely to vote for democrats have to do with Socialist policies? I don't think you understand what the parent was implying, and I don't think you understand how Social Security works, and you sound like an idiot saying "baka." However, if you can post a reply addressing all my points written in fluent Japanese, I'll take it back.

  343. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    BAH, convince your self any way you can. you buy that to look rich. to have the image. /my vehicle is american, taken direcxtly from the dealer to a specalist that modified it beyond the abilities of even italy's engineers (who beat the crap out of german engineers) I spent less than most wannabe's driving a bmw and have a nicer and faster car.

    My suit is tailor made and makes suits from italy look downright shoddy. If the suit is not custom made then you are wasting money. I spent less than 60% of what you paid for a suit that had to be modified so it would fit right, and I do not look out of place as you do. AS for my Glasses, also custom made by an american craftsman, but with Nikon Lenses.

    as for coffee grinder?? what fool pay's top dollar for something that a $9.00 korean knock-off will do nicely.

    I pity those trying DESPERATELY to have the look of a rich man. It must be a very sad life always trying to look like you are something that you are not.

    BTW, a Mer-cruiser engine certianly beats the crap out of the junk from Sweden. I saw that happen regularly on the offshore racing circuit here. American engines were running longer and faster than all the imported engines and boats. plus I can maintain an american engine easier and cheaper than anything else.

    I suggest you find real rich people... you know the ones who's net worth is 10million or higher. They werar jeans and a t-shirt and do not waste their money trying to look rich. you do not get rich by spending money foolishly. and you spend it very foolishly.

    The real rich man

  344. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd have a key to do it. Just think of the presidential porn stored everywhere.

    Some steel-cutter explosives along the wireless lan cables, releasing caged hamsters inside pcs.

    I've got a similiar setup at home, you can morse the right code by ripping off either 1 or 2 toilet paper pieces.

  345. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 thing: there has been no economic recovery, so don't speak of it. All that happened is that the rich got richer and stopped hiring people. Wages have stagnated in real terms since the 1970s, insurance costs are up (or people are without insurance), and now there aren't any jobs, either. All in all, its going to take several more years to get out of this hole, if ever.

  346. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Psychotext · · Score: 1

    If you want a good read that's similar to (but far better than) "Sum Of All Fears" then you should read Arc Light by Eric L Harry. Not sure if "SOAF" came first, but it felt like a rip off - When I saw the movie I initially thought I was watching an adaptation of Arc Light.

    It's One of my favourite reads ever. Was recently given a first edition hardback as a present too. :)

    Gotta love it when the missus knows what I like!

    --
    People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
  347. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should at least try to make your trolls somewhat plausible. If by "others" you mean civilians, it's the greedy corporate types, liberal hippies, and religious fundamentalists that are always trying to undermine the constitution.

  348. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if you suffered spontaneous human combustion?

    Answer: all of slashdot would celebrate.

  349. Look at it this way by forkboy · · Score: 1

    It's a statistical tie right now, right? Undecided voters (about 5% of the population right now) tend to vote against the incumbent. Newly registered voters, who aren't being polled very much for some reason, are overwhemingly Kerry supporters. I'd be surprised if Shrub breaks 220 electoral votes.

    --
    This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
  350. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Monf · · Score: 1

    Screw that!!! Either we get Sleazy, or we get Sleazed...

    --
    Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
  351. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A certain percentage of the moderators are simply bad, and use moderation as a chance to slap their "enemies." These are the same guys that constantly hit legitimate posts in non-political topics with Offtopic and Overrated, even though the posts end up at +5. Non-pro-Kerry will get hit by this more often simply because more slashdotters support Kerry, so the bad Kerry mods outnumber the bad Bush mods.

    The other factors is that trolls often post pro-Bush false arguments just because there's more Kerry supporters around. Don't underestimate the number of people around here that are simply playing devil's advocate. They'll tend to get modded down.

  352. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by mashx · · Score: 1

    Admittedly not of the same size, but what has happened recently in Belarus and Georgia are good examples of what you say.

    --

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~
  353. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by bbuR_bbuB · · Score: 1

    If the Dems presented a candidate with credible foreign policy credentials And Bush has Foreign Policy credentials? Please, alienating the world hardly seems like something to boast.

  354. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by ZB+Mowrey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Interesting point here is that the Constitution specifies that treaties we sign and get ratified by Congress BECOME the law of the land. ;)

    --

    Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.

  355. We've seen a lot of NFL streaks end this year.. by firegate · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Jerry Rice's Catches and the Niners' games where they scored at least once among many others.. I think this could be another one of those streaks coming to an end very soon..

    --
    "Make it idiot proof, and someone will make a better idiot."
  356. Not necessarily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This is also the first year that the RedSkins have a new coach in an election year. Granted Joe Gibbs used to coach the Redskins in years past, he is essentially a new guy now with players that are all new. A few of the players suck and I bet he can't wait to dump them. For now he has to work with what he has.

    Given how well he did do against Green Bay, I think it will be close but Bush will pull it out. If Washington won, Bush would shut out Kerry like Regan did to Mondale in 1984. Kerry surely deserves to be shut out like that but I think the Dem's have bought too many people with the $8 billion+ campaign. Certain big businesses own Kerry. Look at his contributors sometime.

    Maybe Osama Bin-Laden gets caught, WMD's are found in Iraq, Arafat dies today and peace is achieved in the middle east. How is that for a November surprise?

  357. Pigs arse by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

    I certainly don't recall anywhere near the amount of derision coming from the rest of the world during Clinton's stint as president. Even during the sex scandal the rest of the world was at most a mildly amused spectator.

    George Bush as president is such a mind bogglingly funny idea it almost defies parody.

    While it may be easier to "tear down than build up" it seems it only takes money and connections to build a cretin into a president.

    You are right in a way though, while the US talks to the world as if it is God's gift to the planet the rest of the world will certainly enjoy poking fun at it. Disdain and disrespect for those who hold themselves as better than you is not just natural, it's probably healthy too.

    That doesn't just go for the US. In most western democracies I've been to there has been a healthy lack of respect for those in power. It's part of keeping the bastards honest. Sadly it seems, at least from afar, that too many Americans take criticism of their president as an affront to the country itself rather than an indication he might not be doing a good enough job for your country.

    At the end of the day though those that are pointing out that your emporer has no clothes are right, he's a moron plain and simple.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  358. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Monf · · Score: 1, Troll
    Dude, unless you are in the top 4% income level - where 50% of the wealth in this country is- (thats 4% of the people have as much wealth as the other 96% of us) - then you are nothing but cannon-fodder for the REAL Republicans.

    The "pickup-truck" Republicans "are nearly a laugh; they're nearly a laugh, but they're really a cry": - It's like watching Clarence Thomas sit on the bench and rule against Affirmative Action after that's what got him through college, graduate and law school.

    That's the great draw of the Republicans: people's belief in the American Dream- that they'll actually one day make it and benifit from Republican policies.

    Either that, or the Blind Religeous Right: It's GREAT to be RIGHTEOUS - I'm one of the people who has to RISE UP and PROTECT YOU FROM YOURSELF - and I'll get a shitload of virgins (or is it raisins??) when I die for the Cause...

    --
    Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
  359. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Czech beer.

    Japanese condoms.

    Brazilian girlfriend.

    Kenyan wife.

    Italian car.

    American lawnmower.

    Mundo OS.

    correlation != causality.

  360. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Analogy+Man · · Score: 1
    The dude can't read and you exect me to believe he can WRITE?

    Making a cogent point without the "word of the day" printed on a big screen behind him is a challenge.

    --
    When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
  361. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Cereal+Box · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For 2003 a single man making 28,400 dollars, and living in WA state (8% sales tax) he will pay 27% of his wages in tax.

    Where are you getting those numbers? Spending half of his earnings on taxable goods yields about $1100 in sales tax, or about 4% of the income. Are you implying that he would have a 23% income tax rate? Think again...

    At the other end of the income spectrum, the bottom 50 percent of the nation's taxpayers (everyone whose adjusted gross income was under $28,654) earned more and paid less. Total income for this group rose from $861 billion to $870 billion. That was up from 13.8 percent of all income in 2001 to 14.23 percent in 2002. Despite growth in the percentage of total income earned by the bottom half of earners, their average tax rate fell from 4.1 percent to 3.2 percent.

    (http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincome.html)

    What a lot of people are confused about when it comes to income taxes is that just because you get a certain amount of money taken out of your paycheck (in the neighborhood of >20%) doesn't mean that that's your actual tax rate. When tax return time comes around, you get a lot of it back (depending on how much you make), making your effective tax rate far lower than what it APPEARS to be on your paychecks. If you make a decent amount of money, you OWE additional money come tax time, making your effective income tax rate even HIGHER.

    You know why low income earners don't get many tax breaks? Because they hardly pay any taxes to begin with!

    Here's a good table: http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincometable.html

  362. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by u-238 · · Score: 1

    Oh come now. The democrats pass out literature in illegal alien drenched areas informing them that, EVEN THOUGH IT IS AGAINST THE LAW, they can work around it and go to polling stations to get their democratic vote in.

    They're doing this in lots of states - but perticularly in Arizon, a state on the border which is being overwhelmed with illegals, where they have to pass a proposition (prop 200) which will force them to show some kind of I.D. to prove their citizenship before voting.

    Knowing this, you really aught to stop the finger pointing at the Republicans, because it's being done by both sides.

  363. Va. Republican Party Files Lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Virgina Republican Party has filed a lawsuit contesting the final score of the Washington Redskins game, stating that several of the Green Bay players were illegally enrolled in the NFL

  364. how 'bout them steelers!!! by airdrummer · · Score: 0

    rilly kicked some patriot butt:-):-):-) so does that presage another new englander butt-kicking???

  365. does not matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it does not matter who gets elected president, the US Govt. are going to continue doing what it been doing for years and that is smoke & mirror politics , voodoo economics = being the whore & lapdog for big businesses, and taxing the hell out of the little people for all they can possibly milk out of em...

  366. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by ErgoErgun · · Score: 1, Interesting

    On War: Its funny you criticize Bush's war policies when Jimmy Carter and President Clinton refused to confront terrorism repeatedly throughout their administrations creating the debacle George W. Bush had the courage to face. Jimmy Carter's reckless pacifist idealistic foreign policy cost us our relationship with Iran, when he pressured the Shah to change policy based on U.S. will, and when this looked like a weakness to Iraq and Sudan, he refused to send help to the Iranians. The result? The government overthrown and replaced by a despotic terrorist regime - Iran - once our closest ally in the middle east now one of our worst enemies - and this still has to be cleared up. Clinton witnessed numerous, indisputable terrorist declarations of war ON US SOIL, and averted an eye in every, single instance. When our embassies were bombed in 1992, 1997, and 1998 - these are attacks on US SOIL. And the WTC bombing of 1993. Liberals consistently pursue a policy of appeasement, thinking idealistically that peace begets peace. No. Peace and appeasement historicaly has created a worse situation than confrontation, Neville Chamberlin leaving Germany telling his people in Britain that all is well, we've reached peace with the Germans allowed Nazi Germany to further develop into a breeding ground for terror. Evil/Terrorism/Despotism must be confronted wherever, not appeased and accomodated. On Economy: If you remember, Reagan lowered the HIGHEST tax bracket in his administration from the high 70's to 28%, and government revenue increased 99.5%. The top income earners in this country have demonstrated that they are the most efficient at investing income. Middle class and low class earners especially (or people who just live off the government) are inefficient in investing. Its not good or bad, it just doesn't make sense to give more money to people who can't spend it effectively. I didn't think I'd see the hideous specter of socialist thinking on this bored but its been getting to that in this thread. People please, recognize what's going on for what it is - a policy of appeasement versus a policy of confrontation, a man bent on creating a socialized health care and expanded social security system that doesn't even beat inflation, to a man concerned with setting competitive blocs to earn your dollar in health care, and allowing you the option of investing your own social security accounts, beating the 1-2% you're getting with the government investing your payroll taxes.

  367. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Paragraphs! You ever heard of them?

  368. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its a lose lose situation for either party, think about it.
    everyone knows bush is a moron, and kerry is to. and the fact that its this close when kerry is not exactly the ideal democrat says how horrible bush really has been doing.
    this isnt like the 2000 election where gore who was a decent candidate was against bush no, kerry is retarded and the fact that bush has been so horrible to actually make it this close is says how absolutely frightening his record really is.

    and on top of all that, if bush wins the GOP will sink so far down because of how crappy bush really is that they will not win 2008 and they will not win 2012 because no one will want to see them in office.
    now if kerry wins, the GOP will win in 2008 because kerry is an idiot but in 2012 both parties will be on about equal ground again.
    so whoever wins this election ensures the lose to the other party in the next, but if the GOP was smart theyd hand this election to kerry so that they can have someone in in 2008 and have a chance in 2012, if they dont then like a said above, bush is such a horrible person that no one will want to seem the gop in office for a long time.
    so they should suck in their pride and look to the future
    but all in all its still a lose lose situation because they both suck, but at least if kerry gets in it will finally give a chance for balance in the future. but who thinks of the future

  369. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by yog · · Score: 0, Troll

    Thank you for proving my point; parent post reads like a commentary right out of The Nation--it's pure opinion with almost no facts cited and is considered "insightful" at the moment. But people who follow The Nation (or The New Republic, Time Magazine, Newsweek, The New York Times, Boston Globe, CBS, and other mainstream left-leaning editorial vehicles and broadcasters) don't have a need for facts, especially inconvenient ones, in this emotion-driven election year.

    Expecting Iraq to be "a perfect war" is a typically American way of thinking--people are impatient and don't remember history. Wars in fact are messy, imperfect, and foggy; it dehumanizes the conquered and the conquerors alike. Post-war Europe 59 years ago was a horrible mess with rampant looting, rape, and general lawless behavior by soldiers and civilians alike. There were the "displaced persons" camps that were little better than the concentration camps they replaced and the shameful incidents of ships full of Jewish refugees being turned away from safe havens. But the "Good War" conviction was so deeply engrained in Americans' minds by then that they simply disregarded such things, if indeed they even heard about them.

    I don't see Iraq as a failure of the Bush administration so much as a failure of the Arab people, who in shockingly large numbers have behaved more like a pack of murderously psychotic savages than the civilized people one would have expected from such an ancient civilization.

    The U.S. military forces in fact were shockingly successful; they smashed the Iraqi army and took the country in record time, with an absolute minimum of civilian casualties compared to any similar campaign in history. Expecting the Americans to prevent any of a thousand different problems is like expecting the police in your city to prevent all burglaries and murders. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that the Americans (and British and other partners) have in fact done a pretty competent job under the circumstances. Consider the "tons of looted explosives" incident that Kerry is making political hay over: far from ignoring the dump, the Americans in fact took 250 tons of munitions away from that site, unless the officer in charge of the project was simply lying through his teeth to the Associated Press.

    The problem that no one seems ready to recognize is simply that Iraqis weren't ready to be liberated. They have apparently no concept of rule of law and the savagery we now see, with armed thugs blowing up children and the hostage fiasco, is a statement about them, not us. I increasingly believe that Americans and Europeans in our soft, peaceful societies can't fathom how people could stoop to such levels, so we simply blame the invading forces as a substitute for honest analysis.

    Regarding the economy, it's driven by macroeconomic forces that Bush could not in 4 years possibly have affected, perhaps not even in 10 years. It's absurd to assign blame or praise to the person currently sitting in the White House for 20-year cycles of boom and bust. Similarly, Clinton lucked out with a post-recession rebound and a tech boom that had less to do with him than with forces that had been set in motion 20 years before he took office. Heck, the 90s boom and US budget surplus was probably more thanks to Reaganomics and the rebound from the 1980 recession than to anything the Democrats ever did--in fact, it was despite anything they ever did.

    --
    it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
  370. Re:Correlation CO2 by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1
    Sorry, wrong example.
    You seem to having the whole CO2 thing backwards. We first had a causal explanation how CO2 could lead to global warming (i.e., the greenhouse effect). I hope you're not questioning that this causal effect actually works in small scale -- an actual greenhouse -- as there seems to be quite a few greenhouses that use it to keep warm. Note that this is quite different from the game in question here, where the causative link still needs to be established.

    The causal explanation on a global scale was first forwarded in in the late 19th century by Swedish chemist and 1903 Nobel Laureate Svante Arrhenius, largely as an attempt to explain ice ages. At the time his peers largely rejected his theory. So the hypothesis is about a century old, and the data on which the correlations are based is also a century old. You might want to try another example to make your point, because although there is still ground to question the validity of the greenhouse effect on a global scale (does the effect scale up?), there is currently more evidence (both statistical and causative) that points to the existence than to the non-existence of the effect. It's definitely not absolutely certain that it is the case, but probable enough to try to reduce CO2 emissions.

  371. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Tedium+Unleased · · Score: 1

    For a minute there I didn't believe a single word of your post and I tried to form a counter-argument, but your "truth be tolds" made the whole thing impenetrable.

  372. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Colonel+Cholling · · Score: 1

    As a slashdotter, I think we have the responsibility to actually listen to "Mosh" and act responsibly.

    Damn, when I signed up for slashdot I guess I didn't read the part about a responsibility to listen to a crappy gay-bashing white rapper.

    He's right too, the coming of the King of Terror began in a schoolroom, it's reign should end there too,

    Along with the teaching of proper punctuation?

    Leading Hindu astrologers and a noted Hindu mystic believe that Kerry is going to win, Bush will never again be president, and Kerry will end terrorism and bring world peace! The sun and the moon have even endorsed Kerry.

    So let me get this straight-- if the sun and the moon had wanted Bush (or Nader or Cobb or Badanarik) to win, they would have given both Newtonian physics and general and special relativity a miss and altered their trajectories to spell out defeat for Kerry? I, for one, am outraged. These celestial bodies are neither U.S. citizens nor registered voters, and I resent their attempts to use their outside influence on this election.

    Then again, maybe you and your Hindu astrologers just pulled it out Uranus.

    --

    I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
  373. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Tedium+Unleased · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The result? Show the proof first fuckbag.

  374. Article != Serious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone repeat after me... It's a fucking joke... It's a fucking joke...

  375. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by gfxguy · · Score: 1

    You are absolutely right... and it's not just voting fraud, either, they like to blame republicans for a lot of things THEY are guilty of. And we give them a pass. I do not know why.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  376. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Expecting Iraq to be "a perfect war" is a typically American way of thinking--people are impatient and don't remember history. Wars in fact are messy, imperfect, and foggy; it dehumanizes the conquered and the conquerors alike.

    Nobody glorified the war before it happened. It was the Bush administration who envisioned the Iraq war as planting democracy in the middle east, among other great pictures. In fact, the majority people around the world always knew this was going to be messy, costy, fruitless and backfiring. However, in spite of waves of anti-war protests, Bush lead the world to war. Now it turned out to be ugly, you say it's meant to be this way. This is either naive or dishonest. Neither is suitable for the US president.

  377. It's just so sad... by gfxguy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Democrats only like voting rights when it's in their favor....

    You think you are so superior, that if your candidate loses, it's not because the other candidate won more electoral votes, it's because other people are so much stupider than you, you know it all, and you know better than everyone else what is best for them. Even if Kerry were to make a better president than Bush, you think making it so by doing something illegal.

    I know your post was tongue in cheek, but I also know that humor comes from reality, and that that thought was in your mind, and I also know that many liberals actually do feel that way. The worst part is they don't understand why it's wrong.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  378. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  379. Curse of the hogs.... by tlh1005 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Any other year I'd say this is true but looks like Bush will win, The RedSox fouled up everything this year.

  380. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by MooFu · · Score: 1

    America is now more divided than it has been since the Viet Nam War. For some people he's been a good leader. If you're rich, right wing, and/or Christian he's great. But he seems to think that everyone else can go fuck themselves.

    I agree with most of what you said. However I know some die hard Christians who will not be republican tomorrow, myself and my mom being two of them. I think Bush is insulting to Christians, but thats just my 1.5 cents. Vote how you wish, but I have yet to see something Bush did in the past 3+ years that I agreed with.
  381. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corporations (think Heinz and not just big oil and pharmaceuticals) never pay taxes, they are just a collector. Taxes for any company are a Right Hand side of the ledger entry. A pass through expense. Raise taxes on corporation and pay more for your condiments. Investors have to make something for putting money into a stock. Besides if you actually taxed corporations all they would do is move off shore to a friendlier location like a lot now incorporate in Delaware because of local tax structures in most states.

    There is no such thing as a tax on a corporation or business. All taxes ultimately fall on individuals - investors and owers - the guys who sign most of our paychecks. I don't know about you, but a poor guy never sign my paycheck.
    You raise taxes on the wealthy, and some poor slob gets passed over for a raise, because the rich guy is not going to make less.
    A tax on the rich is a tax on the working class and a burden on the progress of business.
    Tax cuts for the rich means more business and more money and jobs for the working class and therefore more tax revenues for the gov't. (Although revenues is a misnomer. Any time something that belongs to an individual is taken from them by an agent of force -the gov't- and given to someone/something else, it actually more like theft)
    But I digress,
    TjD

  382. meaningless by binarybum · · Score: 3, Funny

    yeah but the red sox won the world series...

    all bets are off this year.

    --
    ôó
  383. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by orcrist · · Score: 1

    I find it highly amusing, but at the same time disturbing, that the Americans since 9/11 have been shouting for terrorists heads on a plate while for many years before 9/11, and quite likely after 9/11 as well, collections has been and are being made in support of the IRA.

    Do tell me that you actually realise the double morale in that...


    Hmmmm.... could it be - and I know I'm reaching here - that those are different groups of Americans? I mean I know it's a wild theory to think that not all 290,000,000 Americans think and behave alike... but it's worth considering.

    -chris

    --
    San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
  384. "Redskins," you say? by tattoi.nobori · · Score: 2, Funny

    What is this... "football" you speak of? Perhaps a new distro?

  385. "The Millionaire Next Door" by gfxguy · · Score: 1

    Was an interesting book... don't know that I got a lot of useful information out of it, but it basically says what you are saying.

    Millionaires (those with a net worth of $1 million or more) tend not to waste money. People driving BMWs and Mercedes actually, typically, make much less.

    There are anecdotal cases either way (my wife used to ask if she could have a Mercedes... I said "yes, buy we'd have to live in it"), but most marginally wealthy people got that way from being thrifty.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  386. Opposite, actually by gosand · · Score: 1, Funny
    Don't you see? It's proof that John Kerry is a definite winner! No need for Kerry supporters to go out and vote now obviously - he's already won.

    Actually, it means that if you are going to vote for Bush, then you are voting for a loser. (which goes without saying) So you had better change your vote to Kerry, so you can say that you voted for a winner.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  387. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by rjshields · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The U.S. military forces in fact were shockingly successful.

    I suppose that depends on your definition of success. If you consider barging in there with size 12s, blowing up innocent civilians left, right and centre thus alienating the entire population to be success, then yes.

    Iraqis weren't ready to be liberated.

    Correction, they weren't ready to be liberated by fuckwits barging in there with size 12s, killing innocent civilians left, right and centre, then setting up shop capitalising from the nations rich natural resources.

    Not a troll - this is my opionion. You have yours, and this is mine.

    --
    In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
  388. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

    Neither candidate is perfect though-- it's honestly best to think of it as "picking the lesser of two evils".

    Or you can think of it in a more positive manner. I prefer to think of it like I have two choices and I need to choose the one who will be the best for the needs of the country and myself.

    --
    Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
  389. unelected civil servants who run the elections don by dpilot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, my wife will be working her first election, tomorrow. She's VITALLY interested in the process, and cares that it work correctly. Her father worked the elections, years ago. (In this light, the question we asked ourselves yesterday was, "Why did it take her this long to sign up to work an election?") For that matter, my mother used to work the elections, too. As far as I can tell, most of the election workers are locals, ordinary people, hired for the day, and share that motivation with my wife.

    Aside from the part of your post denigrating the poll workers, I have to agree with you. Fortunately in our precinct, we have optical readers and use 'fill in the circle' ballots. I didn't realize how lucky we were until the Diebold fiasco started brewing in the past year or two.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  390. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by MeanSolutions · · Score: 1

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I do think you are right there. Interestingly enough, the american friends I have tends to agree with me on the hypocrisy point.

    The point I was trying to raise, and I know it was clumsy of me not to point out that not all the US people think alike as that is rather obvious, was that it seems socially acceptable to fundraise for the IRA, while fundraising for Al Queda would be aiding and abetting terrorists.

    I am sure, and I know some of them, there are Americans that realise the double-morale and are against the fundraising for the IRA. However, the US administration seemingly find nothing wrong with soliciting the support of the nation that is targeted by the very organisation some Americans are fundraising for.

    --
    Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
  391. Re:The mistake 'critical' thinkers make here is. . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The truly fascinating and immediate question raised by all of this, is why do so many people have such strong automatic responses to the subject, (as evidenced by the various negative responses to this very /. article), and how does this affect society and the role of the human participant in that society?


    I imagine it's because we have overwhelming evidence that this is not how the universe works, and we've seen no evidence to support this type of universe model.

  392. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Looks like some partisan moderator modded this farrago of nonsense. There are plenty of instances where Congress has raised taxes for the > 200k income bracket, but it doesn't make a real difference because the current tax code is so riddled with loopholes and allows for so many shelters. What we need is reformation of the tax code, but given the process of tacking on unrelated crap to bills, it will end up looking nothing like what it was meant to do - the process needs reform as well.

    Additionally, the main reason for incorporation in Delaware is the fact that the state has arbitration laws that favor corporations rather than customers - this is especially true for credit card companies.

    As for labor laws, they're the only thing preventing this country from turning into a clone of 1860's Manchester. Of course, the pendulum has swung too far to the left in the past, and that needs to change. Also, you seem to have no clue about the European economy - go read some statistics. Germany's economy was doing better than ours in the 80s and early 90s, but they had to pay a massive bill to reunify with East Germany (the former DDR), and they're still continuing to struggle with problems there. There is also the cost associated with the currency shift and greater integration within the EU, but that should start to pay dividends in a while. However, the one troubling aspect of this is the increasing bureaucratization within the EU hierarchy, which will lead to trouble down the road.

    In closing, learn to fact check your own posts before criticizing another.

  393. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "while I admit there is a possiblity that your a real japanese person and saying 'baka' was slipping into your native language.... I highly suspect your mixing up your own real life with the anime you watch." (emphasis mine)

    I suggest that you work on learning your own language before you criticise someone else's usage of Japanese.

  394. Re:Curious what shrub would share with us if he wo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "shrub" moniker, on the other hand, is a real side-splitter.

  395. Recounts not possible by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1

    The whole problem with stupidly (or evilly) designed e-voting machines is that there is no possibility of a recount. There is no audit trail (e.g. printed ballots in addition to electronic counts). There are no physically stable counters. For example, Viriginia used pinball counters before going to WinVote. India uses battery backed counters in sealed tamper proof enclosures controlled by a few hundred lines of public assembly code.

  396. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    you do not get rich by spending money foolishly. and you spend it very foolishly.

    I don't want to get rich, and I don't want to seem rich. I want to live well. You seem to think the wealth is what matters. It doesn't, and there's little point in accumulating huge amounts of money if you don't spend it on things you enjoy. Believe me, I spend my money very wisely.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  397. Re:Just because it wasnt YOUR guy doesn't make it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there were zero recounts in most counties. the recounts gore wanted were never completed, not a single time.

    In your world, that may be true.

  398. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by ThaReetLad · · Score: 1

    hmmm... No I've considered it and discarded it as outright fantasy. You've all been brainwashed by Fox.

    --
    You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
  399. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and that baseball team won the Series?!

  400. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're a liar - given your disdainful use of the word "liberal" , I can't believe that you're anything but a close-minded fanatic who will vote along party lines no matter who makes sense. This administration *is* dishonest - or haven't you read about Cheney clearly claiming a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and later backtracking and claiming that he never said anything of the sort? What of Halliburton under Cheney doing business with Iran and Libya? What of the whistleblower in the Pentagon who has been harassed repeatedly for her courage? Bush has not only accomplished nothing of note, but has taken giant steps backward.

  401. Re:Stop being so naive, you idiots by octaene · · Score: 1

    Well, my post was simply meant to be anecdotal, I wasn't trying to solve a mathematical equation exactly. I only meant to make a statement about the horrible inaccuracy of the polling process, and the fact that people treat the reported numbers as gospel.

  402. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

    What, no Ireland (Kilkenny, Guinness) nor Czech Republic (Staropramen, Pilsner Urquell, Kozel) on the favorite beer list!?

    Well, they were just the first that sprung to mind, and to paraphrase someone sensible, I've rarely met a beer I didn't like.
    As far as your faves there. I don't mind the odd pint of Guinness, but if I had to make a choice between it and Theakston's Old Peculiar or even Newky Brown, I'd be leaving the Guinness in the tap.
    I must admit to neglecting the Czech beers though - I've had (and liked) a few Urquells, but missed on the others in your list. I'll give them a go on the weekend, and if they're as good as you say, I might owe you one...

    PS, I might keep quiet about the chocolate for now, but it'll come in handy next time I need a bribe - cheers.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  403. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its been almost three years since the fall of the Hussein regime.

    How long did it take to get post WWII Germany to what it is today? How long to get post WWII Japan to what it is today? It took 30-50 years after our Civil War for the two sides to re-unite. If you ask the African American demographic, they'd probably say that re-unification either hasn't happened yet or only barely happened shortly after the Civil Rights Act. That's roughly 100 years!

    Wars are a disruptive societal force. That's why they are generally bad. Unfortunately, at times they are necessary.

    To expect Iraq to be a democratic version of what it was four years ago by now is insane! No president could fix this mess in three years. Gore wouldn't have been able to, Kerry wouldn't and won't be able to. And if he wins the Presidency, I doubt if he would really be able to make much of a dent.

    The real issue is who will rule in Iraq? Freedom loving Iraqis or the Mullahs, Sheiks, and/or fundamentalist terrorists? I believe the Iraqis can create a free society. We've seen potential in Fallujah when they pressured the Mullahs to have the insurgents turn in arms. BUT, it the conversion of Iraq from repressive reqime to a free society is going to take time!

  404. Redskin's Loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    In this case the win isn't foretelling, it's the fact that the win was controversial.

  405. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by aurum42 · · Score: 0, Troll
    "That group" was no more than a proxy with a calculated smear. The members of SBVFT have repeatedly contradicted themselves, and provided what can only be described as untruthful statements. I suggest you read this analysis of the attacks by the SBVFT - they provide an utterly convincing rebuttal.

    In other words, you sir, are a troll - while there are veterans who may oppose Kerry for his protests against the Vietnam war (and perhaps even rightfully so, since he seems to have branded everyone there with the "atrocity" brush), the swifties were merely a proxy for a wealthy republican who wanted to attack Kerry on his strengths, a classic Karl Rove tactic.

    If we're going to judge the candidates by their actions 30 years ago, I'd rather support a war veteran than someone who evaded foreign service, and will not deny that he has used cocaine (his statement was that "he could pass a drug test at the time of his Pres. Bush Sr.'s administration"), or a team that between them have 3 DUIs (Cheney 2, Bush Jr. 1).

    --
    "The slave who knows his master's will and does not get ready...will be be beaten with many blows."Luke 12:47-48
  406. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by hachete · · Score: 1

    I think it's nearer "The Watchmen" in reverse. For those not au fait, the alien being that materialised in NY was meant to bring peace.

    h

    --
    Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
  407. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by DarkEdgeX · · Score: 1

    Well the point of that paragraph was, don't be indifferent this year (or any year) you're able to participate in an election-- bite the bullet and find the candidate that most matches your vision of where this country should go.

    I know that a lot of complaints I've seen and heard have been that neither candidate is what someone wants: well set aside those ideals because whether you like it or not, we're getting one of those two November 2nd. Being indifferent isn't counted (or recounted).

    FTR, I am a bit more positive about my choice than the "lesser of two evils" quote lets on. ;) I'd just hate to think someone out there isn't voting, at all, because neither candidate fits their ideals/vision perfectly.

    --
    All I know about Bush is I had a good job when Clinton was president.
  408. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by geoffspear · · Score: 1
    I don't believe the meta-moderation system really works very well, because the same patterns of bad moderation keep happening. Maybe the need an "insightful, but I disagree with everything you said" moderation for the politics section. As it is, a well-thought-out comment that supports either candidate is likely to be called flamebait by the sort of people who will, in fact, flame any opinion they disagree with.

    I also am skeptical of meta-moderation because I haven't gotten any mod points in like 6 months, despite having excellent karma and never having an Unfair metamod to any of my moderations. Clearly the system is broken :-P

    --
    Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
  409. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by W1BMW · · Score: 1

    Monday football as a terrorist target. It would be right before the election, would be very public, and would impact a large group of people.

    You've not seen Black Sunday, have you.

  410. Re:That's why a third party will never be viable.. by jmauro · · Score: 1

    If tied at the end of regulation and no one scores in overtime, then a regular season NFL game is declared tied. In the playoffs they keep going until someone scores.

  411. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Deekin_Scalesinger · · Score: 1

    They have not been national collections by any means. They have been donations made by Irish Americans who do not understand the simple fact that solving violent problems with violence is not a viable or sustainable solution. That's like saying that all Muslims seek the destruction of the United States. I have been fortunate to know many kind and devout Muslims who believe in their faith, but also believe in the value to human life and do not see violence as an end to justify their goals. Do all Muslims want to kill Christians or Americans? Not by any means. I believe that northern Ireland should be part of the free state of Ireland, but have never given a dime to the IRA to forward this cause (BTW, my father is an Irish Citizen). Your narrowminded observation is like me saying that all Brits support the notions of Cromwell and the Irish should hate the people of GB for that. You can dislike (hate) a government for it's stance, but to condem the people under that leadership is foolish and shows your unwillingness to seperate people from the political climate that they happen to live in.

    --
    "As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
  412. Re:Armageddon outta here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Nov 1 2004 8:59 PM

    Litterally millions of VW Bug sized flying saucers stream out of previously hidden holes in the North and South Poles. All communications sattelites owned by the varous networks, cable companies and directv types are taken over. We see George, Dick, John and John being maneuvered against their will by three foot tall munchkins wielding spears with blue glowing tips. All the presidential candidates look ragged, their clothes are torn, and John Kerry has a black eye. Dick Cheney trips over his untied shoelace, and is promptly prodded by one of the spears. The spears must be similar to cattle prods, for sparks fly from the tip, and Dick Cheney jumps three feet into the air grabbing his ass. When he lands, he gives the spear wielding munchkin an evil sideways glance. Soon we see him pop a pill, and hold his chest. Is he dying of a heart attack?

    ZZZZAP! "Frikken A you little..." from the cameraman who pans right and down. We are looking into the face of one of the munchkins. The munchkin is making rapid fire high pitched purring sounds and brandishing the glowing spear at the flummoxed cameraman. The furless creature sounds almost exactly like an Ewok - a pissed off Ewok. A few Zaps from the spear, and the camera is soon pointing to the left of the candidates. On red throne with gold trim sits Ralph Nader. He seems to have put on alot of weight, and has four or five days growth of beard. He is wearing a red suit with white trim.

    "Is this thing working? Testing testing 1 2 3.. Erhem.. ", the technical glitches having been smoothed out, Nader's voice takes on a soothing tone, "My fellow Earthicans, although, as you can see, our little friends here are now in complete control of the Earth, ( camera pans briefly to the kneeling candidates ) and resistance is futile, let me assure you that you have nothing to fear. Although your human biomass has taken too large a fraction of the planet's life carrying capacity, the human species will not be allowed to destroy itself. A full one tenth of you will remain uneaten."

    Just then Ralph Nader seems to grow even fatter. The buttons of his red coat burst, and the world sees a huge gaping maw open in his gut. One by one, the terrified candidates are pushed into Ralph Nader's gut to be devowered. Their shreaks and cries pierce the night. "Waste not want not." Says Nader.

    Nader: "These wildlife control measures could have been avoided if you had only chosen to elect me president. I'm not sore about it though. You poplars are yummy to the tummy."

  413. I agree. by mandrake*rpgdx · · Score: 1

    Many of my family is of Irish American descent, and many of them fund the IRA. They call them patriots, I say they stopped being patriots when they started using terrorist style activities to try and win their way. Bombs being placed in subways are not patriotic acts. A patriot fights for freedom in a country he loves, not attack the innocent people who is trying to free from oppression. OTOH, America, strangely enough, is founded on terrorism. We celebrate our proud heritage of performing terrorist attacks on English soldiers. It all depends on who wins the way which side ends up being "evil" to history. George Orwell would be proud.

    I'm not saying the terrorist attacks are right, hell no. No one can say that. But Americans tend to believe what they want to. They tend to see everything with blinders on. We tend to act like we are the only people who have ever gotten terrorized, and that we are the great glowing good that will save the world from evil. But really, we are just scared little children, looking for someone to blame so we can beat them up and feel better when the world is safe again. I guess this sort of thing was easier when we had one big evil to blame all of our ills on. But after communist Russia fell, we had no one to blame anymore about the state of the world but ourselves. And Americans hate to look in the mirror, for we are fat and greedy, and it shines through like a beacon of pain.

  414. Sad... by gfxguy · · Score: 1

    You know what? Sometimes people just want to have fun. Party pooper.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  415. Screw counting every vote by iceperson · · Score: 0, Troll

    I only support legally cast ballots. If a person doesn't have the right to vote then their vote shouldn't be counted (i.e. non-US citizens, people who aren't residents of the state where the election is held, unregistered residents, and felons in many states.) That also goes for people who can't even fill out the freaking ballot.

    1. Re:Screw counting every vote by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      One Nation, indivisible,
      with Liberty, and Justice, for All.

  416. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Photon+Ghoul · · Score: 1

    Oh come now. The democrats pass out literature in illegal alien drenched areas informing them that, EVEN THOUGH IT IS AGAINST THE LAW, they can work around it and go to polling stations to get their democratic vote in.


    Do you have any references for this? If so, please share and I'll gladly do the same for all of the Republican voting shenanigans going on.

  417. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by NardofDoom · · Score: 1
    The only thing 'Mosh' shows us is that people are pissed off enough that such a song can be popular.

    But it could got three ways: People vote for Kerry because they're pissed off and Eminem tells them to, and Kerry wins. Or Bush wins and people take Em's call for an army seriously and we have an insurrection, or they realize it doesn't matter and go back to slaving for minimum wage.

    --
    You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
  418. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by aurum42 · · Score: 1
    To compare Iraq to Germany or Japan is pure obscurantism. Firstly, the war against the Axis was justified according to the "just war" theory (I suggest you read up on this), unlike Iraq. Both countries had industrial economies that were devastated by the war (bombed into rubble). Industrial economies rely heavily on both basic infrastructure and higher level infrastructure, all of which take time to rebuild.

    "Wars are a disruptive societal force. That's why they are generally bad. Unfortunately, at times they are necessary" - this is true in the general case, but it certainly wasn't "necessary" by any means for Iraq. You seem to believe the propaganda that this war was for the benefit of the "Iraqi people" - it was not. I suggest you read this link, which along with Paul O'Neill's (former Bush cabinet member)testimony provides sufficient evidence that Bush Jr. planned to invade Iraq as early as 1999. 9/11 merely provided camouflage and a cassus belli to deceive the sadly trusting public.

    And no, despite what you may have heard from Cheney, Iraq is not linked to 9/11.

    --
    "The slave who knows his master's will and does not get ready...will be be beaten with many blows."Luke 12:47-48
  419. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too lazy to register but you sir are a dumbass. A product of liberal education. IE Paul Krugman, respected but extremely liberal. Go read some Milton Friedman.

  420. Relax... by GI+Jones · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Now that you KNOW Kerry is going to win, all of you Kerry supporters can now relax; as a matter of fact, there is no longer any reason for you to even show up and vote!

    --
    "Perhaps most amazingly, votaries of 'diversity' insist on absolute conformity." -- Tony Snow
    1. Re:Relax... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm frightened at the idea that our next president will be chosen by people who think repeating this same old joke over and over is actually an ok thing to do.

      They didn't create a mod option of "-1 redundant" because it's a good thing.

    2. Re:Relax... by GI+Jones · · Score: 1

      Your fears are realized, obviously, IT WORKED! Old joke, new joke... anything better then that joke of a candidate.

      I think it is better to vote FOR someone you like, then AGAINST someone you don't. Exit polls showed most votes for Kerry were actually votes against Bush. When you make such a choice, you may end up in a situation that is even worse.

      The joke is on you, sorry... the people have spoken.

      (mod +5, justified)

      --
      "Perhaps most amazingly, votaries of 'diversity' insist on absolute conformity." -- Tony Snow
  421. Second most offensive team name in the NFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least Nashville has the opportunity to make it happen, until they chose to name the team for the state.

  422. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Wisconsinite - and being in a swing states, we're being pummelled with ads and visits from Kerry and Bush that it's impossible to get away from it for 10 minutes.

    It's gotten so bad, that one TV station stopped taking ads from all political campaigns because they were running out of spots for their long-time advertisers.

    Making the campaign about a poorly played football game was a nice break from the nonsense and seriousness of the campaign.

    But none of it means I don't read the papers and that I don't plan to vote.

  423. Re:That's why a third party will never be viable.. by ThaReetLad · · Score: 1

    man: "well, i believe i'll vote for a third party candidate"
    kang: "ha ha ha, go ahead, throw your vote away!"

    --
    You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
  424. Re:Just because it wasnt YOUR guy doesn't make it by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1
    Simple answer: new elections. Scrap the candidates that are definitely not elected and let the remaining candidates fight it out in another voting round. This until the margin is larger than the error rate.

    In the Florida case (and New Mexico and a few others), it was clear that given the level of inaccuracy (dimpled chads, confusing ballots, people turned down at the voting booth, people too stupid to vote according to their intentions, machine trouble, counting troubles), the votes themselves were not reliable enough to use as a decision. In such a situation recounting does not solve the issue, only another election round can.

  425. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ugh. We disdain les nouveaux riches...

    It's not about money, it's about class. WHGIII is richer than Prince William, but his manners are terrible and all of his stuff breaks (heh).

    My wool coat and wool scarf are European. They are of much better quality than any American wool products I've ever purchased. American wool is coarse, it itches, and it becomes tattered and frayed too easily.

  426. War against historical knowledge?! by jholtsnider · · Score: 1

    A) No (large American) war in 1994 B) No (large American) election in 1994 Perhaps you meant... Heck, I have no idea what you meant.

  427. Slashdot? by Mr.+No+Skills · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hmmm, the most active article on Slashdot is about football and politics. It doesn't seem like "news for nerds" anymore, it seems more like "news for dorks".

    A real nerd doesn't care about politics, since its run by all the popular rich guys that made fun of us all through school.

    --
    Sleep is for the Weak
    1. Re:Slashdot? by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      A real nerd doesn't care about politics, since its run by all the popular rich guys that made fun of us all through school.

      John Major?

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  428. Hmmmm..... by KennyP · · Score: 0, Troll

    GB wins in Washington.

    GB. Green Bay?
    GB. George Bush?

    Friends don't let friends vote Dumb-o-crat.

    Kenny P.
    Visualize Whirled P.'s

  429. Touch wood etc. by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If Bush won it would be a bad omen for his last 4 years, if Kerry won it would mean next election would be even more dumbed down - millions of people would be watching the Redskins to see the result, and political journalists and news stations would actually be basing their predictions on it. Then there would be some kind of scandel over who got paid to take a fall. All I can say is GO GREENBAY! DOWN WITH BOOSH W00T!

    However, this really doesnt fill me with confidence:
    "Oh, yeah, he's going to win. It's guaranteed," said Packers safety Darren Sharper, a Kerry supporter. "I don't have to vote now. Don't even have to go to the polls. Saved me a trip."

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  430. skewed worldview by SubtleNuance · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The apathy of the electorate, in *not* demanding better candidates from the major parties, has gotten us into a mess.
    yes. The fact that the Republicrats only have to play to the center means you must have an uninspired candidate with uninspired ideas. Gotta play to the middle.

    Want democratic reform in the USA? Switch to Instant Runoff Voting. Keep the electoral college (to appease the american-democracy-is-religion masses) and Watch the Sparks Fly.

    The parties have no interest in *really* fixing things, because a fixed government is..

    A fixed or 'constant' or 'unchanging' Government isnt much of a Democracy. The Republicrats conspire to exclude all opposition. You yanks are in a terrible rut, and breaking the Republicrat Logjam could be an terrific "american democracy is great" bi-partisan opportunity for substantive democratic reform.... it has to come from the rank-file of each base.

    one that doesn't need to give handouts. But the handouts are what buys the votes of the uneducated/ignorant/lazy.

    This is ignorant nonsense. This is pure anti-gummint trash. Are you suggesting that your entire system is corrupted by simple gummint-citizen payola? I think this underestimates the issue by a order of magnitude.

    This might also mean that your the pot calling the uneducated/ignorant/lazy-kettle black..? Youve reduced the problem to such simplicity because it reenforces your worldview. Its a trap.

    1. Re:skewed worldview by rdean400 · · Score: 1

      I don't think the parent was all that ignorant. However, it's not the president who is guilty of citizen payola...it's the senators and representatives. You need to look no further than how popular the ones that bring a lot of pork barrel projects back to their districts are.

  431. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
    Wages have stagnated in real terms since the 1970s

    In the last frou years of Clinton the average salary in the nation went up 3 thousand dollars, during the frist three years of the Bush administration the average wage went up three thousand dollars. Unemployemnt is almost exactly where it was in 1996 when Clinton got reelected. Finally lets look at the median which is a better measure (in 2003 Dollars, from the US census):

    1997-2000: Up 4,000 Dollars 2000-2003: Up 3,300 Dollars

    So no wages have not stagnated, and given that Clinton did not have to deal with 9/11 and a Nasdaq crash (which *did* happen very late under Clinton) Bush has not done an aweful job on the economy. The median and Mean incomes in the US are higher. You can tout the John Kerry mantra all you want but the facts dont agree.

    As an aside I am not voting for Bush or Kerry. Bush did not get a specific declaration of War for Iraq and Kerry used the used of force crap to save his bacon from Dean (make himslef look centrist) and then after he won the promary is trying to be the anti-war candidate.

    --
  432. don't sleep on the psychological impact... by sucati · · Score: 1

    no doubt many americans are superstitious and the redskins election game statistic has received a decent amount of news exposure. so will the republicans give up and skip the polls in lieu of an imminent loss? or will this invoke a rally to lead them to victory?

    1. Re:don't sleep on the psychological impact... by WesG · · Score: 1

      I bet a lot of people will make their bet based on the outcome of the game.

      I for one was going to vote for Bush, but now that the Skins lost I'm voting for Kerry.

      Yay!

  433. Re:That's why a third party will never be viable.. by orcrist · · Score: 1

    In the case of no candidate winning a mayority of the votes (and a plurality doesn't count) the NEW house gets to choose the president and the NEW senate gets to choose the VP. I'm not sure if Kerry or Edwards get a vote, or what would happen if the vote gets tied in the senate again (since normally the VP casts the deciding votes). But it is possible that we could end up with a Bush/Edwards presidency.

    New Senate means new Senate. Neither Kerry nor Edwards are running for Senate this time so neither would vote. Another interesting thing is that in the House each state gets only one vote, e.g. all 53 Californian representatives vote among themselves and submit that as their vote, etc. That means some states (with split delegations) might have to abstain. According to CNN (sorry, no link) this could result in the Vice President chosen by the Senate becoming 'Acting President' if the House is tied. President Cheney? President Edwards? It's possible!!

    -chris

    --
    San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
  434. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We did have a civil war once upon a time, but we were a different country then

    Two of them, even.

    I've wondered, at times, whether a state should be allowed to leave the union. If it would be better for the state to go it on its own, shouldn't they be allowed to leave this little republic? We are supposed to have a weak federal government that we can remove if it doesn't serve the people. Having a state leave the union seems like the most appropriate way to do so, since it leaves government intact at the local level. Is it an attack on democracy to decide to peacefully leave the group? I can't really see this happeneing, but its an interesting question.

  435. Even though we all know this is bullshit by nwbvt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When you consider how the Skins game ended (with a questionable call taking away a Portis TD that would have won it for the skins), that would translate to a questionable legal decision deciding the election. That part is almost sure to happen, given all the shysters, I mean lawyers both sides have hired.

    --
    Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    1. Re:Even though we all know this is bullshit by TheFlyingGoat · · Score: 1

      I'm a Packer fan and agree the call was questionable, but to say it would have won the game is absurd. 2m40s left on the clock, 2 timeouts, and Brett Favre with the best group of receivers he's ever had? That's plenty of time to get in field goal range. Besides, the call wasn't questionable because it was incorrect, it was questionable because they don't call it consistently. For example, William Henderson, the Packer's fullback, will often go in motion and go up to the line without setting for a full second before the snap. It wasn't a bad call, just a questionable one.

      --
      You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Even though we all know this is bullshit by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      Thanks for illustrating why I used the phrase "questionable call".

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
  436. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
    There actually are some honest companies out there. If we can get rid of the corrupt CEO's and cut down on executive salaries, then we would be moving in the right direction. While I am liberal, I miss the days of the fiscal conservative... at least I can understand where they're coming from.

    That thing flying over your head, that was the point you missed....

    Where do you think the company got 1.75 Billion? Thats right they got it frmo teh comsumers. When you tax business they pass that on to the people who buy their products..

    --
  437. Bush victory salute by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you want this guy for another 4 years? http://static.vidvote.com/movies/bushuncensored.mo v/

  438. In the bag, so dont bother voting for kerry by SirLanse · · Score: 1

    Football teams are the surest predicter of everything. So if you believe in Kerry just stay home, it is in the bag. Kerry/Edwards so much crap it takes two Johns.

    1. Re:In the bag, so dont bother voting for kerry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure if it's funny or scary that idiots keep making the same damn redundant post over and over and over. The joke was funny the first 14,683 times. It is no longer funny.

      I really wish I had a million mod points because it would take most of them to mod all the repeats "-1 redundant" on this thread.

  439. Besides... by beanlover · · Score: 1

    ...the Redsox won the World Series, breaking the "curse of the Bambino" so maybe this is a year of things not happening like they always do.

  440. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

    -- Liberals consistently pursue a policy of appeasement, thinking idealistically that peace begets peace.--

    Because Bush's policy of "Let's be *EVERYONE'S* big brother has helped world opinion of the US SOOO much!
    Clue-bat :
    For the first time since it's creation, the US has been THROWN OFF the human rights committee in the UN. **FOR RIGHTS VIOLATIONS**, we've been on that committee since it was *created.* That, along with refusal to budge on the Kyoto accord, the tax cut for the rich, the lies and the misdirection are why I'm voting for the ABB party (Anyone But Bush).
    Better the Devil I don't know than the Devil I do in this case.

    Would now be a good time to mention that we need MORE poltical parties in this system? Two of them simply doesn't cut it anymore. Hey, I'll vote Democrat...wait they pretty much do the same thing the Republicans do...and vice-versa.

    My 2 cents, nothing more and nothing less.

    A.A.

    --
    Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
  441. Beats reading chicken entrails, by quarkscat · · Score: 1

    but it is also a ridiculous means of
    acertaining the outcome of an election.
    Jeb Bush guaranteed W would win Florida
    in 2000 (and now again in 2004). Diebold's
    CEO has guaranteed that W will win Ohio
    in 2004. Between these assertions, and
    the VOA-RNC voter registration fiascos
    that have been playing out in multiple
    states, I would put my money on a Bush
    "win" (by any means necessary). It isn't
    for nothing that the TX GOP (and Hassert)
    made a complete mockery of redistricting.

    I suspect, however, that a Bush "win" will
    have some serious political and legal
    blowback, not unlike RM Nixon's troubles.
    I will look forward to seeing the whole
    GOP neo-con band of thugs tried before
    the ICC for war crimes, and tried in the
    USA for derelection of duty and treason.

    The 2004 election will not be over until
    the last bullet isi recounted ad nauseum.
    I, for one, welcome our new UN election
    monitor overlords.

  442. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by joeljkp · · Score: 1

    Just as scary, but somewhat more plausible: what if Bush today or tomorrow "slips" and claims very publicly that Bin Laden has been captured. Many Kerry voters instead go for Bush, and he wins. Then, after the election, he admits his mistake.

    What would happen? He couldn't be impeached because he didn't break the law. It's not like the US has a California "recall" option, after all.

    --
    WeRelate.org - wiki-based genealogy
  443. Life Imitates Art by rpresser · · Score: 1

    See Piers Anthony's horrible drek^W^Wscience fiction novel Politician, the third book in the "Bio of a Space Tyrant" series.

  444. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 1
    Letting looters run wild?

    And I can imagine your reaction had our soldiers shot them in order to prevent looting instead of letting them run wild.

    The choice of letting them vent by looting government offices or clamping down hard to prevent it was no easy choice. And answer honestly -- if the soldiers had shot a few dirt-poor Iraqis who were looting golden faucet heads out of Uday and Qusay's mansions would you now claim that was a mistake -- that it would have been better to allow them to seek retribution by taking back some of their wealth from the Hussain palaces?

  445. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
    eh.. Without people, there'd be a whole lot more animals instead. Maybe even more body heat. I can't say - but neither can you. Without people, there'd be more, and much more extensive, fires that would continue unchecked until they ran out of things to burn, creating tons of gasses, heat, crud, suddenly and drastically reducing ground cover, causing huge changes in water runoff patterns. That is an absolute certainty. Without people, the balance of evaporation would be entirely different, as well as those erosive patterns being entirely different. Those are also certainties.

    Now, are you trying to tell me that you can predict that because "people" are the causative agent here, that the world would be better off in terms of the temperature curve of the last 80 years? If so, how did you arrive at that conclusion?

    The facts are, some scientists interpret the very small (about 80 years) warming baseline that has been measured as global warming, and a large number of others do not interpret it as human caused global warming. When scientists are split on an issue like this, it is not time to jump up and down and point with certainty at any numbers. Scientists are not, generally speaking, political animals.

    The facts are that within well documented written history, the earth has gone through climate swings that make the measured changes over the last 80 years look like nothing. Both hot and cold, dustbowls, deserts and clement times that grew many veggies and supported many critters. Glaciers that covered huge sections of continents. Those same glaciers melted, in a frenzy of "global warming" that utterly dwarfs anything seen or even hinted at in the last 80 years, and it was entirely natural and not caused by humans. The facts are that the sun is going through the strongest phase of sunspot generation since we've been paying attention, and that is a whole lot longer - we're talking centuries here - than we've been watching global temperature averages and swings.

    Now, we may indeed be experiencing human caused global warming to any degree at all. What I am saying, and many scientists are saying, is that the small baseline of measurements taken do not justify the conclusion that human caused global warming is real. There is not enough data taken previously to justify saying if the current global temperature trends are human-caused.

    I am also not saying that we should be careless about various gas emissions into the atmosphere, with particular regard to gasses known to chemically change the atmosphere in major ways, for instance, certain refrigerants. This is often taken as the underlying meaning when someone shoots at the "global warming" movement, but it is not the same thing at all.

    What I am saying is that the use of 80 years of measurements to justify the conclusion of global warming is very poor science, specifically gross misuse of statistics, definitely comparable to definitively predicting the outcome of a political race based upon a completely unrelated sports match. The 80 years of data we have support no such conclusions. They show a short term trend that we cannot correlate with human behaviour using anything more sophisticated than guesswork. That means that when someone points at the data and then declares with certainty that "humans are causing this", they are being fools. If they change that to "humans may be causing this", they are being prudent and reasonable. If they look at the environment with or without this in mind, and act to reduce emissions from industrial, power and consumer gas and particulate producing methdologies, they are also being prudent. And that is being done, including in the much-maligned USA, which has forbidden the use of many of the culprit refrigerants I mentioned earlier, made gas pumps that release less evaporative crud, put into place filtering requirements for industry, enormously reduced emissions from internal combustion engines and so fort

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  446. Did I pee blood??? by slackerny · · Score: 1

    you know what... if everyone has to read the whole freaking thread before voting nobody would turn up... But I am going to vote for Bush if I pee blood on Nov 2.

    oops! I forgot I am not American! Stupid Bush! Boring Kerry!

  447. new cellphone text poll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65473,00 .html

    polls of cell phone users tend overwhelmingly to show a kerry victory. Gallup,cnn etcetera call old white women who are home all day and bored enough to talk to a pollster. Evidently they can't decide between the choices. But factor in people like myself and my roommate (and according to the CEA, there's 8 mil of of us), who use only cells and skype, and you have a kerry landslide.

  448. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by u-238 · · Score: 1

    I've seen some of it personally and heard of poll workers who, when trying to push away illegals who didn't even speak english, were shown the pamphlets and laughed at them while they went in to vote. Also, www.google.com

    I'm just sure as hell glad the Republicans are doing what they are, and even more glad, almost giddy, that they get away with it. Fire with fire is the only way to play this game, and if you bother to trouble yourself and get together a list of "shenanigans" going on, It'll only bolster my confidence.

  449. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by u-238 · · Score: 1

    Also, have you not the critical skills to realize that proposition 200 would not exist had illegals not been voting illegally? And are you somehow implying that they would (laughable) be voting Republican?

  450. Not really... by PeanutGallery · · Score: 1

    As a scientist, I must say "no", on the grounds that this is the poster child of a Clustering Illusion(driven by Wishful Thinking). Mathematically speaking, that is the statistical problem that occours when you plot a small dataset against another small dataset and try to regress a line out of it.

    --
    -- Just another unsolicited opinion... from the Peanut Gallery.
  451. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by bretharder · · Score: 1

    John Titor is a prophet!

  452. Kerry's record by deanj · · Score: 1

    Personally, I'd be happy if Kerry would just release his record, which he still hasn't, and even admits to not releasing:

    "Brokaw: Someone has analyzed the President's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do.

    Kerry: That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it, because my record is not public. So I don't know where you're getting that from."

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6354942/

    And the reason for that appears to be that he didn't get an honorable discharge from the military:

    http://www.nysun.com/article/4040

    He could clear all this up by signing that form 180, which is has never done.

    And why? Because he has everything to hide.

  453. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by N3WBI3 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The "pickup-truck" Republicans "are nearly a laugh; they're nearly a laugh, but they're really a cry": - It's like watching Clarence Thomas sit on the bench and rule against Affirmative Action after that's what got him through college, graduate and law school.

    Thats the sad part of Affirmative action, rich white liberals dont think Black people can make it unless they are given in's.

    --
  454. Re:That's why a third party will never be viable.. by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 1

    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

    --
    www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
  455. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by orcrist · · Score: 1

    Oh I agree with the main thrust of your point, I just wanted to emphasize that you can't lump them together. I suspect there are some hypocrites of the kind you describe, but I have trouble believing that they are anything but a niche group. I admit I could be mistaken, especially since I've never personally met anyone who admitted supporting the IRA (even morally), so I can't say where they stand on other issues.

    One of my personal beefs has been how the Catholic church will excommunicate priests for ordaining a woman as a priest (sorry, no link, maybe you can google it) but they won't excommunicate so-called Catholics who engage in terrorism.

    -chris

    --
    San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
  456. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by getch(); · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not sure that anyone will read this, as I'm late to the party and replying to something way, way deep in the comment tree, but I feel like I need to respond.

    I'm a Christian (Presbyterian to be exact) and Bush is hardly a "great leader" for me. Christianity at its roots values love and tolerance, two ideals which I'd hardly associate with the current administration. The Christians whose values coincide best with Bush's are evangelical and fundamentalist. I and many other Christians I'm sure, think that those particular sects give the rest of us a bad name.

    It really saddens me to see that "Christian" is almost becoming derogatory because of a vocal minority. I just wish people would remember that most of us also value things like science and the right of everyone to determine their own way of life.

  457. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "without people, thered be no excess of greenhouse gasses"

    Not necessarily. The impact of humans on conservation has hugely reduced the number and impact of forest fires. Imagine 10% of the continental USA burning all at once. Things like this happened before man came on to the scene.

  458. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

    "Thank you for proving my point; parent post reads like a commentary right out of The Nation--it's pure opinion with almost no facts cited and is considered "insightful" at the moment. But people who follow The Nation (or The New Republic, Time Magazine, Newsweek, The New York Times, Boston Globe, CBS, and other mainstream left-leaning editorial vehicles and broadcasters) don't have a need for facts, especially inconvenient ones, in this emotion-driven election year."

    This also pure opinion with almost no facts cited and it's still rated as "informative" when I'm reading it.

    --
    xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  459. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by orcrist · · Score: 1

    "You"? Who is this 'you' you are talking about? Okay, to be fair, I do actually come from the States, but I haven't lived there since before Fox even had a news program (at least, I don't remember it). Either way, only about half the Americans have been brainwashed by Fox, otherwise this election wouldn't even be close.

    In any case, what led you to the assumption that I'm American? Just because you happened to be right, doesn't mean it wasn't a huge leap.

    -Chris

    --
    San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
  460. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

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

    Pwned!

  461. ROTFLMAO... by trifster · · Score: 1

    and the yankee's lost while up 3-0 in a 7 game championchip series. never in the history of basebal has a team come back down 3-0, but the Sox did. Those are just facts from histories and not predictors.

  462. rationalism sucks by Sunnan · · Score: 1
    if somebody SERIOUSLY believed that the Redskins game outcome meant that Kerry was going to win.

    While I wouldn't fall of my chair if Bush wins, I do think synchronity and other magickal phenomena are interesting and can sometimes be useful.

    (My personal epistemology has a feyerabendian slant.)
  463. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Well, there's only two things there that can be PROVEN false (i.e. not just a matter of opinion).

    They are:
    • Counter: all recounts had a Bush win
    • Kerry has been consistant

    All other matters are for perpetual Slashdot discussions because they can't be proven true or false.
  464. Why, Yes... by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

    > Does this imply more people voting for Bush/against Kerry won't have the same effect?

    His statement is dead on, and works both sides of the aisle. The more people get out and vote, the less likely either side is to be able to game the results. Fraud is easy when half of your electorate stays home on election day. The bigger the numbers, the harder it is to fudge "just enough" to change the result in either direction.

    So, the more people that get out and vote for any candidate, the less likely cheating can affect the election. So get off your butt (if you're an American voter) tomorrow.

    Virg

  465. What the FUCK does that have to do with anything? by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    I was _at_ the game.
    The defense seemed to be really feeding off the crowd energy.

    It's just an observation as a fan, not some sort of twisted allegory about the Bush administration or the DoD or some stupid shit like that. Yes, I know what article this thread is attached to... but if I was going to make some sort joke or political tie in I would have come right out and said it.

    Get a clue.

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  466. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the things that I don't like about this election year is that nobody anywhere seems to be on my side. I don't like Bush, but for almost entirely different reasons than I am being told to hate him for.

    Iraq: I think we could do some good in Iraq. I don't think they were an immediate threat to the US, so I would rather have built up a better position before invading. If this war is so noble, why are we getting so little support and so much animosity? Why are we paying so much for it without other major investors? (IIRC, we actually made money on Desert Storm.)

    Our military did a great job, and continue to do so. Sadly, much like Mogadishu, they are in danger of having their work go to waste because the American public wants the troops home, and it has become an election issue. The war has not been sold to the public. Nobody has seen a timeline for the reconstruction and all the good we are doing. Most don't know what we are doing anymore, or why, and just see that people are still getting killed.

    I would contest your statement that the Iraqi people aren't ready for freedom. I expect most of them are. Los Angeles had a rather significant riot a decade, I see Iraq as the same thing on a larger scale. Some people are fighting for freedom, to remove the invaders, for their God, or just because everyone else is doing it. Shooting back at them doesn't remove the causes of their hatred, it only reinforces them. If we successfully kill all the rioters, or if we actually do remove their emotional support by making Iraq a strong, healthy, Free Muslim nation, then there will be peace.

    I can't blame the president for the current economy. What did he do, though? Tax cuts might help the economy. They have helped fuel a huge defecit. He has also expanded government a lot, despite cutting its income. I thought this guy used to be a businessmand, I would think he would handle money better than a polititcian.

    There have been reports that the president or his staff suppressed reports from scientists about administration proposals. There was a scandal about hiding an estimate of the cost of the Medicare proposal, because congress wouldn't vote for it if they knew how much it would actually cost. I thought Republicans were supposed to follow good old fasioned family values, so why do I not trust my president to be honest?

    1st amendment: People have been profiled for being Muslim. They have been profiled or questioned for speaking against the government. There have been gag orders preventing people from discussing what the government is doing (PATRIOT).

    4th amendment: The USA PATRIOT act allows some search and siezure without a court-issued warrent. In some cases, the court has to rubber stamp, but doesn't get to review it. Searches are allowed to be more general, as opposed to stating the specific thing they are looking for. Wire taps and the like have very few restrictions.

    5th amendment: People, including American citizens, have been denied of their liberty without due process of law. They are locked up in Gitmo, or in a brig in South Carolina.

    6th amendment: Same deal. People have been held for years without a trial.

    7th amendment: Well, now they are finally doing reviews of their prisoners, but it sure isn't a trial by jury.

    10th amendment: The federal government keeps getting more powerful. The marriage amendment would be a nice example of going against this article.

    The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and violating it is illegal. The president has limitted power to bend the rules in a national emergency, but our nation was never endangered. In time of war, people can be incarcerated to keep them from going back to enemy lines, but that doesn't mean we can wave our hand and make all judicial process go away for anyone the government wants to get rid of. There is a reason that the courts are ruling against the government lately.

    I could go on. Much of my reasoning is likely flawed, and my facts wrong in many cases. I

  467. Ah.. good old false relationship logic. by jedaustin · · Score: 1

    While it is amusing that the redskins win/losses have mirrored the presidential election, I think this year will prove it for what it is... BS.

    Much like the 'curse' was lifted from the RedSox, this year the redskins presidential election parallel will be broken.

    So what will be the next Redskin presidential parallel... The Redskins will predict the presidential election except if the redsox win?

    JD

  468. Read a History Book About the Balkens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yugoslavia was not a threat to us and never could've been.

    No but the fallout over Kosovo and Bosnia was very much a threat to us and Europe as a whole. Think of the consequences of a civil war that could have spilled into Macedonia and dragged Greece and Turkey into it. Two NATO members that have (historically) been ready to beat the snot out of each other over any number of issues. Were you ready for a Greco->Turkish war?

    Then think about the fact that WW1 got it's start in the Balkens over Serb/Croat disputes. It was very much in our interest to prevent all of that from happening. Kind of funny that all of the Republicans who criticized that war weren't called unpatriotic like the Democrats that dared to speak out against Iraq.

  469. Video tape evidence is 'flamebait' now by leftie · · Score: 1

    This just goes to show the neo-cons cannot handle the truth. When presented the truth, neo-cons sream and stick their fingers in their ears and pretend the truth doesn't exist.

    The videotapes exist and show the explosives were there in the bunkers at Al QaQWaa when the 101st Airfborne Division went there. The seals from the international inspection agency were intact.

    Modding me down for stating the truth will not change the fact that Bush allowed those explosives to be looted after the invasion of Iraq.

  470. It doesn't really matter... by talks_to_birds · · Score: 1

    ...because the news media has already announced that the entire election will be decided in Ohio and Florida, so the rest of us might as well stay home.

    t_t_b

    --
    I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
  471. Re:Curious what shrub would share with us if he wo by operagost · · Score: 0, Troll

    Actually, he earned a bachelor's degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard. So yes, he did graduate.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  472. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by ThaReetLad · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I misplaced my tags off that last comment.

    You are correct of course and I must say that I have many American friends (or clan buddies, which is mostly as close to friends as a poor slashdotter gets). They're nice guys and mostly thoughtful but sometimes you'll get some who are simply not aware of many things which go on in the world, things that are done either to them by their government, or done in their name abroad. Mostly I don't understand the refusal to question the leadership in the name of patriotism. When you nation is founded on principles, what can be more patriotic than asking hard questions about whether or not those principles are being followed?

    Anyway, no (serious) offence intended.

    --
    You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
  473. Replant the White House. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NO MORE BUSHES!

  474. No more suspicious by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    than the fact that the 19 of the 20 counties with voting irregularities were run by Democrats and the 20th by an independant.

    No more factual of an issue than using a football game to predict an election.

    The only difference is that certain people needed something to blame and a conspiracy makes them feel better about it.

    Besides, Florida's voting actually was less problemsome than Georgia's. Yup, the rate of issues was lower in Florida than many other states. However Florida was easier to tip using the courts. I fully expect this election to be no different, if a state has a difference low enough to affect the overall election I fully expect certain parties to be out in force in an attempt to claim voter fraud or similar.

    Voter fraud only became an issue when it no longer worked.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  475. The year of the broken curse by galaxyboy · · Score: 1

    Given that the Red Sox won the world series, I think this might be the year to break such trends....If only the Cubs could have won too...

  476. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by cHiphead · · Score: 1

    at this point, i think Nader would be the most ironic choice.

    --

    This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  477. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by cHiphead · · Score: 1

    You forgot Poland.

    --

    This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  478. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by IndependentVik · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Low earners pay plenty of taxes. FICA and the like take up a substantial percentage of most working folks' paychecks. The scam is that social security fund is then raided by politicians who dip into these revenues for general funds--it's an income tax in all but name for those who draw a paycheck from an employer and have that as their only income.

    The working poor have it bad enough, they don't need be looked down as "lucky duckies" for not paying in their fair share of taxes. I'd much rather be where I am than in the position of not having to pay federal income tax.

    --
    I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
  479. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should have taken the four billion dollars in advertising money and built up two American football teams over the last couple of years. Then the race could be decided based on a series of five games. Perhaps without pads and helmets to make it as scary and gruesome as it should be.

  480. Re:What about the other candidates? by danila · · Score: 1

    (a) is irrelevant. Most people don't make a rational decision during elections, because most people are incapable of one if their life depended on it. And if you take only intelligent, educated and rational people, spent a week with them, presenting raw facts about Bush and the same about random decent people (that is intelligent, with some experience in any managerial job, with good education, etc.), I don't think Bush would get more than a few percent of votes. However, it turns out that almost everyone has a right to vote and politicians can easily dupe most people into thinking they are excellent.

    The situation is worsened by the whole election system (from the electoral college to the traditional 50/50 split, to candidates being nominated by the Party) - like cocks are selected for having the largest and the reddest crest, so are candidates selected for having whatever characteristics are important for winning. And, since, as I said before, most people don't care about real facts about how good the candidates are, these characteristics have nothing to do with being a good president.

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  481. Re:Curious what shrub would share with us if he wo by Tassach · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I wouldn't say he *EARNED* them. "Purchased" is a more appropriate description. Bush hasn't earned a single thing on personal merit in his life -- it's all been handed to him on a silver platter by his Daddy or Daddy's cronies.

    Anyone lacking his connections who had the same discipline and academic record as The Shrub would likely have been expelled from Yale.

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  482. The nature of reality. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    if my experiment can be tangentially connected to/affected by the arbitrary pattern of lights formed in the sky above a particular location on a particular planet hurtling through space (which is what astrology, for instance, is), why even bother experimenting?

    The nature of reality is only worth examining if it happens to agree with pre-defined models? --And studiously ignored if it does not? That's not science.

    There is nothing arbitrary about the lights in the sky. There is nothing arbitrary at all in the universe. All events happen as a result of other events which are subect to the rules of nature, which in turn means that all events can be understood and with sufficient data and study, predicted. This is one of the prime tenets of science.

    The truth of the matter is that astrology works. The study of patterns which seem unrelated to a subject can in fact provide information about that subject. When the evidence is examined, (as it so very rarely is by those who claim to be scientists), this truth cannot be realistically denied or negated through conventional rationalizations.

    This is not something to be scared of. It simply means that the universe is complex and that we do not understand it fully. I don't think anybody here would disagree with that.

    Magic does not exist. All things can be measured and understood. Magic only exists for those who choose not to look under rocks.

    Science is limited to the physical world, and most mindful scientists are very careful not to interject scientific theories on what are really meta-physical questions.

    I disagree. After all, what is the 'physical world'? Particle science is all about pulling the physical world apart to see how it works. When pulled apart far enough, physicality -very literally- ceases altogether so that further study must rely heavily on mathematics. Indeed, Mathematics is a science which exists independent of all physicality.

    Many scientists come and go, but those who have left their mark on humanity and whose names we remember and revere were those who drew their inspiration from meta-physical questions, who allowed their minds to explore beyond the limits of the purely physical.

    Fear creates limitation.


    -FL

  483. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "My favorite beers are made in England, Germany, Denmark and Belgium (Ok, I admit I like beer a lot...)"

    European Beer lovers tend to loose a lot of credibility.... and that's being conservative.

  484. Re:Curious what shrub would share with us if he wo by ninejaguar · · Score: 2, Informative
    I've wondered about how such a prestigious set of schools could allow a knucklehead into their hallowed halls. Then, I remembered a history class where I learned that the aristocracy had privileges that the serfs didn't. Doing some research, I learned of the appropriately coined term, "Legacy".

    You're absolutely right, he did graduate from Ivy League universities given the chances that apparently neither you or I deserve. Did he get that chance fairly? No. Is he a hypocrite? Yes.

    First Andover, then Yale, then Harvard, then the Whitehouse. Anyone who doesn't believe that the aristocratic power of Legacy exists has his head in the sand.

    = 9J =

  485. Don't see anything about votes by iceperson · · Score: 1

    The "right to vote" isn't guaranteed by the Constitution. And no the 15th Amendment doesn't guarantee a person the right to vote. It states that if the state chooses to hold an election then the people have a right to vote in that election. States are not obligated by the Constitution to hold Presidential elections and if no election is held then there is no right to vote. If a state wants to change it's constitution to say that there will be a coin flip instead of an election to decide who gets that state's electoral votes then they can.

  486. Re:Curious what shrub would share with us if he wo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it is! And, the joke gets better!

  487. Linkages. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    I imagine it's because we have overwhelming evidence that this is not how the universe works, and we've seen no evidence to support this type of universe model.

    You have a powerful imagination.

    My own explorations suggest, however, that the opposite is true.

    Simple logic tells us. . .

    All events happening now are the result of previous events, and those previous events are the result of events before them. The nature of Cause and Effect suggest that everything in existence can be mapped backwards like this.

    If one accepts a 'Big Bang' theory, wherein all matter in the universe is derived from a single, infinitely small point, then all matter and all patterns share an ultimate, common beginning. --Which means that all matter, energy and motion is through Cause and Effect, fundamentally and irrevocably linked.

    The stars above your head are of the same system of which you are also a part. This means that it must logically be possible to derive information about you by looking at the stars. --Because, in a very real sense, looking at the stars is the SAME as looking at you. The fact that our limited perspective does not make this connection obvious does not also make it untrue.


    -FL

  488. close, but by phyruxus · · Score: 1

    For an election, we still have to vote.. so Kerry supporters all still have to go to the polls. What it REALLY means is that the Repubs have no chance, and should make their time (don't bother voting, Texas... you have no chance to survive :)

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
    "d'Oh!" ~Homer
  489. karma? by phyruxus · · Score: 1
    >>Bush will win the election and then it'll be overturned in favor of Kerry by the judges.

    Sweet.. I can't wait to yell "Get over it!" to some republicans. :)

    --
    "A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
    "d'Oh!" ~Homer
  490. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by JimFromJersey · · Score: 1

    I doubt any Kerry voters would vote for Bush at this point regardless of any proclamations, true or otherwise.

    --
    between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
  491. corroborated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    >>the end of the world must be rapidly approaching.

    Well, the church has become the whore of babylon, so I guess you're right.

  492. The Bush Doctrine by Infonaut · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The earlier-referenced Wikipedia entry answers your questions. The fact that the US has created wars, been involved in wars, and attempted to subvert other governments does not negate the fact that the Bush Doctrine is a far-reaching restructuring of US foreign policy.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  493. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Methuseus · · Score: 1

    It's not that we did nothing, it's that what was done was more appropriate than making laws that make it legal to have undocumented warrants and unwarranted wiretaps, even on non-terrorists. They need to prove nothing really for these, as well as the fact that when they do prove things, it doesn't have to have anything to do with terrorism. Maybe I'm wrong, but the Patriot act was *supposed* to be to protect against terrorists...

    --
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
  494. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Damvan · · Score: 1

    Typical Republican response, "It's all Clinton's fault!"

    Guess you have to use some excuse to calm the guilt you feel for voting for such a morally corrupt leader as we have now.

  495. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by orcrist · · Score: 1

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

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

    -chris

    --
    San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
  496. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The top income earners in this country have demonstrated that they are the most efficient at investing income. Middle class and low class earners especially (or people who just live off the government) are inefficient in investing. Its not good or bad, it just doesn't make sense to give more money to people who can't spend it effectively.

    Even aside from some debatable assumptions (is maximizing investment good?) this statement makes no sense. You use the word invest (==save) twice and finish with the word spend (==spend). Which is it? Are you saying that money given to people who cannot afford to invest is wasted? It sounds like you are arguing for a feudal system where the majority of people live in abject poverty (reduces money spent) with a very thin upper crust that controls all of the wealth.

  497. Re:Related? by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

    It means 6 more years of terrorist fear mongering, all without attacks on the mainland U.S.

  498. Rhetorical Question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So why didn't they just recount the whole state?

  499. Re:What the FUCK does that have to do with anythin by leftie · · Score: 1

    ESPN also show the replays of the call in question and the replays proved the ref was right and the player had not set properly in the formation and was properly penalized for it. That's what ESPN's NFL analysts said.

    Looks like you're the one missing obvious clues... like the replays.

  500. Re:That's why a third party will never be viable.. by Sabu+mark · · Score: 1

    You silly... Everybody knows a third party candidate wins whenever the Washington Generals beat the Globetrotters.

    Actually, the Globetrotters now play most of their games against a team called the New York Nationals. So the Washington Generals are never going to...

    Oh.

    I see what you're saying.

    --

    What Would Jesus Do
    (for a Klondike bar)?
  501. NB: Redskins vs. Redsox by pimproot · · Score: 1

    Once the Redskins stop working as a predictor, we can analyze TV snow until we find the precise time & location for God's voice to emanate across the ether. Maybe it'll come on the Red channel. Curve fit until it works.

  502. NCLBA by cicatrix1 · · Score: 1

    Do you have ANY idea what's in the No Child Left Behind Act?

    Basically, they force the schools to administer standardized tests. If the students do not meet the "standards", they LOSE FUNDING. If a school isn't doing well for whatever reason, their funding will be CUT? Not to mention that this includes ALL children in the schools, INCLUDING learning disorders, mentally handicapped, etc, etc. YES, these kids ARE included in the test averages.

    These tests also lead to teachers to only cover material that is on the exams, to be sure that the kids can pass so they can recieve funding.

    Also, the people who write the standards test write them to collect data about what is and isn't being taught, and they are constantly being updated. If the majority of children are answering a specific question correctly, then it becomes useless for data collection and that question will be changed. This means that the tests get harder and harder, while funding gets lower and lower.

    --

    I know more than you drink.
  503. Sigh. by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 1

    Well, the guys running the show at the game didn't show the replay. I missed that coverage. ::shrugs::

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  504. Children's POlls by MonkeyCookie · · Score: 1

    I heard that kids usually vote for the incubant in a presidential race because they like familiarity. They are already familiar with Bush as president, so they want to vote for him. It wouldn't surprise me if children mostly wanted Clinton to win in 1996.

    I'm curious about which candidates children supported during the 2000 election. Gore was well-known as the Vice-President, but Bush was a fairly well-known name, due to the previous president Bush.

  505. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by visualight · · Score: 1

    I arrived at my figure by filling out the irs form for that amount of income and taking the standard deduction. It is accurate. It also does not include FICA making the entire tax scheme of the U.S. misleading in that international comparisons of tax rates often do not include FICA when refering to U.S. tax rates.

    In any case, no matter whether you agree or disagree with my figures, my intent with the post was to point out that in Europe people actually get something useful back for their taxes. We literally get the minimum required to keep commerce flowing.

    As far as Defense goes, if we weren't such assholes to other countries we wouldn't need the biggest military in the history of Earth.

    --
    Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
  506. This trivializes the most important events in USA by schiefaw · · Score: 1
    The comeback of the Packers season is too important to be mixed up in silly things like politics.

    Shame on you people!

    --
    Angleyne: You can't bend that girder - it's unbendable! Bender: Well I don't know anything about lifting, so that ju
  507. Re:Channel One survey showed Bush winning by 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who is so religiously political that they use the word "Freeper" deserves to have their candidate lose.

  508. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see you're rather good at repeating Kerry's stump speach. You're quite the good parrot. Now let's see you actually come up with your own reasoned thoughts.

    Yes, Bush has made mistakes in Iraq. Hindsight is a great tool to prove you could have done better. Truth is, however, that it would have been impossible to secure all the munitions spread across Iraq. Funny how a disgruntled UN employee spits out a story the week before the election and Kerry already had speaches and commercials prepared. Not to mention CBS had intended to break the story the Sunday before the election but got beat out by the NYT. The invasion had to start by a certain time -- before summer started. Not enough troops were ready to go, mostly due to the problems with getting passage rights from Turkey. The Generals said they could get the job done, so Bush made the decision to go. Make what you want of it. Bush did go with too few troops to completely handle the situation once Saddam fell. As for Fallujah, that was decided by the Iraqi government. You see, we're letting them make decisions since they are a sovereign nation. Their decisions aren't always the best, but to win this in the end, they need to be in charge and the Iraqi people need to feel like they are in charge. Had we gone in and finished things against their will, we'd be viewed even more as occupiers than they already view us. This was a matter of international politics.

    Tax cuts...well, everyone got an equal percentage. Just happens the wealthier got more dollars. Lots of low income people pay no income tax at all. They couldn't possibly have been given more of a share (unless you believe in income redistribution). The dividend tax relief did help people like Teressa Hines Kerry quite a bit. But, that's also a tax cut that greatly helps the retired that are on fixed incomes. Also, where do you think all the money for cheap mortages and loans comes from? The welathy leave money in the bank or buy bonds. That injeccts money in to banks which they can then loan to people. More money in the hands of the rich does trickle down. It also gives more money for them to gamble on investments such as tech startups.

    The budget deficit is the result of two items. First, lost revenue due to the recession and stock bubble ending. The projected surplus assumed that income would continue to increase from 1999 levels. The bubble bursted and recession started before Bush's policies were in place. They were inherited from Clinton. Bush is responsible for the increased military spending. That, however, was forced upon him by 911.

    Dividing the country? Who do you think is mostly responsible for that? 3+ years of Gore going around telling everyone how he was robbed? Jesse Jackson telling everyone they were disenfranchised? Michael Moore spreading his lies? Celeberties saying they hate Bush and want him impeached? Division starts with hate. The left has been spreading so much hatred the past 3+ years that it divides the nation. It appears their game plan was to polarize the nation. They didn't want to lose any of their base to Republican votes. Look at all the major speeches by DNC leaders the past couple years. They've all been attacks. This is what divides.

    Go and think about things. Look at the facts for yourself. Come to your own conclusions. You might still be for Kerry, but at least you could get their on your own.

  509. Re:That's why a third party will never be viable.. by Exatron · · Score: 1

    Too plausible. A third party candidate will win whenever the Detroit Lions win the Superbowl.

    --
    "I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
    "Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
  510. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by ThaReetLad · · Score: 1

    Whats the other quote? The price of freedom is eternal vigilance?

    --
    You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
  511. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Admit it, you're just jealous you don't get the head that Cliton got from the whitehouse

  512. Fortune telling. by statixz · · Score: 1

    Sorry, we are nerds. Nerds don't believe in fortune telling. Junk this news!

  513. For those who are taking this seriously... by Syberghost · · Score: 1

    It never ceases to crack me up when the same people who get all squirmy over Bush being a Christian (despite all of Kerry's speeches about how vital one's faith is to how one governs) will say "see? SEE? The Redskins! The Redskins!"

  514. Truth by techster3599 · · Score: 1

    Well, you can't argue with consistency

  515. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Monf · · Score: 1
    Thats the sad part of Affirmative action, rich white liberals dont think Black people can make it unless they are given in's.

    Us liberals don't want affirmative action because we don't think a particular group can't make it without help, its that it is in the nation's best interest to accelerate the assimilation of a group previously marginalized into all classes of society.

    Affirmative Action helps create a wealthier, more educated, diverse nation.

    --
    Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
  516. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Monf · · Score: 1

    Yes, the previous post was a 3 in the morning troll construction...

    --
    Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
  517. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1
    So its in the nations best interest to put down some people at the expense of others because bad things happened long ago...

    Here I thought it was in the nations best interest to promote equality. Being married into an immigrant family I know too well the lie of 'they need help'. In one generation they go from not speaking English and not having a penny to their name to their kids in grad school.

    Thats why the new rediculous push to exclude African Immigrants from receiving AA benefits, they were taking too many of them because like immigrants they had their crap together..

    --
  518. Sorry... no one has any reincarnation spells... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I relise we should have brought along a cleric or something for such a situation, but...

    I'm sorry but we're just going to have to split your gear up among the party and I guess you'll get in on the next campaign.

    Look... You have to tear up your character sheet. It's the rules. Crying isn't going to change that...

    Tell you what... Why don't you run upstairs and see if there's Mountain Dew in the fridge?

  519. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by Monf · · Score: 1
    So its in the nations best interest to put down some people at the expense of others because bad things happened long ago...

    Not at all- as I (thought) I stated previously, the country becomes more prosperous and we spend LESS on public health and assistance programs when we use AA - in the long run, everybody benefits.

    We're not talking about things that happened long ago - we're talking about prejudices and discrimination, which, whether you see it or not where you are, has before, is now, and in the future will occur.

    AA was not created out of pity, or for compensation of past inequities, it was created, and is still used now, because it's good for the economy, good for scientific & technological development, good for many reasons- the list is long. It improves this country and our society in both tangible and intangible ways....

    --
    Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
  520. A team has never come from 3 down, oh wait... by trigggl · · Score: 1
    Oddball predictions are fun, but I think I'll wait for the voting results to come in.

    By the way, I've never voted for a presidential candidate that didn't win. I'm ashamed to admit that I voted for Clinton once.

    FOUR MORE YEARS

    --
    Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
  521. Re:I'm not worried... but what about strikes? by circusboy · · Score: 1

    I said this last year, after the game sixes in the LCS. if the cubs and the sox had made it to the world series, the world would have to end just prior to the last out, because both teams couldn't lose.

    However with just the sox getting there, all you have to worry about now is a chicago-chicago world series. 1907 vs.1917

    (go cubbies!)

    of course this year, after game three, I was pretty certain that the sox would collapse and lose the series in seven because that would have been the most painful way to go about it. After all they had just done it to the yankees.
    [recovering red-sox-fan]

    has anyone figured out a correlation between strike years in pro sports and the elections?

    --
    -- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
  522. NO!!! by mpost4 · · Score: 1

    The results are in, Bush won, 4 more years.

  523. Re:Just because it wasnt YOUR guy doesn't make it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the only recounts were in heavily-Gore counties.. Miami-Dade, Volusia, (i forget the other 1-2?). Statistically speaking (using my rough statistical knowledge) They were more likely to find mis-counted votes for the Gore column than the Bush column simply because the overwhelming majority of votes in those counties were for Gore. So Gore was trying to engineer the result of the recount. There was no provision in the Florida law for the WINNER to request a recount of the remaining counties, so the first recount while possibly legal (I'm not sure if he was allowed to select specific counties, but he did so someone thought it was OK) was definately manipulative and unethical.

    You are however incorrect.. The first recount was completed and was also a bush win. The second recount, not provided for by the law was then undertaken and the deadline for certifying the results was approached (and passed i think) which is when the supreme court stepped in and called a stop to the second and illegal recount.

    A third recount was later started by the various press organizations. Bush won that one as well.

    And speaking to which ones Gore wanted, There were several counties where voting irregularities were alleged, but Gore only requested a recount in one of them. the remaining counties requested for recount by Gore were not so alleged and had different ballots (scantron type) anyway.

  524. Rational? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're the one who doesn't understand that posting AC automatically gets a zero rating...

    1. Re:Rational? by sn0wflake · · Score: 1

      That's all you have to say? You're a waste of my time, anonymous coward.

  525. Re:Does this mean Kerry will win? by haruchai · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you could use the time you saved by not registering to read a little Kenneth Arrow or Paul Samuelson. A liberal education isn't necessarily a bad thing nor is a conservative one necessarily good.

    Of course, that is if you're not feeling too lazy.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body